[Oe List ...] Respectful Dialogue - a monday morning thought

[James Wiegel]

I looked up the word "decision" in the dictionary this morning.  It comes from the same root as Incision, and scissors -- means to cut.  I was reminded that decisions and decision making is, in a sense, a savage business -- kind of like the arrows from Bultman or Kazantzakis imagery.  Insights and reflections like Frank's, approaches like Nancy's. consensus, voting are all trying to give form to a very serious process -- in a way that gets, hopefully, a better decision, and does less injury along the way than whatever it replaces . . .

frank bremner <fjbremner at hotmail.com> wrote:      .hmmessage P  {  margin:0px;  padding:0px  }  body.hmmessage  {  FONT-SIZE: 10pt;  FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma  }    I have two images about "consensus" which may help in the current discussion.  I too have noticed how "consensus" can silence the dissenter, or the person with a "but .....", or the person with a "po" (Edward de Bono's name for an item that wopn't fit into "yes" or "no").  I've been thinking about this through my work with high school students, using ICA/ToP methods, at school level.  And then again working with high school students at state level, where sitting around talking ("blah!") was "the method" being used by those in charge.
 
 
(1)
At a LENS seminar in Adelaide in 1974 or so, David Zahrt used the idea of a "map" to illustrate "consensus".  This really grabbed my imagination.  The "consensus" is a map of "the lay of the land".
 
(2)
In the 80s, when working with high school students, I developed the "map of the lay of the land" to include the disagreements, the fuzzy bits that wouldn't flatten out, the edgy bits that wouldn't straighten up.  In other words, the consensus could be a "map orf the may of the land" that represented the real "lay of the land".  The participants then have to own that "lay of the land" as belonging to the whole group and then work with it.  
 
The result might be something very articulate, and containing elements of paradox or natural tensions, and might emerge during the planning (or whatever) session.  Or the result might be something for a team to go away and work on.
 
At least, with the "'lay of the land" in front of them, participants can start to see the interfaces or connections between various viewpoints - "what do we have in common?"  How do these items relate to each other?  Is there "A and B" rather than "A or B"?
 
 
For me, taking this approach got around the (often false and imposed) urgency of "forming a consensus now", which can lead to only the loudest voices being heard, or the status quo (also known as "the party line") being reinforced.  And on one hand bringing some pre-prepared model was OK ("having a model"), and one the other hand it wasn't (it was "lobbying").
 
Taking the approach in (1) and (2) above honoured all participants and all contributions.  Even the slightest "but ..." could hint at a breakthrough or a new insight.  It's like Paul Dirac thinking (out in left field) "Why can't we have negative matter?", and laying the groundwork for the theory of anti-matter and black holes.
 
Cheers from Adelaide, where we've been celebrating the Nobel Prize achievements of the father-and-son Bragg team some decades ago.
 
Frank Bremner
 
 
 
 


 
_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net



401 North Beverly Way   
Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
+1  623-936-8671
+1  623-363-3277
   jfwiegel at yahoo.com

Now and then it's good to pause in the pursuit of happiness and just be happy.  Guillaume Apollinaire
       
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071015/3c2b4603/attachment.html