One more thought on this.
If the issue of the "dominant culture" could be framed simply
(perhaps to simply) is that it is on the extreme end the spectrum -
very Yang.
Then why would going to the extreme end of the spectrum the other
way to the very Yin be 'the new story' to me the new story lies in
the middle the weaving together in a healthy way - action mixed with
heart.
=Kaliya
On Sep 18, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Peggy Holman wrote:
Okay, the title isn't mine...it is from someone who attended the
recent Story Field Conference (www.storyfieldconference.net). Mind
you, it is also a very minority view. For almost all of the 83+
people who attended, it was a mind-blowing, life-altering
experience. It set a new bar for me of what is possible when a
diverse group of passionate people come together for 5 days in Open
Space.
I'll say more about the whole conference soon. In the meantime,
there was one particularly provocative post-conference reflection
expressing a great deal of frustration about what took place. This
person really struggled with the open nature of the process, and
asked some great questions. (Unfortunately, his piece is in a
secured area and I am not ready to ask his permission to share
it.) Still, I think you'll get the gist through my response.
As I said to him, there is so much to be learned about the dynamic
tension between “structured process where everyone knows what’s
going on, and everyone agrees to the ground rules” and a space open
to the mystery of what is wanting to emerge in the moment....
ABOUT MYSTERY
One of the main themes I found in your message was why go through
all the discomfort? What’s the point?
You said: The group seems divided into two camps - those who prefer
messy, emotional, and random processing, and those who came here
for a specific purpose, with the hope of creating something new and
extraordinary, and who are equally frustrated by the chaos.
I’d offer that for many of us, it is going through the messy,
emotional, seemingly random processing that we have the best chance
of creating something new and extraordinary.
I have a deep and abiding commitment to bringing mystery back into
most everything we do. I believe that without the unknown, there
is no learning, no creativity, no life. For me, if there is only
certainty, I suffocate. I also believe that when there is no room
for the unknown, it makes itself felt through disease, disorder,
violence, depression and other unpleasant and unintended consequences.
Culturally, we celebrate perfection – perfect athletic performance,
musical performance, total quality in production. I’m glad we do;
I have felt the inspiration of experiencing a virtuoso
performance. And I sure don’t want airplanes, bridges, cars built
any other way.
Still, there is a companion to this perfection that I believe is
equally essential that is not only not celebrated, but struggles to
find its legitimacy -- and grows increasingly important the more
dysfunctional and destructive the status quo becomes. It is what
happens at the margins, where something doesn’t yet have a form or
a name, where it is seeking to come into being. My friend, David
Gershon, calls it the learning edge. If we aren’t playing at the
border between the known and unknown, we are standing in the way of
our own evolution. To be very pragmatic, there is no learning or
transformational change without mystery; if you already know the
outcome, then no transformation is involved!
I appreciate learning from other’s knowledge, and believe that has
its place. When exploring a topic as nascent as a “story field”, I
would much rather be present with passionate, committed, talented
people exploring their inquiries rather than committed to their
certainties. I suspect this is true for many, if not most of us.
Could we have made better use of those who brought knowledge about
the new story to the gathering? Surely. SHOULD we have, in some
particular way? I don’t know. I think this choice is a useful
exploration and would be pleased to engage more fully in it. In
retrospect, I suspect we both gained and lost by the choices we
made. For example, we did not come away with anywhere near the
shared sense of how to answer the calling questions as I would have
liked. And yet I wonder, had we done so, would the voices that are
often left out found their place in the story? I have no idea. I
know that I gained a deeper understanding of how vital it is for
those voices to be part of the story that emerges. And I do know
that the work continues to unfold among many who were present.
I have come to believe that strategic conversations, such as we had
at the Story Field Conference, are part of a larger trend, a
floating conversation, with different threads of a collective
exploration slowly converging, bringing together different cohorts
who are exploring similar questions. Through these seemingly
unconnected iterations, we are growing a new and vital coherence
among us. At least, that’s my story. And it begins, indirectly,
to touch on this question of what it takes to get things done.
