|
The "Court"
Jester and "Foolishness"
The fool, who
was sitting beside the fire, heard these words, leapt to his feed came
before the King, and skipped and danced for glee, saying I "Lord King", so God save
me, your adventures now begin, and often you will find them perilous and hard ?
— Perceval, or the Story of the Grail
The court jester,
the clown, the fool or the buffoon, is a mythic figure representing the inversion
of the powers of the king (as the possessor of supreme powers) — or as his alter ego. He is
therefore often the victim chosen in folklore as the substitute or foil for the king in rites whereby
the people respond frankly and unceremoniously to such powers.
Court jesters were
first recorded in the courts of the Egyptian pharaohs and were in vogue up
until the 18th century in European courts, salons and taverns. They were often physically
mishappen, if not also psychically disturbed. Ideally they were a powerful reminder of the
distortion of the human condition — more immediate than the photographs disseminated via the
media of today.
Additionally, due
to the freedom front censure and responsibility for their actions which they
were accorded, they were able to mirror! parody and mimic court situations in such a way as
to bring out truths which would otherwise be collectively and carefully ignored. They were often
masters of song and dance' and could be a dramatic foil to pomp, superficiality and falsehood
of any kind. As an ambiguous and often an-drogynous figure, the jester could function as a
powerful social catalyst—for good or for ill, depending upon the response of those by whom
he was surrounded.
The fool is an
enigmatic symbol of the point of crisis when the normal or conscious appears to
become perverted or infirm, and in order to regain health and well-being is obliged to turn to
the dangerous, the irrational, the preconscious and the abnormal. As such, the fool is to be
found on the fringe of all orders and systems, outside all conventional categories, processes and
social rules. He is the bridge between the conscious and the unconscious (and between the
attributes of the right and left hemispheres of the brain) — a reminder that, after having failed
in
our effort to order and understand the universe in the hght of our intellect and instinct, there
nevertheless remains another way.
Eliminating the
jester from the covert Is as risky as allowing him to play his role. For. if
"foolishness" is not given a channel through which to express itself, it seeks its own channel
anyway. Parliamentary and international assemblies. particularly those in which each is
conscious of the high purpose and seriousness of his role, run a considerable risk of
incorporating distortion into their proceedings and results because of an inability to accept what
a jester would reveal. (Political cartoons offer a partial remedy, but they lack the significance of
being accepted as part of the proceedings and thus have little affect on them.)
It requires greater
maturity on the part of all participants' especially the chairperson and
principal speakers, to play their parts in the face of such instant feedback. In the absence of
children at international assemblies, who can say whether our international emperors wear anv
clothes?
|
|
"...it is
proposed that a form of free dialogue may well be one of the most effective ways of
investigating the crisis which faces society, and indeed the whole of human nature and
consciousness today. Moreover, it may turn out that such a form of free exchange of ideas and
information is of fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of destructive
misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated."
Dialogue, as we
are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many
crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of
processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and
even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able
to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play together with little
difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems
invariable to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to
a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought.
In Dialogue, a
group of people can explore the individual and collective presuppositions, ideas,
beliefs, and feelings that subtly control their interactions. It provides an opportunity to
participate in a process that displays communication successes and failures. It can reveal the
often puzzling patterns of incoherence that lead the group to avoid certain issues or, on the
other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing and defending opinions about particular
issues.
Dialogue is a way
of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our
behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is
occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out
of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise.
Because the nature
of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold.
No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning - not
as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a
means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an
unfolding process of creative participation between peers.
However, we feel
that it is important that its meaning and background be understood.
Our approach to
this form of Dialogue arose out of a series of conversations begun in 1983 in
which we inquired into David Bohm's suggestion that a pervasive incoherence in the process of
human thought is the essential cause of the endless crises affecting mankind. This led us, in
succeeding years, to initiate a number of larger conversations and seminars held in different
countries with various groups of people which in turn began to take the form of Dialogues.
