Such a rich topic! Thanks to Marie Ann Östlund for opening this topic.
I am compelled to add the following words (verbatim) from RIGHTS OF MAN,
by Thomas Paine. The book is quite an interesting read for folks like
us. It tends to confirm and join with all of Harrison's key points.
My favorite quote in the book:
"...society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to
government."
When he says [society] in the text, he means groups to people who are
self-organizing, according to natural propensity.
The whole book is here, for free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2H_4_0007
Quoting below, from this specific section:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2HCH0001
Will you pardon my forwardness? I've taken the liberty of bolding a few
words for emphasis:
"So far is it from being true, as has been *pretended*, that the
abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that
it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer
together. All that part of its organisation which it had committed to
its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium.
When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits,
have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, *there is
always enough of its principles in practice to carry them* through any
changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their
government. In short, *man is so naturally a creature of society* that
it is almost impossible to put him out of it.
**
*"Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life*; and when
even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing
more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental
principles of society and civilisation---to the common usage universally
consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained---to the
unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million
channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man---it is to these
things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted
government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual
and of the whole depends.
*"The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for
government*, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, *and
govern itself*; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to
the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the
proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that
civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that
whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect
will be nearly the same.*If we consider what the principles are* that
first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate
their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we
arrive at what is called government, that *nearly the whole of the
business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each
other. *
"Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of
consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to
believe. *All the great laws of society are laws of nature.* Those of
trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of
individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest.
They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties
so to do, and *not on account of any formal laws their governments may
impose or interpose. *
***
On 12/30/13 11:10 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Marie -- I think you have it just right. But maybe you are making
things a little too complicated, and working a bit too hard. In my
simple mind, things look like this. First: All systems are self
organizing, even those we think we organize. Second: Organizing a self
organizing system is not only an oxymoron, but stupid -- especially
when the system can do a better job all by itself. Third: Whenever we
try to organize a self-organizing system, we inevitably get it wrong.
Our efforts are "clunky." Even though it may look great on paper, our
efforts are never subtle or flexible (agile) enough. Fourth: Open
Space is simply an invitation to self organize. In other words it is
simply an invitation to be and do what we are. The fact that it works
as it does has nothing to do with our knowing any philosophy,
principles, practices... It works as it has for 13.7 billion years,
long before we arrived on the scene, all without our help and
assistance. Fifth: the real value of OST is as a training program
enabling us to experience consciously and intentionally what all too
often passes by unnoticed -- Life. It is also a marvelous laboratory
in which we can learn more about our natural state. And oh yes -- all
the principles, philosophies, practices, etc are fun, interesting, and
useful to the extent that they help us to understand with greater
clarity what is really going on. But at the end of the day they really
don't change a thing. I think.
ho
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com <www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marie
Ann Östlund
*Sent:* Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:17 PM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* [OSList] self-organization
Dear all,
I hope you've had a wonderfully emergent holiday and I also take the
opportunity to wish you all a beautiful year.
I've been thinking about self-organization for some time now - or
holding the question of its meaning - as I haven't understood the
concept and the way we've talked about it. But this autumn the penny
dropped (!) for me (to some extent) and I could also understand why I
make the connections I do with OST and human nature, and, maybe, why
others don't make that same connection.
I want to share my little penny with you and see how you understand
this, and would appreciate your input and some push-back. :) Warning -
it's a bit long.
Harrison, it was your response to Hege's thread earlier that
exemplified some of the things I struggle to understand, so you gave
me the perfect cue to put my thoughts together (Thank you!):
"And there is an alternative. Just recognize (in your own mind) that
these folks (whoever they are...) are already "in" Open Space. They
are just doing it badly. Your "offer" is simply to help them to do
what they are already doing -- but now with some understanding,
expertise, and style. Short take: you can help them to remember what
they already know, and having remembered, to do everything much better."
I take this to mean that everyone is already self-organizing (are
already "in" Open Space), but are doing it badly.
If we then look at various types of human organisation, from larger
"organisms" like the financial and political systems, wars,
peace-movements, UN, patriarchy, etc to smaller units like families,
teams, etc - they must be examples of some form of self-organization.
Some are to our liking, some are not.
Why do we think that some types of human organization are successful
and some not, if we're all self-organizing? What is the
self-organization done "badly", and the one done "well"? Why does OST
/work/, as we sometimes put it?
