Bcc: misc. Dear friends & neighbors, Several people have written in support of the Zen transformation idea, suggesting that what we need is a 'movement' to push it forward. At first such a suggestion seems out of tune with the lessons of the quest: Movements, even when they become successful revolutions, do not leave us with a lasting society-as-community. But as some of you have pointed out, this critique may not apply to movements which are about process instead of about agenda, about 'mind changing' instead of about 'programs'. Let's explore this possibility a bit. Imagine a movement whose objective is simply to promote collaborative consensus sessions, particularly ones that deal with problems in physical communities and neighborhoods. Such a movement would presumably involve an activist network of facilitators and facilitator trainers. It would also reach out to and involve community activists and local citizens' groups of various kinds. By bringing 'those trying to solve problems' together with 'those who can facilitate', such a movement might be able to get 'the walk' going in our societies. And since the movement is focusing on 'the practice', rather than on 'the goal', it would seem to be consistent with the Zen perspective. What this means is that the movement would ~not~ want to put forward 'transformation of society' as its 'goal'. If it did, it would be likely to fragment immediately as people began to debate what a transformed society should look like, and whether there might be faster ways of getting there. On the other hand, it might not be a good idea to put forward 'consensus facilitation' as a program either. For one thing, such a goal would appeal mainly to those in the facilitation field, and those who already have experience with consensus and group process. It would not have a strong appeal to those more interested in solving some immediate problem, or who have another vision of how conflicts should be resolved. This goal would be ~too~ narrowly focused on the details of the practice. It would be as if Zen were promoted as a 'sitting game'. 'Transformation' is too big, and 'consensus' is too little... is there anything 'just right'? Permit me to suggest 'community empowerment' as a goal such a movement could effectively put forward. 'Community empowerment' makes sense to people with immediate problems and to community activists, as well as to people who know about facilitation and group practice. It emphasizes what people ~gain~ from the movement, rather than what the movement might ~do to~ them'. Let's assume the movement begins to chalk up some success stories. If the movement wants to publicize those successes, the most effective way would be to describe the advances made in the communities, and to point out that the people 'did it themselves'. This is likely to attract attention from other communities - it would be in their own self interest to pay attention. They would be less interested in the details of the process than they would be in the answer to this question: "Can you folks help our community make similar gains? Can we also move toward empowerment?" And since 'community empowerment' is an ever-unfolding endeavor, the movement never loses its steam no matter how many successes it experiences. There is always a bigger community that needs forming, all the way up to global society itself. And all along the way there are new problems to solve, even after the elite regime has faded into history like a bad dream. --- To be sure, there are already people out there pursuing 'community empowerment'. Some of those may be using quite different methods, and there could be some ruffled feathers and territorial responses to a new movement sporting that same title. I suggest that any such conflict would be a perfect target for our trusty consensus-session process. Why not gather into a session diverse folks from the ~larger~ community empowerment movement, along with some of our 'collaborative consensus' folks - and see if we can't forge together a spirit of 'community' and mutual understanding among us all? -- Comments invited from all quarters. nasrudin
Share: