can we dismantle the master's house with the master's tools?
on my way home from yet another 12 hours in the trenches of group dynamics, i was incredibly happy and satisfied about my day. i'm not sure what it is about me in particular that connects so deeply with what i am experiencing; i'm curious because i want to tap into what it is i am responding to in the conference and channel that into my reality. all of us go and spend an entire day doing hard, challenging work, but there is something about the nature of what we do and what we talk about that keeps me so engaged, in a way that i don't look at it as work as much as it is existence. this is not the reality for other people. in our last NOW meeting, several people felt tired, or sick, or distant (it is amazing how our bodies physically express what we are psychologically feeling in the conference). i, on the other hand, felt buoyant. i talked animatedly about my thoughts of the day, revelations, reflections, experiences. it's been truly amazing... i'm not sure if its something i would recommend to everyone, as it seems that not everyone has come out with a positive experience.
***
i actually woke up early this morning and got ready, and it was only en route to the conference that i ran into some obstacles. i didn't realize that there was not an 2/3 express train downtown, and jumped on a one to 42nd street, then tried to transfer to the A/E to fulton street, but the E was not running downtown from 42nd, and by the time the A showed up (running local) i knew i was going to be incredibly late. on my way down, i thought about what i would do at the conference, knowing that i would have to make a late entrance that would probably get commented on. part of me wanted to just sit out the first session and wait in the hall because of a sense of shame i felt for not being able to arrive on time. another part of me, though, thought, "why should i be ashamed? i didn't plan for this, it was an honest mistake." by the time i got to the conference, i had to decided to attend my SEE small group, and walked in and sat in an empty chair. as predicted, the consultant to the group made a comment about the lateness in reference to authority and what that meant for the group. this comment was not addressed, as a conversation about a tension surrounding race relations within the group was occuring. an older black man and a middle aged white man had, for some time, dominated the space with their discussion about authority and authorization, who gives, who receives, who earns, etc. the consultant made a comment about unspoken voices speaking volumes or something like that, and i had a sense she was talking about me. i didn't feel the need to speak, or i didn't feel i had the space to speak, given that the issue revolved around a specific racial conflict in which the asian (and foreign) voice seemed to have no standing. the time boundary passed, and we entered into our larger MORE group.
within the MORE group, an interesting dynamic occurred from the onset. first, two members of the consultant team did not have chairs, and there was a big to do about the symbolism of having a space for the consultants within the group. what did that mean given that, when the chairs were first arranged, there were enough chairs, and when the moment arrived to sit, there were no longer chairs. interestingly, the asian female consultant made this comment, and i spoke up, rather snidely: "maybe you should have arrived in time to claim a seat in our group." i mention this moment only because, in my reflection later, one could interpret that act to be me pushing against the authority of the asian female consultant and asserting my authority as the asian voice in the group. one of the members of my SEE (and incidentally the ambassador of my WE group) spoke up and said that he hoped that we would talk as a group and not as dyads, which seemed to give the group voice and purpose. it is interesting to me to note how we are suddenly taking up the authority that we resisted so strongly the other day. the group started to talk about feelings, and tension, and how we communicate with each other that dehumanizes or disengages others, which was extremely provocative. but then, the conversation seemed to disintegrate when someone pointed out that the white women were not speaking, which set a different tone for the discussion. suddenly, the conversation centered around the black/white/race issue for sometime and, empowered a little bit from my frustration during small groups i stepped up to the plate and offered that "if we want to talk about lack of voice and dehumanizing, when we focus on the differences of black and white we alienate those who are not involved in that conflict, and we do not give people with other, less obvious differences space to have a voice." let it be noted that i was extremely nervous to have spoken up, and my voice quaked on the verge of an emotional breakdown. its an extremely hard thing to speak in these settings and there is a real fear of attack. it was incredible feeling to have so many people come up to me later and thank me for voicing their own concerns and feelings, because in a group setting it is important to recognize that when we stand up for something we are often standing up on behalf of a group, and that we are carrying more than our own emotions. this is a hard thing.
probably the most incredible (okay, i know i'm using that word a lot, but it is what it is) experience has been working with my WE group. as i mentioned in our previous post, our WE group formed around the theme of addressing hegemony/oppression through social change. i'm not really sure what the magic mix is that makes our group so cohesive and engaged, but each of us comes to the group with a different understanding about what it means to live in a hegemonic society, and we have really rallied around creating a forum to have that discussed. jenny and i talked about how respectful we all are about each other, and that we are somehow on the same page about not only our understanding of what are role within the conference, and what are roles are within the group. we seem to take our own authority without oppressing other individuals' authority within the group, which was an idea i really grappled with yesterday (can more than one person hold authority in a system?). most exciting is how our group really lives our philosophy and enacts it. when our ambassador to the council was elected to as a representative of the council to the management, we looked at the situation and asked ourselves: what does this mean? does it really give us power, or does in diminish our voice? we decided that, by virtue of serving two roles, alex was now in conflict, and would begin to serve the role of the group he spent the most time with, namely the council, thereby taking away our representation. we then took it upon ourselves to confront not only the council but also alex about how our interests were marginalized because of alex's new role, and how we had formulated a hypothesis that alex was elected to represent the council as a way of ousting our voice from the group, given the contentious circumstances through which our group was formed. in some amazing coincidence, when part of our group was confronting alex and the council, a group of management had stopped by to deliver a hypothesis about what was going on our group, which was almost verbatim to our very own hypothesis!
