the dark side of circle practices

[Artur Silva]

--- chris macrae <wcbn007 at easynet.co.uk> wrote:

> The process starts erring to absolute democracy of
> everyone must have
> equal time contributions to speak at each phase
(...) In other
> word's the circle's communal harmony ... can
co-create such
> deep love of nice
> behaviours to each other that it misses the biggest
> spiral out above our
> communal thinking's common denominator

That's interesting, Chris.

I have been, at times, in situations like that one -
circles (or squares) where everyone must "be in
place", must "speak in his turn" and must have a "nice
behavior".

They call this democratic, but in fact it is a
dictatorship. In a democracy I can stay silent if I
want. When everyone is obliged to speak that is not
democratic. This can be a "rules' dictatorship"
(created by the rules previously defined,) a "leader's
dictatorship" (the leader(s) imposes that everyone
must speak), or even a more interesting type - a
"majority's dictatorship" (where the rule is created
at the moment by the majority).

Apart from claiming to be democratic, this type of
groups/sessions also claim that they are following
"good principles". The two I have heard more often are
"appreciation" (like in "appreciative inquiry") and
"dialog".

Democracy (and Open Space) are made of dialogs AND of
discussions. If one suppresses discussion and impose
dialog (as in "everyone must be nice to each other and
hear the other with appreciation") then there is no
democracy and no open space, I think.

Apart from the fact that there are some people that I
don't want to hear with appreciation (say, Bush, to
give only one example) the point is even more strange.
"Playing the appreciative game" (an expression I have
created just know) is only one form of "playing games"
- and that is the essence of Argyris and Schon's Model
1.

If, in a meeting or organization, one imposes dialog
and appreciation, then a close session or organization
will come to place.

Artur

PS: I never heard to call this "circle" and even less
Open Space. But I would not be too surprised if some
would call that. I have already referred to a
respectable group of practitioners of "Communities of
Practice", USA based, that not long ago claimed that
they had used "Open Space" (OST) in a meeting because:

- they assembled in a circle
- they gave participants the opportunity to ADD issues
to a large group of issues pre-prepared by the
organizers
- they divided the large group in small groups to
discuss those issues (by choice of the organizers, if
I recall well - but I recall well that there was no
reference to "the law" - people were not expected to
leave their group! That would not be considered
"appreciative" to the other group members, I
suspect...)

But don't worry about what some people do "in your
name", Harrison. You can always remember what some
have done (and are doing) in His name. And at least
about you I know that you exists - something I am not
prepared to say about the Other...





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist