Pages

Monday, December 20, 2010

The Scarlet X

The Task
Think of an extremist...what are the top three things that come to mind.
Ok, now a moderate...what comes to mind?

Now that you have done that, think about each of the following people, how would you characterize each of them, as an “extremist” or a “moderate”?



Frida Kahlo
Glenn Beck
Geronimo
Rosa Parks
Sarah Palin
Emma Goldman
Mahatma Gandhi
Nelson Mandela
MalcomX

Hmmm, does that make you want to change your answers to the first questions?

Is "extremist" just a label or a stereotype?
Does history change the evaluation of an extremists?
And perhaps most importantly, can we separate extreme ideas from extreme behaviors?


That’s how we began what became an excellent discussion at today’s Public Participation Learning Community meeting.

Our wide-ranging discussion touched on the following points:

The Diagnosis
When we call someone an extremist, might that tell us more about us than it does them? Is it just a response to the discomfort we are feeling? Are we just reacting to a difference between their world view and ours? Perhaps we are being overly diagnostic. And, does attaching that label to someone affect our own ability to work with them? Do we sometimes not let the extremists talk because their views are too different from our own? We live in a society that is very quick to judge and is often intolerant of things that make us uncomfortable. Things that threaten our worldview are “not normal.”
The Behaviors or the Ideas
Can we separate the behaviors of people from the ideas they are proposing? Is someone an extremist because they are proposing radical ideas that fundamentally rather than incrementally change the system? Sometimes those we might label as extremists are pioneers, innovators, first movers, who see something clearly that most of us aren’t seeing. They may be people who are willing to fail, they may be willing to leave people behind, and we might even think this is OK unless we have an attachment or a stake in their failure.
To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate?
Are there times when we shouldn’t be seeking consensus from a group? The example of the mediator's joke that had a mediator been on the bus with Rosa Parks it might have set back the civil rights movement by 20 years. So, if a negotiation isn’t always appropriate what kind of moral obligation does this place on a facilitator? Facilitators need to guard themselves with great vigilance so that their own discomfort doesn’t cause them to “abandon the richness of disagreement.” We must be vigilant against “the worst kind of consensus, the tyranny of mediocrity” where a consensus is foisted upon us by exhaustion or alleged deadlines.
Shopping for Extremists?
When we think of group processes, are there times when the extremist point of view is the most helpful? Maybe we should make sure the extremists have a voice at the beginning during the framing of the issue/problem. Maybe we should even "shop" for certain viewpoints to make sure they are a part of the discussion. But if someone is given the label of extremist--the big scarlet X--will they be able to help shape the discussion?
The Scarlet X
Once you are labelled an extremist it often doesn’t matter what you say anymore. It can feel quite horrible to wear the scarlet X, and we should have compassion for those who do. Presenting an extremist view point can be a courageous act. As a facilitator you should ask yourself: “Am I creating a space for courageous acts and if I am not, then what the hell am I afraid of?” The discomfort an extremist can invoke in the group can be a service to the group. Groups with a devil's advocate come up with much better solutions to the problems they attempt to solve.
Sanctuary
How do we create a safe space for courageous acts?
Start with shared values and move on from there. Make the distinction between accepted wisdom and common sense (see Sustainable Capitalism). Let people know they will feel some discomfort. Create Sanctuary. Create art spaces that catalyze a conversation--art has the capacity to help us create spaces to let go of our preconceived ideas. Remember that while some people are looking for quick answers, a lot of us are looking for more deliberative answers and that requires slowness.

----
There were many more wonderful points made in the discussion, so those of you who were a part of it, what parts did I miss? And of course, those of you who missed it, please let us know what you think!

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Jury and Democracy

The Jury and Democracy Project blog provides great discussions, ideas, and resources regarding Juries and collaboarative processes. They have even discussed the idea of a Jury training program! Check it out.

"The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Too often, people think of the jury as nothing more than a means of reaching verdicts. In fact, serving on a jury can change how citizens think of themselves and their society. Our purpose is to study those changes."