[OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Thu Oct 8 14:23:38 PDT 2015

i love this bit about bucky the verb, harold.

what i don't understand about this tyranny business is that it sounds like
somebody, the system or some people are doing some other people wrong.
 alternatively, that somehow -- naturally or maybe just unconsciously or
unintentionally -- winners and losers, ins and outs, are being created.  i
can't tell if the suggestion is that this is a malicious thing to be
defeated, a natural thing to observe, or some kind of problem to be solved.

leaving aside those instances when people do truly horrible things to
others, how does this tyranny story square with the core open space story
that each of us is ultimately responsible for our own experience, we all
have two feet or some equivalent and need to use them for ourselves?

how does this essay inform your practice of opening space?  or
participating on the list?  if everything in the essay is true, what should
the next wosonos invitation process look like?  can we put this in practice
terms?   what is one to do in the presence of tyrannizing
structurelessness?  what has anyone done in the past, in those instances
you've seen, that made some positive difference?

--

Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Michael Herman <michael at michaelherman.com>
wrote:

> you've made my statement a little stronger than i did, daniel.  i said i
> didn't see the connection, not that there wasn't one.  i'm catching up here
> not resisting.  i'm inquiring.
>
> in the situation of osonos, it seems to me that we have a formal practice,
> written up in the users guide, wherein it is written that anyone can post a
> topic and people will have the right to choose what they want to attend.
>  but we don't actually do that in selecting osonos sites.  we often default
> informally to old habits like voting.  or said another way, i guess i can't
> quite determine what is formal and informal structure, or which one is
> maybe running over the other.  we have oslist faq's but probably not many
> people read and live by them.  it would seem we're not at a loss for formal
> structure, we just prefer to operate by informal habits.  that's not
> uncommon, is it?  harrison's line about, "if we did business here the way
> we say we do business, we'd be out of business," comes to mind.  and the
> union tactic of working to rule.
>
> so is the question you're asking here about the relative value of formal
> and informal structures?  are you suggesting formal structures are better
> than informal?  am i still missing something?
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Herman
> Michael Herman Associates
> http://MichaelHerman.com
> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Daniel Mezick <dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:
>
>> Greeting All, Greeeetings Michael,
>>
>>
>> Wow. Michael. Seriously. You can really type (and talk) a blue streak.
>> You know? You're wearing me out...
>>
>> ...no no, just kidding. I'm not QUITE exhausted yet...I've had time to
>> rest up!
>>
>> So, by all means keep it coming. I'm rested and ready!
>>
>>
>> ....Now: A couple things do stand out here:
>>
>>
>> 1. The Tyranny of Inquiry?
>> ================
>> Michael, you say:
>> "i notice that you said in your first message that you find this
>> "extremely interesting" *but you've yet to say why.*"
>>
>> Wait. Stop right there.
>>
>> Earlier, you ask:
>> "*Is it not some kind of tyranny* we all attempt over and over again *when
>> we expect and insist that the world explain itself to/for us?*"
>>
>> (brief pause of silence here, for an ironic, even paradoxical effect....)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously.  Inquiry is good!  There is no tyranny to be found in it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I like the essay because it speaks to a really, really, important topic,
>> namely:
>>
>> The various problems with informal authority-distribution, inside groups
>> that devalue "structure," or value other things -over- "structure."
>>
>>
>>
>> I also like this essay because it feels very timely and pertinent with
>> respect to Pernilla Luttropp's recent (and important) post on
>> decision-making, entitled: "An invitation to future invitations to WOSONOS."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Some Disconnected Dots?
>> ==================
>>
>> You express:
>>
>> "i'm having some trouble connecting "elites," "movement," "authorization"
>> and some other terms in the essay to my experience in open space and on the
>> list. the essay seems to want to fix a problem, *but one that's not
>> familiar to me, at least not as a sort of thing to be solved."*
>>
>>
>> I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, Michael, that you have completely
>> examined this essay.
>>
>>
>> To be clear: You are not familiar with *any* of the many problems (not
>> even one) described in this essay?
>>
>> If you are familiar with any of these, then you see them as *"not as a
>> sort of thing to be solved?"*
>>
>> (For the record, the term "authorization" does not appear anywhere in
>> this essay. The term "authority" does appear 5 times.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Now: We've recently had exactly the type of concerns the essay addresses,
>> voiced right here on OSLIST recently.
>>
>> You yourself are a heavy contributor Pernilla Luttropp's post, "An
>> invitation to future invitations to WOSONOS."
>>
>>
>> Here is a part of that, provided for convenience (I copied this verbatim
>> from the post, with my emphasis added...)
>>
>>
>> <BEGIN>
>> *"At the inspiring WOSONOS in Krakow there were some learning
>> conversations on how this community goes about when expressing and
>> accepting** invitations from countries/places to host the upcoming
>> WOSONOSes. In the big circle there were voices that expressed some
>> confusion and discomfort with the process...*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *"...There seems to be something unclear about the "tradition" on how to
>> get information about who is inviting and why. If that information were
>> transparent from the very start of the WOSONOS, it might enable more
>> dialogue with the inviting hosts and between the hosts." <END> *
>> This expression by Pernilla is about how decisions. About how
>> future-WOSONOS-venues are identified, developed, and then authorized.
>>
>> This issue does pertain quite directly, I think, to the essay. Right? I
>> wonder if others reading agree, or disagree.
>>
>> Either way, it is always great when a new voice shows up!
>>
>> Here is the specific part of the essay that clearly pertains: emphasis
>> added...
>>
>>
>>
>> <BEGIN>
>> For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and
>> to participate in its activities *the structure must be explicit, not
>> implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to
>> everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized.* This is not
>> to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the
>> informal structure. It usually doesn't. But it does hinder the informal
>> structure from having predominant control and make available some means of
>> attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the
>> needs of the group at large.
>> * <END>*
>>
>>
>> I wonder if anyone else (besides Michael) thinks that these two items,
>> what Pernilla is saying and what this essay is saying, are in no way
>> related?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/15 4:48 PM, Michael Herman wrote:
>>
>> wasn't actually intended as personal feedback, daniel.  was meant to be a
>> comment on the territory we all share, even when we might, any of us, feel
>> in the moment like an outsider, that disorientation is actually a part of
>> being included in the experience of open space.
>>
>> as for the essay, i guess i'm still a little unclear about the
>> connection.  open space doesn't strike me as any sort of striving for
>> structurelessness.  and i've seen both formal and informal structure arise
>> in open space.  harrison's term in his "millennial organization" book and
>> what i've seen happen is "appropriate levels of structure and control."
>>
>> the oslist doesn't seem structureless, either.  there are all kinds of
>> limiting and supporting structures that make it possible.  and then there
>> are the customs we've developed, like it's common and desired for people to
>> reply to the whole list with answers to questions, and even personal
>> stories and sidebars, rather than always taking that stuff to private
>> emails.  much of the informal stuff was captured in chris corrigan's oslist
>> faq's i mentioned earlier.  and these things change.  the address changed.
>>  the admin changed.  the archives moved but survived, thanks to harold.
>>  now we allow attachments.  the archives were private and later became
>> publicly searchable.  new people show up all the time, and join in.  the
>> user's non-guide (ebook) captured one great moment in joining when julie
>> smith showed up very new to all of this, asked some great questions, and
>> sparked all kinds of conversation on many important dimensions of the
>> practice.
>>
>> maybe your definition of structure will also define structureless.  i
>> guess i don't know what ever could be structureless, in line wiht chris'
>> story... except that everything's moving, it's all flow, as harrison says.
>>  but maybe those two stories aren't at odds, either... some bits are just
>> more dense or more slowly flowing than others, but it's all flow in the
>> end.  is flow structureless?