later in the day, some groups came by to talk to our group about what our process, purpose, mission was, and we engaged in a discussion with them about what our theories were for social change and our role in that process. one topic that came up over and over again was the issue over how we had taken it upon ourselves to create a group and claim resources outside of a group process that was occurring. it felt a little uncomfortable to be named as the insurgent who started it all, but my fellow group members came up to bat for me. interestingly, i'd like to note that by the very act of writing my group name and room number on the board, i had somehow unmired a mired process as people began scrambling for resources. i mentioned to my group earlier in the day that we can think of hegemony in general terms as understanding who controls access to resources and who does not have access, which is a line of understanding i hope to develop more tomorrow (i can't help the economist frame of reference, and john l. pointed out that many different perspectives come out of the conference, i just happened to really gravitate towards a political economy interpretation of the events). in any case, my point is that, by writing "theories of social change" on the board, i had already created social change because it changed the access to resources. our group had claimed a room, which, in our conference was a limited resource (there are only seven), and in doing so, the entire group of people had scrambled for the remaining six rooms. they had managed to organize themselves, albeit hurriedly and chaotically, but had organized themselves nonetheless. i'm also fascinated by our group's humble beginnings. like i mentioned before john l. and are in the SEE group together and have some great connection, probably over the fact that he went to michigan state and i went to michigan (i'm telling you... something about me and the big ten just works). what the consultant has been hypothesizing around was that maybe i looked up to him as a father-figure, but i confided in her and my NOW group that i have a very close relationship with my grandfather that may be manifesting itself. *shrug* i'm still mixed about that family projection stuff. john l. is a really cool guy and i think our similar philosophies just happened to emerge pretty quickly in our discussions, so when he turned to me and said: "i'd love to talk to about hegemony with you some more." i took him up on his offer when the opportunity came to create a group around a theme. i hunted for him in the large group and said: "let's do it." and thus, our idea was born.
one thing i am exploring about myself within this setting is how much of a rebel i might actually be. which comes as a great shock to me since i consider myself pretty middle of the road politically, socially, etc. i'm not an extreme, but it seems that i have this part of me that really challenges a certain kind of authority and revels in insurgency.
while this events that unfolded in this conference occurred in a controlled and artificial setting,there are a few ideas so much of it i feel might be could be translated into practice in the world, particularly in relation to social change/impact... one in particular is: do not wait for someone to authorize you to claim your space: in thinking hard about the simple act of writing my group's name on the board, it occurs to me that i had stepped out of the group process and virtually decided that no one was going to tell me whether or not my group was going to be allowed to exist. while the rest of the large group discussed the merits of having an asian group or an lgbta group, i was essentially asserting that my group was not up for negotiation. i had created it, i had found my membership, and i had claimed my resources. i accept that because of the way our group was conceived we have had to live with certain repercussions, but i am glad that we did not have to compromise our existence in the interest of acquiecsing to a group consensus. while i have felt conflicted tremendously about my actions, in the end, i'm really proud and surprised at my boldness, because i can see that i have created something.
***
i actually woke up early this morning and got ready, and it was only en route to the conference that i ran into some obstacles. i didn't realize that there was not an 2/3 express train downtown, and jumped on a one to 42nd street, then tried to transfer to the A/E to fulton street, but the E was not running downtown from 42nd, and by the time the A showed up (running local) i knew i was going to be incredibly late. on my way down, i thought about what i would do at the conference, knowing that i would have to make a late entrance that would probably get commented on. part of me wanted to just sit out the first session and wait in the hall because of a sense of shame i felt for not being able to arrive on time. another part of me, though, thought, "why should i be ashamed? i didn't plan for this, it was an honest mistake." by the time i got to the conference, i had to decided to attend my SEE small group, and walked in and sat in an empty chair. as predicted, the consultant to the group made a comment about the lateness in reference to authority and what that meant for the group. this comment was not addressed, as a conversation about a tension surrounding race relations within the group was occuring. an older black man and a middle aged white man had, for some time, dominated the space with their discussion about authority and authorization, who gives, who receives, who earns, etc. the consultant made a comment about unspoken voices speaking volumes or something like that, and i had a sense she was talking about me. i didn't feel the need to speak, or i didn't feel i had the space to speak, given that the issue revolved around a specific racial conflict in which the asian (and foreign) voice seemed to have no standing. the time boundary passed, and we entered into our larger MORE group.