WHAT IS THE PRICE OF A LINEAR FOCUS ON GETTING THINGS DONE?
I, too, have a passion for getting things done. That's why I
invested the unbelievable amount of time it took to put together
this story field gathering. But for me, the important question is
this: given an intention, what form of getting things done best
serves that intention?
For example, I co-edited a 700+ page book with over 100
contributors. This required focused, linear skills of getting from
A to B on a tight timeline, juggling a vast amount of details as I
went. It was possible because there was a high degree of agreement
about the underlying assumptions – the “story field” if you will –
of what we were doing.
However, for something like envisioning a new story, much less a
new story field, I believe what it takes to bring about wise action
is quite different from A to B thinking. In particular, it takes a
special openness to engage as much diversity as possible to achieve
as lasting an effect as possible from individuals, small groups,
and perhaps even a major subset of the whole group. This is not a
linear proposition. When the assumptions themselves are part of
the territory in question, I believe that opening as much space as
possible for being receptive to what is wanting to emerge creates
the greatest opportunity for deep understanding and lasting results.
That is part of the reason why, when I look at the how much wise
action takes place in our larger culture and the huge amount of
fragmentation that impedes wise action, it is clear to me that
something different is called for. I believe wise, unimpeded action
is an outcome that naturally flows out of strong, healthy
relationships. By opening the space as we did, a great deal of
relational work was done. What I saw in reading the reflections is
a remarkable number of people who said, “I now have the courage to
act on my convictions”; “I know that I am not alone; I have allies”.
Are you aware of the remarkable number of meetings, conference
calls, one-on-one connections that are all in process as a result
of our conference? The action on the wiki, alone, is a testament to
the aliveness of our work together. Remarkably, a third of the
conference participants (27) have posted 143 edits during the
conference and for more than 2 weeks afterwards, and counting.
Those people who have the good fortune to be quite at home in the
dominant culture -- which has an ethic of focusing on action,
getting things done in a linear way -- may not have thought about
what gets lost when that is always the primary focus. They may not
have wondered what voices don’t get heard because they find no
place in that drive for action. These are major parts of my life
-- and the lives of millions of other people.
I think our culture has paid a huge price by squeezing uncertainty
and chaos out of every place we can! I believe it has created a
wide range of unintended consequences, most of which are virtually
invisible. For example, one such consequence is an unspoken norm
that to be in community means conforming to the dominant story. If
I say something different, something that is not comfortable or is
unfamiliar, particularly if it is emotionally unpleasant, it is
judged to be inappropriate. To speak out is to risk being
ostracized. No wonder many women, people of color, and young
people opt out!
I think the current fragmentation of our society grew out of
feelings that there were no avenues for voices that don’t fit
accepted norms. How can I feel connected to a larger whole when
there is no space for my point of view? At the extreme, violence
is a consequence of this fragmentation; if there isn’t a space for
voices with different stories, then it plays out in other forms.
With all that is happening across our world today, I believe the
story has become far too complex for any one culture to have all
the answers. Because there was space for grief, anger, fear, and
radical diversity, this gathering made creating space for the
voices and feelings not usually expressed more visible, more
urgent, and more poignant to me than even I have ever experienced.
I felt my own anger as a woman when challenged by yet another
straight, white man who saw all of the overflowing emotion as
nonessential and nonproductive. I heard, for the first time, the
pain of indigenous people who have always been completely invisible
to me. I heard the anguish of people of mixed race and non-white
races expressed as a visceral experience of being choked off from
speaking their truth. And I heard the pain of the white man – and
others – confused and repelled by what was happening. And the
cacophony of those voices -- because they were heard -- welded us
into a powerful community that was viscerally felt by the vast
majority of participants, and out of which has come the ecosystem
of activities that we are seeing online, in phone calls, and in
upcoming local gatherings -- as well as stimulating conversations
like this about what future conferences will be like…
AN INTERLUDE: ABOUT WEDNESDAY MORNING
I think part of the reason there was so much “stuff” surfacing on
Wednesday morning is that we culturally provide so little space for
collective meaning making of what is disturbing. I sense that we
have 1) a great deal of unhandled angers, hurts, fears that are
wanting to be expressed and 2) very little experience expressing
them and dealing with them together creatively. I was talking to
someone who said the invitation to discern whether what was
surfacing was personal or coming from a deeper source was
interesting but with no practice, she wasn’t sure how to know.
