First version 3/31/09. Updated 1/28/2010
A member of Aiki Extensions asked me what I do out in the world so, after responding briefly, I offered to post this.
Imagine living at the point in the past before the term "martial arts" came into use. You notice that practicing the arts can also build character and good citizenship (relational) skills. Then you notice other people have already noticed this and begun to develop ways of teaching it, going by various names, or just calling it versions of The Stuff I Do. You have the feeling that the various ways would benefit from interaction and cross-pollination. When you suggest this you often run into resistance of various kinds, from simple denial to turf wars, to benevolently pretending you don't exist or are charming in your naiveté.
Change facilitation methods (including methods that extend aiki metaphors beyond the mat) are in their infancy, just beginning to realize they are process arts and relate to each other as equals and collaborators.
It might help to imagine what follows as if it were a conversation between marital artists discussing their disciplines.I just completed a webinar with Harrison Owen (of Open Space) hosted by Steve Cady and the Nexus folks at Bowling Green State Univ. There are several more coming up, each on a different process art. I'm going to attend as many as I can, as I am writing the part of my dissertation that deals directly with the process arts.
If you'd like to participate in the next one or get more info and download slides check out http://tinyurl.com/nexuswebinars
After hearing Owen equate the Open Space approach with Life and declare it The Ultimate Method Which Always Works I had a few thoughts which the moderators chose not to allow until after the recording had been stopped and the webinar had officially ended.
I began to ask the following in the aftermath and then opted instead for the discussion area at http://tinyurl.com/c82dtu
What if our edge, as a field, may be sharpened into focus by honing the following two sides as though they were part of the same tool:Just wondering...The promo for this webinar wonders "Why does this "stuff" work when it shouldn't?" Even the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation frequently refers to what we do as "stuff." Aren't we ready to step into the professional world of business and academia as a discipline with a real name, and identify with and challenge each other as colleagues?
- There is no method that is Best, only one that fits here and now, but there are core principles and best practices, which suggest a co-created ethics, which apply to the entire field of approaches and practices which facilitate behavior based on an increased consciousness of how we do what we do, and develop and deploy tools for changing systems.
- These core principles will not be recognized as describing a whole field of study until that self-organizing field has a name that is non-proprietary (like sociology or psychology) and encourages the emergence of any approach that works best here and now.
Parallel in importance and depth with the liberal arts, more and more facilitators of this "stuff" are being specific about their methodologies but are also realizing that they practice one of many process arts.
While in conversation with Founders of Methods at the beginning of making a field of study it is difficult to make room for this kind of open space. It is difficult to self-organize and use your two feet when an approach claims to be Life and the Ultimate Method. Continuing to call our work "stuff", or insisting our method is the only method is choosing not to organize such that more organized agendas gain power-over that is not helpful.
What if our field really is at least as wide as The Change Handbook suggests on page 14 (below), crossing the development of organizations, psychology, complexity theory, and so much more? How to frame that so we may work together so deeply that individual strengths and weaknesses become clear and methods adopt a bit of epistemological humility - becoming better able to work and grow together? Even more importantly, imagine the impact process arts may have in the making of cultures of peace and collaboration, as soon as we go ahead and identify as colleagues and grow the field as a whole community of understanding.
Brandon WilliamsCraig bdwc.net
or
and In Paul Hawken's Blessed Unrest
More:
http://grouppatternlanguage.org
http://ourpla.net/cgi/pikie?ProcessArts
P.S.
After the session was thoroughly over, Steve and I corresponded so he might have the opportunity to read a transcript of his words and correct any misconceptions I might harbor. Here is his response to my concerns about monotheistic thinking in our field:
| The thing that I have learned, as I have made it my passion of the last six or seven years to really study these founders, is that, in order for them to solve a very critical issue they care about in the world, they, in some fantastic way, created something that got a name, got a community of practice around it, and is being used. The very skill set they needed to make it concrete, so that people would be able to hold it and use it, is the same skill set that sometimes holds them back from blending it with others. What I have found is that, for me, personally (and I identify with the Third Generation), I'm very interested in learning about all of them, in understanding that process of how people develop a method, learn a method, blend methods, and come back to inventing new ways. I'm very interested in how to facilitate that - so we all can find ways to do that as well, but more fluidly, allowing things to have their own identity and yet realize the overlaps. |
Labels: processarts
| posted by Unknown @ 1/28/2010 12:44:00 PM
