· A Fascinating Discovery: True North Groups
· Occupy Wall Street: A Promising Beginning
· Recommended Links
· Comments from Readers
A Fascinating Discovery: True North Groups
True North Groups: A Powerful Path to Personal and Leadership Development by Bill George and Doug Baker is a remarkable book that presents a simple, well-tested method for conducting member-run, open-ended, peer-support groups that enable members to support one another in their self-defined personal growth efforts.
For thirty-five years, George and Baker have facilitated the formation of hundreds of True North Groups that have enabled participants to share their most important experiences, generally meeting for 75 minutes weekly or four hours monthly. Now George and Baker offer a user-friendly manual that any group of well functioning individuals can use to start their own support team.
Unless we get frozen, human beings are social creatures who constantly evolve through their interactions with others. Alone, we are limited. We need the benefit of others’ opinions and knowledge as well as their support and encouragement.
Two minds are better than one and several are better than two. Hearing multiple viewpoints and giving and receiving open, honest, compassionate attention from others are invaluable.
Of particular value is support from peers – people we consider to be our equal who understand us due to similar experiences. As we mature, we learn and benefit from peers more than we do from authorities.
Making decisions about key transitions is often difficult. Staying true to one’s core without being seduced by ego-driven desires is not easy. Truly good friends can help us be the same person publicly that we are privately.
Yet in the modern world individuals experience intimacy with ever fewer people. Many have only their spouse or partner. Many others have no one.
The forces of modernization that produce this isolation are relentless. Obsessions with work and play overwhelm deeper impulses. Being honest jeopardizes climbing the ladder of success and can even threaten job security. People learn to be inauthentic and carry those habits with them throughout life
Finding greater intimacy generally requires conscious, intentional effort as well as building trust. Rooted in strict confidentiality, the True North approach seems to offer a great way to do so.
The True North approach does not involve authority figures training others with some pre-determined agenda. That hierarchical authority-based model fosters dependency, takes time to train the trainers, and is less responsive to the needs of the participants.
The horizontal peer model, on the other hand, empowers. It asks each individual to define his or her own needs, maximizes peer-to-peer learning, and can spread quickly.
For some time now I’ve been interested in finding or developing a simple support-group format that progressive political activists (including those who devote very little time to activism) could employ quickly and easily to help them be honest and open with another about their self-improvement efforts.
In addition to being inherently valuable, a project of this sort could be an organizing tool. It could enable progressive organizers to help grow activist communities by serving unmet needs. Historically, progressive organizers have connected with their constituency by addressing material needs. They could do the same with nonmaterial needs.
Many progressive political activists, it seems to me, could benefit from participating regularly in a small, member-run, peer-support group rooted in their common experience with activism.
The Christian Right gets it. As Malcom Gladwell reported in “The Cellular Church,” they’ve used this approach effectively in their community organizing. As one participant reported, “I don't give because I believe in religious charity. I give because I belong to a social structure that enforces an ethic of giving.” Although “enforcement” may not be proper, commitments and accountability are surely valuable.
Now, thanks to the immensely valuable Berret-Koehler Publishers newsletter, I’ve discovered that much of Corporate America gets it too. Many corporate leaders realize that long-term effectiveness depends on personal development.
But so far, few progressive political activists have indicated much interest in integrating the personal and the political. Perhaps the success demonstrated by the practical, step-by-step True North approach can encourage them to take a closer look at the possibility of using intentional peer support to enrich their lives and strengthen their work.
I look forward to discussing this possibility with people who read the book.
+++++++++++++++++
Occupy Wall Street: A Promising Beginning
The brilliance of the evolving Occupy Wall Street movement has been rooted in a simple principle: participatory democracy. The participants themselves have been deciding how to proceed. And as their numbers grow, they’re wisely developing bottom-up structures to delegate responsibility.
The original Adbusters call for people “to flood into lower Manhattan [on September 17], set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street” proposed that the action focus on “one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics.”
The demonstrators who took to the streets on September 17 wisely ignored that old-school demand. Instead, at first, they merely echoed outrage about economic injustice. Most of the early messages from Occupy Wall Street were “anti-capitalist,” which concerned me, for I don’t believe that an attack on capitalism per se is either correct or tactical. And failing to have agreement on this issue at the start can lead to sectarian splits later.
Then on September 29 Occupy Wall Street adopted their “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City.". Though some of the language struck me as imprecise, overall the statement seemed to go beyond ideology to articulate concrete, widely embraced grievances without resorting to abstractions about “capitalism.”
Within a few days, Occupy Wall Street began getting strong support, including endorsements from labor unions, MoveOn, and the American Dream Movement spearheaded by Van Jones.
However, I still felt that the action needed to focus on a winnable demand in order to build momentum with successive victories. As I told a correspondent, “Hopefully they will, eventually.”
