Part of"DandDTrans," a community of inquiry and action regarding the role that dialogue and deliberation can play in addressing the mega-crises of our time
”What do we, as members of the dialogue and deliberation community of practice, have to be and do to enable our most positive transformational impact in the face of emerging global crises which fundamentally challenge our business-as-usual habits and systems?
First, the“be” in the question is really good grounding and“do” is why we have come together. Missing in the middle though is“be done to” and“be transformed”. Our“be”ing and“do”ing need to evolve and emerge. Just like for the foci of our initiatives where“transformational impact” is wanted. If we see the world as an infinite set of evolving networks with constraints, ideals, conflict, ambiguity and emergence dealing with it demands a new way of being done to and being transformed–facilitating for emergence with self-emergence as part of the process.
The skills and knowledge needed to“be” this, we have to a good degree, but is somehow not quite real to us? We need to live what we imagine works and show how it is better or try other ways if it does not.
We also need to engage with those who take their responsibilities seriously but are only at the questioning phase. Get their feedback to what we offer as we tune our approaches. For example, I am really encouraged by recent conversations I had with leaders ibn some professional organizations whom I cold called as part of conference planning and obtaining speakers. I found many are independently /simultaneously rethinking their role with respect to the public and not just about serving their members. They are thinking of the values they live as organization and members and how to find and become this. They want to talk to other organizations with similar thinking. THIS is how real change happens. This sort of open thinking comes out in multi-channel discussions where there is a safe purpose on each side, but overlaying this is chance taking.“Just in case you are interested” sharing of some of our companion interests and our real passions or concerns. Being real, not just on narrow topics(these are needed though as we do have business to conduct, but more subtlety as they help create safe space for other things deeper) Or asking“how might I help you and your members?” At the same time listening for the change they see and taking it inside your own vision, strengthening and/or making it more complete/inclusive. This all work interweaves and builds in a way that mono focus fails in. A separate, but related issue is the"visitor experience" problem(framed by a friend Jnanamitra Emmett)-“how to achieve deep communication between groups/faiths/cultures when what is precious to you is jargon or cliché to them and vice versa.” The answer is in part a“safe” activity in the shadow of the elephant in the room, the topic people know you want to talk about(a suggestion from a museum curator)
For me the purpose of this inquiry was a little confusing: was it knowledge capture, knowledge management, community building, or all or more? Perhaps an experiment with a more tight“business” focus as a core thread that the other rich explorations branch out off of? I got great advice from Scilla Elworthy(writer and pioneer in social change in the area of non-violence) near the beginning of my journey on the topic of how to network for help:“Be clear on what you want from people and do not ask of them more than they can do.” And experience has taught a corollary:“focus on helping others in things that also help you, but help them first.”
What you gained: What new insights, challenges, ideas, inquiries, or actions came up for you from your participation this past month? What possibilities have opened up or been further reinforced?
The real surprise insights for me were about things on the boundary of this conversation. Inner“self” space and activities external to this inquiry(but on parallel themes). Inner space in terms of how the tackling of big issues as this exercises was incomplete without focus in inner issues and qualities like authenticity and listening(which this group has in abundance, but is generally precious); and coherence. I knew these things, but somehow they became more real through the challenge and interaction here. Also outer space. I had an unusually large number of related events the past few weeks and this dialog while so unstructured similarly made more real/in focus the other events. More coherent. Hackpad happenings made more coherent too. This event, and open space generally, are a curious mix of purpose and seeming chaos, but operating on us and our external activities in ways deep. It seems Iike focusing in one area too deeply in one direction can impede coherence; having too little focus is weak, but having active focus coupled with listening for emergence and cross pollination is a really rich recipe
What you experienced: How did you feel or change at different points in this process? Which processes did you participate in? Which were new to you? For processes you’ve experienced before, what was it like doing them online? What worked for you, and why? What didn’t? How might you use or change these processes on another occasion? What about the web tools used? Maestro? Hackpads? Zoom(if you experienced that)? Any others?
My experience comments will be on three levels as I approached this enquiry.
Curiously: how might interactions with fellow followers of the visionary Tom Atlee emerge and how could I provide support energy(my 2 questions just to help while also of immediate interest to me) for a sort of endeavour I approve of?
This was a very welcoming group to a total stranger. The atmosphere was pregnant energy.“Special event” brings out creative power and risk taking(but conservatism for some), facilitators bringing energy and encouragement. A further recipe for transformation. As an outsider it was a little difficult engaging at the same level as the planners. We were a little two track just by nature of those with background vs those catching up. Is there a way to avoid this? At times I was turned off when people talked too much about their own stuff as a thing vs a process they are exploring.