And, as Van Jones spoke on the Pachamama video, we also know very
little about how to truly and usefully hear such expressions of
anger, fear and grief.
When I look back on Wednesday morning, the range of issues
expressed was extraordinary -- tensions between male/female,
western culture/indigenous culture, moving to action/handling our
emotional backlog -- and there was room for all of it. I
personally believe that our collective capacity to stay present to
it all was pivotal for the quality of connections, and commitments
to actions that seems to be emerging from the gathering.
As Mark Jones made us aware of, we saw, heard and loved each
other. And it isn't about a woo-woo comfy Green meme feeling.
There is power here, a latent power of the whole. We are only
beginning to understand the practical power of seeing, hearing, and
loving each other fully, together. To grow into that
understanding, we'll need a lot more such gatherings -- including a
lot more continuity as a community. But that's getting ahead of
myself here….
BACK TO GETTING THINGS DONE…
Right after the conference, my brother told me that Robert Putnam
(Bowling Alone; Better Together) has just released some new
research that says the more diverse a neighborhood, the more
disengaged it is from the political process. This is no surprise
to me: as long as the pain, anger, frustration remains suppressed,
of course we can’t connect to get something done! When Grace spoke
her pain, she made visible something that was already present. She
opened the way for others to express their hurt, anger, frustration
of what usually remains invisible. While messy, we made room for
voices that are usually silent, to be heard. It is that sort of
healing that is vital for us to become the kinds of diverse
communities -- diverse, loving, and effective communities -- that I
heard so many of us long for!
And it took great courage. I see this as another reason for being
willing to open the space for what is wanting to emerge. As we
practice being in the unknown together and learn to trust each
other, we discover that we are not alone. In the last couple years
of doing this work, it is one of the strongest lessons I’ve
received: when people know they are held, they have substantially
more courage to act.
What a profound combination: connection to people who we might have
previously seen as different from ourselves - which means we have
much great access to each other to use our difference creatively -
coupled with that increased courage. When we do this well, I think
the capacity for wise action actually skyrockets! This is not to
say that we don't have a lot more to learn about HOW to use our
differences creatively and HOW to be more effective together. It
is to say that our path to higher-order, more elegant handling of
our differences and collaboration is through hearing and welcoming
our differences – including our emotional differences - into our
collective spaces. That that process will often be messy goes
without saying. But it is out of that messiness that our increased
collective capacity and communion arise.
I once heard a story of week-long Native American powwows in which
they drum and dance and worship and socialize for almost the entire
time -- and then get all their business done in the last
afternoon. The communion built during most of the week makes their
work together a breeze, once they get to it. I think there's
something like that at work in the kind of community I'd like to
see grow around the story field project. That, combined with the
power of emergence and the flowering of diverse passions, is my own
take on "getting things done." That said, I'm also intrigued with
how we can arrive at collective coherences and whole-group
accomplishments without endangering those other powers. I leave
that to our future work together.
ON FACILITATION
We came together in a meaningful way towards accomplishing
something that called to each of us at the Story Field Conference
more than any other conference I've been part of. What made this
possible? I don’t think it was random, nor a lack of
facilitation. I think it was shifting the locus of attention from
what you would call facilitation to hosting what is wanting to
emerge in a space bounded by a common intention to understand the
role of story as a field phenomenon and to use story for profound
social change. I believe we are still learning how to do this
well – and that there is much to learn.
I tend to think of this as a shift of what is in the foreground and
what is in the background. Rather than a primary focus on the flow
of a process and keeping people “on task” or at least on the
subject, the locus of attention is on the flow of energy - in which
there is confidence that any voice that surfaces has something to
contribute that can be heard and integrated.
