Concerns and Tactics

[Peggy Holman]

I've been sitting with Kenoli's message, caught between the ease of going
back to business as usual and the drive to make a difference post 9-11.
Thanks for the question Kenoli; I find great power in the asking.  I am
doing my best to stay with it because I have no easy answers.

Paul, your response to Kenoli's statement about creating a new version of
"solidarity" that avoids polarization really crystalized for me the
challenge we face in creating that solidarity.  You said:
>In the second sentence, it appears you want dialogue/discussion only if it
> agrees with your viewpoint and any other viewpoint, such as mine, which is
> definitely different, will be seen as "polarization" and therefore is not
to
> be seen/heard on this board.  Is that correct?  Think, carefully.

I believe the great creator of real, deep, lasting solidarity comes EXACTLY
from expressing viewpoints that disagree.  If you and others, with different
points of view weren't part of this mix, the sort of solidarity that comes
from doing things differently will be impossible to achieve.  Indeed, I'd
love to hear viewpoints even more different than anything expressed to date
on this list.  So how do we do that and avoid polarization?  I believe that
answer is where hope rests.  And the good news is I think we know a great
deal about this.  What can make it different is the assumptions that unlie
how we interact.  The unspoken purpose in the vast majority of "normal"
communication is is to reach an answer, a single answer.  This leads to
advocating positions in the need to get to ONE answer.  This fight to be
right, to win the argument is what creates polarization; NOT that we see
things differently.  The power of dialogue is that it isn't driving to find
an answer; it's purpose is to understand.  This leads to an emphasis on
listening to each other.  And what seems to happen is the most amazing
thing.  We may never agree on the vast majority of things but we will come
to respect each other as human beings and quite likely discover some things
that we mutually care about.  And that leads to building the sort of
solidarity that does lead to answers and collective action.

Peggy


----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Paul Everett" <JPESeeker at aol.com>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Concerns and Tactics


> In a message dated 12/18/01 9:40:06 AM, kenoli at igc.org writes:
>
> <<
> I would love to hear from you regarding these questions.
>
> In (a new version of) "solidarity" (can we avoid polarization this time?),
>>
>
> My Dear Kenoli,
>
> Before I reply to the substance of your message, I wish to check out your
> meaning in the above two sentences.  In the first, I presume you want
open,
> free dialogue and/or discussion about the subject on which you wrote.  Is
> that correct?
>
> In the second sentence, it appears you want dialogue/discussion only if it
> agrees with your viewpoint and any other viewpoint, such as mine, which is
> definitely different, will be seen as "polarization" and therefore is not
to
> be seen/heard on this board.  Is that correct?  Think, carefully.
>
> (btw, we might both remember that his board is nominally dedicated to OST
> subjects and not Ashcroft & Co., nor the strategic processes of the US
Govt.)
>
> Paul Everett
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html