Democracy and Civil conversation (long)

Ethelyn & Harrison Owen owenhh at mindspring.com
Fri Sep 6 07:48:52 PDT 2002


Our present conversation about Democracy, voting and Open Space brought to
mind a paper I did some time ago on the subject of Civil Conversation.

A Modest Proposal: Opening Space for Civil Conversations

Harrison Owen


         In this political season (and what season isn't political?) there
appears to be more than the usual amount of abuse and invective directed at
politicians near, far, and of all persuasions. Not that all of this is
without merit and foundation, but to some large extent, I believe our
political folks are victims of a bum rap. Heresy I know, but hear me out.
         We accuse them of making dumb decisions about issues they don't
understand, along with the usual charges of bribery, cronyism, immorality,
and worse. I am not about to ascribe pristine character to all who choose
to follow the political calling, but in a number of years here in
Washington and in other communities where I was actively engaged in the
"political process," I have met precious few truly dumb politicians. As for
their understanding of the issues facing the nation (state, city, town)
they were remarkably well informed, and no better than we deserved.
         And here is the point. We (the civil population) have largely
gotten what we deserved, and often better. The simple truth of the matter
is that we (that is pretty much all of us) have failed to uphold our end of
the bargain. Civics 101 should have taught us that in a representative
democracy, the formal political activity (making laws and administering
them) is only part, and I would argue, only a small part, of the total
equation. It all starts with us and ends with us. A civil conversation is
essential.
         A civil conversation does not necessarily mean a polite one with
no conflict. It does, however, require respect and engagement around issues
of genuine concern. A civil conversation is neither more nor less than the
people talking to each other relative to issues they truly care about.
         In the early days of our country, the town meeting was such a
civil conversation. To be sure, votes were taken, but it was never worth
while to vote on something that had already been decided by common
consensus. Why bother? And when votes were taken, and the formal political
process engaged, the voters were informed, or at least they certainly had
the opportunity.
         As the country grew and towns melded into states and ultimately
into a nation, the town meeting was, if anything, more important. If it was
no longer possible to assemble all the folks in a single time and place,
then representatives of the people could carry the wishes of the people to
Philadelphia and ultimately Washington. There those wishes were
re-presented, and in the event of disagreement, argument was made, votes
were taken, and laws were passed. Was it perfect? Certainly not, but it
beat the heck out of whatever was in second place.
         Presently we have lots of argument, innumerable votes, and an
abundance of laws. What we don't have is civil conversation, at least not
very much, and certainly not enough. The simple truth of the matter is that
the politicians are doing what we pay them to do. We, on the other hand,
have largely abdicated our responsibility to converse civilly. This, of
course, leaves the politicians to their own devices, and we have no right
to complain.


Pollsters and Special Interests Groups

         Standing right next to the politicians in the fire fight of public
outrage are pollsters and Special Interest Groups. It is perhaps
comfortable to beat on these people as the ultimate perversion of the
public weal. Another bum rap. They are just filling a vacuum. Indeed it
might be argued that the pollsters and the Special Interest Groups are
performing a major public service. With the break down of civil
conversation, they stand as virtually the only connection between the
politicians and us. Absent pollsters and lobbyists and the politicians
would truly be left to their own devices. Besides, they too are doing no
more (or less) than we are paying them to do. The fault lies not with the
pollsters, politicians, or lobbyists. It lies with us, my friends. We are
not upholding our part of the bargain. There is no civil conversation.

Creating Space and Time for Civil Conversation

         How do you get 250, soon to be, 300 million people to talk to each
other? The answer is actually quite simple. Create the space and time in
which that can happen. More specifically, marry Open Space Technology to
the Internet and we might just pull it all off.

A Precedent

         If the idea sounds wild, it is actually do-able. In fact it has
already been done, at least in part. Several years ago, our friends in
Canada were contemplating the more than remote possibility of divorce in
the family. Specifically, the Province of Quebec came within less than a
percentage point of leaving the Country. Their action got a lot of people's
attention, but as a friend of mine remarked at the time, "It might be nice
if we were to chat before we divorced." It seems like the problems were
hardly new, and actually there had been lots of heated and very uncivil
discussion, passions high, anger in the forefront. What was missing was
civil and solution focused conversation. A group of consultants all
specializing in large systems work met to discuss what they could offer
into the conflict towards conversation. They all agreed the best (cheapest,
fastest) process to use was Open Space Technology and to rally consultants
from across the country to volunteer their services to hold Open Space events.
         Planning was minimal. Feb 19, 1996 was set as a day to hold
meetings across the Country. 50 larger Open Space meetings occurred with
about 100 more small meetings, some in peoples homes. The focal issue was
clear, The Future of Canada. It was expressed in the theme: "For the Love
of Canada"
Somewhere along the line, Macleans Magazine (roughly equivalent to Life
here in the States) picked up the story and also hosted a four hour on-line
open space meeting. At any time there could be up to 150 people in the
meeting. Through the evening, many  more than that participated. The editor
of the magazine was on line as well. He said it was the first conversation
he was aware of during the entire time of "the debate" as the Quebec crisis
was called in which the conversations were not complaining, not blaming,
not bitter----but actually solution focused. He was amazed. Macleans
created a website so that proceedings from the several gatherings could be
sent to a central "place." Close behind was the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation which provided some coverage, and by the end, the Prime
Minister decided it would be a good thing, as the official representative
of all of Canada, to receive those proceedings, which I am told now reside
in the national archives.
Did it do any good? Who knows, however, several of the follow up actions to
this initiative started other national forums, and an exchange program of
residents from other parts of Canada with Quebecers so they could get to
know each other as people. What it did do, at virtually no cost (or at
least with no visible budget) was show that a small group of people,
operating quite independently could pull together what amounted to an
enormously complex organization, in virtually no time at all. But that is
the secret of Open Space, and more generally, self-organization.
Canada, of course, has enormous space, but very few people. Could it work
south of the border? Why not...

