One thing that I’ve always tried to be aware of is the difference between talking and doing, between thinking and action—simply understanding an issue, simply talking about it, doesn’t mean that it will change. 

Being at the UN this past week, it has been only talk. And not dynamic, fresh, and inspirational talk—it all maintains a given sphere of discourse—because no one wants to “rock the boat.”

The phrase “Full Employment and Decent work for all” is literally repeated ten or fifteen times per plenary, and it is discussed almost solely in economic terms.  All testimony, as would be expected, is fact-based, and it is delivered slowly so that translators can effectively communicate it to the non-English constituents.  Fundamentally, the sphere of discourse is closed—everything must be accomplished within that limited frame.  One gets the sense sometimes, sitting in a plenary session, that no one there really understands the implications of their words—why they are an important part of the policy process, or how they will affect the constituents that are supposedly represented.  To use the words of a doctor that we met, who hosted a side event, one often has the sense that “No one in there really gives a cuss.” 

And, again, it’s all ‘talking,’ and seemingly no ‘doing.’  But the distinction is that, (and I have to continually remind myself of this,) in international policy-making, talking is doing.  All of the talking at CSocD will directly affect the policies that governments adopt, despite the slowness, the dryness, and the limited discourse of the system.  It’s a necessary system, but it takes a long time when you try to represent the interests of every country in the world.