>>
>> is the tyranny of structurelessness just to say that everything's moving,
>> and moving on, even the parts we really like, and that can make for some
>> difficult experiences... that would also be nobody's fault, but just part
>> of the shared condition?  uncomfortable in spots, to be sure, but nobody's
>> and no system's "fault" or "responsibility?"
>>
>> as mentioned earlier, OS and the circle don't make people equal.  some
>> will always be better, faster, stronger, more attractive, more connected
>> than others.  is thta a problem to be solved?  i'm having some trouble
>> connecting "elites," "movement," "authorization" and some other terms in
>> the essay to my experience in open space and on the list.  the essay seems
>> to want to fix a problem, but one that's not familiar to me, at least not
>> as a sort of thing to be solved.
>>
>> why is this essay important for you?  how does it inform your
>> understanding and practice of open space?  or your participation on the
>> oslist?  are we a movement?  are you an elite?  is open space at risk of
>> being taken over?  help me make the connection(s)?
>>
>> i notice that you said in your first message that you find this
>> "extremely interesting" but you've yet to say why.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Herman
>> Michael Herman Associates
>> http://MichaelHerman.com
>> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Daniel Mezick <dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yo Michael,
>>>
>>> The whole "story-context-is-missing" thing is really just a sidebar to
>>> the important (and much wider) issues around authority.
>>>
>>> These authority-issues are raised by the subject essay, "The Tyranny of
>>> Structurelessness." What a great essay!
>>>
>>> Story-context is a really, really important topic though, especially if
>>> "missing-context" does have at least the potential to evoke feelings of
>>> exclusion, in at least some members of the list.
>>>
>>> Regarding some of the things you are saying:
>>>
>>> You say, "Exclusion is the illusion. A little bit of errant and
>>> temporary mental structure."
>>>
>>> I say, my current belief is that my feelings are not illusion
>>> whatsoever, nor are they error. Rather they are real and valid, human
>>> emotions. They are emotions which, when experienced fully, are in fact an
>>> essential aspect of living well.
>>>
>>>
>>> You say, "...I notice the word tyranny again in the subject. Is it not
>>> some kind of tyranny we all attempt over and over again when we expect
>>> and insist that the world explain itself to/for us?"
>>>
>>> I say, my current belief is that inquiry is not simply important, it is
>>> in fact essential. Inquiry is good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In any event, and as always, I do appreciate your feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am now keen to get back to the main topic !
>>>
>>> I wonder how we might, in the here and now, go about defining the term
>>> "structure," for purposes of further discussing issues raised by this essay
>>> with much more clarity.
>>>
>>> That's a question I'm keen to explore with you, and the other members of
>>> this list, inside this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Daniel
>>> http://www.Prime-OS.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/6/15 11:56 AM, Michael Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes and Daniel, there are the words of a story and the feeling/meaning
>>> of it. I considered writing a longer message in the telling of this story,
>>> but I wanted to transmit as much of the spirit/experience of it as I
>>> could.
>>>
>>> Ralph didn't offer any explanation of his observation that morning. He
>>> did just like I said, got up in a morning news circle, it was an
>>> OTgathering as I noted but that doesn't matter, it was open space and
>>> morning news. He said his piece and sat down. The experience for me, and
>>> others I have learned only later, was stunning and disorienting, for sure.
>>>
>>> I thought to honor and convey this experience through some measure of
>>> similar brevity in my retelling. Maybe this is what you picked up on. The
>>> disorienting magic of Ralph's moment.
>>>
>>> There are moments in open space of surprise and disconnect, maybe
>>> frustration or confusion or misunderstanding or disorientation and even
>>> disappointment that arise in open space. This we all know and have
>>> experienced. This, to me, is not so much a thing to be solved but the
>>> nature of the territory. It just is.
