On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tree Fitzpatrick <therese.fitzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am present, in the roll call. As am I. Hi Tree! I don't presume I'm memorable, but we've met a few times, and seeing you always brings a bit of delight to my experience of an event. Some comments are interspersed below... > I would like to thank those persons who have written to me privately and > thanked me for being willing to openly disclose my negative thoughts in some > recent discussions. This is not new behavior for me. I have never really > had the same boundaries that other people have about what should remain > private. I deeply believe that all my thoughts and feelings, along with the > thoughts and feelings of anyone else in the circles I happen to find myself > in, such as the oslist, are thoughts and feelings alive in the space. My > thoughts and feelings are never unique to me. > > And it is a simple fact that ANY time I have voiced negative thoughts, in > any circle, other people were thinking what I voiced. > > And it is an ongoing puzzlement to me that people thank me privately for > speaking openly . . . but they do not speak openly themselves. That is an interesting phenomenon. I even got a couple of private emails thanking me for my one post in the Ning thread. But it's quite natural, isn't it? In an open space with 620 people, there are bound to be countless one-on-one side conversations. It's easier to approach someone outside of the circle when things get heated. I only posted myself at all because I decided I had a fairly distinctive viewpoint -- being more technical than anyone else who had posted. The funny thing is, I don't know Michael Herman at all and don't know much about the OpenSpaceWorld.org website, but somehow Kaliya's comments about him and it evoked a negative gut reaction for me as a techie. So I tried to express that negative reaction in a way that would also provide some concrete contribution to the conversation. In part, at least, I had a nagging feeling that if I didn't say anything, the group memory would record that the techie viewpoint was solely critical of Michael, with Kaliya as its primary representative. (To be fair, Harold Shinsato is also a techie -- he and I met at a techie Open Space just last month! -- Hi Harold! :) -- but anyway, those were the thoughts in my head as I posted my message.) > I feel, sometimes, a tyranny of the non-violent communicators. . . I feel > that their good intentions often have what feels like a 'violent', > suppressive influence on spaces . . . but they always seem to be perceived > as good and my directness is often attacked as bad. . . and yet I know, and > nothing will ever dissuade me from this truth, that my truth is always true > for others in the circle. I think that it's when the directness comes across as personal attacks that I get uncomfortable. The way I perceived the Ning thread, Kaliya made some statements, others challenged those statements, Kaliya got frustrated and started personally attacking Michael, yet others called her on it, and then you spoke with concern for Kaliya while turning around and attacking others for expressing their discomfort. While I'm not a big NVC advocate myself, I think one of the most important insights, shared by pretty much all facilitation styles, is that reality is quite different from any of our particular perceptions. I don't much like the admonition to use "I statements", but the essential thing -- especially in a big unfacilitated conversation like a mailing list -- is to take ownership of my own perceptions and not treat them as objective truth that everyone must accept. > And what does it mean when there are truths no one 'dares' to voice? The > energy still impacts the circle, still influences and affects. . . sunshine > is the best disinfectant. It is always best to name what is in the shadows. The interesting question for me is, whose shadows are they? I don't mean this as a personal attack on you -- this is one of my biggest personal struggles. I'm very shy and it's easy for me to get frustrated with my interactions with someone. I'll withdraw into my shell and internally characterize the other person negatively -- this professor is "intimidating", that manager is "micro-managing". Feeling isolated and alienated, it's easy to perceive a "shadow" covering the whole situation. Why doesn't anyone else speak up about that person's failings? Why doesn't the person realize their failings themselves? But on reflection I think the shadow is cast by the shell I've withdrawn into myself. The situation is not inherently negative, even though my experience of it certainly is. And my negative experience is certainly valid and worth speaking about. > . . and I know this to be resolutely true and I am at peace when people > attack me for being openly honest. > > I can live with such negative attacks. Indeed, one of your primary points is that there should be space for negativity, right? It's okay for you to be negative toward others, so it must be okay for others to be negative toward you. > And I can't help but feel wistful that the folks who support me in private > would do so openly. Thanks for the private support. Thanks for keeping this converation going. I hope I'll learn something about my own interactions. Cheers, Justin * * ========================================================== 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