Then I discovered that Occupy Wall Street has announced that they are working on three more official documents: “1) A declaration of demands. 2) Principles of Solidarity 3) Documentation on how to form your own Direct Democracy Occupation Group.” I hope that at least one of those demands is winnable in the short-term.
I would prefer that this movement more fully embrace the principles of nonviolence affirmed by Gandhi and King, including the reliance on love rather than hate, the resolve to avoid “violence of the heart,” and to seek “reconciliation, not victory” by appealing to the conscience of opponents.
But when Jones declared, “No more listening to the titans on Wall Street,” he failed to follow Gandhi and King. Reconciliation requires listening.
Likewise the October2011 action in D.C. strayed from true nonviolence (as I understand it) when they repeated Mario Savio’s famous declaration, “You've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop.” That formulation encourages physical force.
The October2011 website, in its “’American Autumn’ Will Depend on People, Not Parties (We will not be co-opted),” also featured an extensive attack on other progressives for being too reformist. That kind of infighting undermines alliances and is an example of the arrogance that progressives need to overcome.
Rather than trying to de-legitimize “liberals,” the October2011 action could just as easily say, “That approach is fine for those who so choose. But we take a different path.”
But social change is messy. Many different approaches are inevitable and can be helpful. My notions about what is justified and effective may well be wrong.
It’s an exciting time. President Obama is giving credibility and great attention to tax fairness (as I felt he would all along). The Senate Democrats recently sharpened the issue with their proposed millionaire’s surtax. And the Occupy Wall Movement is largely nonviolent and engaging in the kind of grassroots action that is necessary in order to make steady progress, which can eventually lead to profound transformation.
As Bob Dylan says, “We’ll just have to see how it goes.” And nudge it along as best we can.
+++++++++++++++++
Recommended Links
The Left Declares Its Independence
Occupy Wall Street: Why So Many Demands for Demands?
The Elizabeth Warren Quote Every American Needs To See
New Book Explores How Millennials Shape American Life, Culture
Al Jazeera English: Live Stream
+++++++++++++++++
Comments from Readers
[Re my email: Why do you think folks are daunted by the notion of “peer counseling,” or peer support with regard to self-improvement?]
I think it ties to our lack of trust in one another. Many have had bad experiences with professional counselors, so I can I can understand folks being reluctant. Just a guess.
--Rhonda Magee
My reply: Where does that lack of trust come from? My suspicion is that it relates to how our desire to climb the ladder of success leads us to be dishonest.
+++
I'm so grateful for your work and will be more involved when I have time.
--Jane Anne Jeffries
+++
Good responses!
--Leonard Roy Frank
+++
Wade, I'm sorry to have missed your meeting on Saturday, 10/1. I continue to be interested, however, and would like to be notified of future meetings.
If I am not very responsive to your posts, it is because I have trouble slowing down to take the time to absorb them. I guess I could work on this in your group.
--Ruth Lang
+++
[Re: [wadesweekly] Looking for Holistic Political Organizations and my email in which I said, “I find myself generally aligned with your worldview, though I differ on some points. In your statement of values, you affirm ‘We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well being,’ but I see nothing about the need for intentional mutual support in those efforts.”]
Hi Wade... Thanks, and I understand about slow responses. I'm normally quite a bit behind myself.
Since we last talked, my wife and I have launched our latest project, Coalitions of Mutual Endeavor
research and activism, and pretty much ties everything together. We did a West Coast
workshop tour this past June, and it was well received.
The synopsis is building coalitions to create the critical mass necessary for critical
change. While initially targeting environmental, social justice, economic equity, and
participatory democracy groups, we expressly reach out beyond the choir using
relationship building tools and best practices from organizational change. Our guiding
axiom is that true justice cannot exist without sustainability, and without justice there will
be no peace. We're using sustainability as the common goal for big-tent coalition efforts,
and the Earth Charter as an internationally vetted set of shared values. Rather than
focusing on any one political party, we're looking at how this can inform an independent
political movement, not only in developing candidates and platforms, but creating the
critical mass to get them elected.
The coalition project itself is currently working on getting national organizations to join,
and lining up workshops around the country. I'll be participating in the Association for the
Study of Peak Oil annual conference in DC in early November and working on gathering
more support there.
Awareness raising is pretty instrumental in building critical mass, but I'm putting most of
my time right now into finishing up my book "Connecting the Dots: Reversing Our
Handbasket to Hell" to use as background material so workshop attendees don't suffer
from information overload and we can concentrate on gaining familiarity with the tools
and alternative projects to business as usual that communities can start on.
