Revision of Process formats for gatherings by Finn Voldtofte from April 26, 2008 - 13:46

What processformats can be of service? I address this question in the light of a reflection of evolution of social skills.

At a stage in civilization mankind came to address the issue of bodily safety. A point in evolution came, where it began to be unacceptable to kill each other, beat or harm one another. Exceptions were commonly accepted when punishment for breaking law was the purpose, and towards slaves, in upbringing of children and for a husband to regulate behavior of his wife. Over time, in more and more cultures even the exceptions are disappearing – not as actions experienced, but as what is accepted as legal and decent.

At a later stage of civilization, decency on the level of mind was negotiated. Once a scientist could not state his findings, if they were in conflict with the church. Galilaei had to withdraw his postulation that the sun, not the earth, is center in the universe. Now we have understood freedom of speech and print, and have rules and standards for academic decency, Truthspeaking is an obligation in court and in public government. These understandings are often seen violated, but they are held as non-negotiables.

On the level of the heart, when it comes to relational issues, some things have been learned, and other things are still in civilisatoric negotiation and learning. There is often no consequences drawn if someone acts as an emotional terrorist in a meeting or in the public space by flaming anger and denunciation of others. And in many cultures children are still brought up by punishment and threats rather than by love and support.

Likewise, on the level of soul, on the level of free will, mankind have understood the importance of freedom – and have fought wars in the name of freedom. I think we in many ways are still at a stage where we have not really understood that we can not just beat each other up on the soullevel (or on the heartlevel for that matter). A question is coming to the foreground:

What is decent behavior - what are acceptable standards when it comes to how we show up, meet and engage with each other on the level of soul?

I don’t claim to have answers to that question, but I have some reflections and suggestions on a very practical level when it comes to processformats for gatherings like Evolution Salon and Moving The Edge.

But first some general thoughts:

I think speed hurts soul. So it is decent to slow down. Go slow. Take time. Pause. Be well rested.

On the soullevel we are very powerful, maybe powerful beyond what we are aware of. Discrimination, grief and anger are powers that can be of service, but they should come in adequate quanta and with precision on what it is aimed at. I think we can help each other a lot in learning this.

Some are holding space for others – and it is a service to do so. I think that whenever space needs to be held for something it points to some lack of freedom on the soullevel. It may replicate as lack of space for aspects of heart, mind and body.  Say that space is being held for deepening in an inquiry, it could point to some fear that is blocking free will . It may not be appropriate to address that fear in a specific gathering, so holding the space for deepening serves well.

Thoughts on processformats:

Processformats engaged should not cage the freedom of soul.

All processformats can be useful as long as they are engaged by each individuals acceptance of invitation to step into a specific procesformat.

If an invitation is for a conference, with plenary presentations and preset workshops in breakout groups that you sign up for, then that can be a way of organizing that accomplishes something, while of course other things are opted out with this format. Personally I am likely to not sign up for a conference like that, but if I did it would be my responsibility to find my way through that experience.

If an invitation is for a cafe seminar, with many simultaneous conversations around small tables, all in the same room, seeded by questions that matter, and with the many conversations weaved to one larger conversation by our moving between tables as guided by a cafe-host – then that way of organizing has proven to be valuable.  If you know that that is what you are invited for, and you accept the invitation, then you probably will enjoy it and benefit from it.  If cafe-dialogue is used in situations where it is not made clear to the participants, some may find it to loose and unstructured in relation to what they want, and others may find it to structured and rigid in relation to what they think is possible in the group.

The same holds for an invitation to Open Space. If I am invited to a gathering, where the day starts with the opening of a marketplace, where whoever wants to announce and commit to do a workshop, give a lecture or presentation, host a conversation or inquiry can do so, and the rest of the time we participate in whatever we want to, guided by what we have heart for – then I can make the choice to be there and take part, or stay at home.

If the invitation is for at gathering where we might use cafe and might use Open Space, and might use other processformats, but we don’t know by now (at the time of invitation) and we will have to find out in the course of the gathering – then that is completely possibly to engage in as a free soul.  The challenge will be to ”find out”, and not to enforce control in a situations where it is not negotiated and accepted.

There is a possible trap in this general, open processformat. The trap has the form ”let us all....(do the same thing)”. If it comes as a voicing of what is at that point true and authentic leadership, then it will be enacted with no flaws and no capturing of free soul. But if it is not completely authentic there will either be resistance, and it may take the form of an immediate counter suggestion of the completely opposite, or the suggestion will be enacted but it creates tension, because something is not allowed to be free.

I have experienced that even using the format of an ”every ones voice heard”- check in was too structured in a situation where a state of flex-flow was lively. Any attempt to guide in the form ”all follow the same procedure” died instantaneously.

So in conclusion: Any processformat could potentially be of service. Which ones do we choose to use? State that clearly in the invitation – and harvest the consequences of your choice as it shows up in who accepts the invitation. By invitation I mean not only the initial invitation for a gathering, but also the invitations extended at all subsequent stages of the unfoldment of the gathering.

Process without purpose is meaningless, so I have set aside as a given, that there is a clear purpose stated in the invitation too.

April 2006
Finn Voldtofte