Chicago Social Forum (again) AND Conversing about..."the right conditions"

Ted Ernst ted at chicagohumanist.org
Wed Sep 10 18:47:07 PDT 2003


Some of you may have read my earlier emails about the Chicago Social Forum
process.  I facilatated a 4-person OST event for the Aug planning meeting
where it was decided to do it again for the Sept meeting, where the first
part would be a suggestion for conversations on the theme Local/Global and
the 2nd part would be a suggestion for "business type" organizing for the
"event" on Jan 31-Feb 1 (the Chicago Social Forum is both a process and an
event, I suppose).

Anyway, last night was that Sept meeting and while the process worked
perfectly as always, and what happened was the only thing that could have, I
was left thinking "these people just aren't ready for this type of
self-responsibility."  Harrison pointed out a couple of months back that
he'd take battle hardened marines over the peace, love and light crowd any
time if choosing a group that thrives in open space.  I can't remember his
reasoning, but last night I had to do a heck of a lot of internal work to
just let it all happen.

The first session went off pretty well (a couple of people wanted to change
the process, but we worked through that) with abot 5 conversations among
about 14 people, ranging from the FTAA actions to Africa to Food Security to
Housing and more.  Good stuff and people seemed to like it.  I felt
something strange when people were getting ready to change sessions I went
to the washroom (not wanting to influence people's actions by my presence).
When I came back I found everyone in a circle dispite the 5 or 6 distinct
topics on the wall.  Everyone merged themselves into the "Program
Committee."  This kind of large group (facilitated) discussion always seems
like such a waste of time to me as I'm not interested in many of the issues
discussed, but I don't want to impose my agenda on the whole group so my
stuff doesn't get discussed.  Anyway, I took a seat outside the circle
(there wasn't space in the circle and I didn't want to push my way in,
didn't feel right as the facilitator at that moment) and listened (I
expressed a substantive opinion at one point, but nothing about process).

One topic that came up was the format for future organizing meetings.  Some
people said point blank they'd like a traditional format while others liked
the idea of open space for the 1st session as a way to have conversations
that might not otherwise take place, but having the large group 2nd part was
universally accepted.  One person opinioned that union leaders or clergy
that have little time to go to more meetings would likely not come back to a
process using something so strange as the open space format.

My assessment:  They don't get it.  Is this the only thing that could've
happened?  Yes.  Given that these are were the right people, this is the
only way the meeting could've gone.  If these were not the right people,
what's the point in even having the meeting or discussing what happened as
the point is moot.  I'm convinced these were/are the right people and
they're not ready to trust themselves nor take responsibility for creating
something truly unprecedented.  I'm happy we tried it no matter what, but if
anything comes out of last night, I hope it's that people now feel the
tension between what they're trying to create and the ways in which they're
used to working.  If they don't so be it, but if they do, maybe they'll be
ready for more open space at another time.

