There is a difference between an organization that operates out of a "birthright" culture and one that works from a "convincement" culture.
The first is primarily concerned with preservation and legacy, while the latter lean towards an open-ended model of change.
"Birthright" is old Quaker language that some Friends still use to talk about being born a Quaker, as in "I am birthright." "Convincement" is language used to talk about people who convert or become Quakers of their own volition. In the best case, Friends would say that while not all Quakers are birthright, we hope all are convinced.
Birthright culture is a phenomenon within religious communities that are old enough to have generations of families/members a part of that tradition. Many traditions have different ways of talking about how new people enter their communities: outreach, evangelize, etc.
I once heard someone say: “My mother was a birthright but I married a Methodist” - folks who are not even Quaker use this as a point of reference, a claim to the legacy of the religious tradition.
I have heard plenty of Quakers and non-Quakers say, some version of, "That's not Quaker..." (fill in the blank). Birthright cultures police and protect the outer edges & external practices of the identity w/ little to no understanding of the deeper flexibility of the tradition.
Both birthright & convincement map onto churches, meetings, and other organizations in a number of ways. I find these two ways of thinking about organizations helpful because they name unspoken expectations, assumptions, and how people relate to the organization & to one another.
These two concepts also name movement from a sense of "inheritance" (or even entitlement) to a sense of "personal responsibility" and shared ownership over a tradition and community.
I should also say that I am applying these to a cultural understanding, a person need not be "birthright" to experience these cultural issues, perpetuate them, or benefit from them.
Below are some of the characteristics of Birthright culture I see at play in many religious-based organizations (this is not limited to Quakers).
Birthright culture relies on an implicit culture.
One learns primarily how to function and relate through exposure overtime rather than through any kind of intentional on-boarding, training, (or apprenticing).
Birthright culture relies on committed to legitimizing legacy.
Authority is always insider and traceable. Pedigree is important, even when it’s not (nepotism). Even “bad members” are legitimized in the system, as they find their orientation in relation to the boundary group.
Birthright culture relies on clear about external boundary markers. This can look like piety, personal holiness at the expense of flexibility and play in practice.
External boundaries can be sustained through performance, rigidity in practice, specific language that sets the group apart, clothing, particular narratives that prop up the culture and insulate it from meaningful critique. It can be a kind of “hidden in plain sight.”
Speaking of boundaries, in systems like this there are no boundaries between work and private life. They are one in the same.
To be in the family is to be in the family business. And any questions or challenges to the business is a challenge to the family.
Birthright culture relies is the result of a breakdown in transmission of the tradition. A constant de-evolution, a reliance on repeating what was handed down over time, rather than a personal mastery over the tradition. Memorization takes precedent over writing & speaking.
Remix is strongly forbidden in birthright culture because it goes against the sanctioned, approved interpretations of the "family."
This is about exceptionalism of the group over inclusion of other groups of people that might cause a threat to the stasis of those w/in. It is a light under a basket, sometimes out of protection, often bc others should find them if they really want to be a part of the group.
Birthright can function as a kind of belief on behalf of. It’s a stand-in for actually believing. Or believing is not necessary because you are a part of this group, meeting, org.
For an organization to move away from birthright culture it needs a different model of organization, rather than one that is an untouched family, it becomes a "blended-family," more like a partnership, a marriage, or even a divorced family.
In this new blended-family, new people, new "blood," people "not like us," are brought into the picture and incorporated into the "family tree." This happens through ritual, practice, telling core stories about who we are, & real welcome happens when you learn grandma's recipes.
It could also be said that for an organization to move from birthright to convincement culture it will require a rebirth, not unlike the one Jesus called for in the Gospel of John.
Here is a thread that goes deeper into this: https://twitter.com/cwdaniels/status/1253317441888935936
This rebirth cannot be an erasure, nor is it a shaming of your families "silly ways," both of which is what birthright cultures (rightfully) fear the most from newcomers, but rather true & faithful remixing of the old & new in ways where both are recognizable w/ new perspective.
The thread continues here and outlines convincement culture as an alternative approach:
https://twitter.com/cwdaniels/status/1257402572534661121
An alternative to birthright culture is "convincement" culture. This does not equal conversion or evangelism. It amounts to taking responsibility for the health & well-being of a community or tradition.
This is a cont. of a thread on birthright culture:
Convincement culture then is (at the very least) a willingness to see oneself on the inside of that organization in order to help carry it forward. It is a building trust with the individuals in the org as well as with the org/tradition itself.
Convicement culture could be described as a culture that "shows its work," making the rules, expectation, practices, & language explicit and understandable.
It starts from the place of assuming that it wants people who are not here, who are not yet "insiders," and then works to build a system and culture that does not require "secret knowledge" or learning by osmosis.
Convincement makes things explicit. The practices, the beliefs, the “rules of engagement” are demystified. It doesn’t assume anything of anyone, but rather creates welcoming & inclusive space through invitation & developing awareness & responsibility in the community.
Convincement culture is similar to the “creative-commons,” it is open to new data, new paradigms, and reformulations (or remixes) of the common narrative.
Convincement culture seeks to replicate itself rather than preserve itself. It builds up “apprentices” of the tradition who can carry it on & do it elsewhere. It invests in those who take responsibility for their own well-being, the well-being of the community, and the tradition.
Convincement culture is open to experiments & trials, knowing that legacy is not enough to sustain an organization. It seeks to support these experiments by investing time and resources into things that may not be the final answer.
Rather than focus on preservation and legacy, Convincement culture is rooted in a model of collective intelligence, anyone can learn, anyone who wants to can be on-boarded into the tradition, its practices, & its community. They too can teach and lead.
Rather than playing connect the dots on whose legacy is whose, or whose last name really matters, convincement is interested in a collective intelligence not knowledge experts based on legacy.
It is willing to give its best stuff away to those who want to put it to good use. It is a democratization of knowledge and skill and trust that underlies positive growth and change.
This means that anyone can become apprentices to the tradition. The goal is finding people who see what your community/org/tradition offers and are willing to commit to becoming a part of the process of moving towards the community.
A shift towards convincement culture is the only way to allow for a more diverse and inclusive community.
Convincement culture is less concerned with protecting its external boundaries and is more committed to knowing and understanding its center, its mission, and its purpose in this world.
"It is okay that we are not A, B, C, but we can be the "Es" in our community."
I have seen organizations that operate out of a birthright culture even though there are no birthright people left in the organization. This is seen when there are no or very little systems of accountability, little process for moving into leadership, or understanding processes.
I think this explains why many orgs are out of sync with the people & contexts they find themselves in now during Covid19, but even before. The people and contexts of orgs/churches have shifted but the culture has remained the same throughout for fear of losing its identity.