>>>
>>> Ralph never did explain his statement, as far as I know. He had
>>> something to say and he said it. That was his only job. After that, each of
>>> us had to figure out for ourselves what, if anything, to do with his story,
>>> to decide if it was wisdom or wisecrack. The storyteller, I think, has only
>>> the responsibility for finding and sharing what's true for him/her.  The
>>> rest is up to us.
>>>
>>> Maybe this points to the learning and challenge that we all have in open
>>> space, namely learning to trust more and more that we already are always
>>> included in a flow that is bigger and deeper or whatever than we can see or
>>> understand or articulate sometimes. Exclusion is the illusion. A little bit
>>> of errant and temporary mental structure. Discomfort is not a problem (and
>>> can't be solved by anyone!); it's a trail marker.  Which is to say about
>>> exclusion and missing out, "welcome!"  The good news is, and the bad news
>>> is, you're in!  And, it's all still happening Now.
>>>
>>> As I scroll up to send tha now, I notice the word tyranny again in the
>>> subject. Is it not some kind of tyranny we all attempt over and over again
>>> when we expect and insist that the world explain itself to/for us?  Is this
>>> not something of our central challenge, something all of us work with?  The
>>> edge of open space is an end of comfortable, conventional understanding?
>>> Or something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
>>> oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Harrison,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the tips on how to search OSLIST and Google, etc. I did do
>>>> those things actually. However, that's a bit of an effort, especially
>>>> searching the OSLIST archives. I guess I could eventually pick up OSLIST
>>>> culture that way, little by little. I suppose an earnest person with loads
>>>> of time could sift through OSLIST archives to figure this culture out. The
>>>> hard way.
>>>>
>>>> However, like the SPIRIT book teaches, there is nothing like a good
>>>> story to convey culture. The kind of story with a beginning, a middle and
>>>> an end.
>>>>
>>>> I notice that, when you are the one referring to a certain OS-mythos
>>>> story, you usually tend to include the short list of pertinent details, the
>>>> essential details that provide the essential context, so the reader can
>>>> follow along, and engage.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm always grateful for that, as it helps me to follow along, and
>>>> get what you are referring to, and more fully understand the story, and
>>>> feel oddly included in the story.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Earlier, I express how not having the context tends to (for me) arouse
>>>> feelings of: exclusion, cluelessness, and a general lack of membership in
>>>> whatever "historic-OS-mythos-episode" is being referred to. Sort of an "out
>>>> group" feeling. You know? Sometimes, I wonder what the poster might be
>>>> thinking by posting random fragments of a "you had to be there" kind of
>>>> story. Other times, I wonder if other readers are also feeling these
>>>> feelings. Or if it is "just me."
>>>>
>>>> And so: I am very grateful for your stories, in part because you
>>>> include the pertinent details, and in so doing, make me (for one) feel
>>>> included.
>>>>
>>>> So thanks for including the context in your stories. It makes them fun,
>>>> and easy to follow. OSLIST culture certainly has it's quirks, and for me,
>>>> your stories make this culture easier to figure out, and navigate, and
>>>> enjoy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Getting back to the Tyranny of Structurelessness:
>>>>
>>>> Do you think these 3 assertions by the author are actually true? Do
>>>> these ideas have legs?
>>>>
>>>>    - *This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of
>>>>    "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures,
>>>>    only formal ones.*
>>>>    - *For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given
>>>>    group and to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit,
>>>>    not implicit. *
>>>>    - *It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured
>>>>    groups, which forms the basis for elites.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On 10/6/15 10:04 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dan, Google can often help. <https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman>
>>>> https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ho
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* OSList [ <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Mezick
>>>> via OSList
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 4:51 PM
>>>> *To:* Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Howdy Harrison,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for describing the context of the Ralph Copleman story- I'm very
>>>> thankful for that info.
>>>>
>>>> I notice that, lots of times here, there are references made to notable
>>>> OST episodes, and situations from times past...
>>>>
>>>> ...the "OST-mythos" as it were.