Peace,
Ted
Humanize the Earth!  http://www.chicagohumanist.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Chris Corrigan
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:38 AM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
>
>
> I have been working hard over the past few years to let go of
> what might be and just focus on what is.  To say that there
> are "right" conditions and "wrong" conditions, especially as
> regards to the future is, as you point out, not a very useful
> exercise.
>
> Accepting the now is basically all we can do.  To argue with
> reality is insanity!  But it's never easy to get a clear
> picture of what "now" is. We have to see past the stories we
> generate in our heads or in our relationships to get at the
> underlying "now-ness" of the present moment.
>
> Of course I can believe that we can influence our futures,
> but I stop short about saying how.  Yesterday's "initial
> conditions" have led us to where we are today.  And today's
> "action" is tomorrow's "initial conditions."  Given the
> intellectual yoga required to grasp all this, perhaps the
> best thing to do is just DO.  And of course we will all have
> our own ideas about doing what, but I think most people try
> to act out of goodness or positive intention.  Throwing
> people into Open Space to explore options for doing just
> increases each person's exposure to alternatives, leading to
> a richer field of action.
>
> So, as usual, I have outlined a roundabout way of agreeing
> with you, Marei.
>
> Chris
>
> ---
> CHRIS CORRIGAN
> Bowen Island, BC, Canada
> http://www.chriscorrigan.com
> chris at chriscorrigan.com
>
> (604) 947-9236
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Marei
> > Kiele
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:32 PM
> > To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
> >
> > Dear Chris, dear Arthur,
> >
> > it has been very interesting for me to think about the question and
> the
> > answer given. During the last days I tried to clarify for
> myself the
> > difference between accepting and
> not-doing-anything-anymore. For me it
> has
> > to do with the time I am referring to.
> >
> > I agree that whatever happens under the present conditions
> is whatever
> > could have and that there is no use in thinking about "ifs" and
> "shoulds".
> > And maybe the conditions are not only right but neither right nor
> wrong -
> > they just are. This is true esp. when thinking about the now or the
> past.
> >
> > But thinking about the future I can ask which conditions are
> supportive
> > and which are not: which make change, development,
> transformation more
> > possible than others? If one of the things necessary for
> > differenciation (as I agree with)
> is a
> > nutritious environment - than we can influence the
> possibilities for
> > transformation by sharing nutrition (physically or in other
> dimensions).
> >
> > And referring to "wrong" conditions in organisations, the world, our
> > heads: Maybe they seem not to be helpful or not fitting anymore or
> born
> > out of anxiousness. But at least they were the "right"
> conditions at
> > another time or place. And in the moment being they are
> still "right"
> for
> > the organisation or the person and we - judging them - just
> don't have
> all
> > the insights...
> >
> > What I decided to try doing is both: totally accept the past and the
> now -
> > but do my share to influence the future (and accept whatever is
> coming).
> > Does that make sense to you?
> >
> > Marei
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris Corrigan" <chris at chriscorrigan.com> schrieb:
> > > Whatever conditions are present are the right conditions for
> whatever
> > > happens is the only thing that could have happened.
> > >
> > > Seriously.
> > >
> > > I think the second principle refers to the fact that no
> matter what
> > > initial conditions are present, whatever happens is the only thing
> that
> > > could have.  It sounds like a tautology, but I think of
> it more as a
> Zen
> > > koan.  It is supposed to bring your consciousness to a place that
> > > accepts the fact that "should" is an extremely useless
> word when we
> are
> > > dealing with an expanded now.
> > >
> > > As for the conditions that make Open Space really hum, I
> go back to
> > > Harrison's elegantly stated four: passion, diversity,
> complexity and
> > > urgency.  The more of each, the better the process works.
> > >
> > > And that, for many facilitators and managers, is another paradox.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > ---
> > > CHRIS CORRIGAN
> > > Bowen Island, BC, Canada
> > > http://www.chriscorrigan.com
> > > chris at chriscorrigan.com
> > >
> > > (604) 947-9236
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On
> Behalf Of
> > > Artur
> > > > Ferreira da Silva
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:18 AM
> > > > To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> > > > Subject: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
> > > >
> > > > Hello again:
> > > >
> > > > For someone like myself that has problems with the capitalized
> word
> > > Spirit (as well as with some other capitalized words) and with the
> > wording of
> > > the "principle" that says "whatever happens is the only thing that
> could
> > > have" I felt very surprised as I completely agree with this
> formulation
> > > (from Alan's, "The Conversing Company"):
> > > >
> > > > "... When people interact under the right conditions, spirit or
> > > > intelligence emerges automatically - it is the only thing that
> could
> > > > have".
> > > >
> > > > The way I see the "right conditions" to be present, or not, are
> the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > - In "normal organizations", using current meeting
> methodologies,
> the
> > > > wrong conditions are normally present - they are
> "closed" by rules
> and
> > > > regulations, both explicit and tacit.
> > > >
> > > > - In our outside macro-world the wrong conditions are normally
> present
> > > > (see the Middle East or Iraq - before and now - to give only two
> > examples -
> > > > maybe three).
> > > >
> > > > - Inside our heads the wrong conditions are normally
> present  - as
> > > > obsolete "mental models".
> > > >
> > > > For the space to be open it is necessary that someone
> opens it AND
> > > that the "right conditions" are defined/clarified in the first
> place.
> > Those
> > > right conditions are not only the OST principles and law but also:
> the
> > > correct preparation, the fact that all stakeholders with enough
> > diversity are
> > > > invited (but not obliged, directly or indirectly) to
> participate,
> a
> > > right and open theme is addressed, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I would very much like to see what others think that are the
> "right
> > > > conditions" for "whatever happens is the only thing that could
> happen"
> > > to be true.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Artur
> >
> > *
> > *
> > ==========================================================
> > 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

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



More information about the OSList mailing list