As we proceeded
it became increasing clear to us that this process of Dialogue is a powerful
means of understanding how thought functions. We became aware that we live in a world
produced almost entirely by human enterprise and thus, by human thought. The room in which
we sit, the language in which these words are written, our national boundaries, our systems of
value, and even that which we take to be our direct perceptions of reality are essentially
manifestations of the way human beings think and have thought. We realize that without a
willingness to explore this situation and to gain a deep insight into it, the real crises of our time
cannot be confronted, nor can we find anything more than temporary solutions to the vast array
of human problems that now confront us.
We are using the
word "thought" here to signify not only the products ofour conscious intellect
but also our feelings, emotions, intentions and desires. It also includes such subtle, conditioned
manifestations of learning as those that allow us to make sense of a succession of separate
scenes within a cinema film or to translate the abstract symbols on road signs along with the
tacit, non-verbal processes used in developing basic, mechanical skills such as riding a bicycle.
In essence thought, in this sense of the word, is the active response of memory in every phase
of life. Virtually all of our knowledge is produced, displayed, communicated, transformed and
applied in thought.
To further clarify
this approach, we propose that, with the aid of a little close attention, even
that which we call rational thinking can be see to consist largely of responses conditioned and
biased by previous thought. If we look carefully at what we generally take to be reality we
begin to see that it includes a collection of concepts, memories and reflexes colored by our
personal needs, fears, and desires, all of which are limited and distorted by the boundaries of
language and the habits of our history, sex and culture. It is extremely difficult to disassemble
this mixture or to ever be certain whether what we are perceiving - or what we may think about
those perceptions - is at all accurate.
What makes this
situation so serious is that thought generally conceals this problems from our
immediate awareness and succeeds in generating a sense that the way each of us interprets the
world is the only sensible way in which it can be interpreted. What is needed is a means by
which we can slow down the process of thought in order to be able to observe it while it is
actually occurring.
Our physical bodies
have this capability but thought seems to lack it. If you raise your arm you
know that you are willing the act, that somebody else is not doing it for or to you. This is called
proprioception. We can be aware of our body's actions while they are actually occurring but
we generally lack this sort of skill in the realm of thought. For example, we do not notice that
our attitude toward another person may be profoundly affected by the way we think and feel
about someone else who might share certain aspects of his behavior or even of his appearance.
Instead, we assume that our attitude toward her arises directly from her actual conduct. The
problem of thought is that the kind of attention required to notice this incoherence seems
seldom to be available when it is most needed. |
|
|
|
|
A summary of Bill's book the Art of Stinkin' Together...
During my travels
with Dialogos I have surmised the following:
Dialogue is a mode
of exchange among human beings in which there is a true turning to one
another and a full appreciation of another person, not as an object in a social function, but as a
genuine being. (Martin Buber, 1914). |
|
1)suspend assumptions
and certainties
2) observe the
observer
3) listen to your
listening
4) slow down the
inquiry
5) be aware of
thought
6) befriend polarization
Part 1 makes the
important distinction between dialogue 'A conversation with a center, not
sides' - a clever pun - and 'getting to yes', which is a technique of negotiation in which there are
still 'sides'. Dialogue is a flow of meaning in which people think together in relationship and each
is prepared to 'relax their grip on certainty'. Dialogue:
...attempts to
bring about change at the source of our thoughts and feelings...to alter processes
so that [defects] do not occur in the first place...
Dialogue not only
raises the level of shared thinking, it impacts how people act, and, in
particular, how they act all together.'
'Dialogue' says
Isaacs 'is both something we already know how to do and something about
which there is much to learn.' It is very old, very widespread, yet the genuinely difficult issues of
society (he quotes the Kyoto conference on the environment) seem very resistant to dialogue,
where many of the key issues are tacitly left off the agenda.
'Those who try
to minimize the complexity of dialogue by reducing it to a few simple techniques
about talking together will be sorely disappointed. Doing so fragments conversations in new
ways...What is needed instead is a way of evoking what people already know about a
dialogue, while recognizing the ways we systematically undermine ourselves or fail to live up to
the potential of our conversations.'