The understanding I've come to is that one of the main differences
lies in the organizing principle or philosophy of the "organism". In
simpler or smaller systems the amount of principles might be fewer
than in larger ones (and thus simpler to manage and define). At the
macro level, countries organize themselves based on certain principles
- like one of the foundational principles of the US is the freedom to
/be/ religious and freedom /from/ the state (from Britain and its
monarchy), while in France freedom /from/ religion is foundational and
influence what citizens are allowed to learn and wear in school or say
in the public sphere, and in Sweden the state (or previously the
monarchy) have historically been the guarantor and protector of
individual freedom (against the aristocracy). An even greater and
deeper organizing principle we've adopted in the western hemisphere is
the idea of progress - that our societies invariably progress through
scientific and technological advances. And yes, all these ideas,
although found articulated by some powerful philosophers, are in a
sense a product of self-organization. However interesting the ideas,
they would go nowhere if people didn't accept/adopt/spread them or
felt they resonated with their own ideas and experiences. The way
ideas evolve and spread are certainly complex.
I guess these various ideas and beliefs are interlaced into the
complicated weave we call culture, and influence how we live and
organise our lives together. Each country have certain "rules" and one
may call them organizing principles. A company can have organizing
principle/s - there are differences between how General Motors and
Apple are organized and what define ways to "get ahead" or succeed. A
family also have organizing principles (who's the boss, how decisions
are made etc).
What makes OST a good way to self-organize is that it's organizing
principle is to take responsibility for what we love (the law of two
feet/mobility). I heard there was a discussion in the European
Learning Exchange recently about the rules of OST. OST seem rigid to
some extent - sit in circle, facilitator introduce the principles, law
and market place, off you go, evening and morning updates, closing
circle etc. If it's Open Space, why keep to these rules as we often
come back to doing OST in a certain way. Why do we (religiously)
adhere to a certain format when doing OST - at least this is how I
interpret the query hearing about it second hand.
However, if we consider that we all self-organise, and many times it's
done badly, we need to create a space that is open and that allows
self-organisation to happen in the most optimal way possible. So we
create a bubble of Open Space that is as open space we can make it.
The principles help us free our minds enough to be present with what's
happening (and most importantly - with ourselves) and the law is the
organising principle - follow your heart (and use your feet to do so).
Take responsibility for what you love.
What happens when we take responsibility for what we love? We feel
alive, we enjoy contributing to other peoples queries, we marvel at
what is created when we come together, and how our 'topic' was taken
to another level with other's contributions. We also marvel at what we
create when we come together. We enjoy giving and enjoy receiving. We
love and feel loving. That's not to say that we don't experience 'bad'
feelings in OS or don't experience frustrations, but (do correct me)
that's often to do with us not following our hearts as fully as we
would like to or we're in the messy chaotic part in our organizing
process.
So for me then, Open Space says something about me as a human being.
It says something about us all as human beings. It says that we love
contributing our unique offering to others, to a greater whole than
us, and we thrive when we're connected.
My thesis then, is that the organizing principle of OS (take
responsibility for what you love) is an organising principle that is
closer to our human nature than many other organizing-principles.
That's why it /works/. We are loving beings, not destructive, violent,
and selfish as Hobbes surmised - that idea is btw still one of the
basic organizing principles in international relations (more or less).
One of the reasons some systems work better is that the organising
principles are more fitting to our needs and natures. And some may
have worked for some time but no longer does, as they have grown too
rigid or not kept up with time/development. They might have helped us
from a worse condition, but not fully hit home.
To also address the question of rigidity in OST, what we do as
facilitators is to create a particular bubble of OS; and as our bubble
is created within and around other self-organizing bubbles, we use
rituals to communicate our ethos and to show that this bubble works in
a different way than others. We show physically that we're doing
something else here than in other systems, by sitting in a circle,
going around it, etc. Rituals are powerful. If all system would use
the same organizing principle these rituals might no longer matter, or
they would adopt the same.
To summarise: yes, we do self-organise, but we organise around some
principles/ideas/philosophies. OS is a bubble of self-organisation
that works better than most as its organising principle is closer to
human nature. And no, I can't explain why the connection to human
nature isn't done more often, as I said I might do in the beginning.
Sorry :)
But I think what I'm getting at, taking help from Harrison's image of
dancing with Shiva, the dance between chaos and order - is that we can
also look at OST from the point/perspective of Krishna's dance with
the soul (rasa-lila - the dance of divine love). Away from the cosmic
perspective is also the personal or individual view point, of what the
dance can be that we create together in love and in relationship to
each other. And that might tell a different story about who we are.
I'd appreciate your thoughts, push-back, reflections. This is what
makes sense to me now and I wanted to share it with you.
All the best,
Marie Ann
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book:The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