>>>>
>>>> These mythical stories often have me wondering what I missed, and what
>>>> I might now be missing. (Being clueless as I am.)
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure these story-fragment postings are not posted with intent to
>>>> exclude anyone, or to be discourteous, or unkind. More like: some good old
>>>> basic camaraderie is taking place between some old friends.
>>>>
>>>> Still: Do these "inside-story-fragments" on OSLIST tend to evoke
>>>> feelings of exclusion in readers who were *not* there at the time?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure.
>>>>
>>>> <CONFESSION>
>>>>
>>>> As for me, personally, I sometimes find myself experiencing curiously
>>>> odd feelings of exclusion, when a told-fragment of an old OST-mythos story
>>>> lacks explicit context. So I can follow the story, you know? The terms
>>>> "outsider" or "clueless" or  "not in the story" describe these feelings
>>>> fairly well. "Not invited?"
>>>>
>>>> I sometimes wonder if some of the hundreds of *other* members of
>>>> OSLIST ever feel this way...or if it is "just me."
>>>>
>>>> </CONFESSION>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>>>>
>>>> â€œEverything is moving.â€ Â  .... Michael -- I remember that moment
>>>> very well. And Dan, Iâ€™m not sure the context, etc, would help very
>>>> much. But just for the record the odd phrase popped out at one of the
>>>> International Symposia on Organization Transformation which happened to be
>>>> taking place at a small college south of Seattle. I have no idea why Ralph
>>>> said what he did, and Iâ€™m not sure Ralph did either. But then again
>>>> a lot of marvelous stuff seems to burst out with no obvious logic train.
>>>> Indeed it may be that the lack of logic train enables the thought?
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the genesis, the phrase wandered about my head for some time,
>>>> quite unattached, and it also happened that I was working my way slowly
>>>> through one of the masterpieces of 20th century western philosophy
>>>> when a fuzzy connection began to form. The work was that of Alfred North
>>>> Whitehead, and the title: â€œProcess and Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been
>>>> through the book probably 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I
>>>> donâ€™t think I really understand it. But then again Iâ€™ve heardÂ  a
>>>> number of people with much greater credentials, tenure, etc â€“ say
>>>> the same thing. But I did get that it had something to do with, â€œEverything
>>>> is moving.â€ And the more I thought and read, the more I felt that the
>>>> good philosopher had made a small mistake on his title. It shouldnâ€™t
>>>> be â€œProcess *and* Reality,â€ but rather â€œProcess *is* Reality.â€
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Now, Anna Caroline we come to â€œstructure,â€ or perhaps I should say
>>>> the fallacy of Structure? Yes I know â€“ weâ€™ve all been taught that
>>>> structure is the precursor, the â€œdeterminatorâ€ of everything. My
>>>> face looks as it does because of my bone structure. My life proceeds
>>>> the way it does because of my social structure. My business works as it
>>>> does because of the organizational structure. And of course, meetings
>>>> happen the way they do because of meeting structure, which apparently is
>>>> the prime domain of â€œfacilitators.â€ And even if we hadnâ€™t been â€œtaughtâ€
>>>> all this, the primacy of structure would appear to be blatantly
>>>> obvious â€“ as plain as the nose on your face.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it does seem to turn out that sometimes the blatantly
>>>> obvious is not necessarily so. For example just looking at things it is
>>>> pretty clear that the world is flat, or at the least bumpy flat. And any
>>>> fool can see that we are the center of it all â€“ Sun, moon, and stars
>>>> whiz around us.Â  But when we think about it, as we have been doing
>>>> for the last 500-600 years, the obvious isnâ€™t so obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> It is reasonable to ask what would start to make us think differently â€“
>>>> to the point that we begin to question the obvious, and even come to
>>>> see things in a different way? Taking a leap, I will suggest that it all
>>>> begins with the perception of anomaly. Things just donâ€™t make sense.
>>>> Our eyes tell us one thing... but???? And then we start making up
>>>> stories to explain the apparently unexplainable. We imagine different ways
>>>> of looking at things so that the nonsensical makes sense. Some of those
>>>> stories get pretty strange, but if they actually work â€“ that is to
>>>> say, help us to see in new and useful ways â€“ thatâ€™s great!
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> There is, of course, a proper term for the activity I have been
>>>> describing. It is called Theory Building. And for whatever it is worth, â€œtheoryâ€
>>>> comes from the Greek â€œ*theoreinâ**€ * â€“ to see. In a word,
>>>> theories are ways of looking at things â€“ likely stories you might
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Now, at long last (too long?) we come to the odd story I was starting
>>>> to tell, to the effect that Structure is only a figment of our imagination,
>>>> a flash frame of a moment gone by. Interesting, and helpful under some
>>>> circumstances... but always partial and in a sense illusory. Whatâ€™s â€œreallyâ€
>>>> happening is all flow. Everything is moving â€“ Thatâ€™s Ralphâ€™s
>>>> story, and I guess it is mine too.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> So how did I get to such a weird condition? It was all about anomaly â€“
>>>> more particularly, the anomaly of Open Space. Everything that I had
>>>> ever learned told me that it could not work. Unfortunately it did (work) â€“
>>>> and not just once, but every time, hundreds of thousands of times.
>>>> Something was definitely weird. It seemed to me that I had to re-consider
>>>> all those things I thought I had learned, beginning with the basics... such
>>>> things as Structure.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Common sense would say that Open Space works because we somehow created
>>>> a structure that enabled it to work. Thatâ€™s the way things get done,
>>>> or so I had been taught. But thatâ€™s not the way things happened in
>>>> Open Space. Structure emerged along the way and only momentarily. Worse yet
>>>> it (structure) seemed to have little to do with the obvious power,
>>>> connections, creativity.... all of which created structures, and passed
>>>> them by. And actually it always seemed to me that the â€œstructuresâ€
>>>> I â€œsawâ€ existed only because I wanted to see them â€“ or perhaps
>>>> that I â€œshouldâ€ see them. But they were only momentary wisps,
>>>> figments â€“ never to be mistaken for what was really going on. Or so
>>>> Iâ€™ve been thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Harrison
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> *From:* OSList [ <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
>>>> Herman via OSList
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2015 6:31 PM
>>>> *To:* JL Walker; World wide Open Space Technology email list
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> you remind me, harrison, of one morning news session years ago,
>>>> somewhere, probably OT... where ralph copleman walked to the center of the
>>>> circle and announced, all serious and mischievous at the same time, "it's
>>>> all moving!" Â
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> then put the stick down and went back to his seat.Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Michael Herman
>>>> Michael Herman Associates
>>>> <http://MichaelHerman.com>http://MichaelHerman.com
>>>> <http://OpenSpaceWorld.org>http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:47 PM, JL Walker via OSList <
>>>> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking that maybe the antidote to the eventual tyranny of
>>>> structurelessness is to open space, again and again, until true democracy
>>>> can emerge.
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Juan Luis
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> *De:* OSList [mailto: <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *En nombre de *Rosa
>>>> Zubizarreta via OSList
>>>> *Enviado el:* sÃ¡bado, 03 de octubre de 2015 12:19
>>>> *Para:* Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list
>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is a key piece... I see it as very similar in some ways to
>>>> what Ken Wilber wrote later,
>>>>
>>>> about the "shadow side of the green meme". (Each meme has its own
>>>> shadow, as well as its own gift...)
>>>>
>>>> So, I love "green". I love circles, I love non-hierarchy, etc.
>>>> And, part of the "shadow side of the green meme" is how ideologically
>>>> anti-structure it can become...
>>>>
>>>> to the point where some people may not even agree that OST does, in
>>>> fact, offer a very simple and effective structure.
