Copyright 2004 Richard K. Moore _________________________________________________ CHAPTER 4: HARMONIZATION IN THE MICROCOSM * A very promising gathering in Michigan In June, 2004, twenty four diverse "opinion leaders" were invited to a conference in Michigan which had the following stated purpose: The purpose of this gathering is to [initiate] a new kind of public conversation that moves us beyond polarization so we [can] effectively address the issues we care most about. . . . The participants were from all across the political spectrum, including a former FBI agent, the National Field Director of the Christian Coalition, a founding member of the National Congress of Black Women , a board member of the National Rifle Association, the president of a left-leaning legal-issues organization, former Weather Underground supporters, and former speakers at white racist gatherings. Is this gathering a joke? From such a radically diverse conference one might expect fist fights and shouting matches to emerge, rather than any kind of agreement or consensus. Tom Atlee, one of the participants, expressed his misgivings prior to the gathering this way: Using Google, I researched the people who were coming to the conversation. I read articles by the conservatives and listened to their radio talk shows -- and I got triggered by what they said. I reacted with anger, frustration and rejection of who they were. I thought silent counter arguments and felt the rise of adrenaline. Friends warned me to be careful -- or couldn't even imagine going to talk with such people. But somehow, at the conference in Michigan, the outcome transcended these negative expectations. It turned out to be a very productive meeting. Another of the participants, Mark Satin, wrote an article about the experience, and he sums up the results this way: Before leaving, we all signed our names to a document titled "We the People." Many of us signed with flourishes, as if we were signing something akin to the Declaration of Independence. Here are the key passages: "We respect our differences and recognize America needs every one of our viewpoints, ideas, and passions -- even those we don't agree with -- to keep our democracy vital and alive; "We recognize that meeting here and across our land for dialogues across differences builds trust, understanding, respect, and empowerment -- the conditions necessary for freedom and democracy to live in us and around us; "And, therefore, each still grounded in our own considered views (conscience and convictions), we commit ourselves and our communities of interest to foster dialogue across the many divides in America, in large and small groups, to build trust, insight, and inspired action toward the more perfect union we all desire". How were these people able to cut through their differences and arrive at a statement they could all sign their names to? Why did these people take the trouble to get together with their political 'enemies' in the first place? Why do they now feel it is important for them to keep working together? Was this a one-off event or is it something that could be repeated elsewhere? Could this be a microcosm of how factionalism might be overcome in our society generally -- could it be part of the response to our Harmonization Imperative? Could this be a way to give real meaning to the phrase, 'We the People'? * Meeting dynamics: collaborative & adversarial Consider for a moment the many kinds of meetings that occur in our society. In business, meetings are held regularly to make plans and coordinate people's activities. If parents feel that their children need a crossing guard on the way to school, then they organize a neighborhood meeting. When a country decides to go to war, that decision is made in some meeting among high-level officials. In government one wonders if they do anything but go to meetings, whether they be official government sessions, or meetings with staff, colleagues, lobbyists, backers, or constituents. If people want to start a political movement, they begin by organizing meetings. The American Revolution was born in New England pubs, where the rebellious minded held meetings and plotted against the King, inspired by the local brew. Although many of us have negative feelings about meetings, and about their effectiveness, the fact is that meetings are the place where people generally make joint plans and reach group decisions. Some of these meetings are collaborative, and some are adversarial. We are all familiar with both kinds. A typical example of a collaborative meeting would be the neighborhood gathering mentioned above, where the parents would like to see a crossing guard assigned to a dangerous local intersection. The people have a common goal, and they work together cooperatively to achieve it. People offer suggestions for actions which can be taken, the suggestions are discussed, and people volunteer to help with the actions that are agreed to. If the meeting is successful, everyone comes away better off -- the concept of winners and losers is irrelevant to a collaborative meeting. A typical example of an adversarial meeting would be a city council session where a controversial development project is being discussed. The developers and business community are showing slides of beautiful landscaped buildings and talking of new jobs, while neighborhood protestors are complaining about increased traffic and the loss of a children's playground. The typical outcome of such a meeting is that one side wins and the other loses. Either the development project goes ahead, and the neighborhood suffers, or else the project is rejected and the investors may suffer considerable losses. It is very unusual for anything creative to happen at an adversarial meeting. People, or factions, come in with agendas to promote -- agendas that were created somewhere else. If the meeting is unable to resolve an issue, it is typically deferred -- and people are expected to go off somewhere else and create revised proposals. The 'somewhere else' -- where the creative activity of planning occurs -- is generally a meeting of the collaborative variety. In our city council example, the developers and promoters