I get that from your point of view there was essentially no
facilitation. In a way, I’d agree with you as the term
facilitation doesn’t really describe the nature of being a host to
what is emerging. There is work involved in this role; it is just
very different than facilitating a process. Because it is less
familiar, it tends to be more invisible. Gabriel Shirley used a
term a few years back that comes closest to describing it for me:
running the energy. Much of what we are doing is paying attention
to the energy of the group, tending to its flow – what is the
collective mood? what can we sense happening at the edges? what
serves the whole in reaching its potential? I don’t pretend to
know all the answers; I think we are in the early stages of
learning how to work with group energy. I know I am.
For me, a core intention is to be sure that energy doesn’t get
stuck, that the space stays open for what is wanting to emerge.
While I see how you can interpret it as “egos reigning supreme” or
that “a big no-no is making someone feel bad, controlled or cut
off”, there are other ways to understand what is happening. During
a reflection among the hosts, Gabriel Shirley named it this way:
there were two primary perspectives present: 1) each person
speaking was acting out of their own ego, doing personal work; 2)
each voice is there on behalf of the whole and is in some way a
gift to the whole. I’d say that this isn’t an either/or, both are
real. These perspectives offer alternative ways of making sense of
what is occurring.
I think many of us have minimal patience with this because,
particularly in the realm of affect, our culture has taught us very
little about where and how to express our emotional anger, pain,
grief. The dominant culture provides very few venues for this, so,
of course, if a space is made safe enough, it will surface. I
applaud the quality of witnessing we were all part of -- including
you -- at the Story Field Conference, the discipline of being
present to raw feelings that eighty people held this space on
behalf of what was expressed.
Paradoxically, the dominant culture sees these once-suppressed
feelings dominating the conversation without noticing that (and
how) it usually dominates conversations. The dominant culture is
transparent to itself, just as our individual blind spots are
invisible to us, just as the water is invisible to the fish. Those
most at home in the dominant culture have much less practice at the
discipline of witnessing because by definition, the dominant
culture supports their way of processing. Privileged people don't
have to listen. Less privileged people get much more practice
sitting and listening to another’s bullshit. In fact, the dominant
culture even institutionalizes this practice in the form of
sanctioned talking head presentations.
As Emily pointed out, in our western culture, focusing on getting
things done is our norm -- often, I would add, to the detriment of
expressing any other aspect of ourselves individually or
collectively. I can imagine on Wednesday morning that those
expecting a space for getting things done were extremely frustrated
when the space shifted to a different purpose! But I find myself
wondering: Is this frustration more or less legitimate than the
frustration of those whose voices are suppressed? Perhaps we
should focus, instead, on whether our choice of plenary activity
served our collective intention.
WHAT BEST SERVES OUR INTENTION?
There are no doubt gentler pathways than to invite people to jump
into Open Space with little context of what to expect and with no
training wheels. Yet, I know of no other means that makes it so
clear so quickly that the ultimate authority for one’s experience
rests with oneself. And, I wonder, given the scale and scope of
living a new story into being, what best serves? I don’t pretend
to have the answer; I suspect there are many parallel paths. I do
believe that the capacity to be present to that which makes us
uncomfortable is a vital skill for this work. I believe that the
space at Shambhala Mountain Center held some trigger for everyone!
To the extent that such triggers feed our learning, growing and
connecting, I celebrate them. To the extent they cause people to
check out, go silent, and disappear, they cause me concern. There
are surely things to learn about how to navigate all that more
successfully -- but trying to keep people from frustration and
triggers is certainly not the key.
Something you expressed that I found particularly ironic: that
there was a norm in Open Space that everyone be comfortable. In
fact, I think we were quite willing to have people be
uncomfortable. It was just that those who are most used to being
comfortable were the most frustrated and uncomfortable as we made
room for voices that are seldom seen, heard or welcomed to show up.
And the gift I personally found in that was huge! I learned a
great deal about both the new story and the nature of story telling
from what took place during the week:
· The new story is most effectively told in ways
that are consistent with the new story
· Blame, judgment, victimization, domination are
all part of the old story and when they show up in telling the new
story, it causes those who are made invisible by the old story to
either disappear further or, where there is room for them to show
up, to show up fiercely
· The new story integrates the duality implicit
in male/female, western/indigenous, white/non-white into a larger
pattern of “differentiated wholeness”. By differentiated
wholeness, I mean that our differences become a creative part of
the whole – so that to belong in a community is to show up in all
one’s unique gifts and quirks
· Wholeness has holes in it, which has huge
implications for how stories are told:
o If the story teller speaks as if they have all the answers,
it leaves no room for voices and perspectives that have something
to add
o Taking a stance of humility and conscious evolution,
recognizing that the story is never complete allows space for new
aspects to show up and be integrated
o Being curious when missing voices show up is of service to
the whole, inviting a more whole version of our stories to emerge
BACK TO MYSTERY
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers to how best to bring
mystery back into its rightful place. It is clear the form we used
is not comfortable for some. Perhaps it will never be -- and
perhaps it is important that it never be, at least to some degree.
I do believe that within the collective us, the capacity to be
receptive, compassionately unattached, is essential for the new
story to blossom.
Open Space makes a huge amount of space for the receptive. It also
makes an extraordinary amount of space for action. Where a group
goes emerges out of its own needs. To say that again, a little
differently: it is the energy of the group that most shapes the
nature of the space. By not “facilitating” the group in a specific
direction, we trust that what best serves the collective intention
of understanding the story field and the new story is served. When
the intention is complex, as in defining a novel idea like “story
field”, I have a bias towards a process that boldly invites the
emergent present, trusting the wisdom of the group to take it where
it most needs to go. Could we have provided more context? Of
course. Would that have been our best service? I don’t know. It
would have created a different gathering. Would the voices and
feelings that are normally invisible found space to show up in
productive ways? I don’t know. Would we have had a clearer, more
articulated sense of the story field and the new story? If we did,
I fear it might have been more intellectual and less embodied.
Trusting the group energy in open space, I trust that the
conversations stimulated by your, David's and others' critiques
will produce innovations that will allow us to explore these
questions more deeply and consciously in practice, together as a
community.
I do understand that, in particular, the grief, anger, and fear
expressed was way overboard for people who have little or no
experience with it; or for those who feel that such expression
belongs in its own special container specifically for that
purpose. Would I and others have had the lived experience of the
new story that we did without all that surfacing? I honestly don’t
know. There are ways in which both answers are true, and I know
that we'll be learning more about this.
I believe that in the new story, we have a right to be whole people
– head, heart, body, and spirit. And I believe we owe it to each
other to learn to be present to the whole of us in collective
settings. In fact, I think because we did that, it contributed
immensely to why so many people said this experience was life
changing for them.
While we haven’t yet landed in the intellectual coherence of the
new story that many of us desired (myself included), I believe we
LIVED a nascent form of the new story. There was space for all of
us and not in the form of “let’s make everyone comfortable” or in
the form of “you need to behave in expected ways”. Quite the
opposite! We made space for people to be real together, where our
differences were welcome disturbances from which learning and
growth could and did happen.
Can we get better at creating such experiences? I sure hope so! I
am sure there are better ways of inviting in male/female,
indigenous/western, straight/gay, white/color than we know right
now. We’re just getting started.
I know now that if we can’t hear new voices, we stay stuck – as
most of our current systems are. No wonder people are checking out
of them! I got a much deeper understanding of what it is like to
always need to keep what is most dear invisible or suffer the wrath
of indifference, judgment, dismissal. I also felt a new compassion
for what it is like to be seen as the oppressor, the one holding
the current form in place, even when we see ourselves as in the
vanguard of change.
