|
"The shadow is the
negative side of the personality, the sum of all those
unpleasant qualities we like to hide, together with the
insufficiently developed functions and the contents of
the personal unconscious..."
-Carl G. Jung
As infants we expressed the
full breadth of our human nature, without editing or
censoring. As we grew up, however, we learned that
certain parts of ourselves were unacceptable to the
people around us. Maybe we were shamed for crying or
punished for being angry. Maybe we were ridiculed for
wanting attention or acting proud of ourselves. So, we
learned to repress those parts and eventually those
parts became our shadow self. The shadow is ever present
in all of our personalities, but usually hidden from us.
Others often see it, but we do not.
Groups have shadows in the same
way that individuals have them. For a group to develop
in an optimal way, group members need to be able to be
aware of, accept, and incorporate the shadow into their
learning through realness, honesty, and openness - with
oneself as well as others. If the individual members
develop greater self-awareness and personal
responsibility for their behavior, feelings, and
thoughts, then the shadow can be successfully integrated
into the group work.
It is not often easy to
confront our shadows or accept the lessons they have to
share. Sometimes groups or individuals resist the
teachings of the shadow because it can cause anxiety or
discomfort. Other times when we confront the shadow, if
we do not have the right tools, we can get stuck in
certain patterns of thought or behavior which can be
very frustrating and discouraging. Thankfully, there are
many cognitive and behavior tools to help us reach our
goals as a person or group and maximize our creative
potential.
The branches of our shadow tree
will explore some of our encounters with group and
personal shadows. By bringing these dark places to
light, we hope to capture a wholistic perspective of
working as a learning community and celebrate the
complexity of human nature.
*************************************************************************
We invite you to explore the
shadow by:
a.) Continuing with the paper
below for a more in-depth referencing and detail. If you
would like to download the work for offline study, you
may choose the following files pdf
or rtf.
b.) You may climb the shadow
tree of experiences as a group by clicking on the tree
icon above!
c.) Drop in to see how our
cohort dealt with faculty feedback requesting a more
specific demonstration
of our experience of shadow as a learning community.
The page references cited within that demonstration are
available in the downloadable files above in item
"a."
ROMANCING THE SHADOW IN GROUP LIFE
Blair Gelbond
Dedicated to Rafael Lopez-Pedraza
"The first prison I ever saw had inscribed on
it, 'Cease To Do Evil: Learn To Do Well;' but as the
inscription was on the outside, the prisoners could not
read it. It should have been addressed to the
self-righteous spectator in the street and should have
read, 'All have Sinned and Fallen Short of the Glory of
God.'"
G.B. Shaw
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
We have been born in interesting times. Edgar Morin
(1997) writes:
"All that which, in the past, made up the
radiant face of Western civilization is now becoming its
darker side. For instance, individualism, one of the
great achievements of Western civilization, is now
accompanied more and more by such phenomena as
fragmentation, solitude, egocentricity and the
disintegration of solidarity….We have realized that
development, originally viewed only from an economic
aspect, does not preclude human and moral
under-development.
This section of the C-16 G-Doc is dedicated to the
shadow areas of our group process. As our proposal notes
- the mission of our team was to:
"gently reflect the other side of what is
usually thought of as "competence" by
documenting (propositionally and presentationally) the
constraints, foibles, and frustrations of C-16.
Presented in a compassionate manner and in anonymous
terms to avoid any ostracizing, blaming, or harm, our
intention here is to shed some light on the difficulties
of our online learning community experience by reframing
our understanding of "group competence" to
include, identifying and even celebrating 'failure' as
well as 'success.'"
As a Cohort, our commitment to integration and
integrity requires that we consider C-16 in context -
ensconced within the Learning Community course, within
the Transformative Learning and Change concentration,
within CIIS, and, of course, within the contemporary
world at large.
Our reflections on the shadow are designed as an
invitation to a "radical openness:" one which
entails a willingness to grow and operate beyond our
comfort zones. It is also a call for processes of
inquiry that embody humility, selflessness, honesty, and
mutuality. The conceptual elements contained in the
following reflection emerge directly out of the C-16
experience and seek to connect theory and experience.
Because, as noted above, our mandate is to avoid any
harm, our intention here is to shed some light on the
difficulties of our online learning community,"
names and the details of most specific situations have
been omitted. And finally, there is the hope that our
work can serve one more purpose: to inspire each of us
to allow our ideas about transformative learning to keep
on transforming and evolving. This piece, as part of the
C-16 G-Doc, is offered in the spirit of wisdom and
compassion.
What makes this task particularly challenging,
however, is the reality that, as a dimension of
awareness, whatever lies "in the shadows" can
be compared to the dark side of the moon: forever facing
away from us and impervious to our
"straight-ahead" vision. One of the most
problematic aspects involved in grasping this how this
process works is the fact that the shadow areas of our
consciousness are literally created by the felt-need to
avoid "what is so." This is usually
accomplished by way of three cognitive mechanisms - all
of which are quite commonplace, but which function to
distort the processes of perception and thought. Denial
means - "we don't notice the fact that we don't
notice." Splitting arises when there are insights
we have difficulty accepting - often because they are
threatening to our self-image. When this is occurs, we
may unconsciously cordon off areas of our awareness,
making them "taboo." But as Shakespeare wrote:
"The truth will out." As soon as we have
accomplished this feat, the very qualities we have been
unable to accept within ourselves, appear - as if by
magic - in the outside world. What we see is that it is
"others" who possess these traits.
The capacity to be aware of our experience - moment
to moment - becomes even more challenging in the mix of
shadow and light that comprises group-life. As Goleman
observes:
"Points of view or versions of reality that
don't fit into the consensual view can be dismissed as
eccentricity or aberration. In the politics of
experience, the ease with which [we] can dismiss deviant
views - in fact, bury them - suggests that the
mechanisms of defense for doing so is the aggregate
weight of [our] shared lacunas. We do not see what we
prefer not to, and do not see that we do not see."
(1985 p. 234)
When this mechanism of disaffiliating threatening
material is expressed at the group level, it can become
a particularly serious concern. Although an entire group
of people may sense at some level, that something is
amiss, they are empowered to partition these feelings
into a separate "compartment" and are enabled
to carry on in their chosen direction unencumbered by
sorrow or guilt. In the extreme we encounter the
phenomenon of scapegoating, where a group, in the grip
of the collective shadow can be mesmerized, through a
kind of "participation mystique," into
projecting their shadow onto others, while justifying
the most extreme atrocities.
However, this process of "ignoring" (or
"ignore-ance,") has particular import today.
As Morin has argued, the persistence of a global nuclear
threat, environmental degradation the world over,
overpopulation (which he refers to as the global
demographic disorder), and the widening gap between and
the rich and the poor around the world need to be
regarded in light of the inter-retroactions between
these and other problems, crises, & threats. When
taken together this state of affairs can be accurately
labeled "a polycrisis." Morin strongly
suggests that given the levels of complexity we face:
"there is a need for a way of thinking that
brings together again that which has been put asunder
and compartmentalized, that respects diversity whilst
recognizing individuality, and that tries to discern
interdependences. In other words, we need a
multidimensional way of thinking…"(Morin, 1995)
CIIS is aware of this need. The school's existence
itself can be thought of as a response to the breakdown
of the sense of community across the globe, and the
awareness that today, our world is facing unprecedented
challenges that are simultaneously ecological, economic,
social, political, and organizational. As CIIS clearly
understands, an intensity degree of cooperation and
collaboration will be required if we are to be
successful in making our world sustainable over the long
term.
Clearly, the TLC concentration is based on the
understanding that, in this time of "systemic
breakdown" transformative changes are taking place
at the deepest levels of our social structure. From this
point of view the contemporary world is experiencing a
convergence of complexity with crisis; humanity, in turn
is being invited to turn a corner: to consciously move
beyond a time dominated by old territorial imperatives,
and toward an age of response-ability, characterized by
an awareness that we live together on a mutually shared
planet. The Cohort design is, obviously, an ideal
environment in which students can be both participants
and observers of all of these trends. Beyond this, the
Cohort experience can provide outstanding opportunities
for scholar-practitioners to learn how to catalyze,
rather than simply observe transformation.
The interdisciplinary nature of this Doctoral
program, which focuses on the principles of
self-organizing systems and transformative learning,
points to the critical importance of the contexts and
taken-for-granted paradigms underlying our view of the
world. As such it provides an invaluable knowledge base
for an approach to problem solving and creativity, which
is systemic in nature. Thus, Morin again (2001)
observes:
"I hold it to be impossible to know the parts
without knowing the whole just as it is impossible to
know the whole without knowing the parts.. That is the
crux of the matter, the direction of learning in which
education ought to be heading…In other words…[we
need] an organizing approach that takes account of the
two-way relationship between the whole and its
constituent parts, an approach that, instead of studying
an object in isolation, examines it in and through its
self-organizing relationship with its cultural, social,
economic, political and natural environment."
Morin goes on to argue that only a complex kind of
thinking can deal adequately with the
"inseparability of problems…in which each depends
on the other." (1999, p. 132) Montuori and Purser
(1989) have further addressed the problem of
"disjunctive thought," and the elaborated some
of the dangers of a one-sided view. They go on to say
that our tendency to relate to things in
"either/or" terms,
"… as ontologically opposed and mutually
exclusive categories, has created the fundamental
problem whereby one of the terms is viewed as superior
and desirable and the other is viewed as inferior. The
result of this extreme polarization is that the 'lower'
term manifests itself in peculiar ways as the 'shadow'
of the higher term."
Finally, as Montuori and Conti (1993) suggest the
conviction that we can once and for all, escape from and
thereby eliminate fear and pain is really no more than a
fantasy, a preoccupation with the idea that dominate our
world. It would certainly appear that feeding these
kinds of fantasies is a form of pride or hubris. And
this, in turn, involves beliefs regarding one's
emotional independence and their ability to be a
"master of their own destiny." It is perhaps,
a challenge to the notion "I Cannot," instead
insisting that, we are powerful indeed. But in
unconsciously seeking to achieve a form of absolute
control over one's environment and absolute independence
from human limitation and need, we only succeed in
becoming absolutely out of control and absolutely
dependent on the fluctuating fortunes of our world. In
other words, this mind-set does not (and cannot) work.
Interestingly enough, the Buddha saw this tendency to
be at the root of the majority of human suffering -
resulting in what Allan Watts has called "a
marvelous futility." In Buddhism this is referred
to as "the ocean of samsara" - the vicious
circle of trying to solve an impossible problem:
wresting life from death, pleasure from pain, what we
like from what we don't like, subject from object, self
from not-self. In practice it makes no more sense than
to seek to find a one-sided coin.
And, as we will see, this same "illusion of
duality and separation" can present serious
problems for Cohort members and leaders alike.
PART I.
PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Pogo
1. The Shadow:
The term "shadow" was first used by Carl G.
Jung to describe the repressed or denied parts of the
Self:
"The shadow is the negative side of the
personality, the sum of all those unpleasant qualities
we like to hide, together with the insufficiently
developed functions and the contents of the personal
unconscious....[The shadow] also displays a number of
good qualities such as normal instincts, appropriate
reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses,
etc." (Zweig and Abrams, p.3)
Imagine that we are each born into a "360-degree
personality." As infants we expressed the full
breadth of our human nature, without editing or
censoring. As we grew up, however, we learned that
certain slices of our 360-degree pie were unacceptable
to the people around us. Maybe we were shamed for crying
or punished for being angry. Maybe we were ridiculed for
wanting attention or acting proud of ourselves. And, so,
we instinctively responded by repressing those slices of
our pie. Bly (Zweig, pp. 6-10) offers an image of:
"throwing unacceptable qualities over our shoulder
into a bag, which we've been dragging around behind us
ever since."
Our shadows are all those parts we have split off or
denied - the facets of ourselves we are afraid to show -
even to ourselves. As long as they remain in this
"twilight condition" we are unable accept and
own them; consequently, they have no way to offer to us
the gifts they secretly possess. Generally speaking the
shadow has two major functions. First, it is a
storehouse for traits that we do not wish to own.
Secondly, the shadow acts as a film projector, allowing
us to perceive our fears and imperfections outside of
ourselves by "transferring" them onto people
in the external world. (Bly, 1988)
It is important to note that spread across these
"shadow fields" we can find two kinds of
traits: those we consider dark and destructive, and
others we tend to see as positive, radiant, and good.
For instance, it is all too common for children to be
ridiculed for their desire to write poetry, dance, or
engage in other forms of creative expression. In order
to avoid being shamed it is natural for a child to bury
these talents. There is yet one more category that tends
to be relegated to the shadow realm: capacities that are
devalued by a society's dominant paradigm or worldview.
So, in the context of more materialistic cultures people
will frequently submerge latent potentialities
associated with ethical, aesthetic, and spiritual
imperatives (Haronian, 1972).
The process of individual growth and integration
requires that we re-own our individual shadow.
Social/organizational development proceeds similarly.
Groups, large and small, have shadows - qualities that
are difficult to admit because they are incompatible
with those the group has chosen. For a community to
achieve a state of wholeness and optimum health,
qualities that have been disowned need to be integrated
into the conscious life of the group.
It is tempting to equate the obscurity and
"darkness" of the shadow realms with evil
itself. However, Jung was quite clear that this would be
an error. Human evil, as he defined it, is actually a
result of a "failure to meet the shadow." Said
another way, what most characterizes people who have
"stepped over the line" is not a lack of
conscience, but rather an absolute refusal to tolerate
what their inner awareness reveals. (Peck, 1983)
Fromm (1973) categorized this phenomenon as a
manifestation of "malignant narcissism" or
absorption in an entitled and grandiose self-image,
which exhibits intolerance to criticism. Unwilling to
"own up to" the evidence of his or her human
imperfection, such a person embarks on a course of
"radical avoidance." Each time an opportunity
for greater self-awareness comes up - the individual
moves away from the pain of self-revelation, rather than
toward it. In this way he or she avoids the
"legitimate suffering" that would arise
naturally, were they to stop sweeping things under the
rug. A radical unwillingness to suffer emotional pain is
invariably coupled with a tendency to scapegoat others.
Caught up in a continual attempt to avoid and outrace
their own shadow, such people generate suffering for
others; however, the blaming and projection they utilize
to do so may at times be quite subtle and difficult to
recognize.
Yet, any of us can fall into a lesser trap. Instead of
practicing a willing "dedication to reality,"
(whether comfortable or not), we willfully focus on
"being right," and consequently relate to
truth as if it were an enemy. As Shepherd points out,
"the greatest danger lies in one-sided
thinking." It is where we feel the most sure about
our perceptions and conclusions, and most certain of
ourselves, that we are the most vulnerable to doing evil
(2000, p. 227).
"The power of the collective mind reinforces our
most cherished ideas and opinions…It requires a
tremendous effort of consciousness to question dogmas of
orthodoxy and the behavior of authorities who have a
strong sense of entitlement. Projecting our shadow onto
others can justify the most extreme atrocities. In order
to thwart the Devil…the Church tortured herbalists,
midwives, and wise women suspected of witchcraft until
they confessed their crimes and denounced their
'accomplices.' Over 100,000 people were put to death I
Europe [under these circumstances], 83 percent of them
were women." (277)
As Milburn (1996) has pointed out the roots of this
phenomenon can be traced to childhood. Children who
split off and deny massive aspects of their true self
(especially those aspects their parents scorn, such as
sexuality, self-centeredness, and aggressive impulses
toward the parents) - will, when they become adults -
unconsciously attribute this "bad self" to
minority groups in the society. These groups will tend
to be despised as inferior, evil, or dangerous. And,
once a person has come to believe that a particular
group, such as Blacks, women, gays, etc., are
"bad" - they find it acceptable to take out
their rage against them. While this process is often
expressed through citizens' support for specific
socio-political agendas, it has, during the last
century, manifested in an extreme form through repeated
episodes of genocide against Armenians, Cambodians,
Jews, Bosnians, Tutsis, and others.
In sum, the shadow refers to the dark, unlived, and
repressed side of the ego. Elements of the shadow that
we do not accept tend to function behind our back,
leaking out when we least expect it. And as, Shepard (p.
271) notes: "If we have not sufficiently integrated
a part of our personal shadow, the collective shadow [is
able to sneak] in through this door."
2. The Power of
Group-Think
"There is…more than a quantum leap between
an ordinary group and a community; they are entirely
different phenomena. Time and again I have seen a
community begin to make a certain decision or establish
a certain norm when one of the members will suddenly
say, 'Wait a minute, I don't think I can go along with
this.' Mob psychology cannot occur in an environment in
which individuals are free to speak their minds and buck
a trend."
M. Scott Peck
But how do we manage to conceal these
"truths" from ourselves? How do we accomplish
the extraordinary feat whereby, as Martin Buber depicts,
we play: "the uncanny game of hide-and-seek in the
obscurity of the soul, in which it, the single human
soul, evades itself, avoids itself, hides from
itself." (Buber, p. 111)
Goleman (1985) has offered a simple, yet elegant
model of the way in which this process unfolds.
Attention, he asserts, involves the gathering of
information crucial to existence. When the information
registers as a threat, anxiety is a natural response; we
may use our attention to deny the threat, thereby
cushioning ourselves from fear. Goleman offers the
following analogy:
"The frame around a picture is a visual
directive focusing our gaze toward what it surrounds and
away from everything else. It defines what is in the
picture and what is out. The framer's art is to build
margins that blend with a picture so we notice what is
framed rather than the frame itself. So with attention…It
defends what we notice, but with such subtlety that we
rarely notice how we notice. Attention is the frame
around experiences."(1985, p. 20)
Goleman's thesis is that we have learned to direct
our lives aided by an ingenious capacity to deceive
ourselves: rather than face threatening facts, we can
sink into a sort of blissful oblivion. Our very human
urge for security prompts us to create "dormative
schemas" within our awareness, and in the process
we twist and bend the outlines of our attention. Yet, we
also have the capacity to gain glimpses of "the
edges that frame our experience." In doing so we
will find ourselves empowered to have more of a say over
these "margins," as well as the limits to
thought, feeling, and action these schema impose (Goleman,
pp. 21-25).
Goleman goes on to argue that the "collective
mind" is as vulnerable to self-deception as the
individual mind, adding that:
"The particular zones of shadow for a given
collective are the product of a simple calculus of the
schemas shared by its members: the areas of experience
blanked out in the most individual minds will be the
darkest zones for the group as a whole…Cultures and
nations offer the best example of this principle writ
large." (1985, p. 226)
Goleman's description of this
"interpersonal-level of defenses" draws on
work by Irving Janis, who came to formulate the notion
of "groupthink" from research on groups
ranging from infantry platoons to executives in
leadership training. In all the groups he studied, Janis
found, to one degree or another, a trade-off between
preserving a sense of "cozy solidarity," and
the willingness to face facts and voice views that
challenged key "shared schemas" of the group
self.
Examples of this group dynamic abound: from Arthur
Schlesinger's report of President Kennedy's "Bay of
Pigs" fiasco to NASA's final account of the events
leading up to the explosion of the space shuttle
Challenger. When this kind of dynamic is operating,
group members are reluctant to do anything that would
break the sense of euphoric cohesiveness, and it is
quite natural to assume that there is consensus. This
illusion is maintained because members,
"often become inclined, without quite realizing
it, to prevent latent disagreements from surfacing…the
group leader and members support one another, playing up
areas of convergence in their thinking, at the expense
of fully exploring divergences that might disrupt the
atmosphere of congeniality."(Goleman, pp. 186-187)
In such a scenario - "to object"- is to stand
apart from the group. Rather than become a pariah of
sorts, potential dissenters remain silent.
Self-censorship then becomes one pole of a mutually
reinforcing feedback loop in relation to the prevailing
group norm. The predictable consequence is a situation
in which important feedback never enters the collective
awareness. In this sort of climate a sense of stability
may in fact be achieved; yet, at the same time,
questionable shared assumptions thrive unchallenged.
"The first victim of groupthink," concludes,
Goleman, "is critical thought." He continues:
"whether in a therapy group or a meeting of
presidential advisors, the dynamics of groupthink are
the same. Typically, talk is limited to a few courses of
action, while the full range of alternatives is ignored.
No attention is paid to the values implicit in this
range of alternatives…The group simply cramps its
attention and hobbles its information-seeking to
preserve a cozy unanimity. Loyalty to the group requires
that members not raise embarrassing questions, attack
weak arguments, or counter softheaded thinking with hard
facts. Only comfortable shared schemas are allowed full
expression." (Goleman, p. 183)
Here we notice parallels with a few of the core
principles of transformative learning, principles that
are at the heart of the Cohort experience. Mezirow
(2000, p. 7) cites the work of Langer, in describing two
distinct types of learning. "Mindful
learning," as defined by Langer, is the conscious
creation of new categories, openness to new information,
and an implicit ability to be aware of more than one
perspective. "Mindless learning" involves a
reliance on previously ingrained actions, distinctions,
and categories as a basis for meeting the challenges of
life.
Clearly, the emergence of a milieu involving
"group-think" would be highly detrimental in
an academic context, damaging our ability to remain
aware and accountable regarding our "paradigms of
inquiry." As Fay explains:
"All knowledge claims are necessarily embedded
within specific ways of engaging the world….Fallibilism…reconceives
objectivity not as an escape from cognitive commitments,
but instead in part as the critical recognition of them.
[However], critical recognition…demands [also] that
investigators be accountable in the sense of recognizing
their…political commitments…the ways their
investigations are socially positioned….Self-aware
social analyses consequently must include…[not only]
that this positionality be acknowledged, but that the
voices of excluded others somehow find their way into
scientific reports and analyses." (1996, pp.
216-218)
The choice to remain "mindful" necessarily
involves vigilance at both the group and individual
levels. A such it requires a willingness to notice when
defenses against anxiety are beginning to insinuate
themselves into awareness and inquiry. Fay is quite
clear regarding what is actually involved in putting
concepts, such as "objective inquiry" and
"fallibilism" into practice. In discussing the
essence of critical intersubjectivity he states,
"Objective inquiry is one in which inquirers…bracket
their own perspectives in order to enter sympathetically
into the perspectives of rivals and critically examine
the perspective which comes most easily to them. …Consequently,
objective inquiries must insure collisions between rival
perspectives."(1996, pp. 212-213)
Be this as it may, we tend to have difficulty living
up to these ideals in group-life for at least one simple
reason: at some level we recognize that, without our
implicit agreement to "follow the rules"
regarding what we may notice and what we may say - the
veneer of consensus in our everyday interactions can
easily peel away. Sooner or later, moments of serious
contention will arise. And, when group coziness breaks
down, things can become very tense indeed. At one level
or another we recognize this reality.
Interestingly enough, Janis found that it is not
uncommon for groups to defend against this possibility
by implicitly appointing one or more participants as a
"mindguard." Such a person's unspoken
responsibility is to be on alert: in essence, standing
vigilant to protect the group from an "attack by
information"- information it does not want to know.
Critical thinking and dissent, Goleman asserts, can be
antidotes to shared illusions, ensuring that group
schemas will be more in keeping with reality - or at
worst honest mistakes rather than the product of
groupthink. "The healthy alternative, of course, is
a group that balances a sense of unity with an openness
to all relevant information - even at the risk of a
fracas from time to time." (1985, p. 189) Finally,
it is useful to remember that "acceptable
dissent," is not really dissent at all, for views
that are considered "acceptable," will
naturally be guided by the group's lacunae and shared
schemas. Furthermore, we can expect that actually being
the spokesperson for "unacceptable dissent"
would be a difficult role indeed.
As already presented - when groupthink is operating
each individual in the group feels him- or herself to be
under an injunction to avoid making penetrating
criticisms that might bring on a clash with fellow
members and destroy the unity of the group. Therefore, a
willingness to "rock the boat" is an essential
quality of all those who would seek to counterbalance
the inertial pull of collective denial. However, we need
to be aware of another reciprocal reality: while such a
an individual (or subgroup) may be serving the larger
group by bringing into the open those perceptions or
facts that have been hidden, these dissenting members
can be seen as a "deserters" from the group's
unspoken norms.
It follows then, that for any collective to move
beyond its blind spots and survive the rigors of
"truth-telling and hearing," members will need
to access resources which can nourish and sustain the
group when its natural resistances and inertia come to
the fore. Group participants' readiness to consciously
cultivate qualities such as fortitude, patience,
humility, endurance, persistence, and tolerance will be
of immeasurable value.
3. Transference
and Emotions
"Americans are trained from infancy for
mutationhood. They are taught to ignore their
connectedness with others and imagine that whatever
successes or failures they experience in life are a
function of their own dissociated agency."
Philip Slater
There is an old saw, which says, "A camel is a
horse designed by committee." While groups can
often be quite productive, it is also the case that a
group's process can interfere with the accomplishment of
essential tasks. Why is it that so often groups seem to
get "stuck?" Smith and Berg address this
question:
"…Several observations strike us: [one of
these is that] a great deal of energy seems to be
invested in getting groups 'unstuck,' even though it is
not always obvious what produced the paralysis in the
first place. [Also]… parties in conflict [may] ask for
assistance in 'resolving' the situation. ….Yet, our
experience is that attempts to resolve conflicts produce
only temporary relief. The conflict seems either to
reappear at another time or to shift to another
important dimension - typically, to the context in which
the group is located or the individual members who make
up the group." (1997, pp. 8-9 )
Up to this point we have seen some of the ways in which
groups can exhibit a "resistance" to
information. We have also considered the possibility of
a group's disinclination to developing a capacity for
self-reflection - particularly when the implications
appear to be threatening. However, other outcomes can
follow. The group which moves away from, rather than
toward, important insights can unwittingly slip into an
authoritarian way of being. When we can tacitly
encourage one another's avoidance by virtue of an
unwritten social code (which says we will see only what
we are supposed to see), this very process often begins
to take on a special urgency. A secondary agenda arises
as the group seeks to divert its attention from these
very actions. In this light, the following appraisal is
worthy of our care and attention:
"Questions that can't - or won't be asked are a
sure sign of a lacuna. [And] the creation of blind spots
is a key [tool] of repressive regimes, allowing them to
obliterate information, which threatens their official
line. In doing so, they define one frame for events as
valid, any other as subversive & still other events
[as] beyond the permissible bounds for attention…
Lacunas can bury "dangerous" ideas…A
totalitarian state, like the totalitarian self, finds
its official version of reality too fragile to withstand
an unbridled flow of ideas." (Goleman, pp. 228-232)
Be this as it may, it is critical to understand, that
"resistance" applies to the realm of emotions,
as well as to the comprehension of information. Smith
and Berg argue that emotions such as "anxiety"
(or fear) are pivotal, and require a group's mindful
attention. This suggests that, for a group to develop
its potential, group members need to find ways of
accepting and incorporating - through openly sharing -
at least a modicum of the anxiety they are experiencing.
Here the authors are referring to a sense of realness,
honesty, and openness - with oneself as well as others.
What might be at the root of this sense of anxiety?
Smith and Berg suggest that, whatever a group's
agreed-upon objectives, the experience of being part of
a group, in and of itself, has a way of evoking primal
emotional states. They add that, in a great many cases,
these are ignored at the group's own peril. The critical
need - for the group as a whole, as well as for
individual members, is recognizing and allowing space
for these primordial feeling states. Counterintuitive as
it may seem, the authors suggest that if a group truly
wishes to move forward, one of the most important
directions for it to go (at least initially) is
"backwards." That is, members need to be able
to accept and "own" that they are relating in
ways that have a "childish" or regressive
quality.
"Paradoxically, individuals eager to be very
present in a new [group] situation need to be able to
engage in this regression in order to learn what of
their experience is merely an importation from previous
history and what is meaningfully rooted in the here and
now. Those [members who are] most invested in resisting
the regression process [will also be the ones] least
able to separate out the past from the present and deal
with the present on its own terms." (1997, p. 126)
Smith and Berg are not suggesting, however, a
wholesale de-evolution into a sort of kindergarten
chaos. On the contrary - participants' willingness to
"slide backwards" will eventually turn out to
be a source of empowerment, enabling them to return to
the here and now with new strength and clarity. They
will be able to assume more, rather than less, personal
responsibility for what is happening in the group.
The roots of much of Smith and Berg's work can be
found in the theories of British psychiatrist, Wilfred
Bion of the Centre for Applied Social Research in
London's Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (usually
known as the Tavistock School). Bion is credited as the
founder of the "group-as-a-whole" approach to
understanding collective behavior. This model (also
known as "Group Relations") regards
task-oriented groups as exhibiting a two-tiered
communication system: one overt which deals with the
ostensible work of the group, and the other covert,
which expresses the group's unspoken hopes, wishes, and
fears. (Banet and Hayden, 1977)
The Tavistock approach to groups resembles various
aspects of group-dynamic therapy models, and draws upon
theory derived primarily from psychoanalysis and
Lewinian field dynamics (Rioch, 1970). However, the
model is not intended as a form of psychotherapy: the
groups that Bion studied were composed of more or less
healthy people who were not significantly disturbed on
any index of mental health criteria. These task-oriented
groups functioned more or less effectively. Despite this
fact, Bion noticed that a group process often manifested
in such a way that members' behavior appeared akin to
"temporary psychosis, or said another way, "a
reduction of effective contact with reality."
Unless given systematic attention, such dynamics on both
individual and collective levels will simply tend to
remain outside of our conscious awareness.
Based on his clinical work Bion suggested that groups
have difficulty attending to their overt purpose due to
powerful, unconscious sources of conflict. His research
primarily focused on groups which were task-oriented,
and which sought to pursue their goals in a rational and
considered fashion. Bion noticed that powerful emotional
drives frequently seemed to interfere with the
functioning of these "work groups." Over time
he concluded that these basically chaotic,
disintegrative forces arose out small-groups' tendencies
to adopt one of three primitive emotional states -
dependency, pairing, or fight-flight. He called these
states "basic assumptions." For example, he
identified the "fight-flight group assumption"
after observing that it is not uncommon for a group to
behave as if it were "threatened," and in need
of protection. Such a group will orient itself to either
fighting with or running away from, this undefined
threat.
It is not surprising, then, to find that a potent
force driving the dynamics of group interaction is a
phenomenon known as "transference." Group
members frequently "transfer" emotions
originating in childhood onto one another, as
present-time intra-group relationships commonly become
the stage on which former dynamics are re-enacted. There
is a tendency to replay previous unfinished emotional
episodes - both positive and negative - as if members of
the group were extensions of one's family of origin.
This phenomenon largely takes place without the direct
awareness of the individuals involved, and often has
little to do with the actual situation at hand.
Accordingly, Smith and Berg specifically advise that a
thorough understanding of groups requires an examination
of both conscious and unconscious processes. (Smith and
Berg, p. 17)
As widespread as anxiety is in group-life, it is far
from the only emotion participants' experience. In fact
anxiety itself can often signal a general resistance (or
"reactivity") to other emotions that are
arising. These can include affection and envy, longing
and antipathy, admiration and jealousy, joy and
aggression - to name but a few. What Smith and Berg
suggest is that what often gives rise to group-level
anxiety is the very attempt to gain control over these
often opposite and conflicting emotions.
Returning to the reciprocal metaphors of group "stuckness"
and "movement, we find this description by Smith
and Berg (pp. 215-217) of the "feel" of these
two divergent experiences:
"In the case of the person or group that runs in
place or walks in circles there is motion but no
movement. Movement refers to leaving old patterns at
least for a time and exploring new psychological or
emotional ground in the life of the group. The first of
these is the reclaiming of emotions and reactions that
have been split off and projected onto other
individuals, subgroups, or groups. The second involves
immersion in and exploration of the polarities that are
part of the group experience."
4. Developmental
Levels
"What would give light must first endure
burning."
Viktor Frankl
If it is actually true that group-life is fraught
with emotions - often very strong, and operating outside
conscious awareness - is it possible to utilize this
energy - for purposes of individual growth,
interpersonal harmony, and task accomplishment? How can
we work with, and channel, the powerful range of
energies we experience - which range from love and
affection, to contempt and distaste? Schedlinger
(Schramm, 1994) argues that aggressive behavior within
the group can stem from either individual issues (e.g.
jealousy, fear of attack, or loss of identity), or in
response to group psychological factors including poor
inter-group personality matches, insufficient
leadership, or unclear group goals). However, these
impulses do not necessarily have to result in a loss of
group cohesion, or ultimately in fragmentation and
dissolution. On the contrary, if members possess both
the tools and willingness to work creatively with these
feelings, the emotions themselves can actually serve to
promote solidarity.
It would appear that disseminating information
regarding group development and common patterns of group
behavior - is itself a powerful tool - one which can
empower a group over time to become more self-aware and
self-directing. Once again, it is Bion who is credited
with first identifying these developmental principles;
these were explored in depth in two of our assigned
readings: Bud McClure's Putting a New Spin on Groups,
(1998) and as previously quoted, Smith and Berg's
Paradoxes of Group Life (1997).
McClure's specific focus is on how groups change,
evolve, and mature. He characterizes group development
as evolving within a context of periods of relative calm
punctuated by intervals of chaotic activity, adding that
the cycle of "order-chaos-order" is essential
for growth and reorganization: without undergoing
periods of upheaval groups cannot evolve. Drawing on
chaos theory McClure argues that human groups can be
seen as systems that fluctuate between states of being
either "at, near, or far from equilibrium." As
a system moves farther from equilibrium, its state of
increasing instability itself evokes opportunities for
movement to states of higher organization and
complexity.
McClure (1998, pp. 18-58) who builds on both group
relations and chaos theory, proposes a model of group
development that divides the life span of a group into
seven stages: pre-forming, unity, disunity,
conflict/confrontation, disharmony, harmony, and
performing. Within this model each succeeding stage
represents a higher level of organization, subsuming the
previous one and adding to it. Basic mastery of each
stage is necessary for the group to continue growing and
actualizing its potential.
In stages one and two - termed the pre-forming and
unity stages, respectively, group members ordinarily
experience considerable anxiety, and this tends to be
suppressed and masked. Safety needs are a central
concern. Members will struggle with a sense of
ambiguity, and will tend to conform for the sake of
unity. Peck (1987), a founder of the Center for
Community Encouragement, offers a similar description of
these group stages, but in all denotes four phases of
development - pseudo-community, chaos, emptiness, and
community. Comparing Peck's and McClure's formulation it
is evident that there is a good deal of correspondence
between them. In the following narrative Peck colorfully
describes his own experience of the earliest group
stage:
"....The first response of a group in seeking to
form a community is most often to try to fake it. The
members attempt to be an instant community by being
extremely pleasant with one another and avoiding all
disagreement. This attempt - this pretense of community
- is what I term 'pseudo-community.' It never works.
"I was quite nonplussed when I first encountered
pseudo-community…[among] highly sophisticated
achievement oriented [people who] were all accustomed to
being 'unspontaneously vulnerable.' Within minutes they
were sharing deep, intimate details of their lives. And
during the first break they were already hugging. Poof -
instant community! But something was missing. At first I
was delighted, and I thought, 'Boy this is a piece of
cake'….But by the middle of the day I began to grow
uneasy, and it was impossible to put my finger on the
problem. I didn't have the wonderful, joyful, excited
feeling I had always had in community. I was in fact,
slightly bored. Yet, to all intents and purposes the
group seemed to be behaving just like a real community…
"I did not sleep well that night. Near dawn…I
decided I owed it to the group to disclose my sense of
unease…Within five minutes of the end of the silence,
these seemingly mellow, affectionate people were almost
at one another's throats. Dozens of interpersonal
resentments from the previous day surfaced practically
simultaneously. Fast and furiously the members began
clobbering each other with their different ideologies
and theologies. It was glorious chaos!
"And finally we were able to begin the work of
building real community…But until that point of chaos,
the group, with all its sophistication, [was unable to
move on]."(1987, p. 86-90)
Peck mentions that the basic dynamic of this early
stage is conflict-avoidance. While genuine communities
often do experience gentle and lengthy periods free from
discord, this is because they have become competent in
working with dissonance, when it has arisen in the past.
Peck asserts that what is diagnostic of
pseudo-community, is "the minimization, the lack of
acknowledgement, or the ignoring of individual
differences." When a group is able not only to
"tolerate" individual differences, but
actually encourages them to surface, it almost
immediately moves on to the next phase of community
development, which Peck labels "chaos."
McClure terms this next stage,
"conflict/confrontation," adding that it is
the least understood area of group-work. To underscore
the significance of this period in terms of overall
group maturation, three of seven stages in McClure's
model address the issue of group conflict.
5. The
Significance of Conflict
"If one does have an appreciation of the
phenomenology of opposites, in which we become what we
hate, then a politics of compassion, as contrasted with
a politics of violent conflict, begins to become a
cultural possibility."
William Irwin Thompson
The notion that human groups develop and mature in
stages is reflected in the rest of nature. Flowers open
over time, tree growth is cyclic, and individual human
beings move through discernable phases of physical,
emotional, and cognitive maturation. It is now held that
groups, too, move through various stages of development,
with each stage serving as a platform on which the next
one is erected. In each stage of development, the
group's task is to master stage-appropriate issues. For
instance, groups in the pre-forming and unity stages,
grapple with the issue of safety. According to McClure,
a group that patiently works its way through the
conflict stage is then able to move on to the Harmony
and Performing stages. Hence, it is critical that the
early foundations are soundly established. (McClure, pp.
168-9)
In McClure's model stage three - disunity - depicts
the emergence of frustration and the indirect expression
of irritation among group members. Stage four - the
conflict/confrontation stage - refers to a period in
which members directly challenge the leader. Disharmony,
or stage five, represents inter-member conflict as the
group comes to terms with its diversity.
McClure asserts that the conflict stages are a
critical period in a group's development, for,
"the direct expression of conflict and its
resulting resolution provides a bridge between the
superficial conversations of the first stage…and the
direct expression of feelings in the harmony and
performing stages." (McClure, p. 44)
McClure offers the following assessment: once the
group has developed a minimum level of cohesiveness, it
is the group leader's role to facilitate the open and
safe expression of emotions such as irritation, anger,
and upset. McClure is quite clear on this point; he
contends that a group's development will cease without
the expression and resolution of conflict. However, it
is common for both group leaders and members to avoid
these tasks due to their own discomfort with them. While
it searches for solutions to an impasse, the group will
remain unstable, and at this juncture containment of the
immense anxiety experienced by the group members is
paramount. Here the group arrives at a "pivot
point," where powerful desires for the familiar -
for things to stay the same - vie for ascendancy with
opposing motivations for continuing growth and
evolution. According to McClure most groups who reach
this critical point fail to contain themselves long
enough for a successful resolution to emerge (McClure,
134).
However, there is an alternative, which can be seen
as an "alchemical approach" to conflict. It
does involve enduring the "pulls" seemingly
opposing polarities until a creative solution is found -
until something unexpected emerges that resolves the
conflict on another level. This willingness to
"abide in duality" does not mean ignoring the
problem and hoping a solution will easily appear;
rather, it involves completely developing all aspects of
the conflict.
A number of useful perspectives on the universal
issue of conflict can be found in a book called The
Magic of Conflict (1988) by Thomas Crum, a highly
accomplished teacher of aikido. Crum notes that conflict
is actually neither positive nor negative - it is
natural: it simply "is." Conflict can be
thought of as an interference pattern of energies. The
reality is that nature uses conflict as its primary
method of creating change and development - forming
beautiful mountains, beaches, canyons, etc. Crum asks us
to notice that conflict appears at various times in
every facet and dimension of life. Given the
omnipresence of this phenomenon, one would think that we
would make understanding and handling conflict a major
priority in our lives. But, much more commonly, we seek
ways of avoiding and denying it. Why?
Crum maintains that there are two myths, which have
had a major impact on how we view conflict. The first
myth is that "conflict is negative;" The
second, that "conflict = contest." Yet, the
truth is, that conflict simply is a part of life itself,
and that it need not be regarded as a
"contest." It is we humans who make a mental
choice (consciously or not) to see it as a contest, a
game in which there are winners and losers. We have been
conditioned to believe that "winning" itself
is very important. Even those of us who are not very
competitive tend to consider "losing" to be a
negative thing, something to be avoided. Caught up in
this mythology we create stress at all levels of our
lives - personal, social, political, etc. And, generally
we create this sense of difficulty out of our imagined
need to be "right," rather than
"wrong." (Crum, 1988)
Nonetheless, in organizational life the most familiar
scenario is avoidance of conflict. This perspective is
presented with great clarity by Argyris (1993) in a
critique entitled, "Skilled Incompetency."
According to Argyris, we learn the skill of being
incompetent; and this learning pervades our
organizations. In practice the unspoken corporate ideal
reads something like this:
" Agree with your superiors.
" Provide information, but don't create conflict.
" Don't change the course of action.
The paper's premise is that - challenging, as it is
to learn to articulate one's viewpoints in such a way
that they do not surprise, embarrass, or threaten others
- most of us, eventually, do master this skill. In this
regard Arygris poses a question: "Is the act of
always getting along with others always an asset to an
organization?" His answer is "no," and
this is because avoiding conflict can actually be
destructive to any organization or group which is
task-oriented. Counterintuitive as it may seem, it is
our skill in getting along with others that itself is
the problem. In this scenario a person who is a skilled
communicator will set out to produce a certain outcome,
and succeed in doing so. For example, let's say that his
intention is to clarify his views in a way that avoids
generating conflict and upsetting others. In a company
where cordiality tends to dominate, arguments will
naturally be suppressed. Such a meeting often results in
a list of things to do, but no conclusion. Later,
everyone-all the people who were so skilled at avoiding
potential interpersonal friction -wonder why nothing has
gotten done. (Argyris, 1993)
Argyris (1993)also emphasizes that "skilled
incompetence" is a hothouse for breeding mixed
messages, which in fact are convenient for several
levels of an organization. For instance, managers can
say, "Be innovative and take risks, but be
careful," and in practice this translates to:
"Go, but only so far" without specifying
"how far." This ambiguity covers the executive
who wants to promote innovation, but not to be held
accountable if "far," becomes "too
far." The receivers of this message, in turn, can
be grateful for ambiguous messages, which assist anyone
responsible for the requested innovations to camouflage
their own shortcomings. In these kinds of very
commonplace situations department heads will understand
the implicit subtext of these mixed messages and will
avoid making discomforting requests for clarification.
As Argyris (1993) points out - it is not possible for
us to relinquish our "skilled incompetence"
without overcoming suspicions, and we cannot do this
without discussing them. But this very openness often
violates an unstated rule in most organizations:
"Uncomfortable situations shall not be discussed;
business will continue in its cordial but ineffective
manner." Arygris also suggests that such
paradoxical scenarios are widespread common in our
organizations; participating in such loops with
composure and a minimum of distress involves learning
and skill, and also can lead to mishaps and misfortune.
The reality is that conflicts are in fact often
difficult challenging to sort out and resolve. So, it is
not surprising that most of us are ambivalent at best,
when it comes down to the willingness to work through
them. Leaders in particular often grasp that such a
process will be demanding and arduous. Consequently,
they too, may avoid the issue altogether.
Many, if not most conflicts in organizations appear
purely personal in nature. Generally, they seem to arise
out of "personality clashes," on the one hand,
or obvious conflicts of interest, such as
"interdepartmental wrangling," on the other.
Yet, should these accumulate - conflicts which seemed
unique to the situation which spawned them - can often
be seen as widespread by-products of a dysfunctional
organizational system. (249) There are many instances
where - if we are to truly appreciate organizational
conflict - we will need to look beyond persons, words,
and behaviors, and perceive the deeper issues of which
they are a manifestation. (249?)
The central question then becomes whether a team is
ready, willing, and able to direct its attention toward
the heart of the organizational system itself. If so,
the challenge becomes one of seeking solutions that
reach deep enough into underlying attitudes and
relationships, so as to avoid the automatic generation
of future symptomatic problems. Situational conflict has
the potential to reveal new processes, ideaes, or
relationships waiting to be born. Discord has the
capacity to point directly to what is not working in a
group or organization - if we are able to look
carefully. (199)
At times conflicts that arise indicate that some form
of fundamental change is called for at a systemic level;
and for precisely this reason, hierarchical, autocratic
systems consistently resist change, albeit at the
expense of organizational learning. Such systems may
instinctively seek to defend themselves by actively
suppressing conflict, or they may use other means such
as denial, rationalization, or diversion. A frequent
method is the invention of stories that personalize
systemic discord. And, individuals who are invested in
maintaining the status quo can easily convince
themselves to endorse stories that blame individuals for
systemic failures, when deeper causal factors are at
work. Adversarial stories then serve to disguise and
distract attention from fixing the holes exposed by the
conflict - factors which may be structural, procedural,
or relational in nature. Simply speaking, it is easier,
and more convenient to focus attention on individuals,
pairs, and subgroups.
Naturally, a leader's attitudes about conflict
resolution will have a potent impact on the direction
taken by a given team. Janis, for example, found that
often, once the leader had expressed his views, members
fell into line, deferring to him or her. It was not
necessarily the case that leaders stifled dissent; in
fact many appeared quite democratic in how they ran
things; the salient issue was more a matter of the
leader subtly reinforcing compliance with their own
opinions. In summary, writes, Goleman, "The
groupthink that resulted was a matter of degree:
somewhat less initiative by members, a notable lack of
opposition to the leader's views, a compliant falling in
line behind him."(1985, p.192)
No doubt we are all highly conditioned around ideas
of autarchy. For example, we can notice that,
particularly in primary and secondary school systems,
the value of "obedience" tends to be taken for
granted. The importance of compliance remains
unquestioned, and entrenched. Such training is good
preparation for living in an authoritarian society, but
not in a democratic one: for a democracy depends on
informed & educated minds, on actively engaged
people, rather than passively receptive ones. Teams that
aspire to be self-managing are wise to keep these
realities in mind.
While autocratic approaches tend to settle conflicts
unilaterally - through decisions backed up by threats of
coercion or manipulation, teams that are truly
self-governing learn to own their conflicts and become
responsible for resolving them, so that the entire
paradigm for conflict shifts from one of avoidance or
confrontation to one of learning. (251) In such a
climate divergent perspectives, needs, and expectations
can be negotiated, rather than reduced to commands on
the one hand, or avoided altogether on the other. (245)
However, the truth is that we often feel more
comfortable among people similar to us. Our challenge is
to deeply appreciate the fact that profound growth can
emerge out of lively debates in which participants come
from clashing worldviews. Obviously, in order for such
an exchange to be life-giving, it must be conducted in
an atmosphere of respect - listening and receiving what
the other has to say, rather than simply promoting and
defending ones' own position. Even then, allowing the
foundations of our belief systems to be called into
question can feel very unsettling, as the ground seems
to shiver and shake beneath us. Yet, it is undeniable
that each of us has the potential to find within
ourselves the fortitude to engage in this kind of
radical openness.
One might even say that, because we linked to one
another in an inter-subjective reality, we depend upon
the other to live as freely and truly as possible. It is
as your distinctness, candidness, and sincerity has the
capacity to elicit my own capacity to embody these
qualities. And, because, being human, each of us is
finite, our comprehension of truth must be limited as
well.
In this light we can contemplate a form of
intersubjective meeting which Maurice Friedman (1983,
pp. 121-122) has called a "dialogue of
touchstones." Such a dialogue is characterized by
"an acknowledgment…in which each person's point
of view is confirmed through coming into dialogue with
the opposing views of others. The goal…is not the
community of affinity, or likemindedness, but the
'community of otherness.'" This way of being with
other human beings involves the welcoming of difference
or conflict. Rather than fearing or trying to evade this
form of meeting others, this orientation calls forth a
profound appreciation and honoring of the realm of
dialogic meeting. As Friedman goes on to say: "The
'confirmation of otherness' that the 'dialogue of
touchstones' assumes & brings into existence means
that no voice is without value…[that] every voice
needs to be heard precisely because it represents a
unique relationship to reality."
Surely, in the depths of our hearts we feel that
human life is worth the risk of being with others on the
cutting edge of change. For it is only through such
meetings, that we as individuals - and the institutions
that surround us - will be enabled to transform and
evolve. (Shepherd, p. 280)
6. Behavior Patterns
"I've always thought that some of the things
people suffer most from are the things they tell
themselves that are not true."
Elvin Semrad
It is vital to distinguish between the affects,
behavior, and cognitions, which express the life of the
group-as-a-whole, and those, which express the reactions
and responses of individual members, per say. This
distinction can become more evident whenever a group
member becomes aware that they are having intense
feelings that are different from those they have
experienced either in isolation or in other group
contexts. If a group member notices this is occurring it
can be worthwhile for them to explore the possibility
that they may be experiencing emotion "on behalf
of" other group members, without being consciously
aware of doing so. (Smith and Berg, p. 63)
Unless systematically attended to, such dynamics tend
to function outside of our awareness, at both individual
and collective levels. For this reason that Smith and
Berg utilize a group-as-a-whole level of analysis, and
argue that a comprehensive understanding of group
process necessarily involves an examination of both
conscious and unconscious dynamics. (1997, p. 17)
The authors offer a useful example of such an event:
"Consider…an individual who seems always out
of step with the other group members and who draws a
great deal of hostility for his or her apparent
deviance. At the individual and interpersonal levels,
the pain and anger inside the "deviant" member
as well as the distain, hostility, and smugness inside
the other individuals, point to the tension and
polarization in the interpersonal relationships in the
group. By changing the frame to the group-as-a-whole
level of analysis, these same observations may suggest
[the group's] sense of relief - based on the shared
belief that the painful…feelings in the group are
located in only one person and will disappear once the
person leaves. The group-as-a-whole phenomenon of
scapegoating points out that what may be experienced as
painful and tension-filled at the personal… level…may
[in fact] be deeply comforting for the entire
group." (p. 64)
Smith and Berg provide us with an important reminder:
that all groups, if they are to fulfill their purpose,
require the presence of diverse participants. These
differences - in talents, interests, perspectives,
preferences, convictions, etc. - need to be brought into
the group and then integrated in a way that
simultaneously allows for a sense of unity. The authors
state that this group-level requirement to unify
differences: "makes it almost inevitable that
conflict will occur." They add, "[It is] the
very fact that individuals contribute differences
[which] makes it possible for the group to be effective,
yet these same differences threaten the group's capacity
to function." (p. 65)
The most fundamental dilemma for individuals in
groups arises out of the powerful "mixed
feelings," or ambivalence, generated by group
membership itself. They explain:
"Each individual upon joining a group,
experiences…the simultaneous wish to be both "a
part" of the group, and "apart from" the
group. This simultaneous desire for inclusion and fusion
triggers the [reciprocal] fear of…absorption and
deindividuation, while the desire to be independent
triggers…fear[s] of exclusion, aloneness, and
isolation…. [This] creates a sense of existential
anxiety for all of us at primitive levels of awareness.
"While the nature of the fusion-abandonment
tension may not be self-evident to the individual in the
group setting, the anxiety that emanates from it usually
is….An initial goal for the individual in the group is
to keep a lid on this anxiety by pretending that it does
not exist, or by replacing it with behaviors that seem
acceptable to others in the group….[However], when
anxiety is handled in a way that increases it…another
oscillating process in the deep structure of the
individual [is activated]." (p. 66)
There is a wealth of psychoanalytically oriented
research that is highly relevant to understanding this
phenomenon. The research suggests a powerful
correspondence between an infant's experience in the
first few months of life, and the adult experience of
participating in a group process. Freud himself
understood that individual and group psychologies are
intimately intertwined. Although his work was focused
almost exclusively upon individuals, he recognized
clearly that at birth we immediately find ourselves
interacting within a group setting - the
family.Obviously, an infant is utterly dependent upon
his or her immediate social environment (Scheidlinger,
1952).
For an infant the primary caregiver holds the keys
not merely to pleasure and pain, or gratification and
frustration, but also to life and death. And for just
these reasons, it is natural for infants to have
powerful love-hate feelings arising toward a mothering
figure. She (or he) after all, is the source of feeding,
holding, attending, and nurturing; and they are also the
person who frustrates the infant's desires for these
vital attentions. A substantial amount of data now
indicates that it is routine for an infant to split off
the "good" feelings associated with the mother
who gratifies, from the "bad" feelings
associated with the mother who frustrates. Because an
infant must find some way of dealing with these intense
and overwhelming affects in relation to his or her
primary nurturing figure, an effective (although
primitive) way of doing so is known as
"splitting" - which may be described simply as
"partitioning a set into two subsets."
A substantial body of literature has shown that all
of the adults "psychological defense
mechanisms"are rooted in the humble circumstances
of early childhood. These (originally designed to
"protect" us from emotional pain) include
denial, splitting, displacement, minimization,
rationalization, projection, and projective
identification, among others. The extent to which these
"numbing devices" rigidify and continue on
into adulthood, will be a function of the overall level
of nurturing received during childhood.
It is fascinating to see these very mechanisms at
work in connection with adult group dynamics. Group
members routinely utilize defenses such as splitting and
projective identification in the attempt to escape the
primordial levels of fear that group-work can generate.
Actually, an array of defenses will often be employed
simultaneously as the group psyche seeks to rid itself
of troubling emotions or insights.
A very common tendency is for whole groups to
partition themselves into sub-groups that are identified
with opposing positions. This may take place around
issues such as gender, race, sexual orientation, or
countless other "hot-button" topics. Groups
utilizing "splitting" in this way may in fact
be composed of members with strong feelings and
convictions regarding the topics under discussion.
However, the key question at such moments is whether
group members are able to apply a sort of
"tri-focal vision" to unfolding events. This
entails the ability to attend to processes that are
unfolding at a number of levels simultaneously:
individual, interpersonal, and group-as-a-whole.
No doubt this is a challenging skill to develop.
However, groups that are unable to do so may find
themselves faced with a number of very limited choices,
none of which are especially satisfying. A given debate
may drag on and on, seemingly going nowhere, as each
side continues doggedly reasserting its righteous
position. Or, the debate may escalate into verbally
abusive, contemptuous exchanges. In extreme cases a
disagreement might escalate into violence. On the other
hand, members may decide that their best bet is to
"forgive and forget." In this case the best a
group may be able to hope for is a "truce" and
a willingness to move on - with or without a resolution
of the original dilemma. However, if projections have
not been re-owned and reintegrated, we can certainly
wonder how much "letting go," and heartfelt
forgiveness has actually taken place.
In this regard it is worth mentioning that theoreticians
such as Bion have commented that it appears to be quite
common for individuals to become intellectually, as well
as emotionally, regressed when their attention is
absorbed in a group milieu - as if they are experiencing
a "loss of IQ points" (Smith and Berg, p.
127). The cognitive constraints imposed by dynamics such
as these may very well contribute to this phenomenon.
How might these patterns actually play out in a group
setting? I begin by first making an "unconscious
decision" that some feeling or quality is "not
me." This "not-self" can include any
number of traits: tendencies to avoid responsibility and
blame others, hostility, self-indulgence, manipulation -
all are prime candidates for being disowned. Suddenly,
these same traits appear in the outside world; now it is
"the other" who is expressing these qualities.
At least this is what I perceive and imagine when am
"projecting." Even more efficient is the
capacity to "export" my own disavowed emotions
directly into the sovereign realm of another person's
mind and heart; this can be achieved through the
exquisitely complex defensive maneuver known as
projective identification.
At the individual level, as Bradshaw (1995, p. 75)
has shown, both the origins of such coping mechanisms,
as well as the ways we maintain them in later life, can
be conceptualized as dropping into an auto-hypnotic
trance. In a group setting participants naturally
gravitate to an alignment of attention and energy. As a
critical mass of group members become unconsciously
entrained, they these defenses though a unification of
attention. And, as they do so, for a majority of
members, the group experience will now feel lighter,
more enjoyable, more "integrated," even more
loving. Meanwhile, on the other side of the invisible
"movie screen," a subgroup or singular group
member will find that they are manifesting the very
characteristics, which the group secretly longs to
discard. Understandably, this is quite confusing. (Smith
and Berg, pp. 68-78) As Smith and Berg explain:
One of the key consequences of splitting for
collective life is that certain individuals or subgroups
can come to carry particular emotions or positions on
behalf of others….special roles where individuals or
subgroups carry the "baggage" for others. A
powerful example is when one individual in a group is
made into a scapegoat by becoming the repository of the
bad feelings of other group members, thereby enabling
[others] to feel good about themselves." (p. 70)
Scapegoating can be thought of as hostile
social-psychological discrediting routine by which
people move blame and responsibility away from
themselves and towards a target person or group. It is
also a practice by which specifically angry or hostile
feelings may be projected onto others in the form of
overt or covert blame,. The target tends to feel -
either consciously or unconsciously - wrongly accused,
blamed, or criticized. In addition he or she is likely
to suffer rejection from those who the perpetrator seeks
to influence. A key feature of this dynamic is cognitive
distortion. In so far as the process is unconscious, any
bad feelings - such as the perpetrator's own shame and
guilt - are also likely to be denied. Generally
speaking, scapegoating frees the perpetrator from the
experience of unacceptable feelings and can provide a
certain amount of narcissistic gratification in the form
of a self-righteous discharge of aggression. (Kraupl-Taylor
and Rey, 1953)
McClure (1998, pp. 119-121)has listed four situations
in which groups tend to manifest scapegoating behavior.
This type of behavior can occur, for example, if
feelings of frustration and anger at the leader have
escalated before appropriate norms for their expression
and resolution have been established. In this situation
a group is likely group to direct those emotions toward
one or more of its members. A second scenario involves
an authoritarian leader whose style is to impose his her
will on the group. This situation, too, can easily
elicit a scapegoating response. Here, a parallel process
may be established in which one or more group members
seek to impose their will on others. Similarly,
unresolved conflict between co-leaders frequently
results in scapegoating behavior, as the conflict is
transferred into the group process itself.
Finally, incongruence between a leader's verbal and
nonverbal behavior can trigger scapegoating behavior
within the group. This occurs primarily as a way of
creating an outlet for the expression of feelings of
distress, discomfort, and apprehension. In all of these
scenarios scapegoating serves to deflect attention away
from the source of the discrepancy or conflict. The
target - individuals or subgroups that are "made
wrong" - will often experience confusion, or a
feeling of being overwhelmed by the group attack;
frequently, this response elicits further attack by
other group members. Understandably, without
intervention, this dynamic can have damaging
psychological consequences.
To appreciate the universality and power of this
dynamic it is useful to recognize that this phenomenon
may be archetypal to our species. The high priest in
ancient Semitic tribes would periodically confess the
sins of the tribe over the head of one or more goats.
One of the goats would be slaughtered, the other sent
away out into the desert, and through this sacrifice the
tribe would feel purified, cleansed and renewed (Perera,
16-17).
Quite often this sort of "shadow-play" goes
unimpeded and unacknowledged. This occurs in part
because its roots remain buried within a magical level
of consciousness where a kind of participation mystique
prevails. Another reason that a clear perception of
these "ceremonies of exile and atonement"
tends to remain outside of the group's awareness, is the
contemporary person's difficulty focusing attention on
systemic (whole system) processes, a phenomenon Peck
(1994) has described as "a hole in the mind."
Meanwhile, as members continue to wear their socially
appropriate masks, or personae - other forces drive the
group process, distorting both perceptions and actions.
Today, as in ancient times, group members turn on one
another as if - were we only able to change one another
or get rid of "disturbing elements" - our
problems would be solved. However, seen from a systemic
point of view, it is clear that once a system emerges it
cannot be changed by merely by analyzing its individual
members or singling them out for removal. Said another
way, we cannot change a human system by changing
individuals. (Wheatley, 1996, p.78)
7. Group
Leadership and Facilitation
"Denial is pushing something out of your
awareness. Anything you hide in the basement has a way
of burrowing under the house and showing up on the front
lawn."
Howard Sasportas
McClure's comments on the various dimensions group
leadership are based on the assumption that human groups
possess an inherent capacity for self-organization: that
once a group of individuals decide to join together, the
group's propensity to grow and develop is a given.
"Group leaders [can] facilitate [or interfere
with] the group's natural unfolding. ...[While] control
is an illusion…leadership is not without power.
However, the source of power does not come from the
force of the leader's intervention, but from his timing.
Just as the Aikido master harnesses the energy of a
stronger opponent with exact timing, so, too, does the
leader contain or perturb by correctly timing his
interventions."(p. 82)
Regarding the "containment function" of the
group leader, McClure draws on Winicott's description of
mothering as the creation of a "holding
environment." This holding environment refers
particularly to the kind of protective care a mother
provides for an infant during its first years of life.
As a child continues to grow he or she will internalize
this sense of security, reliability, and safety. Having
been the recipient of "good enough mothering,"
the child will "emerge with a strong coherent sense
of self and the ability of emotional (affective) self
regulation." (McClure, pp. 83-84)
Another element, indispensable for creating a
"safe container" in the early phases of group
formation, is "boundary management." This can
be accomplished by providing predictable structure:
managing time and the environment, and addressing
ethical obligations. Each of these areas can be
regarding as a building block in the construction of a
climate of trust and safety. In a similar way the leader
will initially need to be explicit in his or her efforts
to ensure physical safety, restrain excesses, and
protect the confidential nature of the group experience.
(McClure, 1998)
McClure (p. 85) adds another vital observation
regarding structure, stating that an important facet of
the leader's responsibility is to provide "a clear
meaning and definition of the group." No doubt,
this meaning will change and evolve as the group
organizes; however, initially the leader should provide
a clear vision, one that will act as a touchstone during
the turbulence and uncertainty that exists throughout
the forming stages.
Besides creating a sense of security that is vital
for future development, containment also serves to
harness the group's creativity. This is similar to a
situation in which a poet's creative energies are
constrained by the meter or rhyme scheme of the form in
which he is working. As in many creative activities such
as writing, painting, or composing, where the artist's
creative energy is constrained by the medium in which he
works, the goal here is to nourish the energies of
social creativity.
The leadership skill of "purturbation" also
has a number of facets; among these are a willingness to
tell the truth, and the capacity to be emotionally
present. The leader, through giving and receiving honest
feedback, models this behavior and encourages group
members to do the same. Process comments are another
form of intervention focused on "perturbing"
the group system. This amplification requires the group
leader to attend to both the latent and manifest levels
of communication occurring in the group. Manifest
behavior refers to the groups' overt level of operation,
which contains communications and stories shared by
group members. The latent level, on the other hand,
refers to the levels of feeling, thought, and action
that lay outside the awareness of group members. This
level is often expressed symbolically, through metaphor.
Process commentary allows for group activity to be feed
back into the group. The leader, by creating such a
feedback loop, enables the group to continually develop
its self-awareness as well as its ability to become self
sufficient in learning to make use of such iterations.
