 |
On structure and looseness. On autocracy, majority, and freedom. Out-people and in-people
|
|
|
|
On structure and looseness
No structure leads to nothing happening, makes depression and emptiness and falling apart. Structure kills living and sets routines and boxes for people. The argument is an old one. Without structure it doesn't happen, there is no when, where, who or what. But sticking people into structures kills it too.
We believe (and don’t always act on the idea) that there ought to be a lot of structure, preparations, times, places, and organized things to do, but then people ought to be left free to change them, to do from these preparations what they can make out of it, and not just what is prepared. We see this also as a sentience-form-sentience chain. We need structure and form, but it should emerge from living and should be a vehicle for further living, which will surely change the structure further.
Freedom doesn't really relieve you of planning and organizing, freedom only adds the further dimension that there will be more organizing every time a new person or group enters the scene – and not because they have to make the decisions all over again, but because what is there is for their living.
On autocracy, majority, and freedom
Of course, it's better for all to decide, than for someone to boss everyone around. But there’s a third way. You can let all do what they will and can, and give them feedback afterwards. That way there need not be those interminable and deadly meetings in which the few who know the details have to argue with the many who don’t. Let those who know the details take the actions on those details, they have to do it anyway, and the meeting has to decide as they knew anyway - because they know what can work and what won’t. If the meeting decides otherwise, what happens? There only has to be another meeting - to change the decision. Majority is eyewash, except on really major issues of direction - and even those are better not decided at all, so that everyone can learn attitudes and insights from others, instead of foreclosing that with a decision.
If you care very much, what is done in the name of the group, that’s an obstacle. Then you have to control everybody (just because they're in your name group. Outside, in the world, a whole lot of things go on which you can't stop. ) But if you can stand it when, in the name of your group, someone does or says the opposite of what you needed to be done or said, then everything becomes free. Of course, you can still also dialogue with them, but not everything people do can get so it feels okay with you.
Out-people and in-people
It seems important, in a transitional time, to let there be relations between people who are staying in some old-line function, and those who stay outside of these. Out-people need resources, training being shared with them, and some way of developing life and work roles. In-people, who sense what is wrong inside, need connections with what is trying to be built outside, with new ways and new feelings. Many in-people aren't really in-types of people at all, and have more identity with out-people, yet they stay. Some do so for good reasons, others cannot find good reason and wonder every day how long they will stay. In-people can give resources, training and opportunities, while receiving sustenance for their inner life and needs to be committed to positive changes.
|
|
|
Our group, basically an out-group, enables a number of in-people to contribute to it, and in turn gives belonging and connection vital to people who live in isolating straight places.
But these are relations between individuals helping each other. On the other hand, if an " out" organization as such ties itself up with an " in" one, it is soon lost. Then the in-people have to function as officials of the structure, and they cease to be open and more sensitive and creative than their organization.
To summarize, the organizational model of Changes has the following characteristics, among others:
1. All of a person's life functions are relevant and can be brought into the organization and advanced there.
2. Our role definitions are the same for all, and helping is mutual as far as the role definition goes. At one time or another everyone will do both.
3. Anyone who comes and is present is a member, just by being present. It is better to work with people by letting them be part of us, and by working with each other. There are no qualifications for belonging.
4. Any type of work or task can be chosen by any one. Usually a team forms so that some who know how are involved too.
5. Times and places are set up by the people who will meet, but aren't necessarily always in the same place or time. Whatever places and times in their lives people want to take someone into, they do. Conversely there is no implication that everyone should allow everyone else into every part of their lives.
6. The idea, not always followed, is that difficulties are taken up with the person with whom one feels the difficulty, rather than behind people’s backs; someone else may be brought in to ensure that both people are heard.
7. People exchange feelings and attitudes and ideologies, rather than laying down one way and excluding those who don't like it. Nobody in the organization is the spokesperson for it.
8. There is not majority rule binding on everyone, therefore it is not awful if one's own view or way is not, at first endorsed by many others. One can still go on working and talking as one wishes. (Therefore, one can also be more at ease listening to what others might be right about, or be interested in why they don't grasp the value of one's own views and ways. ) It means bearing it, that in the name of the organization people sometimes do things one would not want or be proud of.
9. There is a community in which everyone is welcome, and on Sunday and some other times there are places people come, and everyone is welcome. There are also subgroups which meet when they wish and do not invite everyone. Their intimacy develops in depth, as could not occur if only open meetings with always new people existed.
|
|
|
10. Closeness is neither avoided, nor required. It develops where it can and where people want it.
11. People don't hide the closeness they already have with some others, so that the open meetings come to have some of this closeness which some people have developed.
12. Ideology and personal matters are not split - if ideology matters very deeply to a person, that person is heard, just as anyone should be heard on what matters to them. Conversely, personal reactions are not pushed off as being beside the point or the task at hand. This speeds things up, rather than - as always seems at first - getting in the way. We get to find out what really is under someone’s arguing, rather than only hearing repetitious arguments.
13. We have " rules" and " roles" that define, for example, that one can ask someone to listen very personally. (Any Changes member can be asked to spend an hour listening. Anyone can go up to anyone else and say, " Would you be willing to listen to me for an hour, I have something I need to get into. " The person asked can say no, that too is part of the role definition. )
14. Another Changes role definition is that one can ask any member, not just for one-way help, as above, but for a mutual exchange. " I think I'd like to know you, can we spend some time? " is a way of saying that to each other. Again, this includes the asked person’s refusing if that feels right to do. Although we don't always manage, we believe in being straight and honest.
15. We try to have things organized - and then still leave it to people to change what was arranged as they need to. We sometimes have written policies for how to do things, but then people do things as they wish. Anyone may write such a statement. We have plans for every large meeting (including times without structure so people can just be with each other), but if people don't like how it is planned they can say so and change it on the spot.
16. We don’t spend much time on decisions, and don’t believe that housekeeping decision-making is living. It isn't even a model for practicing life, as so many people seem to believe. We would rather have something going on or planned, to react to, than spend half our time making decisions. A small group plans and decides. Everyone knows where and when they meet and everyone is welcome to participate. Few do. A very small amount of time is taken announcing these decisions. If something else is wanted, those who want it can arrange that too. Large meetings are for good things, not ''business, " though sometimes that can happen too.
17. Anyone may announce or say anything they wish in any meeting. Anyone may form any kind of group about anything; that is to say, they may ask if there are others who want to join to do that.
18. No distinctions are made as to age and culture. Without deliberately working on it, the group is a kind of bridge for some, between age groups, between regular and counter culture, between races, between sexes.
This organizational model is very generally applicable, but some of what has been said probably applies only to organizations in which ordinary people can do what used to be called " therapy, " and can aid each other in doing that. Then no one need be dependent on just one other person for help in personal difficulties, there can always be a team, a group, many people to choose from, so that if someone isn't felt as sufficiently helpful, there are others. Also, when aiding someone gets burdensome the organization has the explicit rule that others may be asked in, to help carry the helping task. Both for these reasons, and for one's own living, there needs to be a group something like Changes.
|
|
|