--Dave Ewoldt
My reply: Dave, it looks like you've been doing some great work. I particularly like the systems frame and the quest for broad coalitions. However on your site I did not see an affirmation of the need for an explicit commitment to self-improvement and mutual support with regards to those efforts. Social systems are reinforced by individual actions. Transforming those systems therefore requires us to undo internalized oppression.
Carry it on,
Wade
+++
Re: [wadesweekly] A Counter Meditation http://wadeleehudson.blogspot.com/2011/03/meditation.html.
A Counter Meditation:
…Thus I proffer a solution - ramp down defense spending while you ramp up the civilian space program.... Resistance is futile, as it were, and plays into their hands. Our most expedient way to break open some chances for ourselves, is to get them to convert our National Industrial Policy from War-all-the-time to To-Infinity-and-Beyond, with us as partners….
-- Gavino Villapiano
My reply: … can't see the space program being an effective focus for organizing.
Gaviano’s reply: … Overt resistance and demonstration - even if taking such innocuous or rather non-violent and ostensibly non-threatening forms as electoral politics, self improvement and "better idea generation" - is so time worn and predictable now that it is effectively co-opted and subverted. …the Space idea...has a great chance of settling into the brains of those who pull the strings.... Perhaps the ideal organization is not organizing...
My reply: Cooptation can be a step forward. I remain unconvinced about the revolutionary potential of a space program.
+++
Re: [wadesweekly] Gandhi, Self-Improvement, and Mutual Support
These are good points all. But in regards non-violence, I'd like you to help me get around my biggest doubt.
To some extent, advocating non-violence to progressive people is "preaching to the choir". In general (not always, certainly), progressives are resonant with non-violent principles, and do try to "be the change they'd like to see".
But what about the non-progressives who have no compunction regarding the use of violence? Is it not they who need to be convinced not to use violence?
How many times have we heard, of late, of non-violent groups being infiltrated and incited to violence? How many times have we seen violence occur at non-violent protests and gatherings that actually is done by agents provocateurs but blamed on the peaceful demonstrators?
Mass non-violent protest and demonstration is designed to appeal to the larger community's conscience. "The whole world's watching!" But if it is made to appear that the non-violent demonstrators "caused" or "initiated" violence, then support for the demonstrations is undermined.
I'd like to hear your comments regarding how we reach the forces of repression and get them to voluntarily turn off the firehoses of violence...
--Gavino Villapiano
My reply: Your reply is not responsive to my essay. My point was that not even most advocates of nonviolence fully practice the principles articulated by Gandhi. Concerning your point about the threats posed by violent State actors, I agree that nonviolent tactics don't always work. I am not a pacifist. With King, I support actions like sending troops into Little Rock in 1956. I support NATO in Libya. But I believe that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates that nonviolent action holds great potential for gaining support from elites.
+++
Re: [wadesweekly] Comments from Readers
+++++
[Another correspondent asked:] "How about the police riot in NYC and the killing of Troy Davis???"
[Wade replied]: “It’s revolting.”
+++++"
Sir:
I appreciate your thoughts and ideas, but honestly, you evaded the question. You know as well as I that the questioner, whoever it might have been (it wasn't I), was attempting to get you to reflect on how your proposal would deal with the issue when violence is exacted on the non-violent. Please excuse the label, but you acted like a politician - you dodged the issue.
I, too, asked you to address the same issue, in a separate email, worded differently, and so far, nothing from you.
Which is actually fine - we all have lives, and I'd rather get a reflective answer than a pat or dismissive one.
But the answer you gave that commenter was both pat and dismissive.
Peaceful resistance and civil disobedience work when there exists a conscience to appeal to. It worked in India in the 1940s and in the Deep South in the early 60s, and even in regards Vietnam in the late 60s-early 70s to some extent, largely if not completely because there was media attention focused on it, which media attention also had a component of conscience.
With the ascendance of corporately controlled media to an extent much larger than before, acts of peaceful resistance, protest and civil disobedience are merely ignored.
Granted, events such as Bloody Sunday 1905 ultimately resulted in the downfall of those who sicked the Cossacks on the peaceful crowds. But at the cost of the demonstrators lives. The same can be said of Kent State, the thousands of Indians of 1947, the monks who self immolated in Saigon, etc.
It was you who decided to propose such action to a larger group; the responsibility is thus on you to publicly, to the group, address this very real problem with what you propose - or to be honest with us and mention that the first wave tend to become martyrs.
--Gavino Villapiano
My reply: You may be able to read minds, but I try to avoid that effort. I did not try to read between the lines of his question, but rather replied to what he asked. It seems to me that his question may or may not have been the same as yours. I apologize for being a bit slow to reply to your question. But I find your criticism of me to be unduly harsh and as I said when I did respond, I believe that Occupy Wall Street has not been "merely ignored."
No comments:
Post a Comment