Using peer-to-peer ideas to grow consciousness movement

Heres a little video on how peer to peer ideas can help grow the consciousness movement

Self-organization and facilitation : Non-hierarchical governance part III

Facilitative processes have varying degrees to which they try to keep people on topic.

There are two processes – Open Space Technology (OST) facilitation and Dynamic Facilitation (DF) which allow people more freedom in expression. What it special about these social architectures is that this freedom of expression not only doesn’t disrupt the flow of the dialogue, but it is important in allowing for the collective intelligence to emerge. These architectures allow for a non-linear coupling of what is expressed to synthesize.

Open Space Technology (OST) does this by allowing people to self-organize to form groups around topics that they themselves propose. People flow from group to group to cross-fertilize the different discussions so they become connected. Dynamic Facilitation does this by allowing people to express what they want to, and then placing what people they are saying into the categories of Problem, Solution, Concerns, and Data. When all these thoughts are expressed in this way, the different points being made can connect with each other, and a larger creative understanding of the situation self-organizes into being, sometimes in a seemingly magical way.

If a facilitated process is going to allow any topic to be discussed then to avoid a kind of anarchic conflict-laden free-for-all mess a new space, a new dimension needs to be opened up where all the things being expressed can co-exist, and where the ideas can interact in a way that leads to emergence. The different columns in DF creates a conceptual geometric space that allows the different ideas being expressed (including those coming from the id) to orient themselves to each other. The small groups within the larger groups structure of OST creates a different type of conceptual geometric space, one based in physical architecture and movement of people, which allows the different ideas to express, whether they be from the superego, ego, or id.

Facilitation processes can also open up the space for emotions to be safely expressed. When the ‘space’ is too small negative emotions lead to a snowballing feedback loop which triggers more negative emotions. DF opens up a space where negative emotions can be more freely expressed, and in a way that leads to positive progress towards a solution because they get channeled into problems and concerns. Once the emotions lands in those spaces, they become useful energies to guide the conversation further. OST provides an interesting way for emotions to be released by allowing objections and concerns to be channeled into topical small groups. Whilst within groups OST there is sometimes not as much as emotionally intelligence as they could be, within the larger OST matrix of groups there is a collective emotional intelligence because different emotions gets to be expressed in different groups/pockets and thus released; and the emotions are released in a manner such that those who don’t want to hear it can move to another group.

In the panoply of facilitative processes out there, OST and DF are probably amongst the ones that tap most into the freedom of self-expression within the collective. And because they also have an architecture that allows for synergy to emerge from the disparate elements, an architecture that is so subtle that it seems almost naive in its simplicity to the untrained eye, these facilitative processes tap into self-organizational properties more than most.

INTEGRATING DF AND OST

DF is more successful in mapping how the disparate topics synergize, and to have more empathic communication. OST is more successful at letting large groups self-organize, and at being more efficient in the sense that many people can be discussing things at the same time, so more gets done.

If we have a larger group that wants to govern itself non-hierarchically an integration of OST and DF can work. By adding the domain-based (meaning there are different columns/domains ideas can be put into) conceptual space that DF opens up with the topic-based, physically oriented conceptual space that OST opens up we have an extra dimension for things being expressed to reorganize themselves in. The power of having this extra space for ideas to move in, is analogous to the extra freedom for physical objects to move in that is gotten in going from a two dimensional space and a three dimensional space.

The presence of these conceptual spaces is one of the variables that moves self-governance processes from being a chaotic anarchy to a divine, self-organizing emergent anarchy.

Lets look at the example of a hundred people coming together to clean up a creek, with the intention to govern themselves in a non-hiearchical manner. The project can begin with a DF process where the main problems, solutions, concerns, data are brought up. Then the group can transition into OST to look more in depth into some of the topics that are brought up e.g. how much of the creek to work on, who works where, how is debris transported away, safety rules, how to feed everyone who is working etc… There maybe some areas of conflict, e.g. one person wants to everyone to use gloves for safety, another person wants their autonomy in choosing whether to wear gloves or not. These conflicts can be one of the OST topics, and within that subgroup people can use DF to further work out the way to solve that conflict.

