Raffi -- You will notice that I very carefully did not use the word
"hierarchy," but a quite different word -- "elitism." I am not sure that
is
the right word either, but that is the problem with words. Indeed,
hierarchy
itself (as you point out) is not a bad thing. Quite natural in fact and
very
useful. Heirarchy is a problem, however, when it is frozen and stuck. At
that point it becomes an "old" hierarchy reflective of a different time
and/or situation, holding power and authority very much in the fashion of
the Divine Right of Kings. That is what I would call elitism. The real
problem is that it is non-functional because it limits the capacity of a
system to adapt to a changing environment. This of course can go on for a
long time, and indeed some environments stick around for a bit. But at
the
moment a stable environment seems to be more the exception than the rule.
So
Heirarchy, Yes. Elitism, No.
In terms of our community of folks -- to be sure there is hierarchy, in
fact
there are multiple hierarchies constantly changing with time and tide,
and
many existing simultaneously in a wonderful dance of conflict and
collaboration. I think that is fantastic, useful, and something to be
honored. However, if we ever got to the point where there was one,
unchanging hierarchy that would be the last moment you would be seeing me
anywhere on the premises -- even if, and most especially if, I was the
King
of the heap!
I think Kaliya is absolutely correct in pointing out the utility of a
"repetitional meritocratic hierarchy" (WOW! -- the words sort of roll off
the tongue!!). And if I understand the words at all, I think that is
pretty
much what "we" are. I would also agree that experience, training,
maturity
are critical -- in Open Space, as everywhere else. But I would take some
issue with the notion that, "Open Space Technology is fundamentally
different then these two community practices -- OST is not trying to
build
an operating system or have 100,000 all collaborate on the same thing
- it
doesn't 'need' the kind of hierarchy that technical communities do."
From where I sit, the adventure we have embarked on is actually larger
and
more complex than the "simple business" of creating an operating system.
Our
task (or at least the one I choose for myself) is not so much about
designing a system but rather the appreciation of the infinite complexity
and elegance of the self-organizing Human System. And this is not just
"music appreciation," performance is the name of the game. How do we
effectively live in this system, and maybe even more importantly, what
can
we do to enable the system to live?
I think of Open Space as a wonderful natural experiment in which
thousands
of people are participating. The power of the experiment emerges when we
freely and openly share our experiences and understandings. And everybody
has a vital part to play. Those of us who have been around for a bit may
have a broader and possibly deeper view, but there is an almost
inevitable
tendency to take some things for granted and get stuck in our ways. The
antidote for all of that is the arrival of fresh eyes with apparently
"dumb
questions." There are no dumb questions that are also real questions.
Real
questions have no answers, they only open more space and take you deeper.
And when you have lots of space (up, down, sideways, wherever)-- then the
fun begins.
Harrison
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raffi
Aftandelian
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: hierarchy...was report from the field
Greetings friends and colleagues--
Harrison you wrote:
"The other day I got a note which said in part, "I was surprised to
find out that there was a hierarchy in the OST community and everyone
having
a specific place to hold, voices are not equal and politics prevails in
certain circuits Just the same old same old... I'm not sure this is what
you envisioned with OST." I have no idea what the specific circumstances
were, and less interest in finding out. But presuming that we have the
creeping tentacles of elitism sneaking in - a good dose of the Law of Two
Feet and a clear recognition of the Universal License of Open Space
(everybody has one by birth) should do the trick. Or something."
I would love to hear more from the person who wrote about hierarchy in
the
OST community. What is meant by "hierarchy" here?
Isn't there hierarchy everywhere? Is it a bad thing? The question is what
kind of hierarchy do we have in the OST community? Is it a hierarchy that
feeds us, strengthens us? And how do we choose to engage with it as a
community? Do we create the spaces to talk about the power differentials
within our practitioner community in a way that, well, builds more
capacity
within us?
Quakers, for example, acknowledge that voices are not equal within the
life
of a Monthly Meeting. They have the concept of "weightiness" or a
"weighty
Friend." In other words, these are the elders within the Quaker world.
And doesn't the OST world have its elders and sages?
I, too, have heard (and thought) that the OST community is the "same
old...," - heck, some of that "same oldness" shows up on the list from
time
to time- *and* I do not know of a more generous, welcoming, inspiring
facilitation community. We either choose to engage with the OST community
as
it is, or...well exercise the law of two feet.
Raffi
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected]:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected]:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
