Turning to each other rather than creating heroes doomed to fail

Replies to This Conversation

Permalink Reply by Peg Carlson-Bowen on February 11, 2010 at 12:22pm

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'projectionists.' Do you mean that we project our hopes and dreams on a hero? Just wanted clarification.
I agree that many of us avoid difficult conversations--but what may be more significant is our preconceived notion that theses conversations are inevitably difficult. It's logical-- we extrapolate our experience from the past discussions involving different opinions--usually they weren't too much fun.

Perhaps I am an idealist . . . but I'm looking for a way to put people of different views in a room and have them talk about their values and goals, rather than simply identifying themselves with a 'conservative' or 'liberal' agenda.

This comes from years of experience trying to talk to someone I care about and respect a lot. This person believes that his political views are completely in opposition to mine. Odd thing is, no matter how many times we talk out an issue and find common ground, he continues to believe I am 'on the opposite side.'

I have heard of this working when opposing groups (such and management and labor) gather in separate rooms and list their values and goals--when they join each other in a room, they find the two lists almost identical.

I think I've wandered a bit from the conversation about heroes to a conversation about the same projection to political affiliations. Seems to be related.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vicky Schubert on February 11, 2010 at 12:50pm

Absolutely related, Peg. And yes, my intention was to suggest that we project our hopes and dreams onto heroes and then get disappointed in them when they let us down.

I hear your frustration with your friend's stubborn side-taking mental models. I'm often guilty of that myself.

One group that does impressive work with getting to values and goals in conditions of extreme polarization is the Public Conversations Project. They have worked directly with issues as divisive as abortion and sexual orientation in church life, and have learned a lot in the process.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Peg Carlson-Bowen on February 12, 2010 at 6:21pm

I took a look at the site--great resources! I think the document about the Red/Blue Divide speaks to my situation most. There is a great document also on the Nuts and Bolts of preparing and facilitating such community conversations--really wonderful material. It is downloadable as a .pdf, and is 188 pages long! So there's lots there to help someone prepare for this kind of discussion.

I haven't yet found a place to become involved in this challenge yet on a wider basis--but I will continue to explore.

I think we look to heroes as surrogate citizens, instead of taking those duties on ourselves. We are all so busy and pulled so many ways.

In social media, I see a way to efficiently project our values and not take too much time. I find that many thoughtful videos on YouTube do express what I value, and I share that with others on Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. Sometimes, this provokes a thoughtful discussion, or at least a response with 'I like this!'--perhaps that can remind me that we're more in agreement than we might imagine.

I think the Public Conversations Project, with its roots in helping to address the Right to Life/Choice debate so many years ago, was the group I had heard about. I've marked it a favorite on my browser. They have some workshops that might come around locally.

BTW, is there an archetype that addresses the 'hero' syndrome? Be interesting to see if anyone had been able to use this to uncover/illustrate a situation in a community or business group they've worked with.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vicky Schubert on February 13, 2010 at 8:15am

Peg,

There is an excellent discussion going on right now about "conservative/liberal dialogue" on the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation's main listserv. If you're not aware of them, NCDD is a very active community of practice (and friends of the World Cafe) with lots of resources and committed participation. Look at the section headed "the main NCDD Discussion list" on the NCDD's website.

The archetype that comes to mind for me around hero worship is "shifting the burden." We assuage our surface level symptoms (frustration and anger) with a quick fix (hero will solve it), only to learn that we're actually intensifying the underlying problem (a lack of participation in policy making) by ratcheting up the polarization as our "heroes" represent more extreme positions, making it harder and harder to engage with each other in mutually respectful conversation.

But thanks to World Cafe and PCP and NCDD and others--and of course, people like us--it's not hopeless! To your point about social media, I agree that the Web has opened whole new channels for engagement on questions that matter, and for finding the things we can agree upon. But it has also opened new channels for champions of extremist views to gain adherents (largely by leveraging people's fears, in my opinion). Do you think the power of conversation and participation will prove stronger than the power of fear, and we can get this country out of this polarized paralysis?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Peg Carlson-Bowen on February 14, 2010 at 10:21am

At our various get togethers (World Cafe, Systems Thinking), so far I encounter only those already ready to tackle these conversations, and are disposed to opening up to possibilities. And, of course, there are few in the room that hold extremist views.

I think that fear mongering is preventing those who may want solutions (don't we all?) from finding them. It's a paradox, but fear feels 'safe'--it's familiar, we know what it is to feel fear, and it doesn't challenge us with something new. As you say, it does 'shift the burden' to someone else--someone else is creating this problem, not me, so I don't have any responsibility to change things.

Our natural 'fight or flight' mechanism kicks in---flight from honest conversation, fight when we do talk together.

Will fear win? It's an awfully strong adversary, in others and in ourselves. When I have been in a difficult conversation, I have found that the only way to move forward is to drop all my defenses, not give in to what is being put out to me.

So what can we do? Continually re-engage with those who are not like us.

I first learned this while observing a leadership program put on by the California Agricultural Leadership Foundation (www.agleaders.org). The program facilitators invited--early on in the two year program--guest speakers they knew would present controversial views, then let the unguided Q&A session (inevitably) degrade into conflict. Then they would ask the participants to evaluate the exchange. The participants would soon recognize on their own that their dialogue skills were inadequate, making them quite ready for the leadership training that followed. One of the tenets was recognizing that fear make things less safe, not more. Fear doesn't lead to solutions, only more problems.

I think the people who are well-versed in World Cafes have used it, in business and community groups, to bring together people of very different views, but I haven't seen this much, being a novice at this, usually only seeing it in very collegial situations. Thanks for giving me some resources that can help me engage more in the difficult conversations, especially in the world of politics.

Like much of the country, I'm weary of the continual fighting. Discourse and debate are part of our tradition, but I don't think stalemate is. If it were, given all the arguments when the constitution was being written, it never would have been signed.

▶ Reply to This