So in this example, we start out with DF in the large group, then break into small groups using OST, with many of the small groups using DF within the group.

resources:
Dynamic Facilitation Manual
Dynamic Facilitation website

Article on integrating OST & DF

Narratives and ontologies

There is a poignant lack of possibilities in the narrative structures  in the political-economic stories we tell ourselves. Our current cultural stories are a curious mix of hierarchical stories around government and corporations – presidents and CEOS are managing those below them, and non-hierarchical stories about the market – money and property self-organizes society to function best. What is dearly missing from our government and corporation stories are the non-hiearchical narrative stories for self-organization, emergence and the ontologies that make this emergence possible. And what is maddenlingly suppressed by our capitalistic memes are the narratives that allow for people to care about each other and self-organize into gift-based and commons-based economies

The ontologies for these new self-organizing systems do exist. In chemistry, biology and physics new ontologies have been entering into the discourse over the last 50 years- those of autocatalysis, self-organized criticality, phase transitions in dissipative systems, universality, iteration of simple rules leading to complexity, autopoiesis, strange attractors, feedback loops, fractals, cellular automata, fitness landscapes, coupling parameters, lock-in, multiple equilibria, increasing returns, path dependence, and the edge of chaos. New ontologies are also entering into the meme field from quite a different direction, that of the world of facilitation – Open Space Technology, Dynamic Facilitation, Theory U, Appreciative Inquiry, World Cafe, Bohmian Dialogue, Non-violent communication, Future Search, Wisdom councils, and Restorative Circles. This world brings its attendant concepts that shift the discourse from that of leader, follower, plan, incentives, obediance, loyalty, to those of hosting, space holding, vulnerability, emotional safety, sacred space, listening, empathy, presence, authenticity, diversity, synthesizing multiple viewpoints, and collective intelligence. There are also new ontologies ariving from the world of psychological and sociological research – the developmental theories of Robert Kegan, Susan Cook-Greuter, Jane Loevinger, Lawerence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Clare Graves, Don Beck, Ken Wilber look at how people and social systems become more caring, empathic, altruistic, and ethical as they mature.

These psycho-social insights around caring and morals have to be combined with the new ontologies around complex dynamics systems. Otherwise you get work similar to that arising from the school of thoughts based around the Santa Fe Institute of Complexity. Work that I generally find refreshing original and insightful, work from people like Brian Arthur, Kenneth Arrow and Stuart Kauffman on new forms of non-equilibrium and multiple equilibium emergence arising from our economics systems that are not expected from traditional neoclassical equilibrium theories of emergence (like single state equilibrium models of supply and demand). But their work is mired in an axiomatic basis that assumes people are selfish and work to maximize self-interest.

One way psycho-social insights can be integrated in, is to let the agents in a complex adaptive system exhibit different types of behavior depending on their psychosocial development e.g. a crude way in game theory would be to have agents maximizing self-interested fitness functions at lower levels of development, and have agents work to increase their self and the other players’ fitness functions at higher levels of development. These games can be used to model sharing economies and the commons. And be examined to see how different types of emergence correspond to different levels of psychosocial development in the agent populace. Different sets of stable states will appear for different levels, corresponding to a wide variety of possible behaviors in our sharing economies and the commons.

The integration of different ontologies is not simple nor linear : e.g. How can we map non-hierarchical government models and different types of facilitation into dynamical systems models? When the different ontologies, the different maps come together though there can be a deep aha : the decision-making in non-hierarchical government can be mapped onto the search for the best solution in a fitness landscape ; different facilitation methods can be mapped onto different types of trajectories through this fitness landscape. These interdisciplinary mappings, this new story opens up new vistas for understanding : in the above example this new interdisciplinary map can give us guidance for which facilitation method to use in which situation in non-hierarchical governance, because we can see which trajectories through the fitness landscape is most likely to yield the best and most efficient solutions. We then have new insights into what facilitation techniques to use in what situations for worker coops, for transition town meetings, for open source software governance etc. We can understand better why in some situations non-hierarchical decision-making can lead to endless loops with nothing happening, why in some cases it can descend into chaos, and what tweaks to our facilitation methods we may want to make to get out of those situations. We can also grok better why sometimes a facilitation technique like Open Space Technology can make a process so much more efficient that an organization project process which usually takes months ends up taking only a few days. This kind of theoretical basis can help pave the way for governments, businesses and non-profits to switch to more non-hiearchical forms.

There are a panoply of stories that one can tell about any given situation. How do we tell which ones correspond to reality and which to fantasy? In the hard sciences, in physics, chemistry and biology the story is tested by experiment. The experiment can falsify the story. The scientific path is strewn with discarded theories, including many that were at one time what the majority of people believed. This scientific approach has been emulated by psychology and the behavioral sciences. It has however been slow to be taken up by economics and politics. But progress is on the way. The amount of papers published in experimental economics and experimental political science is increasing. And some of those papers challenge the neoclassical economists orthodoxies. Experiments in economics show that increasing the amount of money someone can earn does not necessarily increase performance, it may in fact decrease it. Experiments demonstrate that people do not always behave to maximize self-interest, they will also act altruistically. Elinor Nostrom won the Swedish Banks Nobel memorial prize in 2009 for her work showing that a social system with a commons does not necessarily dynamically evolve to the equilibrium state known as the tragedy of the commons, it can in fact evolve under certain conditions (by varying the parameter of how much they interact with each other) to a state where people respect the commons, and partake of it in a way which leaves enough for everyone else. John Kagel ran an interesting game theory experiment where the propensity of participants to gift or not depended on whether the game theory payoff tables were made available. The reason for this may be that the presence of a payoff table sets the context for the story the participants were telling themselves. Without it they created another story about the game, one which allowed for the possibility of gifting.

Economic experiments in the future could map out more fully the workings of a gift economy where people gift each other services. For instance in a gift circle (where people share what they need and then help each other with those needs) the different types of stable states the system can evolve to could be tested for. The flow of people into a gift circle could be varied (thus creating a nonequilibrium flux) to see how that affects the types of stable states the system evolves to. Economic experiments can also map out the influence of narrative context for economic behavior, how does what story participants are told about what is happening affect the stable points and attractor states of the system? Political science experiments in the future could compare how different hierarchical and non-hierarchical structures affect the efficiency of a collective to work together. So for instance a group can be given a problem that they must work together to accomplish. Different groups are instructed to use different facilitation methods or to use command-and-control hierarchical methods. The success rates different organizational methodologies for solving the problem could then be analysed. The different types of paths each faciltation method took through the problem fitness landscape could be studied.

Complex system models could also come up with mathematical predictions for how these economic and political experiments would behave. Mathematical predictions that come true make a story much more believable. For the most part the mathematization has not happened yet. The socio-econo-political realm is known for being messy, a lot messier than the hard sciences. However dissipative systems offer the possibility that the messy dimensions of a social system dynamical decay, leaving beautiful numbers. In addition it may also be that the underlying complex systems structure may show through even if there is no decay of noise. In the Ostrom commons experiment above we may find that as we change the interactivity parameter of the participants there may be a phase transition in the type of commons behavior. As people interact with each other more, there reaches a point where people are connected enough that information is able to pass through a larger part of the system through one-on-one.interactions. In random graph theory Erdos has shown that as nodes in a graph get more and more connected, there reaches a point when the majority of the nodes are connected. This is the percolation point at which a new attractor state for the commons may occur. This kind of arising of new types of behavior is related to Stuart Kauffmans work on emergence and the edge of chaos which has to deal with topics like how molecules interacting with each other when they reach a certain level of interactivity can autocatalyse to produce life. This is also related to in physics of how varying the coupling parameter in a system will lead to different phases of behavior.

If this type of phase transition behavior occurs for commons outside the experimental lab, then this provides a new way of governance for the commons. For instance in a town which is implementing a commons-based bicycle program can instead of designing the rules for how the bicycles are used top down, can instead facilitate the town-folk in dialogue processes. If enough of the townfolk are part of the processes to so that interactivity degree is passed the percolation point, the group may emerge better ways of self-governing how they use the bicycles.

In traditional political economic discussions, where we have a hierarchical government with a self-organizing market, the debate is about how we can shift the parameters of interest rates, money supply, market incentives so that the society settles into the best attractor states. In these new paradigm discussions, where we have non-hierarchical governance, and a sharing & commons based economy, the talk is instead about a parameter that is quite different, a parameter that at first seems like it should not have that important bearing on the political economy, seems like it would not cause large scale changes in societal behavior. Its a variable however that complex adaptive systems shows us can cause phase transitions. This variable is how much and what type of interactivity the populace engages in. Its a parameter that depends on what type of facilitation processes the populace comes to dialogue with each other, what type of network connections exist. The political economic discussion is thus about how to vary this parameter to guide the populace so that the society settles into the best attractor states.

……..

The new stories, the new theories will combine autocatalysis, phase transitions, complex dynamical systems, with holding space, emotional vulnerability, empathy, facilitation and diversity of opinions, with circles, horizontal social architectures, agile project management, open source methodologies, peer-to-peer networks, and flat organizational developmental strategies.

Its a curious thing. Our stories guide us to write our reality. And because we then see our reality through these stories we think that is all that is possible. We collectively create these self-imposed constraints on reality. When we write new stories, our collective reality becomes different, we interact in new ways, we build new things, a whole new world becomes possible. These new ontologies mentioned above, as they become translated, fitted, tinkered, and molded to work with our political economy by practitioners versatile and conversant in multiple fields and daring enough to think outside the box will in the future craft a new story that will bring about a new friendlier, more participatory world our governments, businesses, organizations, and markets can play in.

……………………………
related articles:
“Complex adaptive systems and the future of facilitation“
“Collaborative rationality” a review of “Planning with complexity”, a book about complex adaptive systems applied to facilitation and planning

Designing a self-growing gift economy Part II

Lets apply some of the ideas in Part I to some specific examples.

Lets say you started your own neighbourhood tool library out of your garage. And its become quite well used. It will naturally inspire other related projects with other people, but there are some things one can do to improve the rate at which other sharing projects are catalysed.

This tool library can be the launch of other sharing projects in your neighbourhood. Perhaps someone else, lets call them Joe, has the idea of starting a bicycle library – people can come and donate their old bikes for fixing up which then are made available to the community to borrow. This project could initially get momentum in your garage. Maybe a couple of bikes could also be made available there in your garage. Joe could run the project from your garage maybe one day a week. The bicycle project would get some marketing help from being in the same place as the tool library. Then as more bikes come in and the bike library project gets bigger Joe could find another place to run the bike library. The bike library has thus used the tool library as a launch pad.

There are other things one can do to catalyse sharing projects in your neighbourhood. You can do is to organize a gathering where people who have ideas for other things they can share – baby clothes, books, bodywork trades, gardening help can all come. Then there is a discussion of the different steps to make these collaborative projects take off, you can explain what you did to make the tool library work. People can network at this event to help each others collaborative sharing projects take off.

As different sharing projects take off in your neighbourhood meetings at which are the projects are represented can help find different volunteers and help for different aspects of the projects. The cross-fertilization of help create synergies of all different kinds between the projects.

Decision making vs choice creating : non-hierarchical governance part II

We are used to thinking of governance as about decision making. However there is another model, that is of creating new choices and possibilities to the problems that there are. See this article that describes decision making vs choice creating in a facilitation process called Dynamic Facilitation. http://www.tobe.net/CC/choice-creating.html

Dynamic Facilitation and Open Space Technology both hold part of the keys to a powerful new politics and governance methodology for non-hierarchical organizations/collectives that moves beyond traditional consensus or majority voting methods.

In the Dynamic Facilitation method the facilitator stands by the whiteboard with four columns for solutions, concerns, data, and problem statements. When anyone speaks what they say goes into one of the columns. So what happens is that both problems and solutions are co-arising and being written down. Its a more non-linear proceess than simply stating a problem, coming up with a proposal that addresses that problems, and then making a decision about the proposal.

How to govern non-hierarchically

How does one come to decisions in a non-hierarchical system?

In coming to a decision the different sets of needs, skills, and worldviews of the people involved can be taken into account, and a analysis, a meaning system, a narrative of what is unfolding emerges.

The emergence of the narrative, the analysis should take account as much as possible all the needs and skills of the stakeholders. When it does this right there is an arising of collective intelligence. When this doesnt happen as well there is chaos.

In the consensus process General Aseembly process what can happen  is it becomes a pro vs con debate about the decision. In this kind of process the needs of all involved may not be considered fully. There is an emergence, but an emergence that doesn’t tap fully into the collective intelligence of the group. If the process can transcend this pro vs con level of discussion, it can become a coming together, an integration of the different needs and views. However this can take some time, and is not the most efficient way to emerge a way of seeing things that takes into account all stakeholders.

In an Open Space Technology facilitation process people can volunteer to begin discussion topics on different aspects of an issue. This leads to more different approaches to the issues. And many more people giving their input at any one time. As the different groups cross-fertilize their discussion the best ideas come to the fore. It doesn’t allow the group to get hijacked by a disruptive elements in a large consensus making circle. A narrative and meaning system emerges more naturally in this process  because many more different needs, worldviews, skills are integrated into the narrative and discussions.

