Statement: One of us/ Some of us

Each day Question Time hold a summit somewhere in Copenhagen- in cafes, street corners, domestic apartments, and train stations – after which a new statement of intent is produced towards an alternative declaration of the way forward on climate change.

Summit Date: 13 December 2009
Attending: David Berridge, Rachel Lois Clapham, Alex Eisenberg, Neil Bennun, Mary Paterson
Location: a bland café decorated c. 2002
Minute Taker: Mary Paterson

One of us lost all of his cards – the template for the score, and the prop for interaction. He left them somewhere. He realised he was losing something, but then he remembered that the score can be revisioned every day.

One of us realised that it is not a good idea to interview people in groups. It means they have an audience, which means they try to modify what they say to fit in with what their friends might want to hear.

Two of us have come to the conclusion that the score does not work well with young people. ‘Young people’ is a relative term.

Three of us said they like it when someone gets the game, or is open to the game, or is not open to the game but is somehow exposed through the process of questions. At least one of us said that she finds she does not enjoy asking questions all of the time. She wonders if this matters. She is open to the process changing her and her prejudices. Normally, this person is picky about the people with whom she interacts.

One of us had a boring day.

One of us said that Denmark is a good place to have babies.

One of us met some delegates – some real delegates – who have been at the Bella Centre. You could tell they were real delegates because this person had to be formally introduced. One woman who was interviewed found the process hard because she was in a targeted, negotiating space. She was throwing the questions back for reassurance.

Five of us said it’s about going to events.

One of use said that it is difficult to perform the score in environments that are not already discursive. Klima Forum is an ideal environment, but it is bustling with rhetoric and agitprop.

One of us said we should go into people’s homes. We should be like pizza delivery men, but we will not be delivering pizza. Five of us said we need a venue for a marathon by Tuesday.

One of us said that she loves the questions, but she’s the kind of person that she is. Three of us said it’s ok if the interviews are crap. They might get more interesting the next time you listen. One of us said she thought the whole point of this was to create an archive that we can treat at a later date. One of us said she doesn’t think she’ll have time for anything at a later date.

One of us said that he wonders about the relationships that are built around the score. Accumulatively, what do the relationships mean? What part does the score actually play in a conversation?

Four of us could not decide if this was about product or process.

One of us said he understands certain categories of response. Having identified them, it is now all a bit routine. How do we make something new?

One of us said she wants to carry out some more interviews. She said, ‘you have got interview fatigue, but I have only just arrived.’

Two of us wondered if we should get rid of the archive. It only shows that we’re failing, and it takes away the mystery of the project. Two of us thought it should stay. We always expected failure. The archive is just a tool for other peope to use. (The archive stays, for now.)

One of us said he has been romanced by the hopefulness of Copenhagen and New Life Copenhagen. Bigness is in the air.

One of us said it is always easier to leave a process, which is the reason why he thinks we should carry on.

One of us said we should make time to listen to the archive together. One of us said we could do that when we meet. One of us said, ‘no, nothing formal.’