(McClure, 1998, pp. 92-94)
This is especially crucial in the conflict stages,
when the forces of regression and immaturity, vie for
ascendancy with the energies of growth and generativity.
As already mentioned one aspect of this process involves
the expression of anger and frustration toward the
leader. Leaders often retreat from engagement when they
misinterpret such "attacks" as personal in
nature. The crucial leadership task at this juncture,
involves moving toward, rather than away from, the
lively expression of anger and a subsequent resolution
of conflict. McClure (pp. 82-123) argues that this
movement must be both initiated and "modeled"
by the leader. In optimal circumstances, the group will
go on develop and refine these skills for themselves, as
they create their own norms around these issues. The
critical factor is timing. As McClure notes, "the
leader must not relinquish power before the group is
ready." The leaders ability to "invite,
facilitate, and withstand the encounter"
establishes the crucial norm of conflict resolution. And
this is a prerequisite for a group to move on to further
stages of self-organization.
8. Limit Cycle
Groups
"…the disappearance of the conscious
personality, the predominance of the unconscious
personality, the turning by means of suggestion and
contagion of feelings and ideas in an identical
direction…"
Gustave Le Bon, writing on the behavior of crowds and
mobs in 1895
McClure begins his book with these words: "Most
groups never reach their full potential. In many cases,
groups never progress beyond the initial states of
development." (1998, p. ix)
Later in the book, he devotes an entire chapter to the
exploration of regressive or "limit-cycle"
groups. By "regressive" he is referring to
groups that exhibit a specific kind of functioning. In
such groups, members remain unconscious, minority voices
are repressed, and internal conflict stays unresolved.
Here, as McClure clarifies, we are speaking about the
"dark, denied and unacknowledged behavior of groups
and organizations:"
"Typically [such] groups are stuck at the
forming level of development and exhibit…four general
characteristics [including]: (a) avoidance of conflict
and dissent, (b) abdication of responsibility for the
group's behavior and dependence on the leader, (c) group
narcissism, and (d) psychic numbing. When combined these
traits inhibit the maturation of groups and result in a
kind of 'group mindlessness' wherein members distort
their inner and outer realities to conform with a
dominant group view." (1998, pp. 165-166)
The term "limit-cycle" is used to describe
these behaviors from the perspective of chaos theory.
From an outsider's point of view the group can appear as
if it has "shut down;" in effect such a group
has become a closed system that, by definition, limits
energy exchange and feedback from other systems in its
environment. As the group becomes more isolated,
opportunities for constructive reorganization decrease.
The descriptor "limit-cycle" refers to a
back-and-forth motion, in which novel, explorative
behavior is restricted, and the group finds itself
"doing the same thing over and over again."
There is often a sense of being stuck in patterns, and
"going around in circles." It is important to
note that, when self-organizing tendencies are blocked
in this way, it is not that the group stops changing
entirely. Rather, the forms and processes it settles
into begin to resemble a slowing pendulum, which moves
toward a middle point or "collective mean," as
energy dissipates and difference is diminished.
In point of fact many groups are unable to sufficiently
work through their differences, and therefore remain
unable to evolve beyond the initial stages of
development. Being "stuck" in this way can be
quite frustrating. Unfortunately, a group that can find
no other outlet for its vast energy (and does not see a
way to extricate itself from this predicament) will
commonly develop destructive tendencies. As already
noted, McClure argues that healthy cohesiveness is
primarily developed during the conflict stage, as
members endure a period of anger, frustration, and
chaos. "Successful completion [of this stage]
solidifies cohesiveness, whereas ineffective or
incomplete resolution results in a brittle…fragile
bond." (1998, p. 168) In many cases, such groups
are able to function with a moderate degree of
effectiveness; but they lack flexibility and resilience.
Under any amount of significant stress, the group will
resort to - "a malignant cohesiveness that [serves
only to enable] them to maintain the appearance of
harmony." (1998, p. 168)
While mature groups have acquired the necessary
skills to bring to light their own shadow material (and
in the process liberate their potential for continued
growth), regressive groups demonstrate recognizable
patterns, which include psychic numbing and scapegoating:
"Over time, regressive groups members
anesthetize themselves to contradictions in the
group...When numbing is complete, members' values become
synonymous with those expressed by the group. enabling
[them] to participate with little or no noticeable
discomfort in the group's activities. However the
physical, emotional, and spiritual damage done…is
often considerable. Members who are unable to conform or
deaden their awareness are customarily shunned and
ultimately excluded from the group." (1998, p. 169)
The onset of two more interrelated qualities -
"abdication of responsibility for the group"
and "dependence on the leader" is another
indicator that a group remains stuck in a limit-cycle
pattern. Two factors contribute to this state of
inertia. First, there can be reluctance on the part of
group members to take charge (thereby risking
unpopularity, mistakes, etc). A second underlying issue
arises from one of two factors: the group leader's lack
of state-of-the-art group dynamics knowledge, on the one
hand, or their difficulty relinquishing control to the
group, on the other. McClure contends that in optimal
circumstances, a mature group is one composed entirely
of leaders. (1998, p. 170)
Finally, limit-cycle groups can be recognized through
their narcissism, a malignant form of group pride.
Ideally, productive, healthy groups develop a sense of
"group self-worth" arising from their
accomplishments, their ability to create synergy, and
the rich quality of their interpersonal interactions.
These conditions come to pass as a result of their
members' capacity to value, respect, and trust one
another. Such a milieu is also a result of group
members' ability to feel safe enough to speak, hear, and
honor each other's truths. However, a group that
unconsciously recognizes that it has been unable to grow
and mature, often over time, just "gives up."
Unable to realize its creative potential, the group
continues down an increasingly limited path - one that
does not involve facing the pain of its own
shortcomings. This "self-assessment" (and the
accompanying feelings of impotence, frustration,
animosity, etc) will ordinarily be split off from
awareness. Instead of the facing its own failures such a
group is prone to project its own deficiencies outside
of itself - usually upon an "out-group." But,
as Bion, McClure, Smith and Berg all describe - these
projections can occur within the group - such that a
sub-group or an individual is regarded as if they
actually possessed the attributes projected on to them.
As members numb themselves to the contradiction
between the group myths, and the group's true nature,
their ability to perceive reality is severely
diminished.
"By splitting off and projecting outward their
dark, shadowy side, regressive groups maintain an
illusion of harmony. A [group] myth is created…that
disguises any internal conflict. Members describe
themselves in glowing terms…The greater the pressure
in regressive groups to suppress and deny critical
thinking and deny their own dark side, the more
likelihood dehumanizing actions against their perceived
enemies will occur." (1998, p. 171)
To protect the "validity" of the group
myth, a regressive group will go out of its way to
silence members who seek to expose it. Of course, if
they are to maintain the myth, group members need to
find ways to convince themselves that they are doing no
such thing. At their worst, groups that have invalidated
the potentially corrective power of dissent are capable
of "vile acts" of coercion and cruelty. And,
as time goes on, group members tend to learn to censor
themselves in order to avoid group censure. This
self-censorship lessens emotional discomfort and allows
members to minimize, rationalize, and otherwise deny the
ways in which the group uses splitting, coercion,
shunning, and other forms of punishment to stifle
dissent. (McClure, 1998, p. 171) Such a group is truly
stuck - its "reality tunnel" narrowed by an
ever-increasing sense of paranoia, claustrophobia, and
its own unwillingness to tolerate the emotional pain of
clear awareness.
Are there things that can be done to reverse this
process? There are, but this is by no means an easy
process, nor is the outcome assured. In McClure's words
it will certainly require "significant work and
often considerable pain." Often, intervention by a
trained group consultant is the only workable means of
facilitating movement in these groups. (1998, pp.
178-179)
What can be done? Impasses - the points beyond which
a limit-cycle group is unable to proceed - offer
opportunities for change and transformation. The test
will be whether the group as a whole is willing to focus
its attention on the impasse itself, and explore the
intrinsic meaning of "being stuck." If it is
able to do these things, an expansion of group
consciousness is possible. Overall, it is critical to
unearth and address the conflicts that have been
suppressed. McClure takes a very firm stand on this
point:
"The group must recognize conflict as a healthy
catalyst for change and norms for its expression and
resolution must be developed. Once conflict is openly
addressed members sometimes discover that it was the
fear of conflict that was debilitating. Its expression
can be quite cathartic." (1998, p. 180)
As McClure has also emphasized however, all groups
have regressive tendencies. Healthy groups are able to
recognize that they are exhibiting these dynamics, and
somehow marshal their courage to struggle with these
inclinations. Inflexible groups, on the other hand,
ignore the emergence of these proclivities within the
group, hoping they will go away. McClure (p. 182)
asserts: "They never do! All regressive group
characteristics that are denied or suppressed will
continue to haunt the group, in one form or another,
until they are acknowledged."
Kornfield (1993) has offered another important and
highly relevant perspective on this phenomenon. While
his focus is on the interdependent dynamics of "stuckness"
and "release" in "spiritual communities
or "communities of practice," as we will see,
many of these concerns have parallels in progressive,
holistically-oriented academic programs, such our own.
Kornfield first notes a predictable common reality:
that students who enter spiritual communities usually do
not expect that they will encounter difficulties
concerning abuses of power, money, sexuality, or drugs.
These students, who are inspired by a strong sense of
idealism and hope, fail to include these shadow areas in
their concept of inner work. However, difficulties
regarding money, sex, alcohol, and inflated egos are in
fact challenges faced by humanity as a whole. There is
no reason to believe that spiritual communities will be
exempt from them. There is another important dynamic at
work in communities such as these. People joining
communities of practice are often looking for a sense of
family; they long for friendship and support, and also
for healing amidst the ordinary isolation of modern
society. (1993, p. 257) But, as Kornfield observes:
"If the practice of the community does not
address the unfinished family issues and pain of its
members, then the deficiencies will continue to
intensify. [Members] can easily recreate their old
painful family system…. [However], even when students
have become aware of community problems, they may be
afraid to confront them or leave because they don't want
to lose their family again." (1993, p. 261)
The key to overcoming these difficulties is
awareness. As a first step this includes honest
questioning. We must be willing to ask our community:
"How are we lost, attached, and addicted, and how
are we benefiting, awakening, and opening?" (1993,
p. 262) As Kornfield notes, naming the demons with
honesty and kindness has the power to dispel illusions.
He adds:
"We must do something even more difficult than
posing questions. We must tell the truth to ourselves
and we must speak the truth in our communities… Each
troubling area, any illusions about the practice and the
teacher 264, exploitive behavior, or unclear moral codes
must be addressed. 264 Teachers [as well as students]
have to be able to deal with the underlying problems in
themselves, whether old wounds, cultural and family
history, isolation, or their own
grandiosity."(1993, pp. 263, 264)
To tell the truth in a community is to make the
community itself conscious. Speaking openly, while
holding the well being of the community in one's heart,
can be extraordinarily beneficial. And, this courageous
willingness can lead to healing and transformation for
individuals and community alike.
There are in fact qualities, which individual group
members can cultivate within themselves, and which
increase the likelihood that such a group dialogue will
be constructive. Among these are awareness and honesty,
blended with deep compassion for all concerned. Still,
confronting these stormy and painful areas of a
community's life usually will require enormous
persistence and the wisdom of everyone involved. In
reality the process of addressing these problems can be
so explosive that, without the support of trusted
outside parties, it is commonplace for such situations
to be poorly handled. (1993, p. 267)
Finally, it must be acknowledged that some
communities become so grandiose, so unconsciously
duplicitous and fearful that they are unwilling or
unable to face their difficulties. Inevitably, some
unhealthy systems are exploitive and abusive beyond
repair.(1993, p. 268)
9. The
Generative Group
" Leadership within a spiritual context seemed
different, for the leader here was intent on cooperating
with the soul of the group and with a process that
he/she could neither control nor ever fully understand."
Thomas Yeomans
Let us recall that the group shadow refers, by
definition, to material that is avoided (otherwise it
would not be in the shadows), and which has a major
impact on a group's capacity to evolve to more complex
levels of self-organization.
McClure makes the point that, in actuality, all groups
can be thought of as operating on a continuum. At one
end is the least developed, or regressive group. This is
a collective in which members' primary form of address
is "ego-speak." Here we find the perfect
environment for observing "the games people
play," "control dramas," and
"defensive routines."
At the opposite end of the continuum we can find the
highly evolved and cohesive group. McClure calls this
the "generative group," and describes it as
one that is reaching for the highest levels of group
development. Here we encounter an authentic
transcendence of the ego, which interestingly enough, is
accompanied by an increase in differentiation among
members. Such a group discovers that they are
participating in a "truly transcendent experience
of higher consciousness, a 'something' that manifests
itself through the willing, undefended, self-revealing,
tolerance, curiosity and patience of its members."
(McClure, 1998, p. 146)
Clearly, McClure is describing the emergence of an of
"I-Thou" communication style far beyond the
presentation of self as "persona," or social
mask, which is characteristic of earlier stages of group
development.
In Peck's model of community-building, the stage of
"emptiness" follows those of pseudo-community
and chaos, and precedes the group's entre` into
community. He notes that:
"Emptiness is the hard[est] part, and also the
most crucial stage of community development. It is the
bridge between chaos and community….When members of a
group finally ask me to explain what I mean by
emptiness, I say simply that they need to empty
themselves of barriers to communication. And I am able
to use their specific behavior during chaos to point out
specific things - assumptions, ideas, motives - that
have so filled their minds as to make them impervious as
billiard balls." (1987, p. 95)
Being human, however, we are not very fond of
discomfort or suffering - either our neighbors' or our
own. In a group setting the process of "letting go
of our old maps" is accompanied by a willingness to
deeply know others and be known by them - "warts
and all." As group members begin to truly reveal
themselves coming out from behind their
"walls," it is all too common for other
members to exhibit one of two reactions: they may either
try to "help," or else "ignore"
(often by quickly changing the topic) - the person who
has just let down their defenses. In this case a person
who has just made him- or herself vulnerable tends
rather quickly to retreat back into their shell. After
all, it is not an easy thing to become radically open,
vulnerable, and undefended. How much more difficult does
this become if others immediately attempt to
"heal" or otherwise change you, or if they
behave as if you haven't said anything of much
importance at all? (Peck, 1987, pp. 100-102)
Peck emphasizes that at this pivotal juncture a group
leader can support the group in coming to the
realization that it is blocking expressions of pain and
suffering. Should the group agree, they would
immediately discern that in order to truly listen, they
would need to empty themselves, even of their distaste
for "bad news." The truth is plain to see: the
transformation of a group - from a collection of
individuals into a genuine community - requires that its
members be willing to "die into life." This is
also a process of group death - and at another level -
one of being re-born. Here, we can notice an emerging
metaphor - one, which suggests the "labor,"
associated with both birth and death.
Let us now add into this brew, ingredients from
McClure, who provides a highly nuanced account of the
kinds of processes that lead a group toward authentic
community. McClure's model posits a sixth stage of
development, which emerges subsequent to the phases of
performing, unity, disunity, conflict, and disharmony.
He refers to the next chapter in a group's possible
history as "harmony;" upon emerging from the
conflict/confrontation period, a group will tend move
directly into this phase. Unlike the urgency felt during
the earlier developmental stages - where issues of
safety and trust, dependence and independence, power and
powerlessness were central - members in the harmony
stage tend to feel a sense of contentment. It is as if
they have achieved this state of serenity by
successfully passing through a "trial by
fire."
Yet, even at this plateau-like stage the continuing
urge for growth and evolution is discernible. At this
juncture group members may become restless or bored if
they are not involved in deepening their capacities for
awareness, self-discovery, and a more vital sense of
community. Here, a group's ever-present urge to take
their next steps toward maturity will be expressed
through members asserting independence within the group
context, sharing their intimacy needs, and generally
taking risks through self-disclosure. (McClure, 1998, p.
142)
Now, a rare opportunity is arises: one in which
members can openly accept and acknowledge one another's
(and their own) "dark sides" - facets of
themselves that they have so far kept hidden. With
personal relationships forged and a significant degree
of trust established, members are now free to integrate
fragmented parts of the self. It becomes possible to
reveal oneself very fully and to experience the
acceptance of others; in turn, this nourishes each
individual's own capacity for self-acceptance.
McClure suggests that even at this stage there is
important work for leaders to do. Rather than supporting
the group through the intense anxiety of previous
stages, the leader now needs to help balance the strong
sense of cohesion and calm which prevails - with an
appropriate amount of challenge and healthy tension.
This will likely be centered on the personal learning
that emerges out of participants' openness, and their
willingness to give and receive honest feedback.
(McClure pp. 142-147)
At this point the group will be moving into a deep
and profound sense of community. They have certainly
earned it! As Peck shares, the most frequent thing
members say at this time is: "I feel safe
here." And, this is a rare feeling. It has taken a
tremendous amount of work for a group of strangers to
achieve the safety of true community. And, when they
succeed, it is as if the floodgates are opened.
"As soon as it is safe to speak one's heart, as
soon as most people in the group know they will be
listened to and accepted for themselves ...vulnerability
in community snowballs. The walls come tumbling down.
And as they tumble, as the love and acceptance
escalates, as the mutual intimacy multiplies, true
healing begins…When its death has been completed, open
and empty, the group enters community…it is like
falling in love." (1987, pp. 67-68)
In McClure's model the final developmental stage is
called "performing." Interestingly, McClure
maintains that it is highly unusual for groups to reach
this stage; he also contends that very few group leaders
have actually experienced it. Nevertheless, it can be
equated with a "peak experience," a kind of
sustained self-transcendence achieved by the group as a
whole. Such a state is highly dynamic, yet
paradoxically, also possesses a timeless quality. There
can be a sense of spontaneous action emerging directly
out of the "empty" present moment; actions
that arise out of this fertile emptiness simultaneously
express members' attunement to one another and their
sense of alignment with the group's overall mission.
(1998, p. 146-147)
Drawing on theorists ranging from deChardin, Grosso,
Jung, Loye, and Lazlo, McClure brings our attention to
the concept of a "universal or cosmic mind,"
an idea that has been restored and revitalized by
contemporary transpersonal psychology. These theorists
draw on ancient texts from sacred traditions in the East
and West, and from modern and indigenous peoples.
(McClure, pp. 183-203) Here we are dealing with an
explicitly "spiritual" (in the sense of
"holistic" or "integrated")
dimension of human experience. A group which is able to
touch this kind of immeasurable awareness, would
naturally become what David Bohm (1996 ) has described
as a "coherent micro-culture;" much as a
healthy cell contributes to the health of the whole
body, such a group would be one, which is healthy within
itself, and contributes to the health of other groups
and the planet as whole. Bohm is among a handful of
group leaders and theoreticians who have explicitly set
out to explore the "further reaches of human
nature"- the most evolved capacities and mature
expressions which human groups are capable of realizing.
Regarding these issues Wilber has made an invaluable
contribution by taking up a question that has been
widely overlooked. Specifically, Wilber identifies a
concern most readily observed in spiritually oriented
groups; he has termed this state of affairs the
"pre-trans fallacy." Wilber offers the
following hypothesis: since both pre-rational states and
trans-rational states are, in their own ways,
non-rational, they appear similar or even identical to
the untutored eye. In progressive, new-age groups in
particular, there can be a tendency to confuse
"pre-" and "trans." Wilber
colorfully describes one manifestation of this
confusion:
"On the other hand, if one is sympathetic with
higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre
and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states
to some sort of transrational glory (…infantile
primary narcissism, for example, is seen as…the
mystico unio). Jung and his followers, of course, often
take this route, and are forced to read a deeply
transpersonal and spiritual status into states that are
merely… undifferentiated and actually lacking any sort
of integration at all." (Wilber, 1995, pp. 206-207)
Be this as it may, there are groups who have
addressed these issues head-on and, in the process have
successfully negotiated their way around such pitfalls.
Recently, Yeomans (1999) has begun sharing the results
of pioneering explorations which he has called the
Corona Process. Studying group development within a
psychospiritual framework, participants have evidently
reaped rich rewards. Yeomans, currently a leading
teacher and writer within the domain of spiritual
psychology, had studied with Roberto Assagioli, one of
the founding fathers of transpersonal psychology, and
originator of the discipline known as psychosynthesis.
Although the lion's share of Assagioli's focus remained
on the integration and self-realization of the
individual, he did set the groundwork for what he called
inter-individual psychosynthesis: "the harmonious
integration of the individual into…larger groups up to
the 'one humanity.'"(Assagioli, 1976, p.5)
Yeomans, in turn, has described the texture and
"feel" of the energy of self-organization, as
groups evolve toward increasingly higher levels of
maturity and self-expression. Noting that there is
"a force for group development with which we can
learn to cooperate," he offers a model, which
posits three coexisting categories of human experience,
with each dimension functioning as a nested "holon."
These are: the personal - which includes healthy ego
development and optimal social functioning; the
transpersonal/existential - which deals with collective
and transgenerational aspects of the psyche; and finally
the spiritual - which encompasses the experience of our
deepest identity and awareness of inter-being with all
Creation. Work here deals with issues of freedom and
responsibility, core values, and one's sense of life
purpose. These three dimensions of experience are seen
as completely interdependent, much like height, depth,
and breadth in the spatial world. (1999, pp. 44-45)
As an intentional methodology designed to catalyze
the emergence of a particular kind of "group
field," the Corona Process can be seen as
supporting a fusion of these realms. It is this physio-psycho-spiritual
field, in turn, that makes possible an experience of the
"group-soul," a ground of being which holds
the group's deepest sense of purpose: in essence, the
group's vocation. From this perspective group leadership
involves an acknowledgment of all three dimensions of
the group's process, recognition of which is foreground
at any particular time, and a capacity to aid the group
in developing the full realization of its creative
potential. And, this of necessity would include the
group's capability to experience an alignment with its
deeper purpose. (Yeomans, 1999, pp. 54-66).
Yeomans, (p. 64) like Peck, has stressed the
significance of "emptiness" as a major causal
factor evoking "group synthesis:"
"Much as an individual needs to be 'empty' of
small self preoccupations in order for soul-force to
move in his or her life, so here the group needed to
empty itself…64 in the same way in order to be infused
with the energies of the deeper organizing principle -
letting go of expectations in order to welcome the
unknown that would emerge in the present experience of
the group."
Yeomans (pp. 50-52) has shared some tentative
observations regarding specific strategies that may help
constellate the Corona process. The first of these is an
adaptation of a Native American Council process to group
dialogue. Known as "the majority of one," this
calls for an approach in which - if one voice dissents,
no decision is made, but dialogue continues. A second
principle concerns the importance and relativity of
time, in which no rigid or inflexible deadlines are set
for conclusions and decisions; a third is the use of the
circle - also a Native American practice - in which it
is a requirement that every voice have a say in
deliberation and dialogue. Another hypothesis suggested
by the Corona work is that, as more of the truth of
experience is by spoken by group members, and more
differences are held by the group as a whole,
"deceit and pretense" fall away; here
authenticity emerges naturally as defense mechanisms are
less needed: "Personal truth, moment to moment, was
the means to this liberation from fear and defensive
behavior." Finally, it was discovered that much
patience was needed in supporting the gradual letting go
of individuals' defenses which had often been in place
for a long time.
"We discovered that paradoxically, not pushing
people to open up, allowed this to happen more quickly…In
fact big steps seemed to stimulate the reactivity of
members and increase the level of fear in the group.
Conversely with [the] patience to process, and small
steps, members could be aware of and work with their own
reactivity, [while] remaining connected to their deeper
intentions and soul."
Finally, these explorations also suggested the
importance for a group to take "time out," as
a way of reflecting on their work and life. It is very
common for groups to be overwhelmed by and, in a sense
"immersed in," old contexts. The power of old,
unconscious habit patterns; reactivity to internal and
external pressures; and the deep suffering arising out
of pain and anger which remain unexpressed; all of these
frequently serve to dampen our ability to envision what
is possible, feed a sense of alienation. For all these
reasons it is extremely useful for groups to take the
time to re-discover, time and again the qualities and
activities that bring them rest, refreshment, and
creativity.(Yeomans, 1999, 66-67)
In summary it is clear that pioneering
"experiments" such as these are
extraordinarily valuable endeavors - "experiments
in truth," that can provide us with maps of unknown
territories. May these and similar courageous
explorations, such as those occurring at CIIS, open us
to new levels of appreciation for the possibilities of
life in human community.
APPLICATION
"Only the wounded healer heals."
T.S. Elliot
1. Review
We have walked many roads in search of the shadow, and
have discovered that its home is right in our own back
yard. In this final section our goal will be to utilize
the concept of the shadow to provide another view of H3
in Cohort-life. H3 entails an integral approach to
learning, to perceiving, and to being in the world. It
is echoed in words such as "integrity,"
"health," and "wholeness." The
unconscious shadow - on both individual and collective
levels - is characterized by an array of denied
feelings, thoughts, and responses that do not fit an
idealized self-image. In this light it is fascinating to
realize that, in a group context the impulse to avoid
pain and conflict, and to obscure and bury deviant views
may actually arise out of a felt-need to preserve the
integrity of the group-self. Even if this self-image is
skewed or distorted, it would seem that the impulse
toward the achievement of H3 - toward integrity and
wholeness - is shaping the group's process nonetheless.
Be this as it may, it is possible to argue that the
shadow represents a "threat to the achievement of
H3," in the same way we might describe certain
factors as internal or external "threats to
validity" in any form of research (Merriam, 2002)
(Patton , 2002). In sum, however, our purpose will be to
generate questions rather than provide answers.
Let us briefly review the paths we have traveled. So
far in our inquiry we have explored three general areas
- 1) the human penchant for splitting off sectors of our
awareness, thereby creating shadow dimensions within our
own consciousness, 2) the profound interconnectedness
which occurs between participants whenever we join
together in a group context, and 3) self-organization as
key systemic property of human groups.
The Group Shadow
Initially, we focused on the individual shadow - the
"realm" where we hide away those aspects of
self that our ego has rejected. Here we can find our
infantile attachments and other odds and ends "we
don't want to be:" selfish, small, stupid, lustful,
brutal, destructive, uncaring, ugly, mean, afraid, etc.
Nevertheless, from these very depths we can also unearth
"buried treasure," discovering a storehouse,
which contains the best, as well as the worst, that is
within us.
If we truly seek personal growth we are required to
face and come to terms with the psychological shadow.
And, just as there is an individual shadow, so too,
groups, organizations, communities, and even nations
show indications of this phenomenon. According to
McClure all groups contain a "collective
shadow" consisting of,
"the unexpressed emotional negativity that group
members experience as threatening. Additionally,
personality characteristics and emotions that
[individual] members are unable to accept in themselves
are also hidden in the collective shadow." (1998,
p. 166)
At the collective level "shadow-work" will
involve a re-integration into the conscious life of the
group those actions, emotions, or thought-processes
which have been "extruded" from the group
process. Wholeness can be recaptured through the
recognition and acceptance of these compartmentalized
and discounted areas of the psyche. Such a group will be
energized and empowered to go on growing toward a state
of health and expression of its inner potential.
One obstacle to this integrative process, however, is
the fact that the group shadow functions through
collective defenses, whereby a group maintains its
coziness by erecting barriers against information that
might upset it. We observed some of the ways in which a
group of people, when caught up in this kind of group
consensus trance or "participation mystique,"
will find themselves operating by way of a tacit social
code: one, which says that they will see only what they
are supposed to see. "Unsee-able" (and
therefore "unsay-able") dimensions of
experience simply remain "out of frame." In
this regard Shepherd has observed that the collective
shadow of a group or a nation is particularly difficult
to see, since we "support each other in our
blindness." As Shepherd advises: "We must
withdraw our projections and take responsibility for our
shadow. Until we take back the burden of our own shadow,
evil will continue to sneak out behind our backs."
(1993, p. 271)
Group Relations
We then proceeded to explore the
"group-as-a-whole" vantage point - a
perspective originated by Wilfred Bion. Bion's primary
hypothesis was that, when people meet in a group to
achieve a goal, there are actually two configurations of
mental activity operating simultaneously. First, there
is the work group itself - in which participants are
engaged with the primary task because they have chosen
to fulfill a given purpose. They cooperate, search for
knowledge, and learn from experience, becoming more
competent as they do so. At this level the group can be
thought of as an "open-system." Yet, it is
also routine for this facet of group-life to be
disturbed by influences arising from a parallel set of
"mental phenomena." Upon investigation these
appear to be an expression of a "closed feedback
loop," a level at which the group has closed itself
off to all information that does not affirm its basic
premises.
It should be emphasized that the groups Bion studied
functioned more or less effectively, and were made up of
members who were not significantly troubled according to
any index of mental health criteria. Despite this being
so, Bion noticed that a group process often manifested
in such a way that participants' behavior seemed
analogous to a "temporary psychosis," one in
which they experienced a "diminution of effective
contact with reality." All in all he noted the
surprisingly frequency with which a particular kind of a
group mentality emerged. This group culture revealed
itself as one in which the individual, despite his or
her sophisticated and mature skills, could be caused to
regress and become temporarily caught up in primitive
defense mechanisms, such as splitting, projective
identification, depersonalization, and infantile
regression. (Schramm, 1994)
Self-organization
Finally, we viewed groups through the lens of
"self-organization." In sum this exploration
revealed an innate seeking for connection evident in
many kinds of systems: an inherent drive to organize
into more complex forms of organization that include
more relationships and more variety. As this takes
place, structures simply emerge. These structures are
not imposed or pre-set, as is the case in most human
institutions. Rather than following a top-down,
hierarchically-based design, self organizing systems
allow structural patterns to emerge as the system
discovers what is possible. Drawing chiefly from the
work of McClure, we sought to explore the application of
chaos theory to human groups. We began to see that,
while an increased ability to function synergistically
can be an expression of a group's process of
transformation, there are no guarantees that this
movement into higher states of organization and
complexity will occur. Here our primary goal was to
investigate some of the ways in which groups may find
themselves in a state of impasse on the one hand, or
able to evolve toward higher levels of order and
complexity on the other.
2.) Self-organizing
Systems
Because the concept of self-organization is central
to the Cohort experience it will be useful to briefly
review a few essential ideas, placing them in context
within the larger domain of chaos theory. As Briggs and
Peat (2000) note, the scientific term "chaos"
refers to an underlying interconnectedness that exists
in apparently random events. Scientists are currently
using chaos theory to understand the hidden patterns
underlying the creation of thunderstorms, raging rivers,
hurricanes, and gnarled coastlines. They go on to say:
"…the theory of chaos represents nature in its
creativity, embracing a vast range of behaviors, from
weather patterns and waterfalls to the firing of neurons
and sudden shocks in the stock market. It is as much
about how nature makes new forms and structures as it is
about nature's 'messiness' and unpredictability."
(p. 13)
Some history: in 1977 Ilya Prigogine won the Noble
Prize in chemistry for demonstrating the capacity of
certain chemical systems (dissipative structures) to
regenerate to higher levels of self-organization. In the
older, mechanistic model of phenomena - disturbances had
always been viewed as disruptions - fluctuations that
would only quicken the decay (or "entropic winding
down") that was the inevitable future of all
systems. But Prigogine showed that it was possible -
even for systems considered "non-living" - to
respond to disorder by giving birth to new, higher forms
of order. Over time Prigogine extended his studies to
networks as diverse as thermal convection currents, the
life cycle of amoebas, and human social systems. The
implications of this work were profound. If matter is no
longer passive, but capable of generativity and
spontaneous self-organization, it becomes possible to
view turbulence, confusion, and apparent chaos in a
fresh way - as potential doorways to the emergence of
more sophisticated levels of order. (Shepherd, pp.