Structurally: how would the responses to the various individual and group purposes emerge or stumble in response to the containers and facilitation strategies; how does the platform/approach compare to my own benchmark mental models; and what works and what does not?
The open space strategy might have benefited from either more or less planning of the questions that groups formed around. As some long planned groups ended up perhaps too large. But this is looking from the outside. It would be interesting to know if the bigger groups felt too large. They may have had more prep time though the pre work which made it workable - Bohm dialog etc., which all did not engage in.(It was hard to play catch- up at least for me). In general I kind of like an engineered mixing of participant’s interaction to get the most diversity on the discussion. Does open space sit well with engineered mixing, maybe not. And on diversity, where were the young people? Their eyes and hearts are on different things. They are not established like most of us. Thinking of Wise Democracy/ Dynamic facilitation some engineered diversity too needed? This is a core principle of mine. Knowing which diversity is present and also not, but inviting it in. But a dialog cannot be all things and this was a D+D focused dialog after all! But the questions of what else it could be may be part of what it was(I am a bit of a philosopher).
I liked the heart-based reflection as a core practice exercise and agree a site needs a space for art, music and other inspiring things. Contributors, however, should explain why they think their contribution is related to the discussions and how it helps the dialog.
Possibly convergence was needed sooner amongst all the dialog processes and vehicles. A pre summary for all to take in and see connections from analogous to a visual recording of themes discussed and everyone looks at it, sees connections and then dives back into dialogue. It does not have to be visual. This is being done now, but it feels late in the process to take stock... I think for my own work, I will appreciate structure more, and build in for more diversity of experience. We need questioning space, problem solving space, anarchy space, convergence space, etc.(what other“spaces” do we need in inquiries like this? And how should people be called or encouraged to interact with them or let them float?
Purposefully:
How might this enquiry help me better support the initiatives I am involved with?
This WAS useful, the energy and insights/ ideas spilling over in all sorts of ways, inspiration. Some people connections made feel as though they may become important. This inquiry became a talking point within other initiatives and helped steer ideas hard to express in other ways. As mentioned above, this is helping see structures and emergence within or despite them with a little more experience and depth. I am thinking of how this Hackpad space potential can be used in other ways, but do not have a plan yet. I am hoping to be able to help further and interact with Ben, Steph and Bruce, who were so inspiring and insightful.
What next: What are you doing, will do or might do as related at least in part to the question that brought us together and/or as a result of what we have done together? Who else would(might) you involve?
I am continuing on all burners, plus maybe something new? I can see better how one approach, one type of network, one track of discussion in anathema to my goals. I now know some people who may be interested in some of my models and ideas and will gauge their interest once I have something to show. I have been doing a lot with storytelling as part of problem solving, communication and transformation and I would like to get in touch with other storytelling junkies! Please contact me.
Comments by Others on Chris' Post
[Ben Roberts, 2/3]
Thank you for these thoughts, Chris,and for taking the lead here. I waited until I had completed by own harvest pad to read those of others, which is why I didn't comment sooner. It's so interesting to see how others understand something like this--I've been inside it so thoroughly that it's surprising and curious to me to read something like this, which reflects an entirely different sort of experience.
I do appreciate your comments about engineered diversity. On the whole, there was not a lot that was"engineered" about this on many levels. We simply created a container, broadcast an invitation, asked some questions we hoped were powerful, and opened space for whatever conversations we and the participants wanted to initiate. It was really just as simple as that. Easier said than done, I suppose, and lots of work to try to have the container be hospitable and the context as clear as possible.
Beyond that basic vision, things evolved organically, based on what the people who"showed up" were willing to do or request. I think you can make a case that the invitation process got short shrift as a result, as no one really chose to be accountable for it at a"macro level" beyond the email blast invites and some personal invitations that the hosting team made in various ways.
I'm gratified by your description of how this dialogue connected into the other events you were involved with, and that you felt that the space was welcoming even if the purpose was unclear and the"insiders" seemed to have an edge. For the record, I don't know that any of the Open Space sessions other than Tom's were planned in advance. It is unusual for the hosts/conveners to also call sessions, but somehow we judged it to be OK. In retrospect, that might have had the effect of closing the space to others, as a lot of the energy went to us. I think the truth is that we(the conveners) really wanted to talk about this stuff, and we wanted to do it with our peers. I know Tom found great value in the conversations he initiated, as did I with mine. Your"small steps" session got some traction too, it seemed, so I hope you found that worthwhile.
So thanks again, and I look forward to playing a bit more as we try to create some"spores" out of this harvest!
chris smerald 2-4 now finished putting a little towards the end. Definitely worthwhile and fun ( important) I figured candid was what you craved, but I was observational rather than judgmental. Again many thanks!
Comments by Others on Chris' Post