>>>>
>>>> By way contrast, think of a situation where group of people (who don't
>>>> know about OST, and/or, who are having a power struggle around "which
>>>> process to use", and/or....Â  ) might easily spending a whole weekend
>>>> arguing *about *"how to self-organize ourselves"... with a great deal
>>>> more pain and frustration and a great deal less value.
>>>>
>>>> whereas, instead, IF someone knows about OST, and, a clear invitation
>>>> has been extended, and, there is enough trust/suspension of disbelief so
>>>> that participants are willing to enter into that format,
>>>>
>>>> then, we end up with a very simple and elegant structure that allows
>>>> people to self-organize beautifully....
>>>>
>>>> at least that's how i see it! :-)
>>>>
>>>> with all best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Rosa
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Rosa Zubizarreta*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Developing Participatory and Co-intelligent Leadership Author of From
>>>> Conflict to Creative Collaboration <http://www.conflict2creativity.com>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *For more resources and learning opportunities, visit
>>>> <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>www.DiaPraxis.com <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
>>>> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS
>>>> by Jo Freeman aka Joreen
>>>>
>>>> I find this essay extremely interesting. I hope you do, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a pertinent quote, from the essay:
>>>> "...
>>>>
>>>> *the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of
>>>> informal structures, only formal ones." *
>>>> Circa 1970. Context: the women's movement. Quick summary of the main
>>>> points: from the essay...
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *During the years in which the women's liberation movement has
>>>> been taking shape, a great emphasis has been placed on what are called
>>>> leaderless, structureless groups as the main -- if not sole --
>>>> organizational form of the movement. *
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a
>>>> healthy counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own
>>>> right.*
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such
>>>> thing as a structureless group. *
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *This means that to strive for a structureless group is as
>>>> useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story,
>>>> "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group
>>>> is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a
>>>> smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony
>>>> over others. *
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of
>>>> "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures,
>>>> only formal ones. *
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given
>>>> group and to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit,
>>>> not implicit. *
>>>>
>>>> ï‚·  *It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured
>>>> groups, which forms the basis for elites.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just in case you have not yet encountered the full text of this essay,
>>>> here it is:
>>>>
>>>> THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS
>>>> by Jo Freeman aka Joreen
>>>> <http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm>
>>>> http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Daniel
>>>> <http://www.OpenSpaceAgility.com/about>
>>>> http://www.OpenSpaceAgility.com/about
>>>> <http://www.DanielMezick.com>http://www.DanielMezick.com
>>>> 203 915 7248
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSList mailing list
>>>> To post send emails to <OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to <OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>>> <http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org>
>>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>> Past archives can be viewed here:
>>>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSList mailing list
>>>> To post send emails to <OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to <OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>> Past archives can be viewed here:
>>>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> OSList mailing list
>>>>
>>>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>>
>>>> Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Mezick, President
>>>>
>>>> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>>>>
>>>> (203) 915 7248 (cell)
>>>>
>>>> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
>>>> <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.Â
>>>>
>>>> Examine my new book:Â  The Culture Game
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
>>>> Agile Manager.
>>>>
>>>> Explore Agile Team Training
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>>>>
>>>> Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>
>>>> Community.Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Mezick, President
>>>>
>>>> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>>>>
>>>> (203) 915 7248 (cell)
>>>>
>>>> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
>>>> <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
>>>>
>>>> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
>>>> Agile Manager.
>>>>
>>>> Explore Agile Team Training
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
>>>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>>>>
>>>> Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>
>>>> Community.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Michael Herman
>>> Michael Herman Associates
>>> http://MichaelHerman.com
>>> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Daniel Mezick, President
>>>
>>> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>>>
>>> (203) 915 7248 <%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
>>>
>>> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
>>> <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
>>> <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
>>>
>>> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game
>>> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
>>> Agile Manager.
>>>
>>> Explore Agile Team Training
>>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
>>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>>>
>>> Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>
>>> Community.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20151008/ea138003/attachment-0002.htm>