From a complex systems perspective Open Space Technology (OST)  leads to better governance because i) diversity leads to resilience in complex systems ii) parallel discussions of multiple circles lead to more computation ability of the collective than serial discussions in big circle  iii) the ways the different groups form in OST and reform lead to the group being connected in ways that are closer to the edge of chaos where the system can compute more solutions algorithmically.

General Assembly consensus methods often take a long time. Open Space Technology facilitation which has been used by many organizations often find that they can shorten projects from months to days when using Open Space Technology facilitation. Heres a list of ways Open Space Technology facilitation has been used.

On justice in non-hierarchical groups

If someone does harm to someone in a group that uses consensus based decision model, how is justice meted out? For in a consensus model the offender also has an equal say in things, and they can block any punishment.

The solution is to go beyond a punitive justice system to a restorative justice system. In a restorative system people victim and offender come together in a facilitated process, where awareness is brought on the hurt that has happened, where the offender has a chance to make amends for what they have done, and where space is created for forgiveness to happen. So there is  a shift from dialogue to heal, as opposed to decisions about punishment. A good example of restorative justice is the restorative circles that Dominic Barter started. www.restorativecircles.com

Looked at through the lens of Ken Wilbers Integral four quadrant model, a punitive justice system creates a duality between victim and offender in the  lower right quadrant which is about the external system one is in. And  the relationship between the victim and the offender is not healed in the lower left quadrant which is about the intersubjective space. A restorative justice is about undoing the duality between victim and offender in the lower right quadrant, and about bringing about a healing relationship between victim and offender in the lower left quadrant.

In Integral Theory as you move up developmental levels, as you move to a higher holon, you decenter from the a worldview and see something from a more detached point of view. Restorative justice happens at a higher developmental level than punitive justice, and in it people develop the ability to decenter from seeing things either through a victim or offender lens, and see to a place beyond that where the duality can be healed.

Designing a self-growing gift economy Part I

An intriguing social design challenge is to figure out the conditions under which a gift economy will grow bigger.

So for instance lets say you have an weekly event where people come to gift each other services and share goods. How could that be the seed for birthing a larger gift economy in one’s local community.

Burning Man, Occupy and Rainbow gatherings are examples of gift economies that can grow bigger. More people come and offer their services for free over time. They create a kind of open-sourced space.

Here are some ideas of what can help a open-sourced gift economy grow (note: projects refered to below are gift-based projects):

1. Have an easy way that people can come and help with projects

2. Have an easy way that people can come and offer their services, or start their own projects, and find others to help them with their projects

3. Make it fun and festive

4. Create a communal vibe

5. Allow spaces for self-expression

6. Facilitate people meeting each other and conversing

7. Have transparency in processes so people can see under the hood to understand how everything is working

Occupy as new societal model and ways to improve it

One of the compelling attractions of Occupy is that it is modeling a possible socio-economic-political paradigm for how society can run. It is a model the whole world is beginning to watch. For those who come and participate in it, its a learning experience, a training in this new paradigm.

Occupy’s general assemblies model a participatory democratic method. This method has been crucial in allowing people joining the movement to feel they have an integral part in it, and it has been key to not allowing one voice or agenda to take over the show. Without it, Occupy would probably be a much smaller movement. The general assembly has created a space where people can share many different worldviews and experiences, listen to each other, and learn how to move as a collective. It’s a rich, informative, and educational experience for many who participate in it.

Here are notes for how the general assembly works from a guide found on howtooccupy.org:

“What is a People’s Assembly? It is a participatory decision-making body which works towards consensus. The Assembly looks for the best arguments to take a decision that reflects every opinion – not positions at odds with each other as what happens when votes are taken. It must be pacific [peaceful], respecting all opinions: prejudice and ideology must be left at home. An Assembly should not be centered around an ideological discourse; instead it should deal with practical questions: What do we need? How can we get it? The Assembly is based on free association – if you are not in agreement with what has been decided, you are not obliged to carry it out. Every person is free to do what they wish – the Assembly tries to produce collective intelligence, and shared lines of thought and action. It encourages dialogue and getting to know one another. (Author’s note: a number of Occupy nodes are now using modified consensus and usually have working groups for food, medical, legal, art, etc.)