95-133). Prigogine, rather than framing the results of
his research in terms of "chaos," prefers to
use the term "complexity." In general he and
other chaos/complexity theorists have described this
remarkable phenomenon as "order for free."
When we see the spiral of evolution in our universe,
how can we help but marvel at the power and beauty of
the process of self-organization? Some fifteen billion
years ago the universe was born: the elements
synthesized, stars galaxies and planets formed, life and
the genetic code came into existence; multi-cellular
life and photosynthesis emerged, followed by a profusion
of animal species, and finally humanity and culture.
Clearly, these principles are not a startling new
feature of the world. Rather, they are the way the world
has created itself for billions of years.
While it is true that we are just now beginning to
grasp the prevalence and awesome potency of
self-organizing processes, we need to remain vigilant
that we do not reify or "deify" these
principles. Obviously, we are in error if we choose to
operate as if the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been
suspended. The rediscovery of self-organization (as
significant and exciting as this may be) must not become
like a flag to which we "pledge our
allegiance." No doubt, plants, animals, trees,
flowers, birds, dogs, and humans are all fundamentally
open, living systems which are continually exchanging
matter and energy with their environments. Still, the
process of change and growth can be laborious indeed.
Perhaps, if caterpillars could speak, we would hear them
look up at a butterfly and say, "You'll never get
me up in one of those things!"
It is true that until very recently, science told us
that all things without exception are moving from higher
to lower states of order, and that, eventually
everything would succumb, decaying into complete chaos.
Interestingly enough, science had apparently overlooked
the fact that the 2nd law is most pertinent when applied
to relatively isolated and closed systems like machines.
The most obvious exception to this law is life, which is
characterized by open systems that engage with the
environment and continue to grow and evolve. While
systems that can be considered essentially closed, do
decay toward states of lesser order, little attention
was paid to the fact that all systems we find in nature
are alive. (Wheatley, 1992, p. 77)
Because the psyche is an aspect of the cosmos, we
would expect to find in the psyche itself, the same
hierarchical arrangement of wholes within wholes,
reaching from the simplest and most rudimentary to the
most complex and exclusive. In general, this is exactly
the discovery of modern psychology. Learning itself is
hierarchical, involving several different levels of
awareness and integration, each of which is
"meta" - to its predecessor. As Wilber points
out - in both psyche and world we can see an
evolutionary process composed of the realization of,
"higher-order wholes and unities and integrations.
The holistic evolution of nature - which produces these
- shows up in the human psyche as development or
growth." In this way - not unlike the geological
formation of the earth - psychological development
proceeds, stratum by stratum, level by level, stage by
stage, "with each successive level superimposed
upon its predecessor in such a way that it includes but
transcends it [and envelops it]."(Wilber, 1980,
p.2)
As Macy (1991, p. 194) notes:
"Open systems go through stages of 'positive
disintegration' before reorganizing into more inclusive
& adaptive wholes. This ongoing self- organization
requires an ever-increasing openness… and the
relinquishing of constructs that are no longer valid.
[Often occurring] as a function of positive feedback we
can speak of new life emerging from outgrown
modes."
However, as we have seen, human systems (individuals,
groups, organizations, nations) do break down;
limit-cycle groups do manage to harden themselves to the
change and development that positive feedback loops can
bring. Rooted in unconscious reactivity and denial, they
seek to mimic closed machine-like systems, repeating
variations of an endless loop that says, in essence,
"All is well. All will be very well. And every
manner of thing will be very well." Thus, while
open systems can display an inherent capacity to evolve
toward states of increasing complexity & order, this
is by no means inevitable. While human beings can grow,
this by no means assures that they will grow. As Peck
succinctly reminds us:
"Many people are either unwilling or unable to
suffer the pain of giving up the outgrown which needs to
be forsaken. Consequently they cling, often forever, to
their old patterns of thinking and behaving, thus
failing to negotiate any crisis, to truly grow up and to
experience the joyful sense of rebirth that accompanies
the successful transition into greater maturity." (
1979, p. 52)
Beyond our large brain and larynx, or our opposable
thumbs, the quality that most readily differentiates
distinguishes humans from our animal brethren is our
relative lack of preformed, inherited, fixed instincts -
patterns that give other creatures a relatively
predetermined nature. Compared to other species we
humans seem to have more freedom: an ability to exercise
control over our behavior, and to change. Whatever the
other characteristics of human nature, it would seem
that, precisely this capacity for transformation, is its
most salient feature. From this point of view, we can
even say that, for all practical purposes there is no
such thing as human nature. The unique characteristic of
the human being is the vast range of possibilities in
any situation. As Frankl (1963) writes:
"One of the main features of human existence is
the capacity to rise above conditions and transcend them….
a human being is a self transcending being… Things
determine each other but Man is ultimately
self-determining. What he becomes, within the limits of
his endowment and environment - he has made out of
himself."
Still, we also are inheritors of powerful drives for
safety and security. As Robert Anton Wilson (1990, p.
77) remarks with his usual flair for reminding us of the
obvious: "Aristotelian dogmatic habit also
reinforces and gets reinforced by ancient mammalian
territorial imperatives. Wild primates, like other
vertebrates, claim physical territories; domesticated
primates (humans) claim 'mental' territories...."
Coming back to consider self-organization and
development we can take note of a very intriguing
characteristic. Such systems, instead of looking to a
pre-designated structure, apriori principle, or
hierarchical leader to create order, make use of
feedback loops to enhance movement toward new levels of
organization. For this kind of transformation to occur,
however, first what is called a "bifurcation
point" (point of departure) must be reached. Such a
point marks the moment when random and seemingly chaotic
fluctuations become "amplified" through the
process of feedback; this phenomenon in turn begins to
link with other fluctuations - creating a multitude of
interconnecting feedback loops. In actuality this kind
of linking involves two very different kinds of
feedback. Negative feedback damps and regulates activity
to keep it within a certain range, while positive
feedback, amplifies fluctuations from the norm. As
Briggs and Peat note: "…when negative and
positive feedback loops couple together, they can create
a new dynamic balance - a bifurcation where chaotic
activity suddenly branches off into order." (2000,
pp. 15-16)
Two additional factors are worthy of note. The first
concerns the role played by "momentum," the
second, by "attractors." In the context of
self-organizing systems we discover an alternative to
the imposition of order from above. Order is emergent,
with new properties appearing that cannot be predicted
from the form and movement of the original system. In
the case of human groups, we see the following dynamic:
below a critical threshold of energy input into a
system, the random patterns of individuals remain
independent, one from the other. But when there is
sufficient energy or stress to cross the threshold, the
system begins to transform en mass. The group system
organizes itself at a new level of complexity and
coherence.
Noteworthy also is Shepherd's observation that the
self-reinforcing patterns (known as
"attractors") form only if the system contains
enough diversity and variation - "differences that
make a difference." In any case, the attractor
seems to beckon the system in a particular direction.
Suddenly, it is as if a group of individual musicians,
each playing their own tune, has made a decision to
become an orchestra - one that would rather play in
concert. The result is harmony, order, and an emerging
musical structure.
3. Transformative
Learning, Self-Organization and Emergence
The Cohort experience is a core element of the
transformative learning and change concentration of the
Humanities Doctoral Program at CIIS. Cohorts themselves
might be described as "experiments in
self-organization," where there is learning in
community, and also learning about community.
Particularly in the Learning Community course,
principles of self-organization and transformative
learning are interwoven. As a way of deepening our
understanding of how these domains are interrelated, it
is helpful to make a distinction between
"change" on the one hand, and
"transformation" on the other. In the 3rd
edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (1998) we
find that these words are considered essentially
interchangeable:
Change: n. 1. The act, process, or result of altering
or modifying. 2. The replacing of one thing for another;
substitution. 3. A transformation or transition from one
state, condition, or phase to another.
Transformation: n. 1.a. The act or an instance of
transforming. b. The state of being transformed. 2. A
marked change, as in appearance or character, usually
for the better.
This is understandable since the word
"transformation," after all, simply refers to
a "change in form." And, as countless sages
including the Buddha, have pointed out, change or
impermanence is one of the "marks of
existence" in our the world.
However, it is possible to make a distinction between
change that is transformative, and change that is not.
Imagine a person stuck in a dingy prison cell.
Modification or "variation" could be equated
with rearranging the furniture within the room, while
"transformation" would indicate walking out of
the cell (and the prison) altogether. Similarly, we can
describe two levels or kinds of change. "1st-order
change" refers to change within a given system.
Here, the system itself remains unchanged, while its
elements or parts undergo some kind of change. "2nd
order change" refers to a change in the system
itself, where the system is transformed in terms of its
structure or communication patterns. In practical terms
second-order change techniques lift the situation out of
the plane of solutions that have not worked because they
are of the same nature as the original difficulty.
This way of conceiving change derives in large part
from the groundbreaking insights of Bertrand Russell and
A.N. Whitehead in logic and mathematics. Whitehead and
Russell's' Theory of Logical Types points to the logical
distinction between a member of a class and the class
itself. In doing so the theory provides a basis for
describing changes that transcend a given frame of
reference. The theory is not so much concerned with what
goes on inside of a class (between its members); rather,
it provides a way of considering the kinds of
metamorphoses which occur in the process of a shift from
one logical level to the next higher.
(Watzlawwick, 1974. p. 6)
Practical and Logical and Hierarchies
From a practical standpoint it is important not to
confuse these levels. For instance, if our aim is to
help an entire family system to improve the quality of
its functioning, we will need a different kind of focus
than if our goal is to support one of its members in
changing. Gregory Bateson, in studying family systems,
identified a phenomenon he called the
"double-bind." What doublebinds have in common
is that they are structured like paradoxes or antinomies
in formal logic. Examples of these would include the
well-known paradoxical statement, which says, "This
statement is a lie, " or the bumper sticker which
reads, "My convictions are not for public
display." Encountering such paradoxical assertions
commonly elicits a puzzled smile, for at some level we
realize that the confusion is inherent in the structure
of the message itself: what is being communicated at one
level of discourse is simultaneously contradicted by
what is being said at a second level.
However, as Watzlawick (1974) has shown, this general
pattern appears very frequently in human communication,
and is by no means limited to behavior labeled as
psychiatrically disturbed. Paradoxes that are
incorporated into systems of communication can be of
stark practical importance. Commonly, doublebinds arise
within an interpersonal relationship (or system) where
there are two conflicting levels of communication and an
injunction against commenting on the conflict. Since we
all communicate at a multitude of levels, this can occur
when we indicate one thing with our words, and
simultaneously, the polar opposite with our physical
posture and gestures, or the pitch, tone and tempo of
our speech.
With this kind of systemic distinction in mind it can
be seen that, if we are to proceed further in
differentiating transformative from non-transformative
change (and in the process understanding and
appreciating the discipline of Transformative Learning
more deeply), we will need to consider these topics from
the vantage-point of a larger, more inclusive context -
that of a "systems view of the world."
The Systems Approach
The genesis of systems theory was rooted in a
realization of the limitations of both the analytic
method and reductionist assumptions in science. It also
reflected a growing awareness of the need for new ways
to study wholeness and "organized complexity."
(Olds, 1992, p.75) In fact the emergence of the
discipline of "systems science" itself can be
thought of as a response to complexity - to the
recognition that "the world is made not of so many
isolated bits, but of complex systems of
interrelationships and networks of interaction." (Montuori
and Conti, 1993, pp. 4-5) Although it draws from the
worldviews of a great many indigenous traditions,
contemporary systems science in and of itself represents
a major paradigm shift in human thought.
For more than two centuries classical western science
assumed that any phenomenon could be adequately
understood in terms of its parts, and had proceeded on
the assumption that the world could be understood and
controlled by dissecting it. The "systems"
approach, in contrast, arose out of a realization that
"wholes" - be they bodies, cells, persons,
organizations, or ecosystems - are not just a heap of
disjunctive parts, but dynamic, intricately organized
and balanced systems. (Macy, 1983, pp. 70-74) In an
effort to perceive and understand phenomena, which had
eluded the mechanistic model of reality, scientists
began to look at wholes instead of parts, and at
processes instead of substances.
Systems theory can be thought of as an
interdisciplinary model or metaphor, which seeks to
address a science of wholes at different hierarchical
levels. According to Ervin Laszlo, the formulation of
General Systems Theory was much broader, and of greater
significance than a single theory: it created a new
paradigm for the development of theories (from Ludwig
von Bertalanffy, http://www.isss.org/quoteslvb.htm). The
systems "way of seeing" is particularly
valuable in that it enables us to notice isomorphisms
across various levels of systems, in terms of
similarities and relationships, as well as
discontinuities. (Slip, 1991). Laszlo and Gregory
Bateson continued working along these lines, addressing
their attention to systems theory as a "bridge
between conventionally separated domains." (Olds,
1992, p. 75)
Laszlo offers this elegant definition of a system:
"an ordered whole in relation to its relevant
environment." (Olds, 1992, p. 76) The contrast
between a "non-additive system" and that of an
"unrelated heap" can be represented as the
qualitative difference between a completed building and
a pile of bricks. Also of relevance is the concept of
"synergy," a term coined by Buckminster
Fuller, which refers to the fact that the output of a
total system is not reducible to, or predictable from,
the behavior of separate subparts within the system.
An equally central characteristic of systems is their
tendency to be arranged in increasing levels of
complexity (Olds, 1992, p.78.) This key attribute refers
to the tendency to be arranged in hierarchies, with
systems embedded within systems. In this way electrons
dwell within atoms, which dwell within molecules, and so
on, extending through organisms, communities,
ecosystems. planets, solar systems, and galaxies.
According to Macy (1993, p. 77) this is not a hierarchy
of rank and authority, as in an army or church, nor is
it a hierarchy of being and value, as in the thought of
Plato. It is more like a set of nested boxes: In reality
any system encloses and is simultaneously enclosed
within systems; it remains in a state of interconnection
through a dynamic flow of energy & information.
Thus, we are given a new kind of unit with which to
apprehend the universe - the holon. And, because this
perspective involves an important distinction from
conventional notions of hierarchy, a new word -
holonarchy - is used. As Wilber (1980, p.1) writes:
"Everywhere we look in nature… we see nothing
but wholes. And not just simple wholes, but hierarchical
ones: each whole is part of a larger whole, which is
itself a part of a larger whole. The universe tends to
produce…higher and higher- level wholes, evermore
inclusive and organized."
As previously mentioned in the discussion of
self-organization, there are two primary processes by
which a system creates and sustains its unique form of
order and dynamic equilibrium. The first, termed
"adaptive self-stabilization" refers to the
system's utilization of a negative feedback process to
maintain continuity of pattern or
"homeostasis." The 2nd mode of systemic
functioning, called "adaptive self
organization," occurs via positive feedback loops,
whereby information about a change in environment is
used to reorganize the system in entirely new ways.
Here, the system's deep structure can undergo
modification through a process of "complexification."
Macy (1993, pp. 74-76) explains that through this
capacity to flexibly cope by processing information, a
system moves towards greater variety. In this way
homeostasis/self-similarity, and change/evolution are
each sustained. A certain degree of continuity of
structure is maintained, while the system as a whole
adapts to a new level of environmental demand.
Cognitive Systems
Specifically relevant to issues of transformative
learning is the fact that, just as we can speak of
"energy-processing," physical systems, we can
also speak of "information processing,"
cognitive systems. Cognitive self-stabilization would
involve all that we do to maintain stability and
constancy within our knowledge base. On the other hand,
adaptive self-organization requires learning new
constructions and the evolution of new governing
principles for the learning process itself. (Macy, 1993,
pp. 82-85) Mezirow points to "reflective
discourse" as a primary form through which
transformative learning takes place. For Mezirow (2000
p. 114) this is,"…the process in which we
actively dialogue with others to better understand the
meaning of an experience." Obviously the
"meaning" of an experience will be unique to
each individual and will change as a person continues to
grow.
Let's consider the dynamic tension that exists
between forces maintaining the status quo in our way of
thinking, and those which promote change. It seems to be
an immutable fact of life that if we wish to develop a
broader vision, we must be willing to forsake our
previous, more limited perspective. However, it is often
more comfortable not to do so, at least in the short
run. It is easier to stay where we are, and to continue
to use the same old "microcosmic map," thereby
hoping we can avoid enduring the demise of cherished
notions. And, because this is so, most of us operate
from a narrower frame of reference than that of which we
are capable. To the degree that we fail to transcend the
influence of our particular culture, set of parents, and
formative childhood experiences, our own lives,
relatively speaking, will remain in a state of stasis.
(Peck, 1979, pp. 44-58)
This is no mere academic consideration. As Morin (1999)
has emphasized, when a given system finds itself
saturated with problems it can no longer resolve, it has
two possibilities: either a general regression or a
change of system. Ideally, transformative learning
enables us to choose the latter course of action. But
again, this is a delicate matter, since growth is in no
way assured. Each of us have encountered, at one time or
another within ourselves, a formidable resistance to
expanding our awareness or making needed changes in our
"external" lives. No matter how many times we
say to ourselves, "Change is good…" the
simple fact remains that, a large part of us is
frequently invested in "staying the same." As
M.K. Gandhi once said, "My most formidable opponent
is a man named Mohandas K. Gandhi. With him I seem to
have very little influence."
An identical principle applies at the collective
level. As Rollo May (1958, p.17) has written,
"When a culture is caught in the profound
convulsions of a transitional period, the individuals in
the society understandably suffer spiritual and
emotional upheaval… Finding that… accepted mores and
ways of thought no longer yield security, they tend
either to sink into dogmatism and conformity, giving up
awareness, or are forced to strive for a heightened…
aware [ness] of their existence - with new conviction
and on new bases."
Training Transformers
Obviously, the transformative learning and change
concentration is designed to do more than support
students in focusing on their own academic development
and personal growth. Students are not in training to
become some sort of self-referential "savants"
of the inner worlds. Rather, the TLC context is one of
preparing graduates for an active engagement with the
world at large. No doubt the program encourages
maturation. This is a natural and logical preparation
for the tasks ahead. But, as doctoral students in this
very unique program, we are also being initiated into
mysteries. We are, so to speak, learning to catalyze
human maturation at the species level. As future
"doctors of contextual studies" we are in
training to offer the priceless gift of perspective.
One might say that we are learning how to aid others
(and ourselves) in viewing our planet from the vantage
point of outer space, rather than only seeing what is
evident at ground level. From this aerial perspective,
it is quite clear that we live on a round planet, a
place where rigid boundaries and "taking
sides" can seem childish, even absurd. As former
astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the
moon, has said, "Our problems are only going to be
solved with the participation of all people, all
societies, all cultures, because we're dealing with a
systemic, global problem. Anything short of perceiving
its global scope is putting on Band-aids." (Montuori
and Conti, 1992, p.2)
It is perhaps useful at this point to recall the
depth and breath of the CIIS mission, breathtaking in
its scope. The school's founder, Haridas Chaudhuri, had
been a student of the Indian meditation master Sri
Aurobindo. In a recorded greeting which can be found on
the Internet, http://intyoga.bravepages.com/index.htm
Chaudhuri speaks of the possibilities of a next step in
human evolution that is at once a maturation, and a
great spiritual, intellectual, and artistic renaissance.
His message clearly conveys the idea that whole
societies, like individual human beings, have within
them an ever-present potential for spiritual growth.
Concerning Aurobindo George Feurstein (http:
www.miraura.org/bio/ot-on-sa.html) has shared these
words: "Sri Aurobindo['s] integral philosophy is
today recognized and appreciated as a monumental
synthesis of the highest cultural values of East and
West…There is an immense wealth of outstanding
psychological and spiritual discoveries embedded in his
voluminous writings."
In periods of radical change and dissonance,
established paradigms are brought into question and into
consciousness. It would appear that we are living
through such a time. From this point of view it is
possible to re-frame the current crises we face as part
of a "rite of passage." At the vanguard of the
movement to actively grapple with this issues are
individuals and institutions taking responsibility for
experimenting with new paradigms, and asking new
questions. CIIS is one of these.
Regarded from this vantage point the preponderance of
national and international leaders would be seen as
using obsolete "thought contexts," which are
no longer able to help us understand - or successfully
confront - many of the problems we are now encountering.
Systemically speaking, the crucial issue arises from an
entirely different order: our elaborately interconnected
institutions have all been constructed within a paradigm
which itself has become unworkable. Meanwhile, we are
encounter facing a global crisis of vast proportions (Eisler,
1987) (Laszlo, 1994 )(Montuori and Conti, 1993) (Morin,
1999). All of our old solutions are now being called
into question, presenting us with huge challenges for
the planet and ourselves.
Harman (1988) and Morin (1999) for example, have both
suggested that we are currently in the throws of a
pervasive shift in our "worldview," a mental
revolution which may be of greater proportions than that
of the Copernican revolution some five hundred years
ago; then, western civilization was compelled to accept
and envision a "new" Earth, no longer at the
center of the cosmos. Perhaps, today we are encountering
a similar "de-centralizing" of the human ego,
as we begin to grasp the true extent of our
interdependence. Morin (1999, p. 77) asks: "Are we
irremediably engaged in a race to a generalized
cataclysm?…The death/birth struggle [of our species]
is perhaps the way…toward the general metamorphosis -
on the condition that we raise to consciousness this
very struggle." It would seem imperative that,
sooner rather than later, this crisis serves to motivate
human culture as a whole to change its direction,
thereby enabling us to work realistically with the
actual challenges we are facing.
The TLC curriculum is clearly geared to addressing
the inherent limitations of the modern (and post-modern)
worldview. Now we can begin to weave together a few of
the connections between the TLC model of Cohort
"self organization," and two very different
kinds of change. We can recall that the first kind of
change occurs within a given system (for instance, the
members of a class - whether objects, situations,
persons, concepts, etc.), which itself remains
unchanged. In contrast, the second sort of change is
that one involves transformation of the structure and
process of the system as a whole. Something that seems
impossible to achieve from "within" the rules
of the system, can be surprisingly easy to accomplish if
we can use a paradigm or worldview "outside"
the bounds of those on which the system is based.
An example with which we are all familiar would be
that of a person having a nightmare. He can do many
things in his dream - run, scream, hide, fight - but no
change from any one of these behaviors to another can
itself end the nightmare. As the old saying goes - in
this predicament, "the more things change, the more
they remain the same." The one way out of a dream,
obviously, involves waking up - a change from dreaming
to a completely different state. We are all a bit like
the dreamer. At the individual level
As individuals all of us display a very human
tendency to become attached to "mental
models." These can be thought of as deeply held
generalizations, sometimes described as
"stories" about the world and our place within
it. (Senge, 1990) These unconscious assumptions appear
so obvious that, ordinarily, we tend to have little
awareness of them, since no other way of construing the
world has ever occurred to us. Research has shown that,
normally, once a person is committed to a mental model -
data contradicting their convictions and images does not
to lead to correction of inaccurate views. On the
contrary, this information is more likely to lead not to
a validation of our "stories," as well as
further refinement of them. (Watzlawick, 1974).
What is so for individuals, also applies at the level
of society as a whole. Willis Harman (1988 p. 10)
observes that:
"Every society rests on some set of largely
tacit basic assumptions about who we are, what kind of
universe we are in, and what is ultimately important to
us. They are typically not formulated or taught because
they don't need to be - -they are absorbed by each
person born into the society as though by osmosis. They
are accepted as given, obviously true."
Considered self-evident and tacitly assumed, this
mindset about how things happen acts as a mental context
within which problems are perceived and endeavors
mounted; interestingly, these very endeavors tend to
justify the assumptions on which they are based.
In utilizing the metaphor of "outdated paradigm
as nightmare," we have arrived at key juncture;
and, we are obliged to ask a vital question. Could it be
said, that we, who live in the contemporary world, are
ourselves caught up in a nightmare? Below are two
answers. In the first Berman in The Reenchantment of the
World (in Feuerstein, 1990) speaks about one dimension
of our current way of being in the world:
"[This] consciousness is alienated
consciousness: there is no ecstatic merger with nature,
but rather total separation from it. Subject &
object are always seen in opposition to each other…The
logical endpoint of [this] worldview is a feeling of
total reification: everything is an object, alien,
not-me; and I am ultimately an object, too, an alienated
'thing' in a world of other, equally meaningless things.
This…cosmos cares nothing for me, & I do not
really feel a sense of belonging to it. What I feel, in
fact, is a sickness in the soul."
Elsewhere Fuerstein (1995, pp. 123-124) adds to this:
"The technological 'progress'- the rational
conquest of nature - has assumed irrational proportions.
And it is not only the arms race that is threatening all
life on earth. The 'fall-out' of industrialization and
consumerism is also actively destroying our planet
through the pollution of water, air and land…and the
unthinking destructions of forests […vital to life as
we know it]…The world populations is continuing to
grow exponentially, as is the tragedy of world hunger,
and therefore the probability of political upheavals and
oppression…Even the privileged suffer: from a
fundamental disorientation…a marked decline of psychic
health and physical fitness… a virulent consumer
mentality - fed by 'hidden persuaders,' a stagnant
morality, and free-for-all pluralism that governments
seek to counter through totalitarian measures."
In this light it becomes paramount to discern the
kinds of learning and change that can be considered
transformative. Montuori and Conti (1993) have pointed
out that the term "paradigm," much in use
today, has lost a great deal of its revolutionary
impact. As they explain, the original intent of Kuhn,
who is credited with bringing this word to the forefront
of modern discourse, was to describe a set of
assumptions about reality that form an indivisible web
of beliefs about the world, beliefs we take to be
reality and that function as a compass that guides our
lives on an unconscious level. In practice the term
"transformation" has gone through a similar
process of blunting and attenuation. As a concept much
of its original power and meaning has been diluted.
In short, the term "transformation" is
routinely used to describe any major sort of change,
particularly if it is accompanied by some intensity of
feeling. Hampton-Turner and Trompenaars, for example,
take up the question of whether it is possible for
organizations, social systems, and cultures as a whole,
to hold apparently dichotomous or "opposing"
values in a way that is synergistic, rather than
antagonistic. To this end they explore six dimensions of
cultural diversity, each of which describes a particular
"values dilemma." These are:
"universalism vs. particularism,"
"individualism vs. communitarianism,"
"specificity vs. diffusion, "achieved status
vs. ascribed status," "inner direction vs.
outer direction," and "sequential time vs.
synchronous time." They suggest that no particular
value is completely satisfactory to an individual or a
social group, especially when experienced in isolation
from its complementary pole.
Often, as contemporary people, we hold the belief
that when opposing values exist, we must choose between
them. But as Fay (1996, p. 223) notes: "Time and
again we have seen that options posing as competing
alternatives [and ] that positions masking as complete
answers are only partial and one sided….requiring
their supposed opposite for completion."
Our day-to-day life is inexorably constituted by a
back and forth movement between opposite ends on a
continuum: each day we experience a flow between
innumerable polarities: sound and silence, light and
dark, pleasure and discomfort, and so on. In the realm
of matter we find the fundamental positive and negative
polarities of attraction and repulsion; in organic life
there is the basic experience of sexual polarity. In the
emotional dimension there are also examples of duality:
confidence/doubt, enthusiasm/depression, holding
on/letting go, and so on. While fluctuations between
these can sometimes be somewhat dramatic, these
movements ought not to qualify under the rubric of
"transformation," if we are using the term to
mean, a change, which is "meta" to both
alternatives, i.e., the fusion of opposites into a
higher synthesis.
As human beings, we naturally differ with one another
in terms of perspectives, attitudes, beliefs,
convictions, etc. These differences, which are often
deeply held, have divided us from time immemorial. When
it comes to the complex matter of people with a vast
array of divergent points of view, biases, interests,
and commitments - "working things out" - it is
in fact possible to distinguish two major types of
solutions. One is realized on the same level as the
problem, and can be described as "the middle way of
compromise." The other solution is achieved at a
higher level, and can be called the "way of
synthesis." The latter is analogous in a certain
chemical combinations, where the final product includes
and absorbs the two substances into a higher unity
endowed with qualities differing from those of either of
the individual elements.
Slater (1974, p. 148), in many ways echoing
Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars' view regarding the
resolution of conflicting values, suggests that
"tolerance" is a dead-end street, as it
implies a lack of connection between opposing views.
Significant change and growth, he maintains, must
involve a fusion of opposites: "not a compromise
between antithetical positions, but a response that
meets the human needs underlying both positions, since
such needs are -with widely varying intensities -
universal."
Within this context the term
"transformation" means "death"…
and "birth." It implies the demise of the
predictable, and, by definition, entering into a way of
being that is altogether new. Given the need of our
world for renewal and "re-creation"- it is
important that we seek to preserve the radical and
revolutionary meaning of this word whenever possible.
4. Cultivating
and Tending the Garden of Transformation
At best, a group of students in a Cohort setting will
move together through the stages of group development,
and in the process experience "learning" and
"transformation." Mezirow, who is generally
considered a founding father of the discipline known as
"transformative learning," describes it this
way: contemporary
"the process by which we transform our
taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning
perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them
more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally
capable of change, and reflective so that they may
generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true
or justified to guide action." (Mezirow, 2000, pp.
7-8)
Watering and Fertilizing the Garden
Likewise, in a chapter entitled "Transformative
Learning for the Common Good," (in Mezirow, 2000)
Laurent Parks Daloz posits four particulars, which when
combined, tend to create a climate conducive to "transformative"
levels of learning. These are: the presence of the
other, reflective discourse, a mentoring community, and
opportunities for committed action.
Clearly, the intention behind the Cohort experience
is for transformative learning to arise in the context
of a group process. Are there specific things one can do
to support the twin processes of self-organization and
transformation? Meg Wheatley believes that there are,
and suggests that we can begin by fostering within
ourselves a "willingness to see the world
differently."
"It begins with a change in our beliefs. We give
up believing that we design the world…and instead take
up roles in support of its flourishing. We work with
what is available and encourage forms to come forth. We
foster tinkering and discovery. We help create
connections. We nourish with information. We stay clear
about what we want to accomplish. We remember that
people self-organize and trust them to do so."
(Wheatley, 1996, p. 38)
Wheatley's core point is that if we wish to support
self-organizing, what requires our attention is not the
design of specific structures; rather, our primary focus
can be on nourishing conditions that will lead to the
emergence of necessary structures. The primary role of
leaders, she adds, is to sustain a group by asking what
is needed. "Do people need resources, or
information, or access to new people?"
One of the primary needs of the self-organizing group
is access to information. And, for this reason our
capacities for self-organization are furthered by
openness. In healthy human systems, asserts Wheatley,
people support one another with information and nurture
one another with trust. Shepherd, too, places a strong
focus on this open, allowing climate, specifically
noting that the development of "trust" is
required for spontaneous organization to occur.
"When trust is missing we [create] hierarchy, which
cannot tolerate chaos. The desire for control and
efficiency [itself] short circuits the natural process
of self-organizing systems." (1993, p. 142)
Interestingly, Parks Daloz echoes these thoughts in
discussing conditions that are needed for transformative
learning to occur. He highlights Mezirow's assertion
that,
"…because transformation involves the whole
person… [what is required is] the establishment of a
climate of safety in which people feel free to speak
their truth, where blaming and judging are minimal,
where full participation is encouraged, where a premium
is placed on mutual understanding, but also where
evidence and arguments may be assessed objectively and
assumptions surfaced openly." (in Mezirow, 2000, p.
114)
Some`, (1999, p. 95) too, in speaking of indigenous
cultures' wisdom, has described a virtually identical
set of prerequisites for the emerge of an authentic,
shared sense of community:
"…What is required for the maintenance and
growth of community is…a village-like atmosphere that
allows people to drop their masks. A sense of community
grows where behavior is based on trust & where no
one has to hide anything. There are certain human powers
that cannot be unleashed without such a supportive
atmosphere, [and which enable us to] believe in our
ability to unlock potentials in ourselves & others
far beyond what is commonly known."
Mezirow asserts that deep approaches to learning: 1)
focus on meaning, and 2) include the inevitability
"of change in the learner as a person." It
naturally follows that such changes can leave adults
feeling extremely vulnerable. We spend the majority our
lives committed to particular ways of thinking about the
world; one day we marshal our courage and begin to
question some of our most cherished assumptions; there
are many potential risks involved in this endeavor, and
foremost among these is discovering that one's customary
"ways of seeing and being" are suddenly
unsatisfactory or unworkable. As Taylor reflects,
changing "how one knows," risks changing
"everything one knows something about" -
personal and professional relationships, ideas, goals,
and values - in short the totality of one's adult
commitments. She adds:
"One area in which Mezirow's otherwise
informative scheme for facilitating adult learning could
be more helpful is in examining the emotional
complexities and psychological costs of transformation,
which he mentions only in passing. In fact developmental
growth is enormously challenging. Though it may be
experienced as exhilarating and energizing it is also,
at times, traumatic and overwhelming." (Taylor, in
Mezirow, 2000, p. 160)
Even so, when it comes to in transformative change,
there is no "one size which fits all." As
valid and on target as all these formulations may be,
there is much more for us to understand about how these
vital perspectives can be applied at all levels of our
social structure. And, there is much more to discover
about the conditions needed for the emergence of
learning that - in Mezirow's words - is truly "emancipatory."
Pruning, Weeding, and Cutting Back
Also, while it is evident that establishing a climate of
safety and trust is paramount, this should not be
equated with fostering comfort in the form of
complacency. On the contrary, as Mezirow (Taylor, in
Mezirow, 2000, p. 155) has observed, personal discomfort
can be valuable in creating a context for deep learning.
e goes on to say that Transformative Learning begins
with a "disorienting dilemma,"…an
"experience which problematizes current
understandings and frames of reference." In other
words, confusion, when not alleviated by any further
information, tends to galvanize us to be particularly
ready to hold fast to the next piece of concrete
information which seems to make sense of our dilemma; we
long for that which promises relief - the reward of
re-organizing the "puzzle pieces" into an
understandable whole (Watzlawick, 1974). Stated plainly,
there can be great value in the state of being
"disoriented."
Still, this is not an easy process. Peck has
described this situation very clearly:
"Because of the pain inherent in the process of
revising our maps of reality, we mostly seek to avoid or
ward off any challenges to its validity…Not only
individuals, but also organizations are notorious for
protecting themselves against challenge…Just as it is
necessary for individuals to accept and even welcome
challenges if they are to grow in wisdom and
effectiveness, [so too must]… organizations."
(Peck, 1979, pp. 52-53)
The predicament is that there are many things we need
to renounce if we are to give birth to an authentic
learning community. Not the least of these is our sense
of "certainty." Undoubtedly, it can be very
difficult to give up certainty - in the form of
positions, beliefs, and explanations that have defined
us and lie at the core of our personal identity. As Peck
has stressed, such a "giving up" is a
sacrificial process. And, such sacrifice tends to be
painful because it is a kind of death, the kind of death
that is necessary for rebirth. Yet, even when we realize
this on an intellectual level, this kind of dying is
still a fearsome adventure into the unknown. (Peck,
1987, pp. 99-100)
Clearly, the work of transformative learning and
group self-organization can be simultaneously demanding
and joyful. Briggs and Peat describe variations on this
theme at the level of individual transformation. For
countless years many Native American traditions have
used the containment of the superheated interior of a
sweat lodge to foster psychic self-organization.
Traditional psychotherapies, too, make use of a
container: during the psychoanalytic hour a patient is
encouraged to let go, free associate, and make contact
with the chaotic material in his or her subconscious.
Briggs and Peat underscore another point: that
exploration of newness entails a sacrifice of the
familiar:
"Seeing….beyond abstraction and the seduction
of the "known" involves entering….into
doubts and uncertainties and allowing our abstractions
and mental constructions to die or be transformed. When
this happens, creative insight self-organizes, catching
us unaware with the shock or delight of the unexpected
truth, essence, or being [itself]." (2000, p. 23)
Meanwhile, returning to the Cohort experience and
striking a balance ala` McClure, we are reminded that a
group can transform either "forwards" or
"backwards;" that is, under certain conditions
it is relatively predictable that a group will move in
the direction of a more rigid and regressive way of
being.
The Overgrown Garden: Going Nowhere - Fast
A related issue is that of circularity, which itself
is usually linked to a group's experience of "being
stuck." Since groups bring to the surface powerful
contradictions in their members, a major task of any
group can be seen as the effective modulation and "metabolization"
of these apparent polarities. Smith and Berg offer the
following distinction:
"The successful management of these tensions can
provide members with a connection both among themselves
and with the group. [catalyzing]… a group collective
life, and the development of individuals upon whose
energies the group depends. [However] when the group
fails to hold these contradictions and works to have
them expunged or expelled from their midst or carried
burdensomely by one particularly member or subgroup …then
the preconditions for 'stuckness' have been
created." (pp. 14-15)
Smith and Berg (p. 210) assert that at the center of
the experience of "being stuck" is a
"vicious circularity that can make paradox both
intellectually and emotionally disturbing." Faced
with what appear to be mutually exclusive subgroups,
beliefs, wishes, fears, etc, group members are easily
tempted to utilize a dichotomous or
"disjunctive" way of thinking about the
group's process. The authors make another pivotal point,
namely that the greater the intensity of a group's wish
to avoid dealing with the contradictions they are
experiencing, the more these "conflicting"
opposites" will tend to dominate the process.
"[A significant]…threat to…group
[functioning] is [the possibility] that only one side of
group members' reactions to being in the group will be
allowed expression. The other side will be held
unexpressed, creating a potentially dangerous explosion
if the forces containing these emotions prove to be
insufficiently powerful." (p. 211)
Groups employ another common strategy to deal
dissimilarity and disagreement, often with the best of
intentions. Group members may try to compromise with one
another by finding a middle ground, in the hope that
contradictions will disappear. At CIIS it is likely that
such an initiative will be framed in terms of
"partnering" with others, rather than fighting
or competing with them. Ironically, in doing so, members
may remain unaware that they are continuing to operate
within the very paradigms to hope to transcend; for they
are using a frame of "domination" in
attempting to purge the group of tensions that are
inherent in subgroup energies/positions already
perceived as incompatible. This may well provide the
group with feelings of temporary fulfillment, as they
reassure one another that they are the kind of people
who can work through or "put aside" their
differences in the service of cooperation. Besides this,
what group would want to go into its G-Doc presentation,
demonstrating that it has been unwilling or unable to do
so?
Naturally, a reciprocal scenario is also quite
common. This routinely occurs when is opposing subgroups
are pitted against one another. As the group attempts to
"subjugate" one side of the contradiction, the
group's process sets in motion the very forces that will
reassert the conquered set of emotions or views. (Smith
and Berg, pp. 212-13)
With the permission of the author, a member of C-16,
here is a posting which presents one view of our process
prior to our 2nd Intensive, and which illustrates a
number of these principles:
"Our cohort is currently discussing how we will
spend our time at the January Intensive. Some of our
members-A and B among them-have argued that we need to
proactively make plans to address certain issues that
they believe existed within our group dynamics when we
met last August. They argue that the 'regressive' (Smith
& Berg, 1987. p. 220) experience of discussing and
analyzing our past experience will facilitate the
group's progress toward successfully handling these
issues in January. Other members-C and M among them-have
argued that assuming that issues of the past (which may
or may not have really been present) may actually create
them anew. I've attempted to be circumspect about this
debate, but I imagine anyone who reads what I've posted
would put me in the first camp-and they would be correct
in doing so.
After reading Smith and Berg, however, I no longer
believe that one side or the other are'correct.' It
seems to me that we're in the middle of a paradox, which
I would express with the following two sentences….I
believe that this 'absolutizing' of each position is a
result of being in the grips of a paradox. Well, here
are the two sentences:
We create issues by assuming we have them
By assuming we have issues we recognize and resolve them
As our cohort has debated what to do about our
'issues' that either exist or don't, I believe that
we've slowly been 'splitting' (Smith & Berg, 1987.
p. 68) into subgroups that advocate one or the other of
these positions. To my ear, our conversation has taken
on a quality that I regard as repetitive and
argumentative (though covered with a veneer of
politeness). I believe this is a good example of how any
group can become paralyzed when debating a paradox
instead of exploring it.
For the sake of our current inquiry the license will
be taken to note that the group member referred to, as
"M" above, is in fact, Monty, our professor.
This offhanded reference opens up a number of rich
avenues for further investigation. Among the questions
we are called upon to pose are these: What exactly is
the role of a Cohort leader? Is the leader a group
member, or "something other" than a member? If
they are not in a primarily hierarchical relationship to
the group, what is their position?
Related to this, what sorts of input are appropriate
for Cohort facilitators to offer? Is it possible that
there are types of leader input, which at first glance,
seem to be innocuous, casual comments, but which in fact
serve as powerful interventions impacting the group in
unintended ways? Might our lack of clear distinctions
around this topic actually create obstacles to the
process of group self-determination? Is it possible that
such "non-intervention/interventions" might in
fact dominate the group process, perhaps even more
potently than the classic and timeworn autocratic
approach? And, if so, what might students be learning,
if only implicitly, about how power and authority
function in our world, including institutions which are
founded on "emancipatory learning," such as
the TLC program? With these rich questions in mind,
let's continue our journey.
5. The Role of
the Leader in Self-Organizing Systems
We are now able to turn and take a fresh look at the
Cohort leadership structure itself. There appears to be
an impression among students (based on statements they
have heard from a number of Cohort facilitators) that
the advisor/professor/facilitator role is based on a
policy of fundamental "neutrality" or
"non-intervention." Whatever connotations
these terms may have, this simply seems to be the
impression received by many Cohort members. However,
within this context, the responsibilities, limits, and
privileges of the leadership role itself are apt to
remain rather vague, and without precise definition.
Clearly, the LC course (and the Cohort experience, which
is central to it) is based on principles of
self-organization. In fact the leadership model for
Cohorts stands in stark contrast to the way things are
managed in the vast majority of organizations and small
task-oriented groups in our world. Generally speaking,
organizations take for granted that leaders need to
provide the organizing energy for systems, which
themselves have no internal capacity for generating
self-creation, self-renewal, or self-transcendence.
"Trying to be an effective leader in this
machine story is especially exhausting. The story say
that he or she is leading a group of lifeless, empty
automatons who are just waiting to be filled with vision
and direction and intelligence. The leader is
responsible for providing everything: the organizational
mission and values, the organizational structure, the
plans, the supervision. The leader must also figure out,
through clever use of incentives or coercives, how to
pump energy into this lifeless mass."
("Reclaiming Gaia, Reclaiming Life,
www.margaretwheatley.com)
Conversely, as applied in a Cohort setting - the
leadership role that is presented is obviously designed
to be non-hierarchical.
On the CIIS website (2002) we are offered an
introduction to the program as a whole:
"The Transformative Learning and Change
concentration of the Humanities Doctoral program is
designed for learners who wish to combine innovative
scholarship with a commitment to action. The
concentration stresses the development of capacities to
design and facilitate change in individuals, groups,
organizations, and cultures. It facilitates the
development of strong academic capacities, including
critical and creative thinking. The transdisciplinary
context of our research aims not just to describe, but
to change human systems."
Roles, Definitions, and Boundaries in a
Non-Hierarchical Setting
A central objective of the Cohort experience, then,
is to provide scholar-practitioners with multiple,
experiential opportunities for learning how to become
"system-change agents." McClure has emphasized
the critical importance of the group leader at all
stages of development. He (or she) is in essence a
"midwife:" supporting, encouraging, and aiding
the group as it gives birth to itself. This
group-midwife has a great many tasks to attend to, and
these vary as the group evolves through different
stages. By gently offering just the right amount of
"containment and perturbation" at the
appropriate moment (evoking a negative feedback loop
here, a positive one there), the group is supported in
moving toward greater degrees of freedom and
self-determination. If optimal maturation is to occur it
is also falls to the leader to help the group recognize
its own blind-spots, at times aiding members to let go
of previously unexamined assumptions and beliefs - at
least until the group can perform these functions for
itself. In this sense a leader dons a mantle similar to
one, which therapists and spiritual guides have worn
throughout history.
Still, we must not forget that in the TLC program,
the facilitator is concurrently the course instructor
and each Cohort member's PhD advisor. How do the
academic aspects of the course fit here? And what about
the dissertation, and all that it entails? Professor,
group leader, advisor, and honorary Cohort member: in
trying to discern the boundaries of these roles, Cohort
members are left without contextual markers. Perhaps
even more relevant is McClure's observation that, in
general, group leaders tend to be insufficiently trained
and have too few supervised group experiences in their
background. McClure's critique also includes the
assertion that many texts fail to adequately
characterize the stages of group development and the
skills relevant to group maturation. (1998, p. 122)
Clearly, the transformative process involves powerful
experiences for all concerned; this being so we can
expect that group leaders and co-leaders, in course of
performing their duties, will experience an array of
very intense emotions. Among these are: self-doubt,
boredom, anger, defensiveness, and fear, as well as joy,
fulfillment, and empathic connection. (McClure, 1998,
pp. 118-119).
With all this intensity we may well wonder whether
the Cohort leaders themselves receive a sufficient level
of support and supervision vis-à-vis this demanding
position. This question is especially salient in light
of the current availability of advanced-level group
relations knowledge. For instance in a recent article,
Lawrence (1995) described with painstaking care the way
in which managers and other group leaders are
"used" by the groups and individuals they lead
- to reinforce defense mechanisms against anxiety. This
is seen as a mutual process in which a manager typically
ends up "holding" (or "being a container
for") an enormous amount of unspoken and
unconscious emotion.
One of the areas in our on-line LC space was named
the Elephant Room, alluding to the question, "Is
there an elephant in the room which we are all
pretending isn't there?" Clearly, in the design of
the LC course - a great deal of care and attention has
been brought to bear on the curriculum and format of
intensives, as well as to the complex process of
transformative learning itself. Perhaps, then, the
"elephant" - if there is one - is across the
room, where no one thinks to look. What if the
"elephant" has less to do with the students'
explicit learning and more to do with what is being
learned implicitly - specifically as a result of the
relationship between the facilitator/advisor/teaching
assistant and the group as a whole?
Strange Loops and Paradoxes
From this perspective it seems likely that - in terms
of a group's capacity for self-organization - the
"amorphousness" and absence of distinctions
vis-à-vis leadership may well have a number of
unacknowledged consequences. There are a number of
fascinating paradoxes at the core of this dilemma. The
first of these can be described as an inescapable state
of circularity. The leader, who appears to be
scrupulously working to abstain from defining the
situation for the group, ("telling the group what
to do") ends up doing just this. In their zeal to
exercise neutrality and self-restraint, the leader
creates a situation where they are in fact defining the
situation in a very significant way, and in the process,
telling the group exactly what it may (or may not) do or
be.
As Smith and Berg have shown, unresolved paradoxes at
the level of a group process often generate a specific
kind of feedback loop, which in both cybernetics and
logic is called a "strange loop." An example
of how this process can occur in a Cohort setting:
first, the group leader is perceived as sending a
double-message - in essence - "I am in a leadership
role/I am not in a leadership role." This action in
turn sets a tone in the group, which says:
"although many things in the group can be
questioned, there is one exception - the assertion that
I am controlling the group through my stance of
'non-intervention.'" The statement - "I am not
controlling this group" - can be thought of as
generating a "self-referential strange loop."
Interesting enough, an example of this type of
phenomenon can be found in the Bible where it is
written: "Even one of their own prophets has said,
'the Cretans are always liars'" (Titus 1:12). Here
we have a circle, which defies all logic: the Cretan
prophet is Epimenides, and he declares, "All
Cretans are liars." The strange loop shows itself
when we point out that if the Cretan is telling the
truth, he is lying. The other side of the conundrum is
that only if his statement is false, can it be true.
Understandably, PhD students in a Cohort setting who
are living this kind of embedded paradox (without being
aware that they are) will find the experience
bewildering, even maddening. This will perhaps become
clearer if we examine the situation in context. We are
speaking about a group of students whose fundamental
wish is to earn their PhD. Likewise, it is clear that,
beyond the academic dimension, an essential requirement
of Cohort experience is that the group demonstrate its
competence in group-learning. While the details are
sketchy at best, the accomplishment of this goal will
take each individual a substantial way toward the
attainment of a long sought after (and much sacrificed
for) goal - their PhD. Obviously, this final
demonstration of competency will be evaluated in some
way; but, by what measure, and according to what
criteria? The group finds itself in the position of
being led by a leader/non-leader toward a goal it must
show that it has achieved, and which will be evaluated
by unspecified others according to a set of criteria
that the group never quite grasps.
Meanwhile, the group facilitator refrains from precisely
delineating their role, and in the process does not
address the specific ways in which they inexorably
influence the group dynamic. Embedded in this paradox is
an implicit denial that, in terms of the exercise of
power, the leader has "one-upped" the group,
(perhaps even more so than if they had simply told the
group what to do). While it may appear that the
facilitator is taking a non-intrusive, nonhierarchical
(in essence "one-down") role in relation to
the group, students' gut feeling may tell them
otherwise. At the end of the day the group facilitator
is simultaneously students' professor and PhD advisor,
and each of these roles inherently carries a substantial
degree of evaluative power.
In any case, as we have seen, groups need leaders to
move through the stages of group development. Likewise,
in terms of self-organizing systems, there often seems
to be a specific catalytic agent at work, which frees
the system to respond to the "strange
attractor" beckoning it to make the leap to a
higher level of complexity. In this regard we can ask
whether there may be a "downside" to a group
leader being wedded to the idea of
"non-interference" or "strict
neutrality." Perhaps an optimal way to examine this
question is by once again, posing another: namely,
"What is being learned by Cohort
participants?"
If the norm is that - at the start of the Cohort
experience - there are no preset norms or contexts which
will be provided by the group leader, then we can
certainly expect, before long, a great deal of
infighting - as Cohort members' fears, desires,
prejudices, and unresolved emotional issues all arise.
If the leader indicates - either tacitly or explicitly -
that the Cohort is a place where emotional expression
and/or "processing" is legitimate (and/or
expected), then the danger becomes one of indulgence.
Without a clearly defined mission the group can very
easily become lost in interminable discussions about
conflicting opinions, perspectives, etc. We can also
expect conflicts to be clothed in their traditional
win-lose, zero-sum garb - the mantle of the dominator
system.
If, on the other hand, Cohort members perceive
(whether this is explicitly articulated or not) that the
group leader is not fond of "processing," then
another set of dynamics can be predicted to unfold. Here
we can certainly expect the phenomenon of
"group-think" to prevail. Conflict will be
suppressed and perhaps shrouded by a thin veneer of
politeness. If authentic debate and dissent is avoided,
genuine decision-making processes will be unable to
emerge. Again, while lip service may be paid to ideals
such as respect, mutuality, collaboration, and
partnership, we can expect that a dominator-type of
ethos will be reinforced.
6. Program Goals
and Ambiguity
Today, mistrust, a sense of disconnection, and a
general lack of "civility" seem to be the on
the upswing. Many groups in our society are so polarized
that people cannot hear one another. Peck (1987) offers
an insightful observation in this regard: today we bandy
around the word "community," applying it to
almost any collection of individuals - a town, a church,
a professional association, and so on. Peck compares
genuine community to a very precious jewel that is
rarely encountered. The question remains: "How can
we use the word meaningfully?"
What is Community?
Maurice Friedman, (1983, p. 122) a scholar known for
popularizing the work of Martin Buber, addresses a
contemporary phenomenon to which Morin has also given
considerable attention - the hyper-specialization of
knowledge where, "we know more and more about less
and less." Friedman writes: "the indispensable
minimum of humanity in a learning community…is caring
enough to have a [genuine] interchange…Hearing and
responding to one another are the simplest prerequisites
for a learning community."
This issue is turn linked to another, which Morin
also has stressed: our paradigmatic enmeshment in an
invisible web of Aristotelian thinking. Whitehead (1920)
called this the "Fallacy of Bifurcation."
Arguing for humanity's acute need for "a reform in
thinking," Morin describes this phenomenon - the
black/white, right/wrong, approach to problem-solving,
as: "simplistic in the extreme, which underlies so
many dialogues, [leading] inevitably to dead-ends…[This
occurs in part because it is] blind to inter-retro
actions and circular causality." (1999, pp.
124-125) The problem, it would seem, is our proclivity
for a "reducio ad absurdum" approach to life -
the notion that all of reality must be able to be
categorized as either "this" or
"that."
Morin firmly insists that only a complex (dialogic
and recursive) kind of thinking is able to adequately
grapple with "the 'inseparability of problems'…in
which each depends on the other." (1999, p. 132)
While this shift in mind demands a great deal from us,
it is worth the effort, for only this fundamental kind
of learning gets to the heart of what it means to be
human. With practice we learn to re-perceive the world
and our relationship to it. (Senge, pp. 13-14) No doubt,
we as a community of learners are fortunate indeed if we
have the luxury of moving beyond our instinctive linear
thinking, which is deeply rooted in
"Aristotelian" two-valued (either/or) logic.
Why is this vital? The simple fact, declares Morin, is
that this way of thinking: "nips in the bud all
opportunities for comprehension and reflection,
eliminating at the same time all chances of corrective
judgment or a long term view. (1999, p. 128)
This change-in-mind, or "metanoia," as
Senge (1990) refers to it, is neither simple or easy,
however, for our traditional approach to thought is
essentially a self-reinforcing circular pattern, and one
that commonly lures us into a doublebind. In a group
setting we can all be a bit like Ulysses: captivated by
the song of sirens, we can, without warning, find
ourselves buffeted back and forth between a rock and
hard place. On one side a phantasm beckons. Friedman
depicts this situation succinctly: "What is very
often the case [in university settings is], people
putting what other people say into their own categories
& then cutting them down on that basis…We use our
language games in such a way that they shut out people
who do not use our language. This is extremely
pervasive." (1983, p. 161)
Zinker, (1977, p. 46) a Gestalt therapist
specializing in creativity, articulates an alternative
scenario. Here it is as if we are beguiled by another
spectral presence:
"…as the distinctness of 'figural' issues
between [individuals] begins to evaporate, so does their
capacity for creative exchange. The… result of [a]
loss of differentiation between two people is that they
can no longer disagree and "rub against each
other." Creative conflict, or simply good contact,
is sacrificed for routine interactions which are flat,
static, and safe."
A task-oriented group enmeshed in either of these
polarized modes will no doubt feel that it is - at some
level - "spinning its wheels." And under these
circumstances it falls to reason that that stronger
personalities will often feel compelled to
"assist" the group (and themselves) to get to
the finish line. As this occurs, "back
channel" or "back room" dealings - in
which major decision are made behind the scenes - can
easily become another "norm-by-default."
Beneath the surface of an uneasy alliance of
inattention, however, there may well be a cesspool of
anger, resentment, hurt and often a constant stream of
gossip - all denied and unspoken - at least at the
public level of group process.
Returning to consider the general thrust and
direction of the TLC program we can find on the CIIS
website this description:
"This doctoral program focuses on collaborative
learning, dialogue, and
self-reflection, and encourages learners to bring their
full experience and
goals squarely into the educational process. Learners
prepare themselves
for engaging contemporary cultural dilemmas by
transforming their
capacities for communicative learning (pursued through
dialogue) and
emancipatory learning (exploration of one's own
underlying assumptions
and explanatory stories.)…The curriculum focuses on
the psychology and sociology of change, understanding
cultural perspectives, systems thinking, and innovative
qualitative research methodologies. (CIIS Website,
2002)"
These are vital and worthy goals. Yet, in a
Cohort-setting, as we have seen, it is quite possible
for the group to create an unconscious set of priorities
- in essence a hidden agenda, diametrically opposed to
the goals and objectives just cited. Without a clear
sense of boundaries, limits or definition of what a
Learning Community may be, it is not surprising that
aspiring, anxious PhD students would be tempted to avoid
the challenge of dealing with their diversity -
"the differences that make a difference."
After all, their goal is a completed "G-doc,"
not an endless, frustrating, morass of conflict. Things
need to get accomplished; the group needs to come
together, learn together, and demonstrate that it has
done so. It is very tempting for the group to implicitly
demand that its members sacrifice their sense of truth
to preserve an appearance of consensus. And, if
perchance they conclude that an expectation of
"what happens in Cohort" is an obligatory
amount of processing, disagreement, and even uproar,
these too can be creatively conjured up and enacted,
without necessarily contributing to a resolution of
differences.
Trust the Process
Certainly, there were moments in C-16 when many of us
have felt connected, at ease, in synch: when we relaxed
over good food and drink, when we became entrained in
concentrating together on a problem or fascinating
question, or when smaller subgroups spent time together.
But, at the group-as-a-whole level, these were more than
matched by a pendulum-like oscillation between exchanges
that were remarkably divisive, and a
"hale-hearty-well-met" kind of fellowship,
which enabled us to avoid the discomfort of animosity.
Obviously, neither "solution" - antagonism or
avoidance - is preferable, and both can hinder a
group-level rootedness in the integral heart. In private
conversations a number of Cohort members acknowledged
that their own solution to this circular process was
simply to step off the merry-go-round - emotionally
detaching from the whole business, while continuing to
participate.
C-16 was originally introduced to Cohort-life by a
teaching assistant who, being a graduate of TLC, spoke
directly out of her own experience and in so doing
acknowledged the importance and value of attending to
group process issues. However, by the end of the first
day of the first intensive the lack of specificity
around our purpose seemed to already have taken a toll.
We obviously were experiencing a fair amount of
confusion and agitation; group irritability, which was
running high, seemed to be leading us to move into
"fight" mode. It had been quite an
uncomfortable first day, and the next day - as we
ardently tried to find some solid ground - we seemed to
flee (as fast as possible) into a
"super-structure-land," complete with lists
and lists of lists. Upon arrival, Monty humorously
commented on the rather obsessive quality of our
emerging group. Preferring that the group not become
mired in "process work," Monty, as professor,
provided some immediate structure and direction at the
academic level. Yet, relieved as we obviously were at
this turn of events, we nevertheless remained unable to
clarify the program's definition of the terms
"task," or "process." We worked to
have faith in the unfolding flow of events.
As time went on, however, this ambiguity seemed to
generate a consistently unsettled climate. Since the
G-Doc presentation and final artifact were requirements
- it was unclear what would happen if the group got
"stuck" in a major way. Other questions arose:
"How could we establish any solid sense of
direction without parameters around goals, expectations,
etc?" It was clear from talking with other TLC
students - past and present - that there was a wide
variance in the attention given to emotional expression,
academic work, and specific training. That said,
"What's a Cohort to do?" Does the group smile,
and simply "fake it, till it makes it? Does it just
go through the motions of group cohesion in order to
look good? Somehow figure out what it takes to
"pass," and proceed, full speed ahead, toward
that image? It seems likely that, when external Cohort
parameters remain undefined - but the group nevertheless
is given the message that its doctoral level work will
be evaluated - massive confusion can reign. Fog and
storm clouds are likely to roll in, until eventually the
sky has become overcast from horizon to horizon -
pervading and coloring the entire Cohort experience.
Another question comes up. Given that the boundaries
of the Cohort experience are perceived to be quite
nebulous, how would a group even begin to discern
whether it was "stuck" or not? At this
juncture a "sensible solution" may occur to
the participants: perhaps it would be best to simply
"trust the process," rather than
"analyzing" or "having too many
ideas" about the Cohort experience. The thought
arises: perhaps the most efficient way to cope is to
turn a god deal of one's attention to other classes and
projects.
Here, we can catch a glimpse of (as if out of the
corner of our eye) of yet one more fleeting shadow -
that of hypocrisy: long recognized as an archenemy of
spiritual growth. For, in such a circumstances a
learning community may in fact be learning how not to
reveal (to itself or others) the ways in which its own
learning process feels constrained or encumbered. Be
this as it may, it is critical to remember that, if the
issues we are raising are valid, they are systemic in
nature. In other words, whatever uniqueness our Cohort
displays needs to be seen as superimposed on a larger
backdrop: namely, issues and patterns generic to the
on-line Cohort structure as it is currently designed.
Generally speaking, the situation virtually implores
an earnest group of PhD students to avoid dealing with
one of the most critical decisions of all: deciding how
to decide. For better or for worse, a group can ignore
this most critical decision, and just get by, in which
case the process will happen by default - the
"whatever" factor. This seems to have been the
case with C-16. From there, the predicament itself
generates a circular process of infinite regress. The
situation may indeed be transforming - but into a
twilight-zone-like strange loop where the unspoken norm
is that… "we simply will not discuss, debate, or
resolve the fact that we do not thoroughly discuss,
debate, or resolve things…because if we did, our
difficulties with conflict resolution would interfere
with demonstrating out competence in collaboration,
group learning, and self direction, in other words,
finishing our G-Doc…and we can't have that, because we
have a job to do… completing the G-Doc, the LC course,
and ultimately, graduating."
Approximately one year into our group process, one
Cohort member suggested that we simply acknowledge that,
what we as a group had "decided" to do, is to
learn "about" transformative learning, rather
than be involved in the process of transformation per
say. During our first intensive the guidance we received
involved the somewhat enigmatic mention of the classic
mnemonic, referring to the stages of the group
development: "Forming, Storming, Norming,
Performing." It is said that a group unable to
"storm," cannot optimally "perform."
What then, since the state of
"non-performance" is 1) an undesirable
outcome, and 2) impossible for the group to identify?
The circle then returns to its starting point. People
wonder: "What is our primary' task?' And how are
the smaller tasks we need to accomplish related to
'processing?' Is our academic work related to quality of
our interactions and relationships with one another, and
if, so how?"
Game Without End
Watzlawick has referred to the experience of this
kind of impasse as being caught in a "Game Without
End." The game cannot generate from within itself
the conditions for its own change, nor can it produce a
change in its own rules; neither can it create a shift
from a group focus at the level of content, to one at
the next highest level, that of process or pattern. Such
a change would be "meta" to the Cohort game
itself, and no provision is made for this possibility. (Watzlawick,
1974, pp.22, 157)
As one might expect - immersion in this kind of
circular situation, particularly in a high pressure
doctoral program (or any realm of life that is
meaningful) would likely generate a fair degree of
anxiety, agitation, and chronic upset. And, being human,
it is not at all unusual for us to respond to this
distress, by blaming - someone or something. Perhaps it
is the school's fault… or the professor's…or the
teaching assistant's… the assignment's, other group
members'. As Senge (1990, p.78) has noted, a linear view
always suggests a simple locus of responsibility. If
things seem to be going wrong - "He did it, she did
it, it did it." Or perhaps instead of the
"if-only-blame-game," we play the
"guilt-game," "I did it." In any
case the operative thought-form is that "someone or
something" should change - but only at a
first-order-level. Scenarios like these are reminiscent
of Gregory Bateson's descriptions of double-binding
messages in certain families with a psychotic member. In
extremis, such communication patterns can be a very
effective formula for promoting cognitive breakdown.
