<html>
Our present conversation about Democracy, voting and Open Space brought
to mind a paper I did some time ago on the subject of Civil Conversation.
<br><br>
<div align="center"><font size=3>A Modest Proposal: Opening Space for
Civil Conversations<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>Harrison Owen<br><br>
<br>
</font></div>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica"><x-tab> </x-tab>In
this political season (and what season isn’t political?) there appears to
be more than the usual amount of abuse and invective directed at
politicians near, far, and of all persuasions. Not that all of this is
without merit and foundation, but to some large extent, I believe our
political folks are victims of a bum rap. Heresy I know, but hear me
out.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>We accuse
them of making dumb decisions about issues they don’t understand, along
with the usual charges of bribery, cronyism, immorality, and worse. I am
not about to ascribe pristine character to all who choose to follow the
political calling, but in a number of years here in Washington and in
other communities where I was actively engaged in the “political
process,” I have met precious few truly dumb politicians. As for their
understanding of the issues facing the nation (state, city, town) they
were remarkably well informed, and no better than we deserved. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>And here
is the point. We (the civil population) have largely gotten what we
deserved, and often better. The simple truth of the matter is that we
(that is pretty much all of us) have failed to uphold our end of the
bargain. Civics 101 should have taught us that in a representative
democracy, the formal political activity (making laws and administering
them) is only part, and I would argue, only a small part, of the total
equation. It all starts with us and ends with us. A civil conversation is
essential.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>A civil
conversation does not necessarily mean a polite one with no conflict. It
does, however, require respect and engagement around issues of genuine
concern. A civil conversation is neither more nor less than the people
talking to each other relative to issues they truly care about. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>In the
early days of our country, the town meeting was such a civil
conversation. To be sure, votes were taken, but it was never worth while
to vote on something that had already been decided by common consensus.
Why bother? And when votes were taken, and the formal political process
engaged, the voters were informed, or at least they certainly had the
opportunity. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>As the
country grew and towns melded into states and ultimately into a nation,
the town meeting was, if anything, more important. If it was no longer
possible to assemble all the folks in a single time and place, then
representatives of the people could carry the wishes of the people to
Philadelphia and ultimately Washington. There those wishes were
re-presented, and in the event of disagreement, argument was made, votes
were taken, and laws were passed. Was it perfect? Certainly not, but it
beat the heck out of whatever was in second place.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Presently
we have lots of argument, innumerable votes, and an abundance of laws.
What we don’t have is civil conversation, at least not very much, and
certainly not enough. The simple truth of the matter is that the
politicians are doing what we pay them to do. We, on the other hand, have
largely abdicated our responsibility to converse civilly. This, of
course, leaves the politicians to their own devices, and we have no right
to complain.<br><br>
<br>
<b>Pollsters and Special Interests Groups<br><br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>Standing
right next to the politicians in the fire fight of public outrage are
pollsters and Special Interest Groups. It is perhaps comfortable to beat
on these people as the ultimate perversion of the public weal. Another
bum rap. They are just filling a vacuum. Indeed it might be argued that
the pollsters and the Special Interest Groups are performing a major
public service. With the break down of civil conversation, they stand as
virtually the only connection between the politicians and us. Absent
pollsters and lobbyists and the politicians would truly be left to their
own devices. Besides, they too are doing no more (or less) than we are
paying them to do. The fault lies not with the pollsters, politicians, or
lobbyists. It lies with us, my friends. We are not upholding our part of
the bargain. There is no civil conversation.<br><br>
<b>Creating Space and Time for Civil Conversation<br><br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>How do
you get 250, soon to be, 300 million people to talk to each other? The
answer is actually quite simple. Create the space and time in which that
can happen. More specifically, marry Open Space Technology to the
Internet and we might just pull it all off.<br><br>
<b>A Precedent<br><br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>If the
idea sounds wild, it is actually do-able. In fact it has already been
done, at least in part. Several years ago, our friends in Canada were
contemplating the more than remote possibility of divorce in the family.
Specifically, the Province of Quebec came within less than a percentage
point of leaving the Country. Their action got a lot of people’s
attention, but as a friend of mine remarked at the time, "It might
be nice if we were to chat before we divorced." It seems like the
problems were hardly new, and actually there had been lots of heated and
very uncivil discussion, passions high, anger in the forefront. What was
missing was civil and solution focused conversation. A group of
consultants all specializing in large systems work met to discuss what
they could offer into the conflict towards conversation. They all agreed
the best (cheapest, fastest) process to use was Open Space Technology and
to rally consultants from across the country to volunteer their services
to hold Open Space events.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Planning
was minimal. Feb 19, 1996 was set as a day to hold meetings across the
Country. 50 larger Open Space meetings occurred with about 100 more small
meetings, some in peoples homes. The focal issue was clear, The Future of
Canada. It was expressed in the theme: "For the Love of
Canada"<br>
Somewhere along the line, <i>Macleans Magazine</i> (roughly equivalent to
<i>Life</i> here in the States) picked up the story and also hosted a
four hour on-line open space meeting. At any time there could be up to
150 people in the meeting. Through the evening, many more than that
participated. The editor of the magazine was on line as well. He said it
was the first conversation he was aware of during the entire time of
"the debate" as the Quebec crisis was called in which the
conversations were not complaining, not blaming, not bitter----but
actually solution focused. He was amazed. Macleans created a website so
that proceedings from the several gatherings could be sent to a central
"place." Close behind was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
which provided some coverage, and by the end, the Prime Minister decided
it would be a good thing, as the official representative of all of
Canada, to receive those proceedings, which I am told now reside in the
national archives. <br>
Did it do any good? Who knows, however, several of the follow up actions
to this initiative started other national forums, and an exchange program
of residents from other parts of Canada with Quebecers so they could get
to know each other as people. What it did do, at virtually no cost (or at
least with no visible budget) was show that a small group of people,
operating quite independently could pull together what amounted to an
enormously complex organization, in virtually no time at all. But that is
the secret of Open Space, and more generally, self-organization. <br>
Canada, of course, has enormous space, but very few people. Could it work
south of the border? Why not... <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><br>
<b>A Plan<br><br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>To
call what follows<i> A Plan</i> is surely to stretch the meaning of those
words, but here is the idea. <br><br>
<i>First: Convene an Open Space.</i> Invite anybody who cares about the
future of our country the good old USA to convene an Open
Space in their town/city/state around any issue or combination of issues
of genuine concern to their community. The potential labor pool for this
adventure should be adequate for the task. To date some 800 people have
gone through the Open Space training programs I have offered, and
something like 10,000 people have bought the book. How many of these
folks have actually used what they have learned is open to question, but
even a small fraction of the total would be sufficient to get the show on
the road.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The focus
of these gatherings might be very broad as in “Building a better
Community,” or narrower in scope as in “Educating our Kids.” Hot issues
need not be avoided “Sexual Preference and Our Community.” Or how
about “Abortion Rights and Wrongs”? Once completed, forward the
Proceedings to the Civil Conversation website. The benefit to your
community will be immediate, and the database of the national Civil
Conversation will be building.<br><br>
<i>Second: Improve the Website</i>. For openers, I will use my personal
website < as a temporary repository. It isn’t elegant, but it does
work, and as long as input is restricted to text only (no graphics)we got
plenty of room for a beginning. As soon as possible, we will need to
build a new website with more space and some powerful search engines. The
information contained will only be useful to the extent that people can
access it without having to read every last word.<br>
<i>Third: Seek Financial Support</i>. Civil Conversation need not be a
money maker, but it can’t run for long on a budget it doesn’t have. I
will approach likely foundations (suggestions please) specifically for
website support, maintenance, and advertizement. You have to get the word
out so that the Word does get out. I am hopeful that the Open Space
Institute (US) a 501-c-3 non-profit will agree to be the
grantee.<br><br>
<i>Fourth: Access and Use</i>. The website should be open to anybody who
cares to use it. That would include all sorts of political folks and
bureaucrats of whatever persuasion. Conservative, liberal or
radical all must be welcome. After all you can’t have a Civil
Conversation if folks are excluded. And there must be no limit on the
uses to which the information is put. Doubtless some abuses will take
place, but as long as the windows and doors are open, the fresh winds of
freedom should blow away some of the worst of them. As for the rest
it certainly can’t be any worse than it is. Other users would include
students of all sorts, policy makers, community groups in search of ideas
and precedents. In short, anybody concerned to make a difference. And
that should certainly include businesses who might want to check out
emerging social trends as precursors to new market places.<br><br>
<i>Fifth: Long Term Support</i>. Foundation support does not last for
ever, nor should it. The Civil Conversation should essentially pay for
itself through usage fees. I think everybody ought to pay something if
only $1. Like elsewhere in Open Space we would ask that people pay what
they can and what they think is fair. To keep things more or less on the
up and up, we would ask that anybody who cared to use the data to
identify themselves. Just as there is no anonymity in Open Space, neither
should their be anonymity in the use of the fruits of Open Space. So if
Microsoft were to drop into the system and leave only a dollar, it would
be appropriate to suggest that they sweeten the kitty.<br><br>
<i>Sixth and First: Start Now</i>. The Civil Conversation begins the
moment we say so. So if you care to do an Open Space, carry on and send
me the results. If you want to see what is happening, check out the
website. And if there is nothing there and nothing happens, that is clear
and indisputable evidence that either this was a bad idea, nobody cares,
or both. But that is just the way things are in Open Space.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>That last
statement may be a little flip and overstated, but in terms of growing
this idea, it really has to grow. It cannot simply be taken down the
normal course of program development: Design the program seek
funding implement and run. The program in large part will have to
design itself and potential funders will only be attracted when they see
something they can understand. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>If you
care, come along. Comments and suggestions are always appreciated, but
better yet, open some space. Right now. Let the Civil Conversation begin.
Or not but don’t complain about the politicians, pollsters and
lobbyists. They are just doing their job. I think it is time for us to do
ours.<br><br>
<br><br>
Harrison </font>Harrison Owen<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<div align="center">7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854 USA<br>
phone 301-365-2093<br>
Open Space Training
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.com</a>
<br>
Open Space Institute <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
Personal website <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com\~owenhh</a><br><br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU<br>
</u></font>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,<br>
view the archives of <font color="#0000FF"><u>oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu<br>
</u></font>Visit: <a href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</a><br><br>
<br><br>
</font></u></div>
</html>