Good dialogue involves
thinking together rather than thinking alone, and this is difficult. It
requires addressing 'three fundamental levels of human interaction...[to] create a foundation by
which we can think together...' These three levels form the framework for parts 2 through 4 of
the book (see above). Isaacs describes them as:
This chapter also
contains a valuable diagram of the different forms of conversation and the
implications of using them. |
|
Chapter 2 discusses
the phenomenon of 'thinking alone' - holding our own position and
withholding information - and the steps necessary to overcome them. Isaacs identifies
Predictive Intuition
4 Pathologies
'... four pathologies
of thought - abstraction, idolatry, certainty and violence - [that] underlie
most of the difficulties we face...the four principles of dialogue - participation, unfolding,
awareness, and coherence - make up the outlines of a way of being human that might help us
overcome these difficulties ...'
Temptations:
Abstraction
Idolatry Certainty Violence
The chapter forms
an introduction to fuller discussion in Parts II and III.
On abstraction
and its antidote principle, participation: we make divisions or separate out part
of a holistic issue and then forget that we have done so. In particular we separate 'the good, the
true and the beautiful' (ethics, science and art) into three separate and watertight compartments.
The practice of participation requires cultivation of the art of seeing the whole and, more
important, of being in the picture rather than observing the picture from outside.
On idolatry and
its antidote principle, unfolding: much of what we think and feel is actually a
replay of our memory of the past acting to guide our reaction to the present. While this can be
useful, it can also lock us in to views and assumptions that are not appropriate to the present.
The practice of 'unfolding' is the art of recognising and connecting to the unfolding potential of
the reality we are dealing with. (Those who have difficulty with this concept will get a clear
understanding of its reality and power from Jaworski, Joseph: Synchronicity
.)
On certainty and
its antidote principle, awareness: 'we often develop partial understandings and
see them as complete. Or we may rigidly hold on to our views...[as] 'noble certainties'. Our
nobly certain interpretations blind us and limit our freedom to think.' (An accurate description of
one of the most common pathologies of political debate.) Awareness involves developing the
capacity to suspend our certainties, to entertain multiple points of view and to focus on the fluid
process rather than a rigid position.
On violence and
its antidote principle, coherence: 'we impose our views on others and the
world... We decide things are this way or that. We then defend out interpretation, looking for
evidence that we are right, ignoring or discounting evidence that we are wrong .. [and in trying
to force this view on others, are guilty of a ] kind of violence .' Coherence is an expression of
'the premise that the world is an undivided whole, and that the problem we face is that we do
not see this... Our problem is that generally we do not see the coherence, only the fragments.'
We need to develop the holistic skill that allows us to see the whole, and to keep the parts in
relationship throughout.
1) participation
2) unfolding
3) awareness
4) coherence |
|
Four Ways:
Listening
Respecting Suspending Voicing
'The heart of dialogue
is a simple but profound capacity to listen...not only to others but also to
ourselves and our own reactions... We often pay great attention to what goes on in us, when
what is actually required is a kind of disciplined self- forgetting...you must create a space in
which listening can occur.'
Good listening
requires that we slow down, that we learn to recognise and manage how we are
listening now, which is often from within our memories, a 'net of thought that I cast on a
particular situation'. (There is a section on 'the ladder of inference', the process by which we
jump immediately from limited observed facts to wide conclusions based on internally held
memories, biases and assumptions - and then act as if the whole conclusion were based on
fact). It also requires that we learn to look for evidence that disconfirms or challenges our
preexisting point of view, not simply for confirmation. Finally, and perhaps most difficult for
organisations, it requires that we slow down, an anathema to those who are hooked on quick
and 'efficient' decision making
Isaacs suggests
the following questions and practices:
Questions
Practices
-
Be aware of thought
- Stick to the facts
- Follow the disturbance [something that
jars, and gives the opportunity to
disconfirm a position]
- Listen without resistance
- Stand still.
He goes on to touch
on the art of listening for the dilemmas that people face in groups , for
example whether or how to voice a privately held belief that may be interpreted in various ways
in the organisational context.
'The heart of dialogue
is a simple but profound capacity to listen...not only to others but also to
ourselves and our own reactions... We often pay great attention to what goes on in us, when
what is actually required is a kind of disciplined self- forgetting...you must create a space in
which listening can occur.'
Good listening
requires that we slow down, that we learn to recognise and manage how we are
listening now, which is often from within our memories, a 'net of thought that I cast on a
particular situation'. (There is a section on 'the ladder of inference', the process by which we
jump immediately from limited observed facts to wide conclusions based on internally held
memories, biases and assumptions - and then act as if the whole conclusion were based on
fact). It also requires that we learn to look for evidence that disconfirms or challenges our
preexisting point of view, not simply for confirmation. Finally, and perhaps most difficult for
organisations, it requires that we slow down, an anathema to those who are hooked on quick
and 'efficient' decision making
Isaacs suggests
the following questions and practices:
Questions
Practices
-
Be aware of thought
- Stick to the facts
- Follow the disturbance [something that
jars, and gives the opportunity to
disconfirm a position]
- Listen without resistance
- Stand still.
He goes on to touch
on the art of listening for the dilemmas that people face in groups , for
example whether or how to voice a privately held belief that may be interpreted in various ways
in the organisational context.
Chapter 5
on respecting is primarily concerned with learning to see and to work in the context
of the whole, to centre ourselves and to perceive relative degrees of wholeness within
conversations.
'Typically...[we]
do not know how to listen to the whole flow of a conversation; we select
pieces out of it, aspects that matter to us or perhaps that irritate us'.
Isaacs gives an
example of a participant in a group who spoke in a way that irritated the others,
until it was recognised that what he was saying was a concealed statement of a sense of
isolation and a plea for understanding. Once that could be recognised and respected, the
conversation could move forward.
Isaacs' questions
and practices for respecting are:
Questions
Practices
Chapter 5
on respecting is primarily concerned with learning to see and to work in the context
of the whole, to centre ourselves and to perceive relative degrees of wholeness within
conversations.
'Typically...[we]
do not know how to listen to the whole flow of a conversation; we select
pieces out of it, aspects that matter to us or perhaps that irritate us'.
Isaacs gives an
example of a participant in a group who spoke in a way that irritated the others,
until it was recognised that what he was saying was a concealed statement of a sense of
isolation and a plea for understanding. Once that could be recognised and respected, the
conversation could move forward.
Isaacs' questions
and practices for respecting are:
Chapter 6
on suspending is concerned with withholding our judgment in a way that allows
dialogue to replace 'serial monologues', the latter being notoriously the common currency of
many organisational meetings and virtually all public political debate.
Suspending requires
developing the ability to stand back from your 'noble certainties' and
'access your ignorance' - the capacity to pause and refocus.
Isaacs identified
two forms of suspension. The first is to disclose, to make available to yourself
and others what is in your mind, so you can see what is going on, including perhaps your own
dilemmas of concern about the way what you say may be taken. The second is to become
aware of the process, for example anger, that may be generating or driving our thought. It is
worth noting the de Bono's famous 'thinking hats' can be used as a way of recognising and
declaring this sort of situation 'neutrally' - 'I am talking with my red hat' declares anger, while
recognising that to see the situation through anger is not the only valid view. Isaacs introduces a
brief diversion into theories of consciousness (Maturana and Bohm) to explain some of the
issues of awareness.
Isaacs' questions
and practices for suspending are:
Questions
Practices
-
Suspend certainty
- Seek the order between
- Try frame experiments [framing the issue
differently]
- Externalize thought
- Ask; What am I missing? How does the problem
work?
The greatest barriers
to suspension are fear of dealing with the new and, in organisations, fear
of slowing down the process.
Chapter 7
on voicing 'has to do with revealing what is true for you regardless of other
influences that might be brought to bear... It involves learning to ask..What needs to be
expressed now?'
He includes a revealing
story by a Yugoslav immigrant to USA. In Yugoslavia you could say
what you liked about your boss, but could not criticise Tito, the President. In the USA you can
say what you like about the President, but can not criticise your boss.
Isaacs' questions
and practices for voicing are:
Questions
Practices
|
|
Part III is a short
part on developing 'predictive intuition', by which Isaacs means developing
the capacity to perceive the forces operative within any setting that tend to guide behaviour. It
is concerned with the patterns of action and the structures within which the practices of
dialogue either can fit together so that dialogue can occur, or can result in barriers that prevent
dialogue, even if the practices are appropriate. In many ways this section is an overview from
which Part IV goes into detail on the structuring of the environment for dialogue.
Chapter 8
is concerned with patterns of action and examines factors including the balance
between advocacy and inquiry (see the works of Argyris and Senge et al: Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook
), and the 'four player system' of David Kantor which involves a healthy balance
between movers, followers, opposers and bystanders or observers.
Chapter 9
is concerned with identifying and overcoming structural traps, recognising that
'structure influences behaviour and performance'. Isaacs advocates 'mapping' the system and
structures in order to make the structural issues clear and help in finding ways to deal with
them.
Structures are
both tangible - for example the shape of the room or the hierarchy and
intangible, for example norms and values. Some structures are deeply hostile to dialogue (to
take a simple example, try holding a dialogue when the chairs are set up in auditorium style).
Isaacs also highlights the importance of 'the three languages' - of power, of feelings and of
meaning. They are truly different languages and:
'communication
across them carries the same difficulties of translation that translation between
any two languages carries'.
Further, those
with a preference for one tend to devalue those who speak another language (to
one who speaks the language of power, you may be seen as 'too emotional' or 'too
intellectual').
'Understanding
which language you and others are speaking is vital to engaging in genuine
dialogue. The fragmentation of our language is one of the most debilitating factors in an attempt
to conduct genuine dialogue.'
Isaacs also follows
Kantor in making the distinction between 'open', 'closed' and 'random'
systems, making the point that undetected differences in paradigm between participants can
prevent dialogue and understanding, while the aim is to create an environment in which all can
be acknowledged and respected. He summarises these systems as
Closed Systems
Core purpose: stability through tradition and lineage
Characteristics: Hierarchy, formal authority, 'control over'
Leadership: Manages for the good of the whole
Limits: Tyranny of tradition, blindness to emergent change
Open Systems
Core purpose: Learning through participation
Characteristics: Democracy, pluralism, collaboration
Leadership: Balance the good of the whole with the good of the individual
Limits: Tyranny of the process
Random Systems
Core purpose: Exploration through improvisation
Characteristics: Creativity not constrained by formal structures
Leadership:Rapid innovation
Limits: Tyranny of anarchy |
|
Part IV, The Architecture
of the Invisible, is made up of four chapters; Setting the Container;
Fields of Conversation; Convening Dialogue; The Ecology of Thought. These chapters describe
the structures that are necessary to allow the four practices of dialogue to flourish and be
effective.
Chapter 9
describes Isaacs' important concept to 'the container' and what is necessary to
create it. 'A container is a vessel, a setting in which the intensities of human activity can safely
emerge.' According to Isaacs 'no container, no dialogue'. The container must provide energy,
possibility and safety. Building and maintaining a container has both physical and psychological
components, maintaining it is everyone's work. A simple example of an element of the physical
structure is that a circle, without tables provides a visual means of levelling and focusing the
participants.
Chapter 10,
Fields of Conversation, is based around a chart that describes different fields of
conversation, flowing towards generative dialogue - the field in which genuine breakthroughs of
perception and meaning are most likely to occur.
He describes the
situation typical of each field and the process of moving from one field to the
other within the container. He also talks of the challenge of transition from the field of dialogue
back into the day to day world and of the different perceptions of silence and of time in each of
the conversational 'fields'.
Chapter 12,
Convening Dialogue, takes the previous chapter further by describing appropriate
leadership behaviours for each of the fields. Field 1 requires clarifying the intentions, ensuring
appropriate entry into conversation and creation of the container and the conditions in which
people can practice the four behaviours. Field II requires work to help map the structures,
facilitate conversation across mental models and a degree of education about the possibilities
for widening the inquiry. Leadership in Field III requires inviting reflective inquiry, listening for
emerging themes and looking out for rigidities that may inhibit dialogue. Leadership in Field IV
is servant leadership, with a requirement to help the group to reflect on the whole process, to
be alert to the possibilities for action that can emerge and to see the whole as primary.
Chapter 13
reaches out from the individual dialogue to the wider questions surrounding our
patterns of thought and their impact . To change the way we talk is to begin to change the way
we think. To change the way we think is to begin to change the way we behave. To change the
way we behave can vastly influence the world we live in. Isaacs returns to the Good, the True
and the Beautiful, the pathologies of listening to only one of these languages and the potential
contained in achieving harmonious reintegration between them. |
|
Laetus in praesens.
Joyfully in the Present
Participant role Reminders
1. We are less
rewarded for our involvement in a meeting when we assume that our role has
been more central to its processes than when we are able to question its value to other
participants.
2. We degrade and pollute the meeting
environment more when we assume that any negative
impacts of our initiatives on other participants are of little consequence than when we have
doubts concerning the ability of the meeting to deal with them.
3. We exhibit a greater degree of ignorance in a meeting when we assume the adequacy of the
knowledge we demonstrate than when we question its validity from the perspectives of other
participants.
4. Our contributions are less nourishing and enlivening to other participants when we assume
that they are naturally fruitful than when we question their fruitfulness to others.
5. We contribute more to the mismanagement of a meeting when we assume that our favoured
procedures are the most useful to other participants than when we have doubts concerning their
efficacy for others.
6. We are less productive in a meeting when we assume we are responding productively to
other contributions than when we have doubts concerning the contribution of our efforts to the
productivity of other initiatives.
7. We are more threatening to other participants when we assume that our role is not
experienced as intimidating and discriminating by some than when we question how others may
be threatened by our actions in the meeting.
8. We bring more malaise to a meeting when we assume that we are paragons of well-being
than when we have doubts concerning our degree of health in the eyes of others.
9. We are more exploitative in a meeting when we assume that our initiatives do not impoverish
the experience of other participants than when we question this possibility.
10. We make more inappropriate contributions to a meeting when we assume that they are
naturally appropriate than when we have doubts concerning their degree of appropriateness to
other participants.
11. The representation of reality that we endeavour to communicate to other participants is
experienced as more incoherent when we assume that it offers unique integrative advantages
than when we question whether this may be the case for others.
12. We are more effective in turning cultural and religious celebrations into meaningless rituals
when we assume that they are not experienced as such by some than when we question why
this may indeed be the case. |
|
Much dialogue consists
of presentations of competing perspectives which are in effect
complementary and need to be understood together in a broader and more subtle framework
that they together sustain. But when the focus is on any one such perspective, the existence and
nature of that broader framework can only be brought into the dialogue by opposing some
other perspective. Other than for the discussion of particulars which invite ready consensus, this
does not make for an especially satisfactory dialogue process.
The following guidelines endeavour
to clarify a pattern of constraints through which more
meaningful and fruitful dialogue may prove possible.
Beyond unimaginative tinkering, paradigm hops and risk aversion
Unless the imagination
is stretched, it is questionable whether the matter is worth consideration
at this time.
Beyond single-factor
dependency
It is less than helpful to reduce
complex challenges and opportunities to a single problem
requiring a single solution following from a single theory based on a single set of values to be
acted upon by a single set of organizations -- possibly orchestrated by a single leader claiming
special insight.
Beyond the one-plan strategy
Beyond ?if only they would...?
Beyond follow-me leadership
Beyond personality cults and star performances
Beyond awaiting the Messiah, Armageddon or extraterrestrials
Beyond dogma and proselytism
Whilst there is a place for articulation of patterns of truth, their coherence should not be used to
disguise the existence of alternative patterns deriving from other perspectives or cultures.
Efforts to disseminate any one pattern should take account of the learnings from earlier
initiatives and their reception. Without doubt concerning the limitations of any position or
initiative, there is no opening for dialogue and learning.
Beyond promulgation of sets of principles and values for universal acceptance
Beyond wisdom keeping and wisdom pandering
Beyond self-righteousness and competition for the moral high ground
Beyond definitional game-playing
Misinformation and disinformation are increasingly used to disguise the degree of inaction or the
inappropriateness of any action. There is a tendency to legitimate this by token consultation or
spurious research, as well as to block criticism by various forms of denial.
Beyond tokenism
Beyond hypocrisy
Beyond denial
Beyond representation of the unconsulted
Beyond spurious monitoring and explanation
Beyond creative non-decision-making in crisis situations
Beyond duality and polarity
Extreme arguments are advanced to counterbalance other extreme positions when the way
forward is likely to be associated with some pattern of relationship between both -- whose
comprehension is hindered by the dynamics of polarized dialogue
Beyond individual vs. collective development
Beyond technology vs. culture
Beyond headless hearts vs. heartless heads
Beyond gender politics
Beyond positivism vs. negativism
There is a case for and against optimistic enthusiasm, just as there is a case for and against
concern for constraints and obstacles; both have their place and both need to be challenged in
any given context. The appreciation of ?what is? needs to be contrasted with an appreciation of
?what is not?. There is a place for the via negativa as much as for the via positiva.
Beyond hope-mongering vs. doom-mongering
Beyond havingness vs. neediness
Beyond global vs. local
Whilst universals can be usefully striven for, local perspectives should not be demeaned through
that process. But equally the local needs to relate to a global framework of appropriate
richness. How both are to be reconciled structurally and operationally is a challenge of a higher
order which naive approaches to ?unity in diversity? cannot effectively encompass through
expressions like ?holism?.
Beyond global articulation vs local concreteness
Beyond universalism vs. heterogeneity
Beyond global ethics vs. situational ethics
Beyond agreement vs. disagreement
Agreement should not be sought at any price. Nor should the possibility of working with the
structural features of disagreement be delayed by naive anticipation of consensus -- especially
when lives are at stake.
Beyond consensus vs. difference
Beyond tolerance vs. discrimination
Beyond conflict vs. peace, reconciliation and appeasement
Beyond present vs. future
Commitments to future action should not be used as a means of avoiding immediate action; but
equally action in the present should be undertaken in response to a richer future pattern.
Underlying the increasing gap between the ?haves? and the ?have nots? lies a more
fundamental gap. Of a more insidious nature, it is that between the ease of making commitments
(personal security, food, health, etc) and the challenges to their fulfilment -- before it is too late
for the person or group to whom the promise was made.
Beyond time games
Beyond short-termism vs. long-termism
Beyond promises and pledges
Beyond declarations, manifestos and resolutions
But beyond the above constraints, taken separately or together, lies one which is even more
fundamental. Each of the constraints can be usefully seen like keys on a musical instrument --
suggesting that each could be used separately or together. It is how they are taken into account
(through acceptance or in the breach) that is of greatest importance. It is how they are played
off against each other in some dialogic melody that provides the carrier for subtler meaning.
Beyond seriousness vs humour, there is a playful sense in which none of them should be taken
"seriously" -- as "rules" they are there to be broken, but doing so should be fun.