In fact in a "Game Without End" many
different solutions can be attempted within the frame
that is already given, but they invariably lead to the
same outcome, namely, zero second-order change.
Replacing this game with a new one would necessarily
involve dealing with the frame itself - that is, with
the class and not with its members. (Watzlawick, pp. 22,
157). As Senge has pointed out (1990, p. 171), for most
of us, the structures within which we operate are
invisible, "Often the structures are of our own
creation. But this has little meaning until those
structures are seen."
Thus, until we are able to "see" our
predicament systemically, our attempts to handle
"what comes up in Cohort," will often be
limited to a first-order change perspective. We will
seek to replace this behavior, with that one, or this
attitude, with a more functional opposite. This is
eminently understandable given our philosophic heritage.
Our traditional "Aristotelian" two-valued
logic operates by setting up artificial divisions and
polarizations. For instance, if "A" represents
a problem - it is logical to conclude that
"Not-A" represents a solution. The only
conceivable solutions are "more or less of the
same:" a change in quantity, rather than context.
The reality is, however, that many effective and viable
solutions are never even considered because they lie
outside the frame of reference being used. And, since
their assumptions about problem solution are linear and
fixed, the would-be problem-solver remains bound and
limited to one narrow frame of reference.
This exhortation, posted by a plainspoken, forthright
Cohort member prior to our January 2002 Intensive
reflects precisely this state of affairs:
"Let's take care of lurking issues like grown up
doctoral students and let's execute a
group doc of transformation in Jan compared with our
floundering in August.
If I've po'ed anyone or not pulled my weight...write or
call me...no garbage dumping in Jan. as we outlined in
August, we need to be responsible for our own concerns
and speak out for ourselves."
Part of the predicament here is that certain
"solutions" can actually contribute to the
problem. And, if they continue to be applied, solutions
of this kind can be predicted to escalate a difficulty.
The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's is an example
of this phenomenon. As enforcement of the prohibition
became more stringent, "more of the same" did
not produce the desired result, but rather made things
considerably worse. In practice actions taken with the
intention of re-establishing a level of order and
stability, in fact served to create more deviation from
the desired norm. Paradoxically, negative or
"balancing" feedback, which was initiated with
the ostensible purpose of establishing greater system
stability, instead created a positive form of
"amplifying" or reinforcing feedback. In such
circumstances recursive positive feedback loops, can
lead to a "runaway" - an "escalation
without limits." Instead of leading to healthy
adaptation and growth, they move the system toward an
eventual breakdown - a process Bateson referred to as
"schismogenesis."
In a Cohort setting a particular form of schismogenesis
is likely to occur at the affective/emotional level. The
process appears to work this way; First, it seems
realistic and accurate to say that those who choose to
enroll in CIIS (and the TLC concentration) are, perhaps
without exception, persons who possess a strong sense of
personal integrity and openness. Among such a
self-selected group, it seems likely that members will
find themselves entrained into a group-level denial
regarding the self-sealing, self-reinforcing and
paradoxical loops at the heart of their Cohort process.
With children, jobs, and spouses, all pressing for
attention outside of school…and dissertation planning,
classes, and other projects are occupying the rest of
our attention in school, who, after all, has the time
and energy to spend figuring out how to make the Cohort
work by deciphering abstruse paradoxes of
self-reference? "Besides," the thought
continues, when I signed up for all this no one
mentioned anything about cutting through an overgrown
jungle of confusion in unknown territory, with one
machete, surrounded by unfamiliar locals? The
instructors aren't emphasizing strange loops as an
integral part of the curriculum. And then there are
those big dogs - who all seem to be named Chaos: We run
from them; they chase us - not only snapping at our
heels as we go - but somehow suddenly always showing up
around the next corner, showing us their pearly white
teeth. Someone ought to mention this in the student
handbook. "
Without a doubt denial can be a necessary and
effective coping mechanism in a variety of situations.
However, the reality is that, due to fundamental honesty
with which CIIS students seem to be blessed, this denial
may well evoke a sense of collective shame or guilt. At
a systemic level, these uncomfortable challenges to
one's basic integrity could then generate predictable
reactions in the form of additional positive and
negative feedback loops, as individuals and the group
attempt to adapt and find their balance. However, if
these dynamics are not named or discussed, it is almost
certain that awareness will be deflected elsewhere.
Stressors would be likely to appear instead in the guise
of hostile or insensitive one-on-one interactions in
which individuals come away feeling discounted or
rejected. Under such circumstances, a continuing
schismogenesis, and the breakdown of a sense of
community is virtually assured.
The Power of Coherence
A contrasting image has been offered by Wheatley, who
suggests that, for optimal self-organization to occur,
"a system needs access to itself." She is
quite clear on this point:
"It needs to understand who it is, where it is,
what it believes, what it knows. These needs are
nourished by information. If it moves through a system
freely, individuals learn and change, and their
discoveries can be integrated by the system. But if
information is restricted, the system can neither learn
nor change." (Wheatley, 1994, p.82)
Wheatley goes on to make a number of intriguing
points regarding the relationship of a group's capacity
for healthy self-reference and its ability to grow and
self-organize. She writes:
"Identity is the source of organization.
Therefore, the most important work we can do at the
beginning of an organizing effort is to engage one
another in exploring our purpose. Identity includes such
dimensions as history, values, core beliefs, capacities,
principles, purpose, [and] mission. But frequently, as
we look into the organization we see multiple selves -
messages, goals, and behaviors that tell conflicting
stories. How do we know what is important to the
organization? Which identity should we honor or ignore?
[In such situations the] process of self reference
breaks down [and the] opportunity to choose among
different selves feels too much like Russian
Roulette." (Wheatley, 1996, pp. 58-59)
Wheatley suggests that integrity is the only
alternative to the unnerving effects of such
incoherence. In essence she is advocating a wholehearted
embrace of the principles of H3, where differences
remain distinct, but no aspect of self stands apart.
Clear at its core, a group can afford to be less anxious
or defensive, less concerned about where they stop, and
the rest of the world begins. A sense of inner wholeness
fortifies them to take risks, and to expand their range
of cognitive, affective, and behavioral options.
"Identity," then, is the filter that every
organism or system uses to make sense of the world. New
information, new relationships, and changing
environments are all interpreted through a sense of
self. In this sense identity can be regarded as an
essential condition for organization. (Wheatley, 1996,
pp. 14, 85) Here, it is possible to think of
"meaning" as a strange attractor. A
"meaning attractor" allows the group to wander
through the realm of chaos, making decisions consistent
with its sense of purpose. (Wheatley, 1994, p. 136) As
Wheatley asserts: "In a world of emergence, new
systems appear out of nowhere. But the forms they assume
originate from a dynamic process set in motion by
information, relationships, and identity."
(Wheatley, 1996, p.87)
From this point of view it becomes clear that a
critical leadership skill will be that of assisting and
even championing the bringing to light of areas which
have been hidden in the shadows. Optimal development and
realization of a group's creative potential will depend
upon its ability to "know" and "be"
itself - as a whole, rather than fragmented process.
This capacity in turn centers upon an access to
information - regarding self, others, and the
surrounding context. The good news is that the movement
toward wholeness is a natural, inbuilt process, a
manifestation of an inherent urge toward greater
complexity. From a leadership point of view this
suggests that what is most helpful are actions that
support the group field in creating coherence and
integration. Still, as we have also seen, re-owning
one's shadow - at either the individual or collective
level - is easier said than done.
The following on-line posting helps to illustrate a
few of these points. Here, the Cohort receives feedback
from the facilitator, which is an amalgam of various
conversations that occurred as we prepared for last
year's January Intensive. Monty shares with us a crystal
clear snapshot of the questions with which we have
collectively been wrestling:
"They include things like--what the hell is
Transformative Learning when it's at home? What do we
mean by transformation? How does it apply to us? Are we
supposed to be transforming ourselves? How? Into what,
exactly? Will we be graded for it?
"And what's with this group work? How does it
all work? What about our "shadow" stuff?
What's the relationship between task and process? Are we
processing enough? Why don't we do more process stuff,
and figure this all out? Are we holding back? What are
we afraid of, if anything? When is enough too much? Is
this process stuff always a hassle? Are we doing therapy
here, or what? And do we get graded for it?"
"One of the things we'll be doing next semester
is figuring our how to become a learning community. Part
of the deal here is figuring out what our actual
expectations are of such a community. I have no
intention of imposing my view of what it should be. Part
of the learning process is for every cohort to figure
out how it understands its own task/process dynamic
within the context of the learning community." (CIIS
Website, 2001)
Schismogenesis
A few final questions rise into view: Is it possible
that the built-in ambiguity regarding both group
leaders' roles and the structure/process of the Cohort
experience itself may actually be at cross purposes with
the learning objectives of the TLC program? Paradoxes of
self-reference create a circular, but self-contradictory
process, in which they assert and deny themselves at the
same time. When they arise in human discourse they spawn
vicious cycles involving mutually exclusive
interpretations of "what is actually true, and what
should be done about it." In a group setting this
dynamic is manifested through the communication process
itself. What does seem clear is 1) - that limit-cycle
groups are caught in self-referential, vicious circles;
and 2) - that groups that experience themselves as
enmeshed in impassable, strange-loops remain
"stuck," and consequently are very limited in
their ability to evolve. As Smith and Berg (recap:
"Motion without movement can be found in the
repetitive patterns (often unsatisfying or
counterproductive) that [may] involve different settings…but
feel the same because the pattern of responding is the
same. Movement refers to leaving old patterns at least
for a time and exploring new psychological or emotional
ground in the life of the group." (Smith and Berg,
215-216)
So, one set of questions that comes to mind has to do
with the fact that some groups fall at the
"regressive end" of the growth continuum.
Limit-cycle groups can be characterized by various kinds
of rigid thinking, denial, and punitive behaviors, often
emerging in a disguised form. Individual deviation from
a shared, but unspoken group dogma can bring swift
disapproval or outright rejection. In extreme cases a
"regressive" group can be more than merely
"stuck." The group's internal demand is that
members conform to its own skewed, but disavowed norms.
This dynamic will not only will obstruct the processes
of transformation, learning, and group maturation; it
often is psychologically detrimental for individual
members as well. (McClure, pp. 168-172) As we have seen,
"limit-cycle" groups, commonly exhibit
behaviors such as group narcissism, scapegoating, and
psychic numbing. McClure (p. 172) contends that:
"examples of [these type of groups] abound in
academia, business organizations, religious communities,
governments and larger social systems." What
provisions are made in the TLC program to counter the
harmful and destructive elements of such group
processes?
Groups can generate runaway positive feedback by
trying to solve impossible problems, such as trying to
make "what is so" - be other that what it is.
This can happen, for example, through a group's active
pursuit of an agenda that includes denial and splitting.
However, should this occur, a remarkable reversal will
inevitably take place: whatever it is that people in a
group are refusing to pay attention to, will eventually
come to dominate the entire process. In a fascinating
turn of events, whatever aspects of the group-self are
considered "not-self" (and therefore deserving
of being either ignored or rejected) - it is these,
which will begin to "run the show." And, like
any cult-like collective, the more this occurs, the more
intense will be the need to deny its reality.
As we have seen, in this quest for
"mindlessness" groups can go so far as to
unconsciously appoint "mind-guards," whose job
(which is also unconsciously carried out) is to
"protect" the group, perhaps by setting up
some sort of melodrama, or group schism, whenever the
group is in danger of confronting things it would rather
avoid. This can easily be accomplished if the
"mind-guard" has the ability to play on
people's fears. And, as we have also seen, groups can be
quite active in this regard, going so far as to shun,
ostracize, or exclude any members who address the role
of shared illusions in the group's life. Beyond these
issues lies another: most of us tend to exempt ourselves
from this description. The more psychologically
sophisticated we are, the more likely we are to think we
are immune to these difficulties, and assume that only
fragile or unstable people have such vulnerabilities. (Deikman,
1990, p.2)
We know, too, that, if not interrupted, positive
feedback cycles can be both self-sustaining and dis-integrating.
As Morin notes, they can be "uncontrolled,
self-nourishing, self-amplifying,
self-accelerating" processes. Speaking of human
society as a whole, he has said that, "the question
today is that of knowing…whether we have crossed a
critical threshold in the process of
acceleration/amplification that could lead to an
explosive runaway."(1999, p. 74) No doubt,
reinforcing or positive feedback can be the engine of
growth (Senge, 1990, p. 79) But, not all growth is a
plus. Slater, too, addresses the odd, unnerving, even
ghoulish context in which we modern-day humans seem to
be enfolded. One well wonders whether this is not an
isomorphic condition of our time.
"The kind of growth Western culture has
experienced over the past three hundred years would be
considered a sign of gross malfunction in any other
context. Healthy growth is paced differently - it does
not absorb or destroy everything living around it. It is
cancerous cells that grow and reproduce rapidly in total
disregard of their connections with surrounding cells….[Additionally]
There is a spiral effect that comes from the fact that
our disease is continually being externalized: the more
we create a diseased environment, the more frantic we
become in our efforts to escape it. And each motion in
the service of escape carries us farther and farther
from the state of health… we are seeking…"
(Slater, 1994 pp. 38-40)
In point of fact runaway positive feedback can, at
times, produce an adaptive mutation. Enantiodromia, a
term originating from the classic Greek period speaks to
the interdependence and inseparability of opposites.
When applied to human culture and social organizations
it suggests that social patterns will turn into their
opposite by being pushed to an extreme.
In organizational or social contexts, doublebinds and
circular states of impasse can be the stimulus for
morphogenesis. The key question, however, is how vicious
cycles, can be transformed into "virtuous"
ones creative circles, which allow us to transcend into
another domain.
The program's stated goal is the creation and
dissemination of a skill/knowledge-base, which empowers
practitioners not merely to document or analyze
transformational group processes, but also to act as
effective catalysts for the emergence of creativity and
innovation. Ideally, graduates will have acquired an
initial level of expertise, enabling them to begin
serving human systems by nourishing their capacities for
growth and evolution. To this end the Cohort can be seen
as a prototypical society. As is true of any other
group, Cohorts are vulnerable to the phenomenon of
groupthink, which is the norm in groups that have
stopped evolving? And, if our goal is to become
proficient in the ways of transformation, the question
remains, what are such groups are tacitly learning?
One could imagine that, if authentic empowerment does
occur in a Cohort that is stuck in a back-and-forth,
limit-cycle mode, it would do so in spite of (or in
active opposition to) the group's norms. Nevertheless,
the psychic cost of accommodating such a process - which
may involve being ostracized, shunned, or at the very
least marginalized - seems an unnecessary and
inappropriate burden for students to bear. Naturally, in
many cases, the Cohort - driven by individuals' creative
capacities and the group's collective desire to
accomplish its goals - will "get the job done with
flying colors." But the hidden suffering will
certainly impact and occupy all involved.
7. Power and the
Shadow
We can find the institute's stated goals on the CIIS
website. These include:
"the affirmation of spirituality, a commitment
to cultural diversity and a dialogue of difference, an
embracing of intellectual, cultural, and spiritual
traditions which further the effectiveness of
emancipatory movements such sustainability, feminism,
social and political liberation, cultural
self-expression and ecological activism." (CIIS
Website, 2002)
It is obvious that the school seeks to provide its
graduates with capacities for broadening the range of
human potential. It holds out a vision of possibility -
for realizing such aims as: the creation of a more
sustainable world, a collaborative future, viable social
relationships, and learning environments that are alive.
It is also unequivocally clear that, as doctoral
students, we have the privilege of attending a school
that consistently demonstrates courage, innovation, and
an intention to create a deeply integral approach to
life-long learning. And, as we witness a mounting dis-integration
and instability overspreading the world, the value of
the work we are doing together becomes increasingly
evident.
As we explore the concerns, which are interrelated
with the topic of transformation, we are naturally drawn
to take a fresh look at issues of power and authority.
And naturally, we are called to find skillful means to
aid one another in building relationships that are
creative and compassionate, rather than primarily
competitive or coercive. The TLC program within CIIS
offers students many questions to contemplate. For our
purposes we will pose just one: "How can we invent
forms of organizational life that are not relentlessly
destructive of human values, whether by omission or
commission?" In actuality the Cohort experience
itself might be seen as one attempt to answer this
question. But before inquiring further we need to look
at the overall context - the environment in which this
question is rooted.
From Coercive Power to Generative Power
Arguelles (1987) has argued that for millennia
humanity has been caught up in a "civilizational
trance," one that has now culminated in a sort of
"technological binge." We have become
intoxicated, says Arguelles, with our growing power to
manipulate our environment, and as a consequence, we
have already created a dangerous and massive depletion
of resources. Using the metaphors of addiction and
recovery, Arguelles asserts that humanity stands at a
critical juncture in its evolutionary path. We can be
compared to an alcoholic hurdling toward his or her
"bottom," and, as such, we face a stark choice
between "continuing on our binge" or
"reaching for sobriety." Our choice will
determine whether we, as a species, will have the option
of enjoying our beautiful planet, or will soon face
large-scale disintegration and crisis.
Ervin Lazlo, the renowned systems-thinker, reminds us
that humans currently have the ability to act
consciously and collectively - exercising forethought in
choosing our path forward. As cited by Eisler, (1987)
Lazlo emphasizes that we are living in a "crucial
epoch" and that we must not leave the next steps in
the evolution of human society to chance. The consequent
state of imbalance on our planet makes it imperative
that a considerable number of human beings
"awaken," and choose to accept leadership
roles through which they can offer their own unique
talents in the quest to find solutions to these
extraordinarily complex problems.
In addition to the issue of resource depletion, let
us recall that humans continue to have at their
fingertips a nuclear arsenal capable of eliminating (at
the very least) all vertebrate life on our planet. The
expansion of biological weaponry, the increasing
likelihood of the occurrence of a positive feedback
cycle of global warming, as well as countless other
examples of schismogenesis are indications that our
human capacity for ignorance is, presently, the most
dangerous adversary faced by our species. From this
evidence one could easily draw the conclusion that we
are demonstrating an extraordinary lack of wisdom in
using our human power, so much so, that this state of
affairs might well be described as a massive
"learning disability."
In this light it is intriguing to realize that in
order to examine the subject of power we must first
overcome a sort of squeamishness. The topic of power
itself seems to be often accompanied by a peculiar
discomfort - as if not quite apropos in polite
discourse. In a great many situations the act of naming
the power arrangements that are operating, is itself
taboo. Those who possess social power spend a great deal
of effort keeping it hidden. Those who do not are often
averse to raising the issue. This is understandable:
breaking the taboo and speaking about power dynamics
brings invisible realities into the foreground. And this
is a risky business, for such an act simultaneously
raises questions about power, while threatening the
freedom and entitlement of those who possess it.
Because the topic of power has remained "in the
closet," there is often a tremendous confusion
about the issue as a whole. Even Jung seemed to
demonstrate a rather strong ambivalence in insisting
that: "Where love reigns, there is no will to
power, where the will to power is paramount, love is
lacking."(in Hillman, 1995) By creating such a
dichotomy (in essence asserting that these conditions
are mutually exclusive) he discounted the enormous power
of love; by the same logic it follows that to seek
empowerment is loveless behavior. If we accept this
doublebind we will find ourselves living in a world of
increasingly stereotypic and simplistic dimensions. And
we will create self-fulfilling (and self-defeating)
prophecies: powerful people will be expected to be
heartless; the person who aspires to be a more loving
soul will naturally be left with only one alternative:
renunciation of personal power, and a state of
powerlessness.
The reality, however, is that today there are a
multitude of groups composed of heart-centered people,
working toward a vision of global unity and personal
transformation. These goals, like the stated ideals of
CIIS, can be thought of as strange attractors - guiding
lights on the human journey. During the last century
social justice movements have made countless inroads all
around the world. Diverse arenas offer testimony to a
growing desire for more open and just societies. As
Eisler (1987) has documented, there appears to be a
steadily mounting revulsion in world public opinion
regarding violent repression. This collective sentiment
is being reflected in many arenas - from the United
Nation's focus on the rights of children to the
world-wide attention now being given to the prevalence
of violence against women, whether through battering,
rape, genital mutilation, or female infanticide. A
significant manifestation of this trend has recently
occurred in the "truth and reconciliation
hearings" in South Africa. In all of these
dimensions we see evidence of a determination to find
ways of transforming conflict into something
constructive, rather than destructive.
In organizational life, too, we have seen the
emergence of a "power-in-connection model:" a
focus on synergic relationships that simultaneously
build connection and enhance the power of all concerned.
(Eisler and Montuori, 1998) Shepherd suggests that this
dynamic might be described as "power-with,"
and "power to, " rather than
"power-over" or
"power-for-oneself-only" (Miller,
1997)(Shepard, 1993). These ideals, too, can be thought
of as "strange attractors," beckoning us in
the direction of more complex ways of thinking and more
compassionate ways of behaving.
Still, it would seem to be a grave mistake to
underestimate the power of a competing set of
attractors: humanity's five to six thousand year history
of operating through a paradigm of power which Riane
Eisler (1987) has termed the dominator system. Speaking
of this phenomenon Philip Slater (1991, p. 3-4) has
commented that, today, what is coming to an end is not
"the world" - but an era - the era of
authoritarianism:
"It is an era that has lasted for over 5,000
years - virtually all of recorded history - and still
dominates our ideas and customs. This cultural system is
so old and so familiar that we tend to mistake its
customs and habits for human nature. I call such
pervasive social systems megacultures. A megaculture is
a core of attitudes, practices, and beliefs shared by a
wide range of vastly differing cultures, and covering
most of the globe. Many of the agonies & upheavals
of our time result from our efforts to move into a new
era while still toting a huge load of emotional and
intellectual baggage from the old one; The emerging
megaculture is democracy."
Eisler, too, (1987) offers a profound exegesis of
these core human values, arguing that human society,
throughout time, has been organized according to one of
two basic, and divergent sets of assumptions:
"The first, which I call the dominator model, is
what is popularly called patriarchy or matriarchy, - the
ranking of one half of humanity over the other. The
second, in which social relations are primarily based on
the principle of linking rather than ranking, may best
be described as the partnership model."
Eisler's work is especially significant in terms of
its implications: the era of the Dominator system has
lasted for virtually all of recorded history. Literally
for millennia, the organizing principle of power over
others (and the environment) has held sway, insuring the
dominance of various privileged groups. Males in
particular have benefited enormously - in terms of
social status and opportunity - from an orientation that
might well be regarded as an obsession with autonomy and
individual power. And, still today, if we look closely,
we can perceive that these foundational premises subsist
in the daily life of most any workplace, school, or
family.
Based on her research Eisler does acknowledge many
hopeful trends, all of which suggest a broad based
movement toward a more Partnership-oriented system. At
the same time she offers this sobering observation:
"In the last few centuries the partial shift
from a dominator to a partnership society has partly
freed humanity, allowing some movement toward a more
just and equalitarian society. But at the same time
there has been a strong countermovement both on the left
and the right, to more deeply entrench the dominator
society…Given the strong inertial pull of androcratic
social and ideological organization…a totalitarian
future is a real possibility." (1987, p. 184)
The Challenges of Deep Democracy
It is clear that both the Transformative Learning and
Change doctoral program and CIIS as a whole emphasize
the "partnership way." As we have seen,
self-organizing human systems, by definition, involve
mutuality, openness, equality, trust, and collaboration.
Transformative Learning, too, appears to be deeply
rooted in democratic principles. We find this intriguing
assertion by Mezirow, (2000, p. 28):
"Transformation Theory suggests that
transformative learning inherently creates
understandings for participatory democracy by developing
capacities of critical reflection on taken-for-granted
assumptions that support contested points of view and
participation in discourse that reduces …threats to
rights and pluralism."
But what is the Partnership way "really like"
- in practice? As Montuori points out in the preface to
Zaiss's book True Partnership - the alternative to
"power-over" kinds of relationships is not
some sort of homogeneous, wishy-washy world in which no
one expresses differences or disagreements, and where
everyone is always "nice:" In fact,
"It is important to differentiate between a real
partnership…in which both partners win and what,
following Riane Eisler we call a dominator relationship…Unless
this distinction is clarified and ground rules
established around the quality of relationship, the term
'partnership' will just mean working together
'dominator-style.'" (2002, xii-xiii)
If the TLC curriculum has as one of its intentions
the development of competencies "not just to
describe, but to change human systems," then the
Learning Community course would seem to be the ideal
vehicle for acquiring and practicing these skills.
Naturally, given the pervasiveness of our authoritarian
heritage, we can expect that "dominator" and
"partnership" elements would both be visible
in Cohort settings. Likewise, it is predictable that we
will find both democratic and autocratic tendencies
within ourselves.
In C-16 we witnessed just this kind of unfolding.
While the openness of the environment allowed for the
current innovative G-Doc, there were also strong pulls
toward authoritarian functioning. This was reflected in
our use of the "360" feedback process (in
which all members provide feedback to all other
members). An aspect of this process also sheds light on
the ingrained, taken-for-granted nature of the premises
that underlie hierarchical thinking in general. When the
idea of the 360 was first suggested, it was presented as
involving students only, and did not include either the
group facilitator or his teaching assistant. While a
later addendum was eventually incorporated, it clearly
took the form of an afterthought, and it was not evident
that either the group facilitator or teaching assistant
were particularly enthused about it. This sense was
reinforced once the Intensive arrived, and meetings with
each student were scheduled, but no provision was made
for either the professor or his assistant to receive
in-kind feedback.
While many of us found the 360 questions quite useful
and empowering, there were aspects that evoked concern
for some participants. Perhaps the most important of
these was the way in which we initially debated whether
to utilize this tool or not. The original proposal was
that Cohort members' feedback regarding one another
would be sent on-line to the professor, and then at the
Intensive, presented anonymously to each Cohort member.
When this exercise was first suggested on-line, a number
of individuals expressed their "dissent" in
relation to the "anonymous" format of the
feedback process itself. While their reasons varied, the
sentiment expressed online by these individuals was
clearly unfavorable. When all was said and done, the
questions for the 360 were simply sent to the group via
e-mail. While it was later reported that a number of
private phone conversations had occurred with the group
facilitator in which salient issues were discussed,
these were not reported in public on-line postings.
Given this unfolding, an overall impression was conveyed
that the decision itself was a "fait accompli"
- one in which concerns expressed in our public forum
had not been taken seriously.
In general, this series of events can be seen as
merely one expression of how - from our inception - C-16
had chosen to deal with differences of opinion. One of
the central issues we faced during our first Intensive
in August of 2001 was the presence of strongly felt
disagreements as to how (and whether) we would deal with
"conflict," if it arose. (In reality conflict
was already arising as we discussed the topic itself.)
In our second Intensive in January 2002 we managed to
deflect ourselves away from another contentious subject:
how we would make decisions if "dissent" arose
within the group. (Once again, there was obvious dissent
already occurring, as to whether or not the subject
should be raised at all.) Given these unresolved issues,
it should come as no surprise that by the following
spring, we were ill equipped to have substantive
discussions or make democratically based decisions about
the 360-feedback process.
By definition TLC students are individuals who
already have taken a courageous leap in attending a
highly progressive and innovative program. Obviously,
however, this fact in no way exempts any of us from our
past conditioning. There is no mystery here: the
educational system within which each of us has spent so
many years is based on obedience and on a power-over
dynamic. Throughout our schooling we are reinforced for
compliance and acquiescence, and usually punished for
questioning procedures or authority. Therefore, to the
degree that critical reflection on the Cohort experience
itself is absent, we can presume (in this respect at
least) that students are being trained for "more of
the same"- fitting themselves into a framework in
which substantive debate is discouraged and a muted
cynicism prevails.
No doubt, when it comes to our beliefs about
authority, we have acquired deeply conditioned habits.
The truth is that, after some five thousand years of the
prevailing authoritarian paradigm, we are all recipients
of this legacy. And, from this perspective it makes
sense to conclude that, if we do not de-construct these
assumptions within the Cohort experience itself,
participants and Cohort leaders will tend to envision
the interrelationships in hierarchical terms. This may
take numerous forms, including a subtle lack of
"realness" and directness. When it comes to
speaking their own truth, students are more likely be
somewhat "circumspect." On the other hand
these more oblique ways of communicating may be
episodically interspersed with both passive aggressive
and explosive expressions of frustration, often directed
toward Cohort assistants. Slater's description of the
following archetypal scenario speaks to these
"habits of the heart:"
"The quintessential authoritarian leader is also
insulated from his environment. Since [the feedback he
receives] is filtered through people whose well-being
depends on his approval, his subordinates tend to tell
him what he wants to hear - that his decision are
correct and everything is going well. Others who suggest
that his ideas, actions, or general direction may be
misguided (and that perhaps he will need to make drastic
changes) are either ignored or punished. This occurs
primarily because the very definition of this kind of
power contains the idea that it cannot be questioned. As
a result all questioning or opposition tends to be seen
as malicious, and 'bad news' received as a personal
affront…No individual used to being automatically
obeyed can retain his or her flexibility, balance,
adaptability or judgment, which like unused muscles,
will inevitably atrophy. Thus it is often the case that
the more senior one is in such a hierarchy, the more one
is subject to the disease of being
'hard-of-listening.'"(1991, p.13)
All power exists as a relationship. Regarding
Cohort-life as a whole, it is hypothesized that, in the
absence of a very clearly defined, explicit
"partnership" approach to social power, both
leader and group will find themselves gravitating toward
a habitual and time-honored "paradigm of
power." In a sense a "familiar attractor"
will pull the group in the direction of the known. The
process will appear more like a decision by default,
rather than an intentional, conscious group-choice. Once
this occurs it is predictable that some voices, such as
those identifying these dynamics and questioning their
merit will be marginalized and/or excluded. And
regrettably, certain kinds of learning and discussion
will become taboo.
Cohort leaders can expect to be the recipients of
projections, which emanate from such a mindset; and to
be sure, leaders will need to neutralize these
projections though openly speaking about them in the
group context. However, because we have all been
conditioned along these lines, there will be an
unconscious, yet powerful impulse for Cohort leaders,
despite their best intentions, to enact, rather than
discuss, these dynamics within the group.
