Process Arts are not a method

On Facebook, DeAnna Martin, of Dynamic Facilitation fame (see below for links), asked

how is promulgating a term like "process arts" different than promulgating an approach or method? it sounds like you are experiencing what a lot of method founders experience when they try and articulate their method to others who want to ignore the truth behind it, or want to wrap it into their box of knowing so they can feel comfortable with it's... Read More "place" in their world... just wondering how you'd respond to that? i love the term, by the way...

there are so many ways to organize "processes" and so many layers/lenses through which we apply them... have you been involved with Tree's pattern language work? She's still working on a name for it...

http://www.wisedemocracy.org
http://www.dynamicfacilitation.com
http://blog.tobe.net

I replied:

The best response I have at this point is to suggest levels of practice and a few tentative (personal and limited) definitions:

In my mind, someone in a difficult situation might want a specific and applicable response - a practice that seems likely to work, perhaps based in a larger method. If they learn that specific practice and others to it, they become a practitioner of a method. If they notice there are others working to facilitate the same method, they have colleagues.

Any of these individuals may notice that there are others working with other practices and other methods with different strengths and applications, which also facilitate behavior based on an increased consciousness of how we do what we do, and develop and deploy tools for changing systems.

When a practitioner discovers these core principles in the hands of other practitioners various best practices suggest themselves. This community awareness suggests the need for a co-created ethics (applicable in noticing what kind of culture is being created by a given advertising campaign, for example), which can apply to the entire field of approaches and practices and open a conversation about responsibility, innovation, and behavior. This is where the process arts apply.

The Process Arts idea is methodical, in that it suggests a way, i.e. creating a community of practice. It is a method of organizing by way of a non-proprietary name that aligns this work with the liberal arts and puts the the process arts naturally into education. It is a method of organizing a specific group of facilitators and not an approach to group facilitation, as such, and is thereby able to exist without increasing competition between practitioners. I am a method founder, but not in the case of the process arts, which have a much longer history than can be measured by my lifetime. I just conceived and prosposed the name for the field based on my practice in it with many others.

When I articulate the parts of my particular methods to others, and sometimes feel they may be missing a truth behind it, I usually find, in retrospect, that I have listened insufficiently to their needs or am feeling especially vulnerable on a given day. As far as tidily boxing my methods for consumption, I find that those situations and clients well suited to work in the way I suggest find my basic assumptions credible very quickly. That is how I learned that no method I have ever seen can meet all group and situational needs, and then committed to our field as a whole. My most arduous sales jobs have resulted in the funkiest mismatches in my history.

I'm glad you love the term. I got a bit of that during our conversation at the first Nexus conference. Want to help me/us grow the field beyond the method you know and practice with such expertise?

I have been in Tree Bressen's (http://delicious.com/tag/treebressen) pattern language loop since it began but unable to appear yet in the group as a whole. I'd love that project to consider the pattern language a part of the process arts field, but hope I have learned when to simply make a clear request and not push too hard.

Labels: processarts