have been meeting collaboratively for months preparing their project plans and their city-council presentation. Similarly, the neighborhood protestors have held collaborative meetings to assess their feelings and to decide how best to express their concerns to the city council. The adversarial meeting -- the official 'decision making' meeting -- is not a discussion session, but is rather a battle of strength between the two opposing sides: Which side can muster the most support among the city council members? Which side can spout the most convincing rhetoric, painting its own proposals in the colors of the common good? Parliamentary sessions in liberal 'democracies' are based on the adversarial meeting model. A chairman governs the proceedings, proposals can be introduced, time is allowed for debate, and a majority vote decides each question. The 'debate' is typically rhetorical, for public consumption, and seldom affects the outcome of the vote. This is not a system designed to solve problems nor to encourage useful discussion -- it is a system designed to efficiently measure the relative power of opposing factions, and to promptly assign the rewards to the strongest. Just as the floor of the stock market is designed to efficiently manage the investment transactions of the wealthy elite, so is the floor of the parliament designed to efficiently referee power transactions among elite factions. A collaborative meeting operates according to collaborative dynamics, and an adversarial meeting operates according to adversarial dynamics. Collaborative dynamics are about people seeking common ground, identifying common problems, and working creatively together to find mutually beneficial solutions. Within collaborative dynamics people have an incentive to listen to one another's perspectives, and in the problem-solving process the group typically converges toward a consensus perspective on the problems at hand. Adversarial dynamics are about people debating from their fixed perspectives in an attempt to prevail over the other side. There is little incentive to listen to the other side, apart from looking for weaknesses that can be exploited. Each side may attempt to shift the perspective of the other side, but neither side has any intention of shifting its own perspective. Whereas people learn useful things about their shared problems within collaborative dynamics, the only thing learned within adversarial dynamics is how to better combat the other side. Collaborative dynamics tend to resolve group factionalism when it arises, while adversarial dynamics tend to reinforce and encourage group factionalism. * A gap in our cultural repertoire These two meeting models are very common in our society, and indeed they are more or less the extent of our cultural repertoire. We know how to get together with our allies and make plans to promote our shared interests, and we know how to fight for our side in an adversarial gathering, according to whatever rules are in play. What we don't know much about, and don't have many cultural models for, is how to resolve differences within a group of people. We don't know how to engage in productive dialog within a group of people who express conflicting interests. In an adversarial meeting the differences are accepted as a given, as a fixed quantity, and the business of the meeting is to enable the different factions to battle it out until a winner can be chosen. There is no attempt to resolve the differences: people go away with their perspectives unchanged, and the same factions retire to prepare for their next engagement. When people come into a collaborative meeting, they come in with the knowledge that they are bound by common interests to the other participants. Indeed, the people come together in order to collaborate in advancing those common interests. In order to 'get on with it' and 'make progress', participants tend to avoid bringing up internal differences in such meetings. At such a meeting a 'good leader' will be skillful at defusing differences, articulating compromises, and keeping the meeting 'on track'. Minority factions within the group are encouraged to stifle their 'divisive' concerns, and join the majority in a 'consensus' that will advance the identified common interests of the group. And in the competition between different factions, success tends to go to those which are best able to submerge their internal differences, focus on their primary interests, and adopt decisive action plans. Under neither dynamics is there an attempt to engage in constructive dialog regarding the differences in the group. Under adversarial dynamics there is dialog over differences -- but it is the dialog of power, expressed in the language of influence and votes. Under collaborative dynamics, discussion of differences is avoided, so that the group can focus on their identified common interests and get on with their primary business. In the one case difference are expressed competitively and are reinforced, and in the other case differences are suppressed. In neither case are differences resolved. This gap in our cultural repertoire creates a problem for popular initiatives, particularly in a society which is already split by factionalism. Indeed, the gap can lead to difficulties whenever people attempt to work together. Here's an example I observed on a recent visit to the San Francisco Bay Area. The population there is relatively progressive, and there is widespread support for an increased focus on public transport. But instead of people getting together and coming up with a common proposal, people soon divided themselves into two camps. One camp wanted to expand the conventional rail network, while another wanted to expand the rapid-transit system. Most of the available activist energy was then devoted to a struggle between these two camps. As I read over the positions of the two camps, as an outside observer, it seemed obvious to me that the best of the ideas could be usefully combined into a cost-effective hybrid proposal. The real solution, it seemed, would be to make strategic interconnecting links, and coordinate upgrades, among available transport systems -- rather than promoting one kind of transport to the exclusion of another. Of course my own arm-chair proposal probably didn't take everything into account, but the main point remains: the two camps were fighting over their differences rather than trying to resolve them -- and missed any opportunity to find synergy in some creative middle ground. The collaborative meeting model could not serve the two camps, because neither side was willing to stifle its ideas -- so the activists adopted the only other available cultural model: adversarial engagement. As a consequence of this split in popular activism, the transport planning decisions will most likely be made by speculative developers and their politician cronies, and whatever they decide they will be able to claim their decision has 'public support'. Most of us consider public meetings to be a waste of time, particularly when they attempt to deal with issues that are complex or controversial. This is because we have prior experience with the dynamics that are likely to occur. First there will be an attempt to reach a rapid consensus, most likely proposed by those calling the meeting. Then someone in the back stands up and disagrees, voicing some objection. That sparks other suggestions and objections. The meeting threatens to 'get out of control' -- to revert to adversarial dynamics. The organizers attempt to bring the dynamics back into collaboration. If they succeed, then some of the participants go away feeling their interests have been betrayed; if they fail, then everyone goes away with the feeling that yet another meeting has been a waste of time. Because of these circumstances, anyone with a motivation to pursue political activism soon learns to flock with birds of the same feather. Environmentalists flock under a green banner, animal rights activists follow their drummer, other groups rally around their opposition to corporate power, or their stance in favor of or against abortion rights, etc. In order to get anything done, collaborative dynamics are required, and gathering together in interest groups seems to be the natural thing to do. Those gathering together already agree on what's important, and they are thus able -- depending on their organizational ability -- to get get on with a program, rather than 'wasting time' debating the priority of different issues. In this way the energy of popular initiatives gets sucked into the game of adversarial factionalism -- a game whose rules are set down by elites for their own advantage. Just as in Las Vegas or Wall Street, this is a game where the house always wins in the end. If we want to overcome factionalism at the macro level, at the level of society, we must first learn how to overcome differences at the micro level, down in the grassroots where people meet face to face. We need to extend our cultural repertoire to include gatherings of a third kind, where people neither compete to win or lose, nor submerge their differences in order to reach a shallow consensus. We need a third dynamics, a dynamics of harmonization, a dynamics that encourages us us to express our concerns fully, and which enables us to work creatively with that information to find ways forward that benefit everyone involved. If our cultural repertoire can be extended in this way, at the micro level, then we may find that there are new ways of working together on a larger scale as well -- ways that avoid the quicksand of adversarial politics. * The dynamics of harmonization Although harmonizing dynamics is not part of our mainstream culture, it is a well-developed part of certain sub-cultures. In particular, if we look at the management-consultant and meeting-facilitation communities, we find that harmonization (under various names) is a rapidly expanding domain of knowledge and practice. In the pursuit of greater efficiency and competitiveness, corporations want their internal teams to work more effectively together -- and this has spawned a whole industry of consultants and facilitators. As a consequence the state-of-the-art of facilitation has progressed along many lines, and some of those lines have produced very promising results as regards harmonization. Indeed, there are several proven facilitation methodologies that focus on overcoming group differences at a deep level, thereby unlocking creative synergy that was previously blocked by divisiveness or misunderstanding. Not all of these methodologies were developed in the industrial context, but corporate support has overall provided a boost to this field of practice -- and success in the domain of corporate teamwork provides hard evidence for the effectiveness and value of these techniques. These facilitation techniques have proven to be successful in socially-oriented contexts as well, as evidenced by the outcome of the Michigan gathering. An extensive listing of initiatives and methodologies relevant to harmonization dynamics (closely related to what Tom Atlee calls "co-intelligence") can be found on Tom's website: http://www.co-intelligence.org. These techniques are proven and reliable. They enable groups to transcend their differences, discover their underlying common ground, and come up with creative, breakthrough solutions to difficult problems and seemingly intractable conflicts. Furthermore, people who participate in one of these session generally report that they find the experience to be personally transforming. This kind of facilitation is not about a leader guiding the group through an agenda or a problem-solving system. The main job of the facilitator, in achieving harmonization, is to enable the participants to learn how to listen to one another. That turns out to be the key to harmonization -- really listening. Listening without thinking about a counter-argument at the same time. Listening without judging and dismissing. And beyond that, listening with the respect that every person deserves and that we ourselves would hope to receive when we speak. Our culture doesn't give us much experience with this kind of patient and respectful listening. Typically in social conversations we are thinking about what we're going to say next instead of really listening. In adversarial meetings we listen in order to retort, and in collaborative meetings we are only interested in hearing things that move the agenda forward. It never seems like a good use of our time to pause and really listen to what everyone has to say, even those we might consider to be divisive or uninformed. But such listening is possible, we can all do it if we have a bit of support, and when it occurs amazing things happen. The Michigan gathering was a particularly dramatic example, involving people who are deeply committed to radically opposing factions. At the end they created and signed a "We the People" declaration, and we will return to examine the substance of that declaration. Perhaps more significant than the specific document is the fact that this group could reach any agreement at all, and perhaps still more significant is the fact that the group expressed a sense of solidarity. The title itself, "We the People", indicates an amazing and surprising outcome from this particular group. My own introduction to harmonization dynamics came in a roundabout way. I had organized a gathering in Berkeley of about a dozen progressive activists and thinkers. My intention was to to explore with the group certain ideas that I had been developing. I had learned about consensus decision making and was convinced that the key to an effective movement could be found in consensus. If we could agree on a vision for a new kind of society, and if we could agree that radical change was necessary, then we could reach a consensus that might become the basis of a radical popular movement. Since we all shared progressive views, I figured we should be able to avoid divisiveness, and consensus would be achievable. I prepared a discussion agenda and my intention was to lead a discussion based on the agenda, the last item of which was to document whatever consensus we had reached. For a while the meeting seemed to be going 'on track'. We got through a good portion of the agenda and wrote down many points of agreement on several flip charts. And then someone spoke up and complained about the agenda. He had other things in mind he wanted to talk about. I considered this to be a divisive interruption of our process, and a threat to the 'progress' we were making in our 'limited time'. I tried to get the discussion back 'on track', but he persisted in his objections. At that point, feeling frustrated and 'threatened', I totally lost awareness and told the fellow he should go off and organize his own meeting(!) I'm sure you can imagine how my rude outburst affected the tone of the gathering. Any momentum we had achieved suddenly evaporated. There was a seemingly endless moment of embarrassing silence. I wished I were somewhere else, as I was expecting some measure of deserved ridicule from the group. But something else happened instead, something that transformed the gathering and created a space that I hadn't visited before -- the space of real dialog. A woman spoke up and asked if I'd mind if she tried a bit of facilitation. Relieved to see the focus of attention shift away from myself, I readily agreed to her offer, not knowing what 'facilitation' was or how it could help. What she did was very simple. She asked the other fellow what he was expecting from the meeting and then she asked me the same thing. His answer was basically a repetition of what he had said before, but somehow I could now hear it as a sensible concern rather than as a disruption. When it came my turn to answer I felt like I was making a public 'confession'. I was opening myself up to a kind of vulnerability I wasn't accustomed to -- the vulnerability of being really 'present' and 'exposed'. As other participants shared their thoughts about the session, that's when I realized that our exchange was now taking place in a different space than before. It was a space occupied by people, rather than by ideas, 'discussion', flip charts, and 'progress'. I had always thought of dialog as being primarily a logical interaction among ideas, as in the pages of a scientific journal. In this new space I realized that dialog has a more profound dimension. Dialog is the means by which people express who they are. It is the means by which they become 'present' in the group. By 'listening to people', rather than 'hearing ideas', we allow a shared space of openness and trust to emerge. As people express their concerns, in an atmosphere of respectful listening, the space expands and everyone's presence expands. The group becomes a 'We' rather than just a cluster of individuals. Not a manufactured, compromise We, where diversity is submerged, but an empowered, alive We, where diversity is embraced -- all of it adding to the collective experience and insight of the group. In this space, diversity brings synergy rather than conflict. Being in this space was a powerful experience. It wasn't a new-age "We are one with the cosmos" experience, and it wasn't a brainwashing "Merge with the group" experience. It was more like the experience of being part of an effective team: "We are all present and now we can do some good work." It became clear to me that until this kind of presence comes into being, dialog can only exist in the black & white space of abstract ideas. With presence, and with listening, I felt that We could tackle any problem and We would do so with technicolor synergy -- with a spirit of intelligent, creative, collective inquiry. Unfortunately, in the Berkeley gathering, we didn't have enough time left to do much with the experience -- other than for us first-timers to get a taste for what might be possible. Let's return to the Michigan gathering, which was better organized and able to go further. Mark describes the first evening's activities this way: On Friday night, we broke into three groups (of eight participants and one facilitator each) to discuss such questions as, What did you understand about being an American when you were 12 years old? How have you experienced political differences and how did that affect you personally? It was impossible to participate in that exercise without coming to see (and feel and know) that every participant, whatever their politics, was a complex and caring human being. This description is extremely brief, but we can see the same basic elements I experienced in Berkeley. People were invited to become present by expressing who they are, and what kind of experience they've been through. And as a consequence of this open sharing, in a space of facilitated listening, the focus was on the people, and their mutual respect, rather than on any specific issues. As the weekend progressed, the group moved on to examine questions like, "What is missing in conventional political discourse?". Conflict was expressed as well as agreement, but the group was able to do something creative with the conflict as well: Someone tried to classify participants' approaches as "left" or "right." Someone on the right took umbrage with that, feeling that the qualities cited as "right" were insulting stereotypes; and that pressed many people's buttons; and round and round and round we went, and the afternoon shadows grew longer. But the end result of that conversation is we all realized -- I mean, we all really "got" -- how misleading and even infantilizing the old political spectrum had become. In another exercise, the participants were asked to tell about each of the key decisions they'd made in their political lives: Everyone stared, some of us open-mouthed, as various "left"-wingers and "right-" wingers, former Weather Underground supporters and former speakers at white racist gatherings, shared the incidents that shaped their lives. And revealed without even trying that every caring person is a brother or sister under the skin. And that our values are at some deep level fundamentally the same. With these kinds of breakthroughs, we can understand how the group was able and willing to sign their "We the People" declaration. They also decided to co-sponsor a larger, follow-up conference -- and they agreed to pursue a few other collective projects as well. We'll return in the next chapter to explore the political potential of this thread of initiatives. For now, I'd like to focus on the dynamics of the gathering. Earlier, I drew a distinction between collaborative and adversarial dynamics, and suggested that our culture is lacking -- and needing -- a dynamics of harmonization. In that discussion I was talking about ideas and issues, and the problem of how to resolve differences. In this current section, we've seen that it is possible to enter a space where the dynamics of harmonization operate -- but the door to that space seems to be about people rather than about ideas and issues. And in going through that door, its seems that we may experience some kind of personal transformation. Mark reported a transformation in terms of his activism: ...for the first time in many years, I feel enthusiastic enough about an incipient political movement to want to put my shoulder to the wheel. In the Berkeley gathering, my transformation was about the realization that the people part of dialog is more fundamental than the issue part of dialog. Tom Atlee says, regarding the Michigan gathering: In the end I experienced a deep, gut-level transformation. I had a profound personal shift away from Left/Right framings that was comparable to my earlier shifts away from sexism and homophobia. It seems that there is no single flavor of transformation that occurs in this space of harmonization. Rather, we each tend to undergo whatever transformation is needed to remove those internal blocks that prevent us from being present with a particular group at a particular time. The dynamics of harmonization are quite different than adversarial and collaborative dynamics. Harmonization begins by expanding the space to include everyone's diverse concerns and interests. Adversarial and collaborative dynamics both begin by limiting the space to narrowly defined issues and interests. Participating in the space of harmonization involves being open and present as a complex human being. Participating in an adversarial or collaborative space involves only being an advocate or opponent of some issue or proposal. The experience of harmonization often leads to personal growth and transformation, while adversarial and collaborative experiences tend to reinforce pre-existing positions and attitudes. Harmonization breaks down barriers between people and enables them listen to one another and to find common ground at a deep level. Adversarial and collaborative dynamics reinforce factionalism and regard deeper issues as being irrelevant or divisive. Collaborative meetings provide a space in which factions can rally together and plan their strategies. Adversarial meetings provide a space in which factions can compete for dominance. Harmonization-based meetings provide a space which may enable us to do away with factional divisiveness altogether. In the microcosm of a facilitated gathering, we know it is possible for the empowered spirit of We the People to be kindled. We know that in that space of harmonization it is possible for this empowered microcosm to work together effectively and creatively as a group. At the level of the microcosm, assuming the availability of appropriate facilitation, we can see a way to overcome factionalism and bring We the People into being. This leads us to several useful questions: How can the practice and understanding of harmonization dynamics be brought into the mainstream culture? How can the availability of facilitators be expanded, or alternatively, how can the need for facilitators be reduced -- so that the dynamics of harmonization can be practiced more widely? How can progress in the microcosm be translated into progress in the macrocosm? That is to say, how can We the People come into coherent being at the level of a community, a region, a nation, or the whole globe? How can We the People become a 'player' in society and in global affairs? And if We achieve that, how can We dialog with, or engage with, the established regime so as to respond effectively to Our Transformational Imperative? How can We the People create a new society, and can we (you and me today) anticipate what that society might be like? These are the questions we will be investigating in the rest of this book. _________________________________________________