A Plan

         To call what follows A Plan is surely to stretch the meaning of
those words, but here is the idea.

First: Convene an Open Space. Invite anybody who cares about the future of
our country  the good old USA  to convene an Open Space in their
town/city/state around any issue or combination of issues of genuine
concern to their community. The potential labor pool for this adventure
should be adequate for the task. To date some 800 people have gone through
the Open Space training programs I have offered, and something like 10,000
people have bought the book. How many of these folks have actually used
what they have learned is open to question, but even a small fraction of
the total would be sufficient to get the show on the road.
         The focus of these gatherings might be very broad as in "Building
a better Community," or narrower in scope as in "Educating our Kids." Hot
issues need not be avoided  "Sexual Preference and Our Community." Or how
about "Abortion Rights and Wrongs"? Once completed, forward the Proceedings
to the Civil Conversation website. The benefit to your community will be
immediate, and the database of the national Civil Conversation will be
building.

Second: Improve the Website. For openers, I will use my personal website <
as a temporary repository. It isn't elegant, but it does work, and as long
as input is restricted to text only (no graphics)we got plenty of room for
a beginning. As soon as possible, we will need to build a new website with
more space and some powerful search engines. The information contained will
only be useful to the extent that people can access it  without having to
read every last word.
Third: Seek Financial Support. Civil Conversation need not be a money
maker, but it can't run for long on a budget it doesn't have. I will
approach likely foundations (suggestions please) specifically for website
support, maintenance, and advertizement. You have to get the word out so
that the Word does get out. I am hopeful that the Open Space Institute
(US)  a 501-c-3 non-profit will agree to be the grantee.

Fourth: Access and Use. The website should be open to anybody who cares to
use it. That would include all sorts of political folks and bureaucrats of
whatever persuasion. Conservative, liberal or radical  all must be welcome.
After all you can't have a Civil Conversation if folks are excluded. And
there must be no limit on the uses to which the information is put.
Doubtless some abuses will take place, but as long as the windows and doors
are open, the fresh winds of freedom should blow away some of the worst of
them. As for the rest  it certainly can't be any worse than it is. Other
users would include students of all sorts, policy makers, community groups
in search of ideas and precedents. In short, anybody concerned to make a
difference. And that should certainly include businesses who might want to
check out emerging social trends as precursors to new market places.

Fifth: Long Term Support. Foundation support does not last for ever, nor
should it. The Civil Conversation should essentially pay for itself through
usage fees. I think everybody ought to pay something if only $1. Like
elsewhere in Open Space we would ask that people pay what they can and what
they think is fair. To keep things more or less on the up and up, we would
ask that anybody who cared to use the data to identify themselves. Just as
there is no anonymity in Open Space, neither should their be anonymity in
the use of the fruits of Open Space. So if Microsoft were to drop into the
system and leave only a dollar, it would be appropriate to suggest that
they sweeten the kitty.

Sixth and First: Start Now. The Civil Conversation begins the moment we say
so. So if you care to do an Open Space, carry on and send me the results.
If you want to see what is happening, check out the website. And if there
is nothing there and nothing happens, that is clear and indisputable
evidence that either this was a bad idea, nobody cares, or both. But that
is just the way things are in Open Space.
         That last statement may be a little flip and overstated, but in
terms of growing this idea, it really has to grow. It cannot simply be
taken down the normal course of program development: Design the
program  seek funding  implement and run. The program in large part will
have to design itself and potential funders will only be attracted when
they see something they can understand.
         If you care, come along. Comments and suggestions are always
appreciated, but better yet, open some space. Right now. Let the Civil
Conversation begin. Or not  but don't complain about the politicians,
pollsters and lobbyists. They are just doing their job. I think it is time
for us to do ours.



Harrison Harrison Owen

7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854 USA
phone 301-365-2093
Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com
Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
Personal website www.mindspring.com\~owenhh

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20020906/d0797649/attachment-0016.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list