The more senior I am, the bigger my work is. And the larger the problem is, the more I feel powerless.
I cannot change the complex systems. But, we can. That's one of my greatest realizations while pursuing my career in tech and philanthropy.
Power of Collective Actions
It's all about scalability.
Yes, I can work directly with some individuals on a certain topic, like I do for mentorship. The subjects (e.g., mentees) will certainly grow, but it doesn't change the big picture of the world, such as today's market landscape and technological trends. Eventually, I can only see a handful of people among millions who share the same problem.
I can also give my finite resources, such as money and time, to a cause I care about, and it will be better than nothing. I may even become a life-changing partner for those who used to be in a challenging environment, and my knowledge and skills possibly influence the trajectory of a meaningful project. However, climate change, poverty, and inequalities won't stop anyway.
A systemic change needs something bigger than a superhero. That's us.
If we raise our voices, large institutions listen.
If we combine our expertise, innovations emerge.
If we exchange our perspectives, our understanding of the world becomes more accurate.
If we work together on the same issue, the impact is amplified exponentially.
"I" can mean little to nothing compared to the dynamics.
Who Are "We"?
Yet, when people or organizations say "we," like we care, we build, and we provide, it's essential to question who "we" are.
My experience tells me that "we" often excludes certain groups of the population and draws a clear boundary between "we" and "they."
We care about them.
We build an amazing product for them.
We provide a great service to them.
In these contexts, "they" are systematically weaker than and oppressed, if not exploited, by the "we" people. That is, they need an external force to solve their issue, and we have the power to make that happen.
Meanwhile, there are cases where the "we" group does not represent all of us.
Imagine organizational leaders are egoistic and/or have loud voices in public. They say "we" on social media or in presentations, but in reality, the statements may simply represent the opinions of the "I" leader(s), based on the excitement from their recent stakeholder engagement, conference participation, or trip to a foreign country. Consequently, the existence of fellow members and participants will be suppressed by the abstraction.
Inclusivity and diversity are important, but their complexity should not be substituted by mere use of "we" terms.
Pluralism?
Ah, I see. We then need to promote pluralism. You may think so.
It's the concept that "encourages societies to make changes that lead to the recognition and belonging of diverse peoples" (Global Centre for Pluralism). It's not just about including diverse people—forming a "we" group—but also ensuring that each member of the group is actually recognized and respected with a strong sense of belonging.
User-centered product development and design thinking likely stand on the same belief. We start from understanding end users, by inviting them to an ideation and design process. Through the participatory approach, their voices are recognized and respected, and a final deliverable—whether it's a service or tangible object—accurately addresses their issue.
Is this what we all need?
Kinda. It will depend on the role of minorities in such a group.
To use the power of totality fully, those who are systematically oppressed (i.e., the "they" people) need to play a central role in the conversations and projects. They not only receive a seat in a meeting room but also actively participate in and lead initiatives. Otherwise, we probably missed an essential part of diverse thinking.
That is why, in my understanding, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire promoted education projects that cultivate critical thinking, so that the subjects are equipped with practical tools and can challenge injustice from inside the problem. Freire called it problem-posing education, enabling the oppressed to tackle systemic issues by themselves through fieldwork. Ultimately, such active participation becomes a foundational step toward liberation and humanization of the oppressed.
It needs a radical shift in the role of "they," and the presence of such a problem-posing educator—or facilitator, I may call it—is vital.
Through the critical lens, let's look at global development and humanitarian work nowadays. Are the organizations implementing enough educational projects as such? In other words, are we making an effort to transform the oppressed into producers of solutions, rather than retaining them as consumers of foreign solutions?
Probably not. As long as they naively use "we" in marketing campaigns, I'd argue that these "good" organizations are also part of the system itself hindering the world from a radical shift. The contradiction can be confirmed by the reality that they give high amounts of monetary allowance to their staff and enjoy happy hours while their target audiences cannot satisfy basic living needs.
We need to rethink the priorities and examine how collective actions should look like.
This article is part of the series: Ethical Product Developer Altruistic Byte
Share
Categories
See also
- 2024-06-24
- The End of the Beginning—What I Talk About When I Talk About Malawi
- 2023-11-30
- Is Computer Education Always Good?
- 2022-09-22
- Why Your Job Title Matters (Cont.)─Technology for the People
Last updated: 2025-11-07
Author: Takuya Kitazawa
I am an independent consultant who specializes in bridging the gap between cutting-edge technology and real-world impact. Based in Ottawa, the capital city of Canada, I serve clients across North America, Asia, and Africa, ranging from big companies and startups to nonprofits and individuals. With over a decade of experience building data-driven solutions, I partner with organizations on tech strategy, ethical AI implementation, and sustainable digital transformation. See CV for more information, or contact at [email protected].
Now Gift a cup of coffeeDisclaimer
- Opinions are my own and do not represent the views of organizations I am/was belonging to.
- I am doing my best to ensure the accuracy and fair use of the information. However, there might be some errors, outdated information, or biased subjective statements because the main purpose of this blog is to jot down my personal thoughts as soon as possible before conducting an extensive investigation. Visitors understand the limitations and rely on any information at their own risk.
- That said, if there is any issue with the content, please contact me so I can take the necessary action.