Space Invaders? (Inclusion -- Chris Corrigan)

[John Dicus]

Dear Chris,

Part of me wants to let this space-invader thing go because we're probably
speaking to different facets of the same territory.  I imagine most of us
would go to extraordinary lengths to be inclusive.  Yet I feel a larger
issue propelling me: over-inclusiveness.  Particularly in a global context.

In the practice of OS, things that might seem inconsequential make a big
difference.  An open invitation (to come or not) is important.  Free choice
is important.  We don't want to take or create prisoners.  We need to be
careful (not afraid) when we use the word facilitator.  Sometimes we're
teachers or leaders.  Sometimes we're followers. We're always stewards.
We're always building towards higher levels of co-stewardship and
co-responsibility.  If we do well, and do it from a centered place of
service, the atmosphere seems to promote good things and space invasion
hardly ever rears its head.  But to say it never does seems wrong to me.
If a true space invader were to materialize and begin to take over, it may
be the result of shirking some responsibility rather than the result of
one's own baggage broaching the surface.

A quick note on "doing nothing" when we facilitate.  I've got a poem called
"For Julia, In The Deep Water. In this poem there's a description of a
mother helping her daughter to learn.  It draws a parallel between learning
to live in life and struggling into water over your head.  The mother is
"holding space."  It says, "Your mother is down at the deep end, waiting.
She is doing nothing, and she never did anything harder."  Here's my take:
when Harrison says "OS is easy, just go do it," he's partly right and
partly wrong.  Partly wrong because I believe he does about one-thousand
unconscious things per hour, learned from many years of experience, and
that come from an extremely deep, caring place.  Of course people can learn
to do them.  But when we deny the beautiful higher-order structure of an
Open Space society by ignoring that it has a structure (different though it
may be), or when we pretend that we do nothing to achieve open space, we do
ourselves a disservice.  Harrison says what he says, I believe, to show
humility and to be encouraging, but there's a lot of stuff inside him that
doesn't meet the untrained eye.

Even though, as I said, part of me wants to let this inclusive issue go,
part of me says that it's not a trivial point.

I believe (as you wrote) that space invaders violate our own standards and
certainties as facilitators.  And I agree that it's possible that space
invaders may be operating out of passion and courage.  And I agree that
labeling people as space invaders says a lot about us.

I believe more fully, however, that space invaders not only violate our own
standards and givens as facilitators, but they violate some larger and more
generally accepted standard as well.  I believe that labeling people as
space invaders not only says a lot about ourselves, but says something
peculiar about the person being labeled as well.  These are not either/or
issues to me, rather both/and issues.

Yes, it takes a lot of courage for someone to stand against the mainstream
flow of thought and speak what may turn out to be troubling words --
disrupting the status quo.

But, I do not think it takes courage to be a space invader.  I believe that
invading space is the path of least resistance for the weak.  A space
invader does not try to rise to the occasion, rather he/she tries to lower
the occasion to their level of comfort.  A space invader trashes service in
the pursuit of selfish-interest.  These points provide a few windows into
who might or might not be a space invader.

In the end, if the container provided by the opening and holding of space
ceases to grow anything of value (in the broader sense), then the container
may contain something that does not enable.  To pretend we're not
particular about what's in the container (or not in the container) is to be
intentionally blind to our deepest shared passions and the deepest regions
of our own human structure -- our shared conceptual beliefs and values.
Does the shadow belong in the container?  Or is it best to only admit an
awareness of it?  Is there a shadow so dark that it cannot be allowed in?
I think so.

I have passion for the pursuit of sustainability.  There is, in my view,
too much political-correctness on lists.  People are afraid to be open and
say what they believe.  People instead try too hard to be accepted when
they write.  Or they succumb to the notion they won't be accepted --
deciding not to write because they believe they have little to contribute.
And of course there's always the stampede to rush in and fix people when
they offer their views.  It always makes me wonder why lists that are
supposed to be about Learning Organizations, Open Space, and Dialogue leave
so little space for a people to just "be."  To just be who they are.  Are
we not a work in progress?  Robert Fulghum said in his book (Kindergarten),
"Don't be surprised if I contradict something I just said a few paragraphs
ago.  After all, I don't know everything yet."

I'm willing to say I believe in good and bad.  In good people and bad
people.  I believe in right and wrong.  I don't believe that "just
anything" and every belief is constructive.  My mom (80) is pretty
permissive.  Her mother was over-restrictive.  I feel fortunate that I
spent a few summers on Aunt Iney's farm in Indiana.  She would cut to the
core and simply say, "John, right is right and wrong is wrong.  What you
just did is wrong. Don't do it again, okay? Good!  I love you...now go
play."  I have found that her clarity, combined with my mother's hesitance
to render consequences, a healthy place to be.

I'm reminded of a piece in Parker Palmer's "Courage To Teach."  He speaks
of extreme relativism and extreme absolutism.  In this I find hope for
sustainability.

To provide a little background, he speaks of "The Great Things" that we're
constantly in danger of losing.  They may fade, or become hidden from view.
 "The Great Things" he speaks of are: Inviting diversity into our midst;
Embracing ambiguity; Welcoming creative conflict; Practicing honesty;
Experiencing humility; and Remaining free by overcoming tyranny.

He says that, "The Great Things disappear in the face of both absolutism
and relativism.  With absolutism, we claim to know precisely the nature of
Great Things, so there is no need to continue in dialogue with them -- or
with each other.  The experts possess the facts, and all that remains is
for them to transmit those facts to those who do not know."

"With relativism," he continues, "we claim that knowledge depends wholly on
where one stands, so that we cannot know anything with any certainty beyond
our personal point of view.  Once again, there is no need to continue in
dialogue with Great Things or with each other: one truth for you, another
for me, and nevermind the difference.  Of course the Great Things do not
disappear in reality -- they only disappear from our view."

This is why I feel so strongly about the conversation pertaining to space
invaders -- both in a ballroom and in the world at large.  I'd like to hear
a more balanced dialogue as we offer OS, and as we move forward from 09/11/01.

>
>In a truly open OST meeting, as facilitators
>do we have the audacity to say that
>some people are merely participants and
>some are space invaders?  By what right
>or authority do we have that ability?
>

Maybe it is audacious.  But maybe it's responsible, too.  Are there roles
of appropriate leadership we are refusing to step into?  Do we have the
courage?  Perhaps our time "on the job" in life bestows us with that
implied authority.  Implied because life has sacrificed for us and has
trained us.  Because there is no one but us.  Are we afraid to show
leadership because we don't know how to get it perfect?  We gain ability
through practice.

>
>In a broader sense, who are we to
>say who are valid participants in the
>world and who are not?  It seems to
>me that we in the west will be
>making that choice very soon.
>I have a lot of fear about that right.
>

We should fear, but not in immobility.  We have to try.  I hope and pray it
will be the whole world, not just the west, making sustainable choices.  If
it is the whole world, our pain will be eased because the whole world cares
and shares our hurt.  It will cry with us.  If it is the whole world, then
everyone will be making the future safe together, and we (in the US) can
afford to catch some sleep while someone else stands watch.  We need to
rest.  We're very tired.  We've been awake for over a week now.

Thank-you, Chris.

John

--
John Dicus  |  CornerStone Consulting Associates
- Leadership - Systems Thinking - Teamwork - Open Space - Electric Maze -
2761 Stiegler Road, Valley City, OH 44280
800-773-8017  |  330-725-2728 (2729 fax)
mailto:jdicus at ourfuture.com  |  http://www.ourfuture.com

*
*
==========================================================
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