within the MORE group, an interesting dynamic occurred from the onset. first, two members of the consultant team did not have chairs, and there was a big to do about the symbolism of having a space for the consultants within the group. what did that mean given that, when the chairs were first arranged, there were enough chairs, and when the moment arrived to sit, there were no longer chairs. interestingly, the asian female consultant made this comment, and i spoke up, rather snidely: "maybe you should have arrived in time to claim a seat in our group." i mention this moment only because, in my reflection later, one could interpret that act to be me pushing against the authority of the asian female consultant and asserting my authority as the asian voice in the group. one of the members of my SEE (and incidentally the ambassador of my WE group) spoke up and said that he hoped that we would talk as a group and not as dyads, which seemed to give the group voice and purpose. it is interesting to me to note how we are suddenly taking up the authority that we resisted so strongly the other day. the group started to talk about feelings, and tension, and how we communicate with each other that dehumanizes or disengages others, which was extremely provocative. but then, the conversation seemed to disintegrate when someone pointed out that the white women were not speaking, which set a different tone for the discussion. suddenly, the conversation centered around the black/white/race issue for sometime and, empowered a little bit from my frustration during small groups i stepped up to the plate and offered that "if we want to talk about lack of voice and dehumanizing, when we focus on the differences of black and white we alienate those who are not involved in that conflict, and we do not give people with other, less obvious differences space to have a voice." let it be noted that i was extremely nervous to have spoken up, and my voice quaked on the verge of an emotional breakdown. its an extremely hard thing to speak in these settings and there is a real fear of attack. it was incredible feeling to have so many people come up to me later and thank me for voicing their own concerns and feelings, because in a group setting it is important to recognize that when we stand up for something we are often standing up on behalf of a group, and that we are carrying more than our own emotions. this is a hard thing.
probably the most incredible (okay, i know i'm using that word a lot, but it is what it is) experience has been working with my WE group. as i mentioned in our previous post, our WE group formed around the theme of addressing hegemony/oppression through social change. i'm not really sure what the magic mix is that makes our group so cohesive and engaged, but each of us comes to the group with a different understanding about what it means to live in a hegemonic society, and we have really rallied around creating a forum to have that discussed. jenny and i talked about how respectful we all are about each other, and that we are somehow on the same page about not only our understanding of what are role within the conference, and what are roles are within the group. we seem to take our own authority without oppressing other individuals' authority within the group, which was an idea i really grappled with yesterday (can more than one person hold authority in a system?). most exciting is how our group really lives our philosophy and enacts it. when our ambassador to the council was elected to as a representative of the council to the management, we looked at the situation and asked ourselves: what does this mean? does it really give us power, or does in diminish our voice? we decided that, by virtue of serving two roles, alex was now in conflict, and would begin to serve the role of the group he spent the most time with, namely the council, thereby taking away our representation. we then took it upon ourselves to confront not only the council but also alex about how our interests were marginalized because of alex's new role, and how we had formulated a hypothesis that alex was elected to represent the council as a way of ousting our voice from the group, given the contentious circumstances through which our group was formed. in some amazing coincidence, when part of our group was confronting alex and the council, a group of management had stopped by to deliver a hypothesis about what was going on our group, which was almost verbatim to our very own hypothesis!
later in the day, some groups came by to talk to our group about what our process, purpose, mission was, and we engaged in a discussion with them about what our theories were for social change and our role in that process. one topic that came up over and over again was the issue over how we had taken it upon ourselves to create a group and claim resources outside of a group process that was occurring. it felt a little uncomfortable to be named as the insurgent who started it all, but my fellow group members came up to bat for me. interestingly, i'd like to note that by the very act of writing my group name and room number on the board, i had somehow unmired a mired process as people began scrambling for resources. i mentioned to my group earlier in the day that we can think of hegemony in general terms as understanding who controls access to resources and who does not have access, which is a line of understanding i hope to develop more tomorrow (i can't help the economist frame of reference, and john l. pointed out that many different perspectives come out of the conference, i just happened to really gravitate towards a political economy interpretation of the events). in any case, my point is that, by writing "theories of social change" on the board, i had already created social change because it changed the access to resources. our group had claimed a room, which, in our conference was a limited resource (there are only seven), and in doing so, the entire group of people had scrambled for the remaining six rooms. they had managed to organize themselves, albeit hurriedly and chaotically, but had organized themselves nonetheless. i'm also fascinated by our group's humble beginnings. like i mentioned before john l. and are in the SEE group together and have some great connection, probably over the fact that he went to michigan state and i went to michigan (i'm telling you... something about me and the big ten just works). what the consultant has been hypothesizing around was that maybe i looked up to him as a father-figure, but i confided in her and my NOW group that i have a very close relationship with my grandfather that may be manifesting itself. *shrug* i'm still mixed about that family projection stuff. john l. is a really cool guy and i think our similar philosophies just happened to emerge pretty quickly in our discussions, so when he turned to me and said: "i'd love to talk to about hegemony with you some more." i took him up on his offer when the opportunity came to create a group around a theme. i hunted for him in the large group and said: "let's do it." and thus, our idea was born.
one thing i am exploring about myself within this setting is how much of a rebel i might actually be. which comes as a great shock to me since i consider myself pretty middle of the road politically, socially, etc. i'm not an extreme, but it seems that i have this part of me that really challenges a certain kind of authority and revels in insurgency.
while this events that unfolded in this conference occurred in a controlled and artificial setting,
posted by cheeky monkey at 10:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home