[email protected] writes: >> Is the Open Space movement capable of taking us out of the boxes that >we're doing open >> space in - you know what I'm saying??" > >is that Open Space is all about breaking down barriers and getting us out >of boxes. This is theory. In practice open space can take many forms, as it is put in practice by people. The people question seems to be at the heart of Nancie's question. To say that open space is all about breaking down barriers (seeming to imply that all open spaces accomplish this) avoids the depth of her question. Is open space by and for (not always, but mostly) white people? What are the consequences of the answer to this?
I believe this is a fair question, and while questions of race potentially can (always do) provoke deep emotions, they need to be asked and looked at if we want to be true to the goals of open space that you expressed above. While I have heard of a number of open spaces, through OS web sites and this list, that incorporated in people of color and other historically disenfranchised voices, I have never actually experienced this in person, though I have been to a number of open space sessions (mainly here in the Seattle area). Most recently, I participated in a fantastic open space process that engaged the entire state of Washington with the state's Arts Commission. The facilitation was great, as it successfully tapped voices all over the state during a three month process of local and statewide discussions. But it was said and noticed, both at the Seattle and statewide meetings I attended, that the representation and voices of peoples of color, despite their definite and visible contributions to art and culture in our state, were clearly missing. The people that were there certainly addressed the need for culturally relevant arts programs, but the people that were being referred to were by and large not there themselves. Why was this? I don't know all of the answers (though I have some ideas), but I am quite sure it is a question worth asking. I wonder if we need to ask it of the larger open space community. If we noticed patterns, what would they tell us? I am certainly not suggesting beating ourselves up (let's not jump to defensive mode), let's just ask the questions and see what we have noticed. > > >Having said this, I can't help but react to some other parts of your >message. For one, were you deliberately trying to provoke reactions when >you made the following contradictory comments just two sentences apart? > >> This book that I'm reading called Undoing Racism says that until we >"undo racism" >> that everything else that we do will be for the benefit of white >people. >and >> I am also noticing the community service movement includes a >> majority of white people - incidently doing service mostly for people >of color. I did not perceive any attempts to provoke reactions at all here. Nancie clearly stated that she was new to both open space and social/political awareness and she only expressed what she is reading and what she is noticing and then asked questions. While I agree with you that the statements are contradictory on the surface, the issues are real. For starters the first statement seems to state that what is done at a large, systemic level will benefit white people, whereas the second statement (of Nancie's) refers to specific doings on a local level. The question might be asked, if services are always provided by white people "for" people of color, do they truly, systemically, meet the deeper needs of those communities? Is being provided for disempowering at deeper level and long term? Do these discreet actions somehow (perhaps unconsciously) keep white people from addressing systemic racism at the larger level? Again, I don't have the answers here, I am merely trying to clarify the questions that seem to be asked here. > >For another, I wasn't aware that either community service or Open Space >had attained the status of a "movement" -- whatever that may imply. I would say that community service may definitely be characterized as a movement (at least here in the States), as it has been in quite a bit of literature and popular press in the last several years, as well as political discourse, from the local level to the White House. The only thing that seemed to be implied is that people in a "movement" are actively encouraged by others "in the movement" to act in certain ways, generally in accordance with some set of moral, social, or political values. This seems to apply. I would agree that open space is probably not a movement (though I have certainly done a bit of proselytizing!), it is certainly a community of practitioners, and the questions being asked are as relevant to it as to any movement. I also think your questions around putting on the table who we are in this kind of conversation are legitimate and helpful. I, myself, am a young white male, raised in the South (Texas) and living now in the Northwest. I recognize that Americans tend to be very (perhaps overly) race conscious, and I just wanted to notice that Nancie also resides in the southern part of America while I see that you are writing from Canada. Having only been right across the border into BC a few times, I am very unfamiliar as to whether or how issues of race affect your country or smaller circles such as those in Canada practicing open space. If the issues are different, particularly if you have worked through some of them successfully, I would love to hear more. Thanks for keeping the conversation open and flowing. Bert W. Hopkins Academic Computing Coordinator Antioch University Seattle (206) 441-5352 x5501 [email protected]