Training Democratic Leaders
One implication of this view is particularly
striking: the extraordinary challenges involved in
modeling - and training others to model - a use of
authority that is both democratic and empowering. At the
outset, we can see that democracy, as a collaborative
form of "self-government" is unique in that it
requires participants to be able to function - at times
simultaneously - in both leadership and "followership"
roles. To this end democratic leaders need to focus
their energies on inspiring honest interactions,
supporting a group in building trusting relationships,
and encouraging both self-management and strategic
integration. (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002)
At the heart of relationship-building in a democracy
is the ability to stimulate dialogue between people with
opposing views. Among the ways in which a democratic
leader can aid this kind of conversation to emerge are:
inquiring, acknowledging, refereeing, concretizing,
exploring, summarizing, challenging, coaching,
redirecting, and uniting. Because democracy thrives on
diversity, leaders are needed who can bring diverse
perspectives and constituencies together to form an
integrated, dynamic whole. Whereas bureaucracies strive
for uniformity because it is predictable and easy to
control, democratic forms of social organization strive
for diversity because it is innovative and leads to
unexpected results and organizational learning. (Cloke
and Goldsmith, 2002, pp. 178-180)
In addition, any group seeking to embody democratic
principles will need leaders who are able to empower
others to lead. A vital facet of this process includes
the leader's ability to embody the values to which they
are committed, and this skill may perhaps be the most
potent avenue for catalyzing a democratic ethos. Such
"teaching through inspiration" at times may
involve taking a stand, or sacrificing resources, time,
or energy in moving the group toward a state of deep
collaboration. Here, the coaching process may move from
an initially structured contribution: offering
knowledge; to less structure: creating opportunities for
"doing" and practicing key skills; and finally
to what might be called a "leaderless leadership
style," which is primarily a way of being - simply
the living of qualities such as clarity, imagination,
mutuality, humility, and openness.
Slater reminds us that the idea of democracy as a
political system is quite recent. The fall of monarchy
rule in the United States and France occurred, after
all, only some 200 years ago. He argues that, at best we
are very gradually moving into a new era - the hallmark
of which will be the widespread actualization of
principles of democracy. Meanwhile, we are surrounded by
contexts pervaded through and through with what Slater
calls "an obsession with hierarchy" - a core
element of which is the "assumption of
verticality" - where everything owes allegiance to
"something higher." Democracy is
self-creating, rather than fixed or imposed from above.
It also is a decentralized form of self-organization,
where power is defused among the widest possible
constituency. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
democracies are self-governing. This can be difficult to
grasp since terms like government or rule suggest
control from "above" - an image derived from
our authoritarian heritage. (1991, pp.17-22, 182-191)
Many myths exist that keep hierarchy in place, and
common sense suggests that the most effective means for
people to truly grasp the possibilities inherent in the
"partnership way" is through the actual
practice of democracy. It is obviously unrealistic to
expect the transition from authoritarianism to democracy
to be effortless or easy. In fact, for both groups and
individuals committed to this goal, this endeavor can be
arduous indeed. Democracy requires more of us than
hierarchical autocracies, partly because of the
complicated, sometimes chaotic nature of what needs to
go on at meetings. (Cloke and Goldsmith, pp. 90, 229)
Because there is so much to learn, having adequate
time for group development is essential. We then have
the opportunity to discover that leadership is a diverse
skill that everyone can exercise. A given group needs
the time to develop a variety of other capacities as
well; among these are abilities to dissent with
integrity; to argue passionately without creating
unnecessary enemies; to be able to accept paradox and
complexity, and to utilize non-dualistic thinking and
the skills involved in "emotional
intelligence."
Interestingly enough, Charlie Joiner a collaborator
with Yongming Tang, founder of Synergic Inquiry shared a
similar awareness as on-line guest instructor in a 2001
CIIS on-line class in Transpersonal Research Methods. SI
is described as a collaborative, action-oriented
methodology in which differences are not regarded as
sources of friction and conflict, but rather are
utilized for the wisdom inherent in them and the
learning they can promote. Joiner:
"One of the major reasons for failure in use of
SI is not allowing enough time for the process. It takes
time to understand differences, to do the self and other
knowing. There needs to be a bit of pause to begin the
integration phase. This phase needs openness and time as
well. So if you have a one-day workshop…the odds are
you will not be successful at achieving synergy. In
addition…[knowing oneself and others] in depth is very
essential. It will fail if this is done only
superficially." (CIIS Website , Introduction to
Transpersonal Research Methods, Spring 2001)
In more authoritarian groups and organizations,
avoidance, accommodation, and manipulation of
differences routinely take precedence over dialogue and
resolution. In contrast, democratically based systems
and self-managing organizations tend to focus on
negotiation of divergent perspectives, needs, and
expectations. They do so through reliance on
collaborative learning processes such as feedback,
dialogue, relationship building, and consensus. A result
of applying of such skills is synergy. However, these
skills, in turn, actually depend on the development of
fundamental behaviors and traits - such as courage,
imagination, caring, empathy, forgiveness, insight, and
integrity. While it is true that these human qualities
cannot be instilled "from the outside," they
can be "led." They can be facilitated,
encouraged, supported, mentored or coached. In the same
way, while another person cannot be ordered to be
creative, it is possible to create conditions under
which the emergence of creative thought and behavior is
enhanced. (Cloke and Goldsmith, pp. 163-164, 201)
Cohort as Garden, Cohort as Marriage
It would appear that what the deeply democratic
leader transmits is essentially an environment in which
creative flourishing can occur. Again, this process
might be compared to cultivating a garden - where we do
not "grow" flowers, but instead create the
conditions in which flowers can grow. Thich Naht Hanh,
(1992) a Zen master who has championed democracy
throughout his life, suggests that the role of a teacher
is offer their knowledge and wisdom in such a way that,
"the good seeds in the people can be penetrated and
can sprout and become flowers, the flower of
understanding, the flower of compassion and so on."
He continues:
"A good organic gardener does not discriminate
against compost, because he knows how to transform it
into marigolds, roses, and many other kinds of flowers.
When we look deeply into ourselves we see both flowers
and garbage. Each of us has anger, hatred, depression,
racial discrimination… To practice mindfulness means
to recognize each seed as it comes up and to practice
watering the most wholesome seeds whenever possible, to
help them grow stronger."
Finally, in thinking about the issue of teaching and
learning the art of democratic leadership, a celebrated
statement from the 1960's counter-culture may come to
mind: that "not to choose is to choose." After
five thousand years of androcacy, it seems unrealistic
to imagine ourselves to simply reclaim our potential on
demand, as if it were second nature.
In a Cohort setting, ideally, we are all learning to
become leaders, and this necessarily entails the
conscious creation of an environment in which
empowerment can blossom. Much like a gardeners Cohort
leaders have the option to consciously choose which
seeds to water, and which seeds not to water. If
desired, it is certainly possible to let "nature
take its course," returning every so often to
observe whether the garden is able to become autopoietic.
The Cohort garden may receive the nourishment it needs,
or perhaps go to seed. Theoretically, a leader might
even choose to "water the weeds," simply to
see what happens.
Let us shift metaphors for a moment, imagining
instead that a Cohort actually is an arranged marriage.
Intimate relationships can be wonderful, uplifting,
incredibly nourishing experiences. And, as is common
knowledge, they require "a lot of work." What
happens if we are unwilling to do this work, or simply
do not know what is involved? These words offered by
John Welwood, (1996, pp. 126-127)) a highly respected
couples therapist, return us to some of our earlier
images of the shadow. Welwood suggests:
"Even in the most conscious of relationships,
tensions and frictions are bound to build up. Often the
more loving two people feel, the less inclined they are
to focus on areas of conflict. Therefore, couples need
to practice consciously emptying the bag on occasion, by
setting aside special times to explore grievances and
resentments that have been building under the surface…
Relationships…become weighed down by their shadow -
all the denials, [and] evasions… that a couple has
stuffed away over many months. As two partners
grievances accumulate, they become increasingly afraid…that
their relationship will be swept away in a torrent of
negativity. As a result…the distance between them
increases."
In just this context we can ask whether a group will
be able to learn about the process of making
"partnership-based" (democratic) decisions
when it is unable to master the art of "having a
good (and fair) fight?"
In closing we need to consider two more points. The
first has by now hopefully become evident: how
challenging the processes of transformation and
self-organization are - in practice. One of Frank
Barron's many eloquent descriptions of the creative
person speaks to this issue. He writes:
[This] person has great capacity for further growth,
which involves somehow being able to leave oneself
behind, to shed old coats, to molt, to metamorphose, to
find a new order of selfhood in obedience to internal
demands for change. This capacity for self-renewal is
related to the…[issue of] retardation in the formation
of the self [vs. defining]… himself as [an evolving]
process. (1963, p. 168-169)
Dying into Life - Person and Planet
Said another way, Cohort participants need help in the
kind of "dying" that is a prerequisite for
growth. However, this "letting go" is not
merely an individual matter. The broader predicament in
which we all share is that, today, we appear to be
living in critical times. On the one hand it seems an
act of hubris to think that the future depended
exclusively on our actions. However, there is a
complementary way to view our dilemma. In "The
Synthesis of Nations," Donald Keys (Synthesis,
Volume I.) frames our situation this way:
"At each level of organization [we see that]…
particles… cells, or… organs become a community,
with community relations, functions, and
responsibilities. Now we are coming to the end of a long
road. The world will organize, as a community, or human
life will largely, if not entirely, perish. If it does
not entirely perish, the entire drama of evolution of
human communities will have to begin again, to reach the
same point we are at now, at some distant time in the
future...after a gap of ten thousand or a million
years."
From this vantage point each of us represents the
whole human race. Within each of us is a desire to grow,
and a reciprocal desire to avoid the challenges of
growth. Perhaps humanity is in fact in the midst of
making an evolutionary leap. If so, then it would also
be hubris to think that the future did not depend on our
actions. At this level, whether humanity collectively
succeeds in this leap is each of our personal
responsibility. Today, it would seem that what we need,
as Gandhi's put it, are "experiments in
truth." The Learning Community experience provides
a superb laboratory for this kind of research.
Conclusion
"The torch of doubt and chaos, this is what
the sage steers by."
Chuang Tzu
M.K Gandhi, one of the great "integrators"
of the last century, utilized an extraordinary blend of
inner spiritual work, sensitivity to the suffering of
the poor and disenfranchised, and masterful use of
skillful political means to bring about social change.
His "nonviolent army" eventually won the day
in the face of the immerse power of the British Empire;
colonial India celebrated its independence on the 15th
of August 1947. This example spawned a movement that has
been taken up by countless nations and groups in
throwing off overt colonization, as well as various
forms of unofficially sanctioned oppression. Gandhi had
indeed discovered an "alternative power
source," which he sometimes referred to as
"truth-force" (or Satyagraha).
One day during the long campaign for freedom, just as
the train on which Gandhi was traveling had begun
leaving the station, a news reporter on the platform
cried out, "Mr. Gandhi! What is your message?"
As the train very slowly moved down the track the
inimitable Gandhi hastily scribbled a note on the back
of a paper bag and handed it off to the reporter. It
said, "My life is my message."
The Reality of Limitation
The purpose of this section has been to document, as
well as to explore, the wider implications of the
"constraints, foibles, and frustrations of
C-16." Our goal has been to review the difficulties
of our online learning community experience from an
integral perspective, in the process reframing our
understanding of "group competence" to
include, identify and even celebrate "failure"
as well as "success." In C-16 we beheld a
microcosm of the world at large. We have been a group of
12 doctoral students, a professor, and his teaching
assistant, aspiring to operate with integrity and
wholeness, and discovering together our own unique forms
of group mindfulness and creativity. At some moments we
encountered harmony, joy, and synergy; at others we
found ourselves unwilling to endure the kind of
"constructive suffering," letting go, and
grieving which can also lead to transformation.
The current inquiry has fundamentally been about our
limitations - specifically, those attributes which our
egos (both individually and collectively) would rather
were not so. Our exploration has considered some facets
of this phenomenon in specific and others from a more
general perspective. From an integral point of view we
have been obliged to seek an understanding, not only of
the limitations of C-16, but of isomorphisms occurring
within CIIS/TLC as well. The current survey can only be
a beginning - at best capable of inviting further
discovery, and suggesting some possible avenues to
explore. Traveling further down this road would require
great "heart:" for the climate or group milieu
in which "paradigms of inquiry" are
investigated will itself come under a daring and
disciplined scrutiny.
A paramount realization is that the shadow itself
arises out of a failure to embrace our own limitations.
All human beings are vulnerable to becoming addicted to
an autopoietic self-image - one that we find pleasing,
and seek to feed and sustain; and one that we want other
others to receive, confirm, and reinforce as well. Yet,
to the degree that we are attached to maintaining a
self-image that is false - in essence a mask constructed
to exclude the less palatable aspects of ourselves - we
are destined to live a life that is fundamentally
dishonest. We will feel compelled to a continually avoid
and somehow get away from a "reprehensible sense of
inferiority" that embarrasses or shames us, and
which Jung described as "the other in us."
This being so, we will be constantly dominated by a
desire to "jump over our own shadow," rather
than face it. And the most direct way of doing so will
be, as Jung put it, "by looking for everything
dark, inferior, and culpable in 'others.' (Zeig, p.1)
It is tempting (and very human) to think of
"limitation" as something negative, a
condition to grow beyond, or transcend. One is reminded
of the widely circulated self-help quote that says:
"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough,
they're yours." While a stance toward life that
includes persistence, patience, and energetic
determination can be indicative of psychological health
and inner strength, when taken too far, this same
mind-set can lead us into the realm of grandiosity. This
is so, because to be human - by definition - is to be
limited. Inevitably, we will "miss the mark;"
we will fall short and make mistakes. We simply do not
(and will not ever) possess absolute independence or
absolute control. Hopefully, this very knowledge will
become an integral part of our personal power, reminding
us of our need for structure and boundaries, and for
each other. As Bradshaw emphasizes, "None of us has
or can have unlimited power…and grave problems result
from refusing to accept our own essential nature."
(1988, p.4) In fact a healthy sense of our human limits
can act as a balance to our capacities for autonomy and
self-determination. And this insight can be freeing -
serving as the root of both our sense of spirituality
and humility.
Usually, however, the concept of "essential
limitation" is not easy to accept. To perceive
oneself as essentially limited can be a narrowing, even
claustrophobic experience - one that we struggle against
with all our might. "Man is the creature who wants
to be God," observed Sartre. This struggle tends to
show up in one of two forms - either as narcissistic
self-enlargement or wormlike helplessness. At times
these stances alternate within us; nevertheless, both
extremes reject the invitation to be authentically
human. (Kurtz, 1981, p. 11) (Kurtz, 1992, p. 28)
There is an alternate view: one which regards persons
- humans - as being "ontologically caught in the
middle," containing a contradiction. This vision of
humanity states that - to be human is to sustain the
tension of always being pulled toward two opposite
temptations: to try to be more than human… or less
than human. Said another way there is an essential
incongruity, an inherent conflict at the very core of
the human condition. To be human is to live within this
conflict: because we are pulled in both directions, we
can exclusively be neither. Yet, because this tension
flows to the depths of our being, some of us seek to
resolve it by being only one or the other, beast or
angel. Some three hundred years ago the French
mathematician and mystic observed one consequence of
this striving: "He who would be an angel becomes a
beast." The attempt to be more than human leads us
becoming less than human."(Kurtz, 1981 pp. 10-15)
All this is like being intoxicated - being high on
hubris, drunk on the notion that we can have absolute
control over who and what we are. From this point of
view, the essence of sobriety will be found in the
profound acceptance and visceral realization that one is
both: light and dark. This is a form of humility and
involves learning how to live with (and even rejoice in)
the reality of our "mixed-up-ness," our being
beast and angel, sinner and saint. It is an embrace of
ordinariness - one that sees us as good enough, and not
in need of pretending to be other than the way we are.
Jung spoke of the "transcendental function" as
a "reconciling third," which emerges after
conflicting opposites have been consciously
differentiated, and the tension between them has been
held, rather than denied or overridden. (Perera, p. 118)
When we can accept that the essence of being human
resides in a deep conjunction of infinite craving and
essentially limited capacity - that we are finite beings
who thirst for the infinite - then we are on our way to
true freedom. In simple terms - we discover wholeness
within limitation.
Authenticity and Growth
If, as students of the transformative process, we
aspire to become catalysts in a world aching for
wholeness, we are obligated to, as Gandhi suggested,
"become the change we want to see." Nothing
less will do. Only our wholeness and integration can
create a climate in which others feel safe to let their
own yearning for this state of being find expression.
Beyond this, how can we call others to fulfill their
highest potential if we have not gone through some of
the fire of transformation ourselves? We need, in other
words to face our own shadow, to make "an intricate
study of the myriad ways in which we disown, deny, and
project our selfishness, cruelty, greed, and so on onto
others."(Keen, in Zeig p.202) This is not an
endeavor for the faint of heart. As Jung (Zeig, p.4)
wrote: "One does not become enlightened by
imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness
conscious. The latter procedure, however, is
disagreeable and therefore, not popular."
It would seem then, that, in terms of catalyzing
genuine transformation "walking our talk" is
essential. If we are to support the process of
self-organization in individuals, groups, families,
organizations, etc. we ourselves first need to gain
access to our humanity in its fullness. Hiding parts of
ourselves will not accomplish this. Neither will failing
to acknowledge our shortcomings, or pretending to be
something or someone we are not. Projecting disconnected
parts of our psyche into relationships with others;
saying one thing and thinking another; blaming others
for our decisions; none of these will, in the final
analysis, help us in evoking the mysterious processes
involved in self-organization and maturation.
Yet, the goal here is certainly not to cast blame
either on others or ourselves for these very human
tendencies. We have all acted out these classic aspects
of the shadow, and we can expect to do so again. A more
balanced view is to think of these elements as merely
one side of a coin. The coin's other side might be named
"authenticity," and connotes a radical
transcendence of denial and willingness to experience
self and world - "as is." This necessarily
involves a coming to terms with repressed and unresolved
grief. Since loss is one of the profound
"givens" in life, no one is spared the
experience of it; and since real loss is universally
painful, often heartbreaking, each of us (particularly
in modern culture) is continually tempted to evade and
sidestep our sorrow.
But to move forward from loss without grieving leaves
us with nothing but a "hole in the soul." We
forfeit our true being by turning away from the natural,
healing power of grief. Robert Bly has spoken of the
process of re-owning our grief as "learning how to
shudder," and goes on to observe that a person
seems to "inhabit themselves more completely"
when they have reached a point where their voice is able
to hold grief. Opening to suffering when it arises,
rather than suppressing our reactions, allows us to be
deepened by the experience - and to receive the gifts it
bears - compassion, wisdom, and deep creativity. This
openness in itself is one of the most effective means at
our disposal for connecting deeply with others. By
cultivating this "faithfulness to what is"
over time we will finally be left with an abiding sense
of the role and significance of tragedy in human life.
And we will more and more deeply come to understand its
powerful potential as a growth-facilitating influence.
We will recapture for ourselves a renewed and genuine
vitality, and we will be empowered to help others to do
so as well.
Yet, we must not allow this awareness to convince us to
invest in yet another idealization - only this time an
image of "realness" or authenticity. The
simple intention to bring thought, word, and deed
together - realizing that we will inevitably fall short
- is more than sufficient. In a great many situations
this calls for simplicity of "being," not a
complexity of "doing." In fact often what is
needed is a kind of "non-doing." As the Talmud
says: "If you add to the truth, you subtract from
it." And, yet for us complicated humans, this kind
of "openness" and "willingness"- and
the task of discovering "the courage to be" -
is challenge enough. However, to successfully return
home to the source of our being, and to share ourselves
from this place of inner truth requires one further
step. We must be willing to hold fast to our truth when
our heart confirms it, and the very next moment to
relinquish this hold when it does not. As William James
put it: "We have to live today by what truth we can
get today and be ready to call it falsehood
tomorrow."
As already noted, the acceptance of unequal,
unilateral, hierarchical relationships is deeply
ingrained - not only in our current organizations - but
also in our general approach to thinking about
institutions and the way they are structured. It is not
surprising, therefore, that many organizations find
themselves using the all the "right" rhetoric
regarding empowerment, teamwork, diversity, partnership,
etc while offering complex rationalizations for
inconsistencies between expressed values and actual
behaviors. (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002, pp. 201, 218)
Obviously, the CIIS community is made up of human beings
who are seeking something more than "business as
usual." Yet, these same considerations apply.
All of us are heirs of the dominator system. As such
we have much to unlearn - and to learn - about human
relationships characterized by complementarity and
mutuality. Complementarity refers to individuals fitting
into each other, thus enhancing each other, rather than
diminishing self or other. Mutuality depicts the two-way
reciprocal nature of human relationships that are deeply
human. Such relationships, in and of themselves, seem to
furnish the invitation and the opportunity to grow and
expand: one simultaneously receives by giving, and gives
by receiving. We are free except from the necessity of
choosing. And, the necessity of choice means that we
must choose to limit ourselves. In doing so, we create
ourselves as finite, incomplete beings - as essentially
limited, yet continually craving "more."
Indeed it is because of this incompleteness, each of us
needs others, and can fulfill others. The inviting
illusion of self-sufficiency and independence is just
that - an illusion. Our "interdependence" - or
capacity for mutuality and partnership - then, derives
from our mutual vulnerability. We are in fact,
essentially limited beings, who strive for unlimitedness.
However, when we can affirm, acknowledge and consciously
embrace this shared weakness, rather than despair we
paradoxically discover our enormous strength - we find
that we can give and get without threat. Alike in our
weakness, we are able to find in our differences only
strength. (Drake, 1972) (Kurtz, 1981).
Accepting our contingency - our "not-God-ness"
- is not an easy burden to bear; often it lead us into
the temptation to live in illusions - specifically, that
one can adapt the world and all possibilities to one's
own will. It is necessary, however, to resist this
temptation and to choose reality, as the only positive
arena for value in human existence. (Drake. P.8) Yet, as
for thousands of years society has been structured, as
Montuori and Eisler (1998), have pointed out, within
social institutions of every imaginable shape and form
human beings have been viewed essentially as resources
to be exploited, in other words as objects to be
manipulated and used.
Regarding the prevalence of the
"command-and-control" model in organizational
life Montuori and Eisler (1998) state:
"Unless we address the overarching values and
organizational framework, there will be no systemic
change in the direction needed. There will continue to
be talk about a shift from rigid hierarchies to more
flexible heterarchies. But even the flattest
organization will still be racked by dominator power
games in which individuals vie to "be on top."
To the degree this analysis is accurate, it also reveals
the degree to which we are deeply institutionalized. We
have all - sometimes for decades - been a part of
hierarchical and bureaucratic work settings which rely
on principles of top-down decision making, competition
over resources, restricted assess to information,
vertical feedback, and expectations of conformity and
obedience. Routinely, we have participated in
institutional structures that provide little opportunity
for creative expression, authentic relationships, or
ethical dialogue. And, despite the fact that, without
regenerative work, people's souls wither, most, if not
all of us have, through sheer necessity, become inured
to such contexts. (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002, pp. 89,
218)
From the vantage point of transformative learning in
general we can turn to Brookfield's claim (in Mezirow,
2000) that: "for something to count as an example
of critical learning, critical analysis, or critical
reflection, I believe that the persons concerned must
engage in some sort of power analysis of the situation
or context in which the learning is happening."
Objectification, by any other name…is just more of
the same. In this regard a posting from a member of our
Cohort, expresses our own dilemma quite well. Apparently
somewhat exasperated, they wrote: "That said, could
we please keep our eye on what's getting swept under the
rug labeled [the value of]'ambiguity' and
'responsibility to self-organize?' I think that it's not
just a good idea to place accountability where it
belongs, but that transformation and transformative
learning *requires* it." Truthfulness really does
have liberating power."
If, as increasing number people around the world are
concluding, human society is currently in the midst of a
paradigm shift, it is crucial to recognize not only the
scope, but also the depth and kinds of changes that are
implied. It would appear that in many realms of daily
life, we have not yet come to terms with the tenacity of
the old ways; nor have we taken the time to imagine in
detail what groups, organizations, and nations would be
like once authoritarianism had been outgrown. (Cloak and
Goldsmith, 2002, p. 1)
Training Collaborative Leaders
In this section of our G-doc we have attempted to
view C-16 as a microcosm, reflecting key isomorphisms
within the TLC program, as well as the larger society.
We have suggested that the program's current frame of
reference - regarding issues of neutrality, ambiguity,
and group leadership - may be actually be contributing
to the reinforcement, rather than genuine transcendence,
of traditional dynamics associated a non-systemic,
reductionist paradigm. We have further suggested that -
in the Cohort experience itself - the focus on
individual and interpersonal, as opposed to
group-as-a-whole dynamics - adds fuel to the fire of
habits we urgently need to outgrow. Perhaps the creation
of conditions leading to the finest possible blossoming
of transformative understanding within a group context
will require more from all of us than we are now giving.
Certainly, the concept of leader neutrality is
appropriate and fitting in terms of not imposing ones
expectations or trying to unilaterally change Cohort
members. However, in terms of group leadership it is as
if, in the effort to avoid linear thinking and
enmeshment, facilitators become entangled in the very
dynamics they wish to avoid. It would seem that what we
need at the present moment is a community contemplation
regarding how we, as aspiring leaders, can embody the
principles we seek to share - and, in the process,
reflect the new paradigm in our interactions with other
human beings.
Assagiolli, one of the forefathers of the current
transpersonal/spiritual psychologies, emphasized the
capacity of the individual to participate in a universal
state of being. He quotes Radhakrishnan as saying
"The particular privilege of the human self is that
he can consciously join and work for the whole and
embody in this own life the purpose of the whole (1983,
p. 128) In the role of guide, rather than authoritarian
organizer, the democratic leader can function as a
center for a milieu which is still implicate. He or she
can become, so to speak, a catalyst who is serving the
group by supporting a new context to become explicate.
In this way new perspectives and fresh opportunities
become accessible to group members.
This stance, however, requires that the leader evolve
as part of the system as a whole. Beyond this, they must
be both giver and receiver, allowing the presence of
those they are leading to enrich their own lives. This
prototypical leader has the demanding job of
simultaneously remaining aware of and making explicit,
the strange position they hold - that of being both
inside and outside the system at the same time. Just as
many fields of knowledge are coming to understand that
"the observer affects that which is observed,"
so the group facilitator faces an inescapable reality:
they an integral and influential part of the Cohort with
which they are interacting. The professor and teaching
assistant will be transferring or
"transmitting" information and energy, as well
as knowledge, to the group; and certainly, too, they
will not be able to determine ahead of time the way in
which the system as a whole will process their input.
However, while it is prudent for a leader to remain
vigilant in avoiding the imposition of their own
solutions or expectations onto the group, it is not
necessary to give up a sense of causality altogether. As
in all areas of life, it is instead possible to view the
process of leadership within a fresh context.
(Robertson, in Weiser and Yeomans, 1985)
This emergence, in turn, is made possible through a
shift in the leader's experience: from that of a
separate, causative agent toward one of being an
"agent-provocateur" for a universal process of
synthesis. In this context the leader's effectiveness
does not rely primarily on their individual power, but
rather on cooperating synergistically with an inherent
flow of self-organizing processes. Obviously, the skill
of seeking, evoking, and affirming the emerging
potential within a human system is not simply a
technical one. Rather, it is honed through the leader's
own sensitivity to the subtleties, nuances, and vast
array of interdependent relationships constellated by an
ever-evolving, living context. (Robertson, in Weiser and
Yeomans, 1985) To truly change the context of change we
need to do more than deconstruct and break out of the
old paradigm. We need to help others and ourselves to be
born into a new one.
It has been said that, "The brighter the light,
the darker the shadow." We are called to bring deep
care and attention to precisely those unpleasant things
within ourselves and between each other, which we
ardently wish would just disappear. But, there is work,
which transcends this act of courage. It would seem that
the forces of health, wholeness, and growth can be
kindled by an encounter with energies of a corresponding
resonance. It is much like one candle simply lighting
another. Gandhi often called this energy - soul-force.
Gradual and painstaking as this process may be - the
active cultivation within ourselves of empathy,
genuineness, openness, passionate dedication to inner
truth, and a willingness to respond compassionately to
others - may in fact be the quickest, most effective
means to becoming vessels for transformation in a world
yearning for a better way. There is no question as to
whether the promise of the work we are doing together is
important, even imperative. The only question that
remains is whether we will find ways to fulfill this
vision by welcoming others - and especially ourselves -
with all our hearts. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated,
the world - all of us - are now facing with a heroic
challenge: we must learn to live together as brothers
and sisters, or perish as fools. The choice is ours.
REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary, Windows 98 version.
Arguelles, Jose, The Mayan Factor, Bear & Co;
1987.
Argyris, Chris, "Beware of Skilled
Incompetence," #60 from R&D Innovator Volume 2,
Number 10, October 1993.
Assagioli, Roberto, The Act of Will, Viking Press,
1983.
Assagiolii, Roberto, Psychosynthesis, Penguin Books,
New York, 1976.
Banet, Anthony, G., and Hayden, Charles, "A
Tavistock Primer," The 1977 Annual Handbook for
Group Facilitators, John Jones and J.William Pfeiffer,
Editors, LaJolla California University Associates, Inc.,
1977.
Barron, Frank, Creativity and Personal Freedom, D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Rinceton, 1963.
Bepko, Claudia, & Krestan, Jo Ann, The
Responsibility Trap, The Free Press, New York, 1985.
Bly, Robert, and Booth, William (Editor), A Little
Book on the Human Shadow HarperCollins, 1988.
Bohm, David, and Nichol, Lee (Editor), On Dialogue,
Routledge, 1996.
Bradsaw, John, Family Secrets, Bantam Books, New
York, 1995.
Bradshaw, John, Healing the Shame That Binds You,
Health Communications, Inc., Deerfield Beach, 1988.
Briggs, John and Peat, David, Seven Life Lessons of
Chaos Harper Perennial, 2000.
Brookfield, Stephen, "Transformative Learning as
Ideology Critique," in Learning as Transformation,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2000.
Buber, Martin, Good and Evil, Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York 1953.
California Institute for Integral Studies Website,
Academic Degrees, "Transformational Learning and
Change," http://www.ciis.edu/graddegree/tlc.html.
California Institute for Integral Studies Website,
Online Learning - Catalyst, "Fall 2001 Cohort 16
Learning Community" course, posting 15:20, http://ciis.bigmindcatalyst.com/cgi/bmc.
Chaudhuri, Haridas, (http: www.miraura.org/bio/ot-on-sa.html)
Cloke, Kenneth, and Goldsmith, Joan, The End of
Management and the Rise of
Organizational Democracy, John Wiley & Sons; 1
edition 2002.
Crum, Thomas, The Magic of Conflict, Touchstone
Press. 1988.
Deikman, Arthur, The Wrong Way Home, Beaacon Press,
Boston, 1990
Drake, Jefferey, "Existentialism: Considerations
for a Philosophy of Education," Caremont Graduate
School, Unpublished Dissertation, 1972.
Eisler, Riane, The Chalice and The Blade: Our
History, Our Future. San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1987.
Eisler, Riane and Alfonso Montuori. "The
Partnership Organization: A Systems Approach."
1998.
Fay, Brian, Contemporary Philosophy of Social
Science, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Frankl, Viktor, Man's Search for Meaning, Pocket
Books, New York, 1963.
Friedman, Maurice, The Confirmation of Otherness in
Family, Community, and Society, The Pilgrim Press, 1983.
Fuerstein, Georg, Holy Madness, Arkana, New York,
1990.
Fuerstein, Georg, Structures of Consciousness,
Integral Publishing, Lower Lake, 1995.
Goleman, Daniel, Vital Lies, Simple Truths, Simon
& Schuster, New York, 1985.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2000).
Building cross-cultural competence. NewHaven: Yale
University Press.
Harmon, Willis, Global Mind Change, Knowledge
Systems, Inc, Indianapolis, 1988.
Haronian, Frank, "The Repression of the
Sublime," in Fadiman, James, The Proper Study of
Man New York, Macmillan, 1971, Reprinted in Synthesis 1,
c. 1974.
Hillman, James, Power, Doubleday, New York, 1995
Joiner, Charles, CIIS Website: Posting 4:79)
14-JUL-2001, "Introduction to Transpersonal
Research Methods."
Jung, C.G., The Collected Works, Vol. 7, sec78,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1953.
Keen, Sam, "The Enemy Maker," in Meeting
the Shadow, Zweig, Connie, & Abrams, Jeremiah, eds.,
Tarcher, New York, 1991
Kegan, Jerome, "What 'Form' Transforms?,"
in
Learning as Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
2000
Keys, Donald, "The Synthesis of Nations,"
Synthesis, vol. I, no. 2, pp. 8-19.
Kornfield, Jack, A Path with Heart, Bantam Books, New
York, 1993.
.
Kraupl-Taylor, F & Rey, T. H: The Scapegoat Motif
[etc]. Int. J. Psychoanalysis 34, 1953. p253-264.
Kurtz, Ernest, Shame and Guilt, Hazelden, Center
City, 1981.
Kurtz, Ernest, & Ketcham, Kathrine, The
Spirituality of Imperfection, Bantam Books, New York,
1992.
Laszlo, Ervin, The Choice: Evolution or Extinction?,
G.P. Putnam's Sons, Los Angeles, 1994.
Lawrence, W. Gordon, "The Presence of
Totalitarian States of Mind in
Institutions."", in Group Relations: An
Introduction, Armstrong, David, Lawrence, W. Gordon,
Young, Robert, London Press Paperback, London 1995.
Macy, Joanna. Mutual Causality in Buddhism and
General Systems Theory, The Dharma of Natural Systems.
New York: State University of New York Press. 1991.
May, Rollo, Existence, Simon and Schuster, New York,
1958.
McClure, Bud A., Putting a New Spin on Groups,
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, 1998.
Merriam, S. and Associates (2002) Qualitative
research in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, Jack, "Learning to Think Like an
Adult," in Learning as Transformation, Jossey Bass,
San Francisco, 2000.
Milburn, Michael, Conrad, Sheree, The Politics of
Denial, the MIT Press,
Cambridge, 1996.
Miller, Jean Baker, & Stiver, Irene, The Healing
Connection, Beacon Press, Boston, 1997.
Montuori, Alfonso, and Conti, Isabella, From Power to
Partnership, Lisardco, 1993
Montuori, Alfonso, and Purser, Ronald, in "In
Search of Creativity: Beyond Individualism and
Collectivism,"1989, posted -www.newstories.caucas.com/
in CIIS course Transforming Systems, Fall 2000.
Morin, Edgar, Homeland Earth, Hampton Press,
Cresskill, 1999.
Morin, Edgar, "Seven Complex Lessons in
Education for the Future." Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2001.
"An Interview with Edgar Morin,"
www.france.diplomatie.fr/label _france/ENGLISH/IDEES/MORIN/morin.html.1997.
Morin, Edgar, "Our Common Home," UNESCO
Courier, November, 1995
Section: PEACE
Olds, Linda E. Metaphors of Interrelatedness. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press. 1992
Parks Daloz, Laurent A, "Transformative Learning
for the Common Good," in Learning as
Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2000.
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research &
evaluation methods, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Peck, M. Scott, A Different Drum, Simon &
Schuster, 1987.
Peck, M. Scott, People of the Lie, Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1983.
.
Peck, M. Scott, The Road Less Traveled, Simon &
Schuster, 1979.
Perera, Sylvia Brinton, The Scapegoat Complex, Inner
City Books, Toronto, 1986
Rioch, Margaret J. (1971) "All We Like
Sheep" Group Relations Reader (1975). Springfield,
VA: A.K. Rice Institute Series.
Robertson, Chris, "Changing the Context of
Change," in Readings in Psychosynthesis:
Theory, Process, & Practice, ed. Weiser &
Yeomans, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, 1985.
Shaffer, John & Galinsky, David M. (1989). Models
Of Group Therapy, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Scheidlinger, Saul (1952). Psychoanalysis And Group
Behavior. A Study Of Freudian Group Psychology. New
York: Norton.
Schramm, Mark, "Basic Assumptions, 1994,
Senge, Peter, The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, 1990.
Shepherd, Linda Jean, Lifting the Veil, Shambhala,
1993
Slater, Philip, A Dream Deferred, Beacon Press,
Boston, 1991.
Slater, Philip, Earthwalk, Anchor Doubleday, Garden
City, 1974.
Slip, Samuel, Object Relations, Jason Aronson,
Northvale, 1991.
Some`, Malidoma Patrice, The Healing Wisdom of
Africa, Tarcher, New York, 1999.
Smith, Kenwyn K., and Berg, David N., Paradoxes of
Group Life, San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Taylor, Kathleen, "Teaching with Developmental
Intention," in Learning as Transformation, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, 2000.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Touching Peace, Parallax Press,
Berkeley,1992.
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig; http://www.isss.org/quoteslvb.htm
Watzlawick, Paul, Weakland, John, & Fisch,
Richard, Change, W.W. Norton & Company, New York,
1974.
Watzlawick, Paul, How Real is Real?, New York: Random
House, 1976.
Wheatley, Meg, Leadership and the New Science,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1992.
("Reclaiming Gaia, Reclaiming Life," 1998
http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/reclaimingaia.html)
Wheatley, Margaret, & Kellner-Rogers, Myron, A
Simpler Way, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San
Francisco, 1996.
Whitehead, Alfred North, The Concept of Nature,
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (1920): v-ix.
Wilber, Ken, The Atman Project, The Theosophical
Publishing House, Wheaton, 1980.
Wilber, Ken, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: Shambhala
Publications; 1995.
Wilson, Robert Anton. (1990) Quantum Psychology.
Tempe, AZ: New Falcon Publications.
Yeomans, Thomas, "The Corona Process: Group Work
in a Spiritual Context," in Soul on Earth: Readings
in Spiritual Psychology, The Concord Institute, Concord,
1999.
Zaiss, Carl, True Partnership, Berrett-Koehler, 2002.
Zinker, Joseph, Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy,
Vintage Books, New York, 1977.
Zweig, Connie & Abrams, Jeremiah Abrams
(editors), Meeting the Shadow : The Hidden Power of the
Dark Side of Human Nature New York: Putnam, 1995.
Appendix A
AN ON-LINE CONVERSATION ON GENDER
ISSUES
Note: Postings are
essentially chronological. Names have been changed in
keeping with our mission.
Invitation: Obviously
the overt and explicit topic under discussion is that of
gender - certainly a "hot-button" topic. But
is this all that is taking place here? You are invited
to see how many other sub-texts you can find, which
illustrate themes discussed in the preceding essay, and
have little to do with the subject of gender.
You might want to think of this like a game called:
"Find the Shadows."
How many can you find?
X: Z...do I detect a bit of sarcasm here? I'm on the
phone with Y right now and we have decided that you are
obsessed with...We tell you this in the most loving way.
Y: Per some requests, I have copied my conversation
with Z that is currently happening in [another class]
and brought it over here into LC where it belongs.
Please give feedback and comments. Thanks.
Z: As I have used the phrase "I don't feel safe
expressing my thoughts" recently, I will put my two
cents worth into this conversation. For me safety means
I can disagree, dissent or free-think on line without
being personally attacked. It means I will not be
subjected to being put into a blanket category that
takes away the legitimacy of my postings. It means that
I won't have to feel as though others are discussing my
failings in conversations off line. Lastly it means for
me that I won't become the object of ridicule because my
way of life and interest are different from others. So,
if I discover that the safety I thought was available
on-line is not there, I must create the safety for
myself, by being more guarded with which thoughts and
feelings I am willing to share and what kind of
interactions I am willing to engage in. Withdrawal to a
certain extent is just a way of protecting oneself in a
no win situation.
Y: Z, I feel compelled to respond to your posting
because I know that you were hurt by the conversation
that X and I had in the other classroom. It was NOT our
intention to hurt you nor was it our intention to
ridicule or stereotype you. It is difficult for me to
understand why you did not recognize that we were joking
since we are all sooooo playful with each other in so
many different ways. I can only assume that we hit a
sore spot or that somehow you do not recognize our true
fondness for you?! You have been very abrupt and
withdrawn for some time. It makes me sad that you have
responded in this way…. I was hoping that we could
explore a situation similar to this one so that hurt
feelings are resolved before we meet again face-to-face.
I also realize that you are going through major personal
life transitions right now and I want to be supportive
of that too. I'm sorry for any pain I have caused you. I
hope you can engage with me/us about this so I/we can
learn from it. Thanks, Z
Z: So, the process of the last few weeks has been
very interesting for me. I have mulled over my
willingness to continue in the program, going back to
before I met any of the cohort. I was willing to pursue
the PhD. Then and so that hasn't changed. What has
changed for me is the sense that I can freely share with
the cohort what I feel and think without being perceived
as a lout or as a dominating male. In other words I
don't feel free to be myself. The only way I can think
of to continue in the program is to become less involved
in the conversations and less of a target. That's no
fun. So, the resolution I've come to today is to be
myself, recognizing that being so alienates the more
sensitive members of the cohort. Even this is less than
a happy solution, for I feel that I've lost my sense of
membership in the family, so to speak. Its as though I
woke up and discovered everyone was not who I thought
they were, and I didn't fit in their world any longer.
While I'm fine with not fitting into the group, I feel a
sense of sadness at the loss of the fantasy. I think
that may be the trap that's created by this program.
We're not only here to pursue an advanced degree, we're
supposed to create a community while doing it. But what
if someone doesn't fit into the community? How does that
person interact in good way? Community takes a certain
energetic, openness and as has been mentioned above,
trust. Can one be in a community and not be open and not
trust? Can one be on the fringe of community and still
be part of the community? Questions from the fringe.
Y: Maybe I am totally clueless, but I don't
understand your posting at all. I don't understand what
made you think/feel that you can't be yourself and why
you have not addressed that incident(s) specifically
instead of making blanket comments about a whole group
of people. Certainly not everyone in the group has
oppressed you and made you feel that you can't be
yourself. In my experience with this group, everyone is
very loving and understanding, granted we all have our
flaws, and I don't agree with you that you are not
appreciated in this group. If that has become your
reality, I think your reality is skewed. You may find
that some of your thoughts or opinions or interests
conflict with those of the other members but underneath
all that 'stuff' we're just a bunch of nice people
trying to work together and earn a degree. Just because
there is conflict or even hurt feelings, doesn't mean
that we don't love & trust each other. Even families
have their differences and their dysfunctionality.
Nobody is perfect. I believe that you and I can find
common ground regarding this issue -- and in fact, I
think that it is essential that we find the common
ground because if I remember correctly it was you and I
that brought the head-heart connection to C16 in
January. Come back to the center, Z. Come back to the
heart -- even if it hurts..
Z: Thanks everyone, thanks for responding to my
previous posting. It was intended as a reflection on my
process and inner dialogue about how I am experiencing
the collaborative process of learning community. I
posted it thinking that since we are exploring
collaborative inquiry, I would open myself up to your
input, and see what collaboration can create… I think
the meat for me is to go inside and find the gift in the
whole thing. I'm looking for the pony so to speak. I
find that I leapt into the community thing with both
feet (my style) assuming that the other members of the
cohort were playing in the game as I construed it. I am
abashed at my own naivety and lack of discretion. so I
am reassessing my relationship here. Its as though I met
new neighbors that I really liked and opened my home to
them and welcomed them into my life, and then some day
at dinner, they started telling racist jokes. I would
have to reassess the relationship, and interact in
different ways. But first I would need to grieve the
loss of what I had been delighting in, and get over my
sense of embarrassment at getting too close too quick.
so I am just laying my process before you, as part of my
reflection in the collaborative space. Is that an
appropriate use of the space or not? If not lets get
back to discussing our presentation question. Times
a-wasting
Y: Z - Why are you still avoiding directly addressing
my comments to you? I have addressed you specifically
several times and yet you continue to write vague
comments addressed to 'everyone.' Am I mis-perceiving
your avoidance of me?
Also, I want to say that your most recent posting
(directly above) still speaks about things that seem
strange and/or untrue to me. For example, you describe
the relationship we have as a group as "playing in
a game" and describe yourself as "naive and
lacking discretion." I don't think any of us (and I
can only truly speak for myself) are "playing a
game." I think we are doing real work - personal
and professional and trying to get the most out of it
that we can. I also think it is incorrect to describe
yourself as naive or lacking discretion because what
accurately happened is that you trusted in the group to
share yourself, you had some unpleasant experiences and
then you withdrew. It was not naive to participate - it
was required. Lastly, your comments about the racist
neighbors is offensive to me. I think your judgments of
us are as much of a problem in this
experience as your misinterpretation of our intentions.
Using your example, did it ever occur to you to educate
your racist neighbors about the way in which their
language might be offensive and ask them not to do it in
your presence? Couldn't
that be a more reasonable solution than moving from
neighborhood to neighborhood in search of the perfect
neighbors? Even in the midst of all of this Z, I still
respect and care for you. I am asking you again to meet
me on common ground here even if it is uncomfortable….
E: Z - in several postings you seemed to refer to the
entire group as being a group you felt you could not be
yourself with. This made me feel very sad, for I had not
considered myself (I cannot speak for others) as having
been part of the discussion that created these feelings
for you. I only bring this up as a learning point for
everyone, which is to remember that when we are hurting
it is very easy to expand that feeling to everyone….I
am wondering if this exaggeration is a way of releasing
our feelings to the world. At some level we want others
to hurt as we do. Z, I want to clarify that I don't know
that this is what was happening for you & also want
you to know that my own hurt is past. I appreciate and
respect you too much to hang on to this …The real
point is how do we work to avoid this from occurring to
begin with -or is it even possible to. Do we want a
situation where we must watch every word we write
diligently or do we want a community where we can
forgive and still love? Most important for this space,
how do we take this experience and learn and hopefully
change our community communications. It seems to me this
is a form of collaborative inquiry as we share these
thoughts and ideas.
A: I've been watching this dialogue evolve, and kept
pretty much in the background so far. I'll write more
soon, but want initially to add some context… I would
like to suggest that any time we bring our whole (or at
least more of) our being to an educational setting,
these kinds of emotional issues can come up. In most
academic and other settings, what you find is folks
getting totally bent out of shape around issue like
gender or race--societal hot-buttons, as B rightly
points out--but never copping to the fact that there may
be personal issues underlying some of the vehemence with
which gender or race are addressed. Folks will
"hide" behind objectivity, and trot out
statistics or other "facts" to back up their
positions (Bell Curves, Evolutionary Psychology, other
approaches which back up this or that position.) We have
created an atmosphere where people can, to some extent
be freer to discuss how they FEEL along with what they
think. And in such cases, long-held feelings of pain or
whatever can come up. X, for instance, articulated well
how for her the list of women-haters across cultures
triggered a really strong reaction, which may not really
have had much to do with those who posted those sorry
lists, but just came up that way--a kind of knee-jerk
"kill the messenger response," something we
all have at times when a really sore issue is brought
up. Z also was personally pained by what he perceived to
be male-bashing, and told us that he is extremely
sensitive to this sort of thing. I think it's admirable
that we have reached a point where we can be this honest
with each other. But can we then take the next step, and
see what we can do after we've told folks we've been
hurt and upset? The whole issue does, for me, go beyond
the individuals involved… If, as part of this program,
we look at issues around which we've had thousands of
years of struggle and suffering, it's inevitable that at
times some of us will really feel that pain come up for
us personally. Like now. So can we create a space where
we can discuss them openly, and all feel safe? A space
where rather than keep hurting each other, we help each
other understand what's going on? I am deeply saddened
when Z or anybody else says they can't address a certain
issue because the cohort simply isn't safe
enough--particularly if it's a required reading and part
of an assignment! In reading texts like Shepherd, we
must be able to address the complexity of the text,
assess the cultural and academic implications, and also
see how they affect us personally, bringing together
individual/social, objective/subjective, head/heart. A
tall order! But one that is important, and goes beyond
"processing individual differences" or
"group stuff." It has to do with the basic
question: If we DO value integral learning, that
attempts to heal the age-old splits between head and
heart, objective and subjective, and so on, can we
create a space where we can do that safely? Can we
really be integral? Or shall we just ignore the parts we
can't handle? Can we create a space where we can learn
how to address our differences and communicate in a way
that is respectful? A way that does not attack or
disengage? In other words, if we have painful issues
around gender, and if there are no really good models to
discuss those differences, can we at least explore a
way, here, to do so? If we don't we'll just
disengage--sure, things might be Ok again for a while,
no hassles. But we will have dropped a very serious
subject and made it out of bounds. What's next? What
will we not be able to talk about next? We are moving on
as far the learning community texts, and the specific
focus on gender with Shepherd. But for our next month,
we'll be looking at our relationship to knowledge and
developing our own voice in this new and mysterious
context we're in… there's nothing abstract about the
way knowledge and learning manifested here: knowledge
about men and women in history, and in the present. So
how DO we react to expression of knowing, about gender,
about our emotions, about our subjective experience? And
can we remember then to also bring in a degree of
objectivity, rationality, reflecting on our reactions,
our emotions? Approaching the issues as whole persons?
Within a community of others, people we do not know that
well and can easily misunderstand, especially around
very sensitive issues? Let's sit with this for a while.
Society and history have not prepared us for this
dialogue. Issues of gender are extremely difficult in
any group, and the degree of self-disclosure you have
all shown here has been really amazing and admirable.
Now I would ask you to also take responsibility for your
words, and come out of a space of vulnerability AND
power, which we all have, and recognize to greater or
lesser degrees. In fact, I'd like to say that most of
the hurt here comes from the fact that we are both
vulnerable and hurt, AND far more powerful than we think
we are, PARTICULARLY when we're hurt... So how about we
add a third element to our vulnerability and power, our
creativity? You are all extremely creative, and I'm sure
you can find very creative ways to express your
power...to heal.
D: C~ You have captured how I feel...incomplete and
disconnected. It hurts me to read Z's comments… and I
have been feeling sad and hurt since then...maybe it's
the same way Z has been feeling regarding lack of safety
and trust? …I remain committed to getting through this
and learning and growing from this episode. However, we
need commitment and presence of those in pain and those
with safety issues to work this out. I have approached Z
about working this out via e-mail as per our group
policy, but that policy doesn't seem to be working now.
We need to utilize a different tool. I am going to take
a very strong stand and say that I refuse to deny it and
stuff it down. This is what life is all
about...understanding one another and growing through
those understandings. What luck does the world have, and
do our children have, if a few good-hearted individuals
who care about each other can't work things out? So what
are we going to do?
C: Z and group, this is only my experience, and I
notice I am feeling it now also, that I don't want to
even bother to keep after something, that in a face to
face conversation would be able to be addressed with a
lot more ease, And….I felt like we all were in an
exploration and you and E were bringing in issues about
the man /woman relationship that I felt needed to get
said.. so now what has happened is you have ended up
saying the on line environment is not safe to continue,
I honor that, and I am frustrated that we, in this
learning community, cannot have ANY conversation with
each other. I feel like we were/demonstrating what
Shepherd, and to some extent Wilshire are pointing to,
the way men and women have related to one another, which
keeps much of what they are saying in place. I notice at
the moment, this medium is very inadequate for depth
conversation and authentic full self-expression,... So,
for the record, I would be very interested in continuing
the conversation that was not completed..... I am sorry
that what took place in this space kept it from being
safe.....
Z: Dear C: Thank you for the response to my paper.
The disclaimer at the front is there because I don't
want people to blindly enter into a paper that might
trigger difficult emotional responses. While I
understand your criticism about being professional and
not needing to place such a message, I have caused as
much pain with my rather blunt and bungling writings
this month, and am rather concerned not to do so again.
I have hopes that we can concentrate on issues that are
not about gender differences for the rest of our time
together. That is why I shied away from the Shepard
book. If you will remember, all of the difficulties this
semester (from my perspective,) happened when I began to
write reflections around my readings in Shepard. I
quoted the Church Fathers in support of Shepard's
linkage of patriarchal domination to Aristotle… This
was perceived as being an act of bias on my part against
the female gender… So, I am very leery of commenting
on Shepard. I would personally like to avoid any
references to gender differences in the future, but they
seem so ubiquitous in our world. I will certainly try
not to make any statements of my opinion about them. I
really appreciate your reading my paper and taking time
to comment. I will consider all that you have said.
D: This is my experience of what happened, how I have
felt.
1. I was one of the women in the group that Z
perceived as - "which vilified males in another
group" and - "then when I connected these
experiences I realized I had totally misread the nature
of the people I had been exposing what to me were
precious ideas and thoughts." How I experienced
this exchange in the group, where there were no males,
was one of finally being free to be myself and express
my pain and frustration of being a female in a male
dominated society. I have been sexually harassed at work
and on the street and even on the phone ordering pizza.
These comments WERE NOT directed to any of the men in
the group. No more so then were Z's or A's comments
directed towards the women in that Group!! (Can anyone
else see here how Z and X have had almost the same
experience...Z feeling hurt by what was not directed
towards him or any other C-16 males in the conversation
in my small group... and then X feeling hurt by Z and As
discussion- which was not directed towards her???) I was
shocked and dismayed to see Z's posting in his small
group about what was going on in my small group. I made
an attempt to clarify with the other women in the group
the point of the process and it seemed to be agreed upon
that we were expressing our concerns and experiences
with society at large. It hurts me, I feel sad as I take
Z's comments of him not knowing 'the nature of the
people' in my group. My nature is that I am a human, I
am not perfect, but I overall have good and caring
intentions. I have a dark side too... Anyway, every time
that Z has posted that he doesn't feel like he knew us,
that he mistrusted us I feel upset: sad, angry, mad. I
feel as if I am being unfairly judged. I also have
realized that I feel as if I am being abandoned by Z for
making a mistake. I am working hard now to put myself in
Z's shoes and get through these feelings, because like
you F, - I KNOW Z is a good, kind, caring person. I am
working hard to understand how I hurt him.... and to
forgive both of us, which I think is do-able.
2. "This was reinforced by the postings of other
women in the group cheering X on while she ranted about
the oppression heaped on her by me and the other
males." I believe/think that what I wrote in that
posting was that I supported X in her beginning a
difficult conversation, but that I thought the whole
group should be involved. I thought the whole group
should be involved because I thought it was finally an
issue where we had some diversity (gender) and I knew
that other females in the cohort were struggling with
gender issues. I thought we could work together and
communicate and get through these feelings of anger,
hurt, sadness, etc. that both the males and females were
going through. I was excited about the opportunity to
work through some of these things, about the opportunity
also to start to see how people are perhaps PROJECTING
their own crap and baggage onto one another. I had an
incredible experience earlier in the semester working
through some issues with E via e-mail. I mean totally
incredible!!! He helped me to see my own issues that I
was projecting onto him and I was able to let go of some
of the negative feelings I was having. It was probably
one of my greatest experiences throughout this entire
program. This is what I imagined would happen, that
everyone would be able to experience sort of a similar
process. That we could maybe eventually get to some sort
of group "a-ha!"
3. "…I don't expect you to understand that
last sentence…" When Z makes a statement such as
this…I take that personally as a put down. When I read
back over that statement, I can also see where Z is
coming from, I get the cultural implications and I am
able to let go of feeling bad about or hurt by that
statement.
4. I have approached Z via postings and e-mail about
wanting to work this out and I have experienced him
giving either no response or a very matter-of-fact
response. I have felt sad and mad and confused by his
postings about the group outside of the group. I have
taken them personally. I have thought and felt that this
can be worked out and should be worked out. I have felt
confused by Z's bringing up the topic and then stating
he would like to drop the topic when Y wanted to work it
out, because she was upset by his comments.
5. Finally, I do most definitely agree that we should
not project our thousands of years of female oppression
and suffering onto the men of the group.
A: If indeed we've decided to approach this with head
and heart, then we're faced with more than just
"objective," "rational,"
"intellectual" knowledge. We have to
incorporate the heart, emotion, intuition, and the
subjective. Now it's true, [for example, that] we have
to deal with APA style, in whatever permutation. But we
can also look at, what makes us afraid or bored by it?
How does that reflect our personal issues--fear it will
restrict creativity, issues about previous negative
experiences with anal educational systems, fears of
inadequacy...can I hack it? So we get more
"personal." In that intersection between
personal space and "objective" space (basic
criteria), there's the possibility of creativity and
transformation. Now for me, that possibility arises when
we dialogue between head and heart, theory and practice,
intuition and reason, and so on. Such a
process is inevitably messy, but potentially very deep,
even with a seemingly non-issue like a basic requirement
such as APA style.…It becomes the source of dialogue
and learning about ourselves….But if we're stuck, that
means there's some resistance, and that resistance may
be very personal, emotional, and subjective in nature.
At the same time, the invitation is for everyone to
reflect, learn, see how a different perspective based on
research makes sense of a situation in different ways,
and gives us a new frame that might, just might, help us
get unstuck. As Z wrote so beautifully, "one of the
values of community, (is that) we teach ourselves who we
are by discovering our boundaries when in interaction
(confrontation) with others." Exactly. No magic
bullet, but hopefully, as we interact with people who
are sometimes very different from us, we learn about
ourselves and about the subject we're studying from a
different perspective. Can we create a space where we do
not disintegrate into "f- you then," spaces.
Where we say, "OK, this person is very different
from me, and some of the stuff they do irritates me. Let
me look at myself, and see if there isn't something I
can learn about myself here too. Is this irritation
telling me something about myself?" Since there is
no magic bullet, sometimes we have to give people time
to try to heal, work things out, and live with a certain
amount of discomfort and ambiguity. Z and X's boundaries
came up, they both went, "Whoa! [Deleted!]"
and then looked within, made themselves vulnerable, and
were courageous enough to say, "I want to keep
working with you, and stay friends." No magic
bullet, and maybe they're drawing on some of our
readings, thinking about the stuff, trying to heal.
Gender is not an easy issue, and in our society the
discourse about gender is sometimes very painful and
"unevolved." I think X and Z really came
through, and are willing to be open and work on stuff,
and I admire them for it. So to make a long story
longer, yes, we're coming at this integrally. What does
that mean? Well, it means integrating the polarities
you're addressing in LC: head/heart, theory/practice,
subjective/objective, content/process… And the thing
is, you have to find your own balance, your own
definition of where you fit there, how you create those
dialogical relationships between the polarities inside
and outside. Who are you personally, and as a cohort, if
you integrate those polarities? I can't tell you that. I
don't WANT to tell you that. It's your courage,
vulnerability, creativity, intelligence, power,
intuition, and love that will eventually do it. And you
will learn alone, and in interaction. I can make
suggestions, provide some guidance, but like an art
teacher, I can show you some of the basics, but what you
create with that is totally yours. I think it's a grand
challenge, and I think every one of you is not only up
to it, but capable of contributing something profound.
F: I thought we …' killed' this issue in August
when as a group we ALL agreed to take response-abiity
for speaking up if we felt offended, oppressed or
otherwise dominated directly with the person with whom
we were having the issue...didn't we? I think if I am
dominating or oppressing anyone in this group, I'd hope
that the agreement is upheld (or why did we bother
making it?) and you, as a person according to Meizrow
who has the necessary emotional development to
participate in transformative learning, would approach
me directly re: the perceived oppression. If we can't
sort it out, then I guess it goes to the group to look
for a collective reality...my sense is with this group
we could almost always find a
satisfactory meeting point one on one...ala I think…picking
up the phone and calling rather than writing, in her
email…. I reaffirm my agreement to do the same with
anyone else in the group that creates my feeling
dominated or oppressed. I won't apologize for my
position, I was asked, there's my answer. I happen to
fall into the category A labeled as "Too busy for
this s-t" which means I am fully engaged in my
local community with how I relate to others re: not only
gender, but as holistic an approach as possible.
Therefore I acknowledge having little left to give the
web based learning community beyond my best efforts. Had
we more face to face time or a longer residency, our
options to "process" would be expanded, but
our group has VERY REAL constraints in its established
format. I've done conference calls...its not much better
than the web and I won't be participating in any. thanks
for listening... Love you all...I think this is the
greatest bunch of pioneering people I've had the
pleasure to associate with...hoping this doesn't tear us
asunder.
E: It takes an inordinate amount of detailed
attention to work out what someone meant by a particular
word or phrase, and then to unravel what followed the
original misunderstanding and then pick up the
conversation again and head in a new direction.
Face-to-face, this could be done in less than a minute
and we'd be moving on. Here, it takes so much longer
that frustration, anxiety, and even paranoia, can set
in. What a bummer! And, when we get to subjects about
which we have a lot of emotion, our online limitations
really come into play. Was anybody besides me *not*
surprised when Z read X's posting and then said, "I
don't feel safe here" Imagine being Z - stepping
right into one of the most sensitive topics in our
culture (gender stereotyping and dominator issues) - and
then reading these words from X: "Z...do I detect a
bit of sarcasm here? I'm on the phone with Y right now
and we have decided that you are obsessed with...we tell
you this in the most loving way." I winced when I
read this! Can you all see how easy it would be for Z -
or anybody - to "hear" X saying (a) you're
being sarcastic, (b) Y and I are talking about you
behind your back, (c) we have decided you are obsessed
with…, and (d) you ought to receive this communication
well because we love you. Can you see how easy it would
be for anyone - not just X - to "hear" Z's
withdrawal from the Shepherd conversation and his
announcement about not "feeling safe" as
saying (a) you are attacking me, (b) you've made this
space unsafe, and (c) it's your fault I'm leaving. Now,
please, please, PLEASE keep in mind that I write all
this without knowing ANYTHING about what X OR Z actually
felt, thought, or intended when they wrote their
messages!!! Furthermore, I would suggest that Z and X
didn't - and quite possibly STILL DON"T KNOW what
each other felt, thought, or intended. And this is just
ONE example. I'm sure each of us can recall numerous
others. When I saw all this happen, what I wanted to do
was throw up my hands, scream f**k at the top of my
lungs, and quit writing anything online other than
dispassionate, rational thought or whimsical, chatty
stuff. All I could think of to do instead was post a
picture of a tree with deep, unseen roots and then write
an anguished poem. Now, I'm offering this reflection in
the hope that something valuable for our common life
will come from it. I don't know how it's been for the
rest of you, but for me this has been a VERY painful
thing to witness. Well, pain can be a great teacher, and
I've been doing my best to be a student. Here are some
conclusions I've drawn from this experience:
1. Our online environment SIGNIFICANTLY limits our
ability to convey (a) complicated ideas, (b) lengthy
points of view, (c) hurtful and painful feelings, and
especially (d) personal intentions.
2. We sometimes ignore or are blind to these
limitations, and we have
unrealistic expectations about (a) what we can get
across online and (b) how clearly others will interpret
our meaning.
3. Remember when we decided last August that we
wouldn't create problems for ourselves by deciding ahead
of time about what we'd do when we misunderstood each
other online? I've concluded that it's time for us to
have that conversation, AND I suggest we do NOT open
another site online to do this, but that we talk about
it face-to-face in August.
4. Between now and August, we need to observe more
about our possibilities AND our limitations online, so
that we bring our best thinking to our conversation at
the intensive. Well, that's what I've got. I really hope
this adds more light than heat to our conversation. That
is my intention.
|
