[OSList] Open Space – 2013 and Beyond

[paul levy]

Well, here's the whole thing...

Open Space – 2013 and Beyond


Be in no doubt, Open Space Technology is a thing. Harrison Owen
specifically called (and continues to call) it a “technology”. It was a new
technology designed to replace a tired old one. It was also called a
technology at a time when, in management and organisational circles,
facilitation methods and approaches were being called “technologies”; also
“tools” and “”techniques” – more so in the United States than in the
counties and cities of the United Kingdom. This particular technology was a
way of conferencing and getting things done that was way better than
over-fussy and over- formalised older “technologies”.

It was a neat cultural reaction to a future being painted as robotic, with
society’s problems being solved by things of steel, microchip and plastic.
By embodying “softer” processes as “technologies” we had a viable
alternative to plugging things into our nerve endings and veins. We could
deploy alternative ways of doing things, ways of seeing the world, ways of
behaving. If these could be presented simply, and if they could have a kind
of enduring repeatability in different situations, then they would be
viable alternatives to machines and “stuff”-based innovation. A potent and
softer technology to allow us to ride the waves of change. Oh, and of
course, it was a wonderful and simple alternative to over-structured,
facilitator-heavy meeting process to boot!

Open Space Technology is, therefore, presented as a fairly simple,
resilient, and, most importantly, transferable and repeatable THING. It is
something you sort of “switch on” and, to quote Harrison, it just about
“always works”.

This particular thing is a “technology” so applicable, timeless and
repeatable, because it operates according to natural law. It is an
expression, in process, of self-organisation.

Open Space Technology isn’t self-organisation as much as self-organisation
is Open Space.

Now, there’s been a fair amount of discussion in recent years as to what
self-organisation is, and Harrison Owen himself has dived into that
exciting pool of thinking and dialogue-ing. I think we are very much at the
beginning of understanding what self-organisation is. It certainly begs the
question “what is the self in self-organisation?”. There are a range of
different answers to this and, not surprisingly, they sit on that old
cherry of a line that runs from material science to religion and faith.
Open Space as a field has always attracted people who see it as an
embodiment of natural science in social action through a practical proof
and expression of the truth of self-organisation as an underlying natural
law. It has also attracted its fair share of spiritual faithfuls who see it
as a magical process for making spiritual potential real in the physical
world. It has given birth to articles about biological self-organisation in
human social systems, alongside articles about the power of “holding the
space”, walking anticlockwise, and the gonging of Tibetan Bells. And also a
fair number of people who see Open Space as uniting science and
spirituality in a meeting process that proves both can sit alongside each
other without too much conflict.

Harrison Owen himself, when it suits him, expounds thousands of words on
Open Space, how to do it, on self-organization, on wave-riding and so on.
When others do the same, especially where attempts are made to elaborate
the field, explore it, innovative or develop it, he often suggests that
such thinking is a bit of a pointless exercise, and suggests we just go and
“open some space”. It’s a charming, grandfatherly way to be, and I don’t
mind it at all.

As 2013 dawns, I’m convinced that Self-Organisation is Open Space. But I
don’t buy the definition that seems to be emerging that the “self” in
self-organisation doesn’t refer to individual human selves. It most
certainly does. When we contemplate the world (or even universal) process,
it is too easy to forget that we are contemplating ourselves as part of
that world process. We don’t sit outside of the universe we are a part of.
When I derive universal laws of nature, I am also deriving those as laws
that flow through me. And yet there is also a process of observation by my
self of my self that is then taking place. If I say, “this is true for the
universe”, then I am also saying “this is true for me in the universe”. But
I am also saying “My self is observing that this is true for me in the
universe”. It’s the classic observer part of ourselves that observes our
observing!

There’s me (“I”), there’s the universe – and there’s also me in the
universe and the universe in me.

When we self-organise, we both organise as a collective self through
community action (the collective circle) but we also observe into the
circle from a standpoint that no one else in that circle can occupy. No one
can be me. No one can refer to me as ‘I’ except for me! Of course there’s a
danger that such an ego or self-focused view can turn into egotism, where
the self is self-viewed as more important than any other self-views. But
there’s also an opportunity to live what Rudolf Steiner described as a
community life where, in the mirror of each human, the community finds its
reflection and where, in the community, the virtues of each one is living.

Self-organisation occurs when the self organises. In community it is a dual
process of the self (the individual) observing into the circle from their
unique standpoint and where, he or she, also imagines and reaches beyond
that singular point, into the circle, a collective space, a community
endeavour, where individual selves are also cells connecting into a large
self-organising being.

This happens sometimes so brilliantly in an improvisation troupe. We see
moments of individual genius but also a contribution of each self to a
bigger self – the group, and when this joins up and there is flowing
collaboration, a synergy arises and the group performance is even greater,
never quite explainable in terms of any individual performances.

Yes, yes! The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts when the
individual offers their self-part to become part of the community, allowing
it to self-organise, beyond their own individual ego. We freely flow into
the community, and no one knows or cares who, at that moment is blowing the
wind. Equally, we step out of that circle and sing our own tune – the
community self-organises, and sometimes we individually self-organise.

Situations change, needs in communities and organisations change. Sometimes
the lone voice is the only voice that needs to be heard. Sometimes the lone
voice needs to quieten and listen to the circle. Sometimes a wonderful mess
needs to ensue, a chaos for a while, sometimes it all needs to be neat.

Open Space Technology brings lots of individual selves together and – in a
way born of natural genius – creates a market place for selves to address
themselves to a community need, and also for a community need to manifest
in individual, group and even whole circle endeavour. Open Space is a
wonderful bridge between individual and collective self. When it is truly
flowing self-organisation is both individual and whole. The dynamic is
musical, and often akin to dance – as dance that can been seen both on the
stage and under a microscope, or even out in the starry heavens.

But sometimes the technology needs adapting. For a very good and important
reason that, ironically, lies deep at the heart of self-organisation
itself. This is because, although nature itself reveals its laws as
timeless, one little experiment in nature appears to elude that repeating
consistency. To quote Steiner again, we will only really begin to
understand the human self when we realise that each human being is a unique
species of one. Each of us is a new universe, a new emergent day, every
single second. There is no technology that can fully hold the space for our
emerging selves. Self-organisation then needs to flex, flow and emerge with
our own emerging mystery. For Open Space to embody a warm, loving truth, it
has to expose itself to … open space. Open Space cannot sit outside of the
emergent mystery of uniqueness. It may prove itself for a while as fairly
resilient. But then it becomes dogmatic, rusty, nostalgic and even a bit
sad. Self-organising open space technology has to be able include
re-organising its-self!

What are you scared of?

Happy New Year,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20130201/82516884/attachment-0007.htm>