Still, you may well ask, why bring in so much mystery at once? Why
not just small doses? It may well be that for many, that’s what
makes the most sense. For me, I believe we’re entering into a time
of increasing dissolution; more and more of our assumptions and our
systems will be falling apart faster and faster. The more of us
who become more capable of being present to the anger, grief, fear,
and confusion that will surface, the better. What better way to
practice than in learning more about subjects we care about with
people we discover are kindred spirits?
I am excited and fascinated at how engaged so many people who
gathered still are! Many people made deep connections with
others. The intellectual and practical work are underway big
time. I wonder if it is because we didn’t fully complete our work
together? Our wholeness has evocative holes in it! We’re still
collectively processing the questions around which we gathered.
Perhaps this too -- rather than being a disappointment -- is a
lesson in keeping the mystery alive and following its enticing
energy to wherever it leads us.
HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER
That said, as you pointed out, chaos can be quite challenging, so
how do we welcome it in a way that is of service to a group? That
is an art that we are still learning. It is part of the dialogue
that your message taps for me. We do know some things about it:
We know that creating a sense of sacred space can make a tremendous
difference (our time at the Stupa that first morning in the
presence of Spirit and our ancestors contributed to bringing to
consciousness what would make the space fertile and productive)
We know that expressing dreams, desires, possibilities makes a
difference (e.g., our wishes spoken as if we are making them
happen, and speaking to what would blow our minds)
We know inviting adult behavior that asks us to draw from the best
of ourselves matters (as Mark did by offering HSL – hear, see, and
love -- and as we did in naming the Law of Two Feet – taking
responsibility for what we each love -- and asking people to check
within themselves for what was coming through them for guidance
rather than looking to an outside authority)
And we believe that working with the energy present in the moment
matters.
Beyond that, I expect this conversation and others like it to
continue, helping us discern how best to welcome chaos, to make
room for the emergent while tending to whatever form of getting
things done best serves.
ON RANDOMNESS AND ORDER
Have you ever seen a strange attractor coming into being? (Strange
attractors are beautiful mathematical images. (see http://
images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/
~stilti/images/chaotic_attractors/chaos26.jpg&imgrefurl=http://
ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~stilti/images/chaotic_attractors/
poly.html&h=640&w=640&sz=45&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=ieBIZJB9pAv28M:&t
bnh=137&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstrange%2Battractors%26svnum%
3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-42,GGGL:en%26sa%
3DN). They take a mathematical formula, push some numbers through,
plot the output on a map, feed the output back through the formula,
and plot again. In other words, they iterate through the same
formula over and over. Initially the dots seem completely random.
Over time, a pattern becomes visible.
I see conversations in a similar light. I find most of us live,
either consciously or unconsciously, in a complex question or two.
For example: What is the nature of story? What is the new story
that wants to be born? How do we bring this story more fully to
life? As we answer these questions, we feed the responses back
through and new answers emerge. They begin to paint a picture.
When we join with others in a shared inquiry, the picture takes on
more shape. What starts as seemingly random, begins to come into
coherent form. It begins to entice us in, as we collectively call
it into being and witness its new resonance surfacing. This isn’t
a simple story that one person can create alone. And its shaping
demands more than just our intellects. It draws from the whole of
us, head, heart, body, spirit. It is a complex response, made of
music, art, dance, idea. It is a coherent, many-storied response
to questions that we all hold dear. And it is still unfolding.
So I end with an idea that surfaced through Tom Atlee and me:
We are calling into being our collective soul so that our many-
storied world can find its way…and each and everyone one of us has
our roles to play in it.
Love,
Peggy
________________________________
Peggy Holman
The Open Circle Company
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
(425) 746-6274
www.opencirclecompany.com
For the new edition of The Change Handbook, go to:
www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not
get burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
* * ==========================================================
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To
subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/
archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST
FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
Kaliya - Identity Woman
kal...@mac.com
http://www.unconference.net
http://www.identitywoman.net
skype:identitywoman
Y!:earthwaters
AIM:kal...@mac.com
510 472-9069 (bay area)
415 425 1136 (on the road)
*
*
==========================================================
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