It is only
through the most partial polarized positions that the music can be made. But the music of
dialogue only flows if this is done with a light and fleeting touch. Persistent use of any single
polar position is essentially monotonous. |
|
...and dysfunction
Qualities: Each
person is much appreciated by the others for their personal qualities and skills --
although each has very strong reservations about the limitations and blindspots associated with
these skills Interpersonal skills: Each person favours, and uses very skilfully, a different
interpersonal style -- which others appreciate in many situations but find totally inappropriate in
others
Conflict avoidance: Each person has
particular skills for avoiding overt conflict or engaging in
ways they do not personally favour -- effectively undermining consensus on collective action or
discussion of these issues
Vision: Each person has particularly valuable insights into the way forward and a vision of a
desirable future -- but is effectively blind or indifferent to the insight and vision of others
Articulation: Each person has unusual skills in articulating the way forward and its associated
opportunities -- but has limited capacity to appreciate the articulation of others, notably
because of failure by their proponents to acknowledge the limitations of such alternative
articulations
Management challenge: Each person has valuable insight into the opportunities and constraints
of the collective working environment -- but assumes this is sufficiently comprehensive to
ensure the sustainability of that environment, effectively denying the relevance of other insights
Working style: Each person has a significantly different understanding and preference for
working style -- and is either insensitive to, or suspicious of, the style favoured by others
Use of others: Each person has an idea of how the skills of the others should be most
effectively used -- and creates resistance and resentment when endeavouring to manoeuvre
them into a mode they find inappropriate
Acknowledgement: Each person acknowledges some qualities and contributions of others to
them and to third parties -- but fails to recognize the contributions for which the others would
value being acknowledged
Learning: Each person perceives themselves to be willing to learn from the collective working
challenge and from the group situation -- but fails to recognize what others would value that
they learn to ensure the sustainability of the collective intiative
Attentiveness: Each person perceives themselves as very attentive to the views of others, which
they assume that they have adequately understood -- except that on vital matters such
understanding is perceived by the other as an irritatingly incomplete caricature of that for which
they stand
Enthusiasms: Each person is nourished and motivated by particular and somewhat
unconventional enthusiasms -- which the behaviour of others tends to erode and undermine
Difficult decisions: Each person is reasonably courageous, if not skilled, in taking difficult
decisions -- but each also has well used skills for channelling conflicting perspectives and
demands for uncomfortable behaviours into unconscious mechanisms which undermine their
efforts to achieve their own goals.
Consistent with the above pattern, a statement such as this is both part of the solution
-- as well as exacerbating
part of the problem |
|
"How can I
change the world?"
"Reform yourself,
and then you may be sure there is one less rascal in it."
-Thomas Carlyle
The Basic Laws
of Human Stupidity
"Human affairs
are admittedly in a deplorable state. This, however, is no novelty. As far back
as we can see, human affairs have always been in a deplorable state... After Darwin we know
that we share our origin with the lower members of the animal kingdom, and worms as well as
elephants have to bear their daily share of trials, predicaments, and ordeals. Human beings,
however, are privileged in so far as they have to bear an extra load - an extra dose of
tribulations originated daily by a group of people within the human race itself. This... is an
unorganised unchartered group which has no chief, no president, no bylaws and yet manages to
operate in perfect unison, as if guided by an invisible hand, in such a way that the activity of
each member powerfully contributes to strenghten and amplify the effectiveness of the activity
of all other members. The nature, character and behaviour of the members of this group are the
subject of the following pages" (page 5)
Cipolla's Five Basic Laws are:
1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in
circulation.
2. The probability
that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of
that person.
3. A stupid person
is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons
while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
4. Non-stupid people
always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In
particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any
circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people infallibly turns out to be a costly
mistake.
5. A stupid person
is the most dangerous type of person.
The author demonstrates that stupidity
is an indiscriminate privilege of all human groups,
irrespective of race, class, creed or level of education (including Nobel laureates). It is
uniformly distributed according to a constant proportion. He notes: .. The underdeveloped of
the Third World will probably take solace at the Second Basic Law as they can find in it the
proof that after all the developed are not so developed".
Unfortunately, Cipolla fails to consider how the world would function without "stupid people".
For without the problems they create, there would be nothing for the "non-stupid" people to
do. Every action requires an equal and opposite reaction! |
|
You have the photo copies of the significant points from my book. If you wish to explore
further...
|
|
|
Dialogue explicators
Websites and lists
Books
Papers
Conferences
and series
Dialogue papers
by various authors
Dialogue challenges
Miscellaneous
dialogue sites and resources
Interfaith and
intercultural dialogue
-
- Global
Dialogue Institute (GDI): The purpose of the GDI is to promote dialogue in
the broadest sense among individuals and groups of different religions and cultures,
focusing especially though not exclusively on the "opinion-shapers" of society, e.g.,
scholars, professionals, and institutional and business leaders.
- Institute
for Interreligious, Intercultural Dialogue (IIID) translated the fundamental
research published in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies into concrete activities and
partnerships. It sponsored numerous conferences on interreligious, interideological,
intercultural dialogue
- Alliance for Spiritual Community (ASC)
| | |
1. Frames that Work?