Occupy also uses a gift economy model as people share goods and services, and all sorts of donations flow into Occupy nodes. There is a sharing of food, clothing, bedding, bicycles and computers. Occupy is a small village self-organizing into being, with free workshops, talks, medical aid, libraries, solar-powered electricity, music, yoga, bodywork, media, and bike repair. Experiencing this sharing may be quite a beautiful experience. That a gift economy can be used to create and run these small villages may come as a surprise to those who are used to living in a social system that uses market-based incentives to motivate people.

The socio-economic-political processes Occupy uses could also be improved, though, as we are sure most of the participants would agree. The general assembly method is sometimes a little too slow and runs into bottlenecks, and different voices can have a hard time getting heard because of time issues, because it can be too scary to speak in front of large groups or because of a variety of other issues.

There are also ways that distribution of goods and services at Occupy nodes could be improved. Some specific examples of difficulties and inefficiencies that have arisen:

• People having to discuss for several hours each day for consecutive days whether to portion a certain amount of money for an art project at Occupy.
• A group that was set the task to get much needed trash cans for Occupy found it hampered by what it felt were too many conditions set by the General Assembly about what kind of trash cans to buy.
• There are newcomers who have opinions and want to dialogue but do not know what groups to go to, and who sometimes simply interject their opinions in groups they stumble upon without regard for flow.

How well Occupy will grow depends in part on the effectiveness of the basic political and economic processes it borrows or develops, the ability of these governmental processes to be both inclusive and efficient, the way its internal economic process can shift resources and skills to areas where it needed, avoiding possible bottlenecks.

Here are some suggestions (some of which are already being tried out at a few Occupy locales) for things that we can bring to the Occupy movement to improve its socio-economic-political processes:

1. Run Open Space Technology ( www.openspaceworld.org ) facilitation processes. These processes are helpful when the issue is complex, there are many different voices to be heard and the solution comes from a synthesis of a variety of aspects of the issue. The process allows for both self-expression and collaboration. It self-organizing nature allows for solutions to emerge out of the collective intelligence. Its been used for groups strategizing to save the eco-system, applied by people from poor urban neighbourhoods to solve their homelessness problems, used by a wide variety of stakeholders to come together to work out health care transformation initiatives, and utilized by the Canadian native peoples and the Canadian governement to work out their issues.

One question which Open Space Technology can be used on, is a question facing many Occupy locales – what to do when it gets cold. This question has many facets and factors that influence it – health issues, whether older people can stay long times in the cold, outdoor heating technology, what kind of structures might be able to be erected, the permissibility of these structures, relations and dialogue with police and city, visibility of the movement, learning how indigenous tribes get themselves warm in cold climates, how the movement is growing, what are the goals of the movement, what is required to achieve these goals, the amount of money flowing in, the evolving public perception of what is going, neighbourhood relations etc. In Open Space Technology there are multiple sessions one after each other. At the beginning anyone can stand up and announce a topic for discussion or action – in this example it would be related to the cold issue. A whole set of topics is then created. In a session everyone breaks off into smaller topic circles. People are free to walk from one circle to another sharing and cross-fertilizing what they are learning different groups. In the next session people move to a new set of topics around this issue. Different viewpoints get a chance to be heard and integrated into the deeper patterns emerging out of the multiple dialogues. At the end of multiple sessions the group can come back together and synthesize all that has been discussed. Often there is a lot more clarity in the topic ; solutions, actions, and new possibilities will have emerged from the collective intelligence.

Other examples of topics that Open Space Technology could be used for discussing – what actions to take against the banks, safety and health issues inside camp, how to make Occupy more accessible to mainstream people etc. The circles that are called within the process can be also used for initiating actions.

Open Space Technology can rapidly speed up projects. The design of a new pavillion for the Atlanta Olympics was expected to take months with usual planning processes. With Open Space Technology most of that design was done in 2 days.

The reason Open Space Technology is so much more efficient is that it taps into the ability of the collective to self organize. It allows for the passions and creativity of individuals to synergize with others to emerge new patterns, insights and ways to work together. As thus, it can provide a basis for a new type of horizontal, non-hierarchical governance structure, a new type of politics that values both individuality and collective synergy.

At Occupy a combination of both General Assembly and Open Space Technology would be very fruitful.
 

