Our conversation this afternoon is what I aspire to for our Tuesday evening sessions. That may be happening, but to the degree that it’s not, maybe we’re too attached to some of our old pedagogical methods and doing what Wheatley says is impossible–use a highly structured process to reach predetermined outcomes.

Randy

I agree that figuring out a way to sort this kind of thing out with a group is what I am after as well . . . I like these email exchanges / dialogues like this, though my sense is they don’t necessarily change anyone’s identity or image or behavior, let alone be applicable broadly to say, a group of ICA staff or execs or board members or ToP leadership, or all of them together.

and I can’t say what would . . . Margaret seems to focus on the “person at the top” and getting them to do something . . . she had 3 items in that video clip, a personal practice, focus on relationships and . . . I forgot the third one . . .

Steve Harrington has expressed interest in some better way of doing this sort of thing. GORDON — any thoughts from you?

Jim Wiegel

Just getting in —

Near midnight here as I get home, first chance to catch up on my load of emails today and this conversation. One accomplishment this afternoon, though–got several colleagues out here to contribute to Terry’s send off in some rather delightful ways.

I find I like a fair amount of what Meg says, and much of that is by way of reminding me of things rather than breaking new ground. She’s sharing her discernment of contemporary global trends and finding them very bleak indeed. Good bit of truth in the dark picture she paints. My old friend, Thomas Hardy, comes to mind: “If way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst.”

It also strikes me as good to challenge the belief that we should expect what we do to change large systems for the better–though even she seems to leave room for the possibility that our small actions may somehow participate in what she calls emergence. Just not something whose nature we can predict or pin our hopes to. She’s with Kaz on conquering hope.

Where I experience irritation is in what you call her “either/or” way of putting things, Jim. She seems to feel (and I have to confess I haven’t finished the book yet) that we have to choose, either on the one hand to go after transforming organizations or addressing systems of oppression and injustice–and thereby wind up in despair and failure–or on the other hand to work pretty much exclusively at the individual, inner and interpersonal levels. I guess I see this as a false dichotomy, but I’m still keen to see where she winds up in the book.

Liked the piece you linked to, Randy; I think people in the study group would appreciate it.

I have some scratchy thoughts on how we might support these conversations beyond email exchanges, but it’s a little late tonight to get into that. We’re heading off for a long weekend with friends and colleagues in Portland, our excuse being the memorial service for Marcus Borg on Sunday, so I’m hitting the sack at this point.

Let’s keep it going —
Gordon Harper

Gordon,
Just a quick thought on Wheatley’s either/or dilemma–I don’t think she’s saying you couldn’t take a run at both systems and individuals at the same time. I think what she is saying is that, after 22 years of disappointment, she has discerned that systems cannot be changed and therefore she no longer intends to try. That’s a bitter pill for us “structural revolutionaries” and is likely to be our main point of contention as a group. If we were to get into it with her she would probably just ask us to share what our track record has been. That might be a great inventory for us to take. I can readily point to the individual lives that have been changed, starting with my own, but when the focus shifts to systems and structures the going gets a little tougher. Example–in 1972 we proclaimed “the church has been renewed.” I still don’t know what we did or would point to in the institutional church to justify that claim. I understand the old cliche about how revolutionaries always define winning on there own terms and therefore they never lose, but in today’s environment that’s a little harder to get by with.
Randy

As for me I’m getting impatient with 2 things in the study:

Each session is organized as a 1 time season, no thought to re-use, sharing the model with a different group, Doesn’t work like a research PSU with an outcome to accomplish. The inquiry serves no stated or shared intention or vision like: What addre we trying to accomplish with this study and who is the “we”.

It feels like I’m going to class like a student to “get a good set of class notes” from the teacher who studied the chapter, constructed the chart, manages the questions and my contribution is by comparison, is incidental. The pedagogical approach is teacher oriented not learner oriented.

Steve Harrington

Originally developed in the mid 1960’s based on a variety of scientific and academic disciplines, the method is still in use today in a variety of settings. See for yourself.
https://top.memberclicks.net/book-charting