Open Space -- A Quiet Revolution

Wed Feb 14 09:09:36 PST 2007

Suzanne and Búi, Michael ad others – it as been a pleasure to read your thoughts on why OS works, particularly regarding the role of human needs, the Law of Two Feet, and the interplay between freedom and responsibility. Albeit usually preferring to read, rather than post, comments I would like to contribute some of my ideas on these topics. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Like Búi I come from a conflict resolution background and have done academic work on conflict transformation and peacebuilding. I also have experienced Open Space (a little), both as participant and facilitator. To me, Open Space seems to be a powerful tool for conflict resolution whose potentials, like its limitations are yet to be explored.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

When people talk about Open Space, I often feel reminded of the writings of conflict resolution scholars – and vice versa. In my view, the tension between freedom and responsibility is a crucial (positive) factor. Each person has to find his/her own compromise between these two, and social and cultural factors play an important role in this process (as Suzanne has pointed out). With appropriate framework conditions, especially, when there is enough ‘space’ (physically, mentally, and socially) people may sort out their individual path between freedom and responsibility/commitment. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Coming back to Búi and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I would like to refer to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place>Burton</st1:place></st1:City> and Galtung. Although they do not necessarily believe in a /hierarchy/ of needs, they regard the denial or violation of human needs as major causes of conflict. Open Space however, inter alia due to the Law of Two Feet, allows people to act according to their nature (Suzanne) and thus to satisfy some of their intrinsic human needs. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

There will however never be a fixed and final modus operandi – the struggle between freedom and responsibility/ commitment is a dynamic process. Yet this precisely makes it a very powerful process. Going through this struggle gives rise to a sense of ownership, of empowerment and activity. (It does not necessarily allow people to feel completely in control – which is a good safeguard against superegos.) <o:p></o:p>

At the risk of over-generalisation, when it comes to conflict resolution and peacebuilding I go with Lederach who holds that sustainable approaches involve a diverse range of actors, they follow a holistic, multi-track approach and (cor)respond to the needs and ideas of people. Despite the importance for high profile diplomacy in certain circumstances, these approaches must be firmly rooted at the grassroots level – as far as possible developed and owned by local communities. According to Lederach, conflict transformation is a long-term goal which requires technical conflict resolution skills but also creativity, intuition, space, and a capacity for moral imagination. These ‘success criteria’ largely correspond with the principles behind, and components of, Open Space. Open Space thus appears to be a very suitable tool for conflict resolution. Not as a stand-alone approach and certainly not in every circumstance, but still. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Finally, regarding Búi’s suggestion that the Law of Two Feet takes care of the problem of power asymmetry between conflict parties, I am not fully convinced. Participating in Open Space, I experienced situations where people could not cope with power differences and conflict. Having discussed these situations with others, I concluded that a set of ground rules could have ‘protected’ people. Of course, I understand that this would go against the principles of Open Space, that it would close space. Yet I think that some people may be too vulnerable/ not prepared/ etc to constructively engage with the conflictive dynamics in Open Space. A form of safe-space dialogue or more facilitated mediation would have been better for them. So I do see situations, where Open Space is inappropriate for conflict resolution purposes. As a mediator/facilitator it is my responsibility to assess the situation, and to ensure that - whichever form of intervention I decide to use - I at least do not cause a deterioration of the status quo. (This refers explicitly to conflict interventions; not necessarily to th

e use of OS as a conference or ‘envisioning’ method).<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p></o:p> 

I have not carefully thought through these matters yet – so please excuse some degree of inconsistency and confusion. But as we all know, chaos, confusion and conflict can be very good and productive states :-)<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Sirin<o:p></o:p>

*Von:* OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
*Gesendet:* 13.02.07 22:16:54
*An:* OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
*Betreff:* Re: Open Space -- A Quiet Revolution

I have heard it mentioned many times (and Harrison mentioned this againrecently) that we don't exactly why OST works. I believe that there areseveral theories that can explain why it works so well. Suzanna offersone explanation (a theory that I did not know before), but I am surethere are many others.

Coming from a conflict resolution background, I can think of at least acouple of possible explanations myself. I am not a theorist so I am notgoing into detail. One of the most popular conflict theories is basedon Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The Hierarchy consists of (the lowerones being more basic):
-Self Actualization Needs (full potential)
-Ego Needs (self respect, personal worth, autonomy)
-Social Needs (love, friendship, comradeship)
-Security Needs (protection from danger)
-Physiological Needs (warmth, shelter, food)
(Wikipedia has some more information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs])

I am myself not convinced that this order applies to everyone, and atall times, but nevertheless OST is a great vehicle for people tosatisfy many of the "higher" needs.

Another factor that mediators (and facilitators etc.) always have toplay close attention to, is the dynamics of power, and many (if notmost) groupdecision-making processes have to deal with the challenge of somepeople trying to dominate with their power and others trying tocompensate for their lack of power (often through disruptive means).

The amazing thing with OST is that the Law of Two Feet takes care ofall this. You don't have to be dominated by someone else because youcan always leave. You can join whatever group you want. You can alsopropose your own topic and take responsibility for it too. Veryempowering.

I say all this without having experienced an OS event yet myself, butit all makes complete sense to me. I am sure there are others that knowtheory a lot better than I do, I would imagine that if someone sodesired, it would be very possible to make a detailed theoreticalexplanation of OST.

I hope this makes sense.

Búi

-- 

Búi K.Petersen, Cert. ConRes.
mediator and facilitator	

Viren-Scan für Ihren PC! Jetzt für jeden. Sofort, online und kostenlos. 
Gleich testen! *http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/freescan/?mc=022222* [http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/freescan/?mc=022222] 

*
*
==========================================================
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20070214/1a17270e/attachment-0016.htm>