2. Run World Café ( www.theworldcafe.org ) processes. World Cafe is a conversation process that allows for deeper themes and patterns to emerge from the multiple voices. One of the aspects of Occupy is that it is a commons space where people can gather to have conversations that matter. The World Cafe provides a facilitated structure for this. It offers a way both to people who are there longer term, and to the many people who are visiting Occupy but not yet sure how to engage, to have an important dialogue about what it is that is unfolding. The World Café organizes around questions that matter. At Occupy an example of a question would be “What are the causes of the economic crisis and what are possible solutions?” The process works with the collective breaking into groups of 4 or 5 to discuss topic. After a set amount of time e.g. 10 min people switch groups, share what happened in the previous group, and then continue the conversation. This cross-fertilization of voices allows for deeper themes to emerge. The process of switching groups continues multiple times. At the end people speak to the collective about the viewpoints emerging from each group. These viewpoints can be summarized and added to the internet as part of a larger global conversation about our economy.

A sister to this process called the Forum ( http://starhawksblog.org/?p=645)is run at the Oakland Occupy locale. In a recent Forum people broke into small groups to discuss the question how we can respect ourselves and each other. Then for the rest of the hour there was an open mic for people to share to the larger group.

3. Run Appreciative Inquiry, Theory U, and Future Search facilitation processes. These facilitation techniques help a group develop a vision, to look at what works and how to expand it, to project possible future scenarios, and to tap into inner knowing for guidance. Its been been used by different parties to figure out how to look at food sustainability and used by the United Religions Initiative to bring different religious groups to vision how they can work together. And these facilitation processes could be useful for Occupy to figure out collectively where it is going, what its vision is.

4. Run gift circles ( http://ow.ly/72TZf )A gift circle is where people sit in a circle and share what their needs and gifts are so they can find ways to help each other. Others can then offer to help with needs, or receive the gifts offered. For instance people can express a need for a ride, a cell phone, a massage, babysitting, people to carry water supplies to camp, a sewing machine to make Occupy t-shirts, trash cans for Occupy, etc. Others can then offer to help. People can also offer gifts they have e.g. putting up a website, connections with certain groups, vehicles people can borrow, etc. This helps the flow of resources and builds community at Occupy nodes. The gift circles can also allow projects to birth in a bottom-up way. By expressing their project into the circle the resources to make that project may flow in. This process allows both people who are situated longer and those who who are just stopping by to contribute to different projects. To further the gift economy flow multiple gift circles can be happening throughout the day. Different working groups at Occupy can also use the gift circles as a way to crowd source help. For instance the sanitation working group can announce in the gift circle that they need help with certain tasks. Used in this way the gift circles exemplifies an approach to flattening hierarchies and dissolving some of the departmental boundaries in our governance structures by tapping into networked, peer-to-peer structures. The gift processes circles can also be extended to include people not at the physical Occupy site and they can be integrated with online tools for gifting like Giftflow.org to create virtual gift circles. The many gift circles, physical and virtual can overlap, share information, form circles of circles, and multiply out in a networked manner out into the world to create a larger gift economy beyond the Occupy encampments.

5. Run a variety of faclitated circles that shift consciousness and sense of community, e.g. heart circles (www.heartcirclenetwork.com). These circles can allow people to reflect and become aware of what is happening inside, and allow for a space where emotions to be expressed safely. When this kind of safe space is created it allows for economic and political processes to flow more easily because emotions are less likely to boil over. CIrcles can use meditation techniques to help people center in a deeper state of being. They can help participants to reflect on their internal motivations are, to see if they are really coming from a heart centered place in their actions, and if not it can provide processes to help people source themselves from love.

6. If needed integrate Agile-based Scrum (www.scrumalliance.org) and Bioteams (www.bioteams.com) project management techniques into how processes work at Occupy. These project management techniques allow people to self-organize in the horizontal, non-hierarchical, non-command&control way that is part of the Occupy ethos. In these processes people can autonomously choose what they would like to work on whilst coordinating their actions with others. For the many projects that are already working in this self-organizational way at Occupy these techniques may offer nuances of how to make things more efficient. For the situations when projects get bogged down and bottlenecked the application of these project management methods may offer much needed guidance.

The Occupy network is a set of experiments of socio-economic-political experiments in many different locales. Each locale can test out different techniques, ideas, and facilitation processes. The best practices can then spread to other locales or nodes, The whole nodal network is thus tapping into its distributed collective intelligence to evolve new forms of socio-economic-political systems that are more horizontal, self-organizing, participatory, democratic, and sharing based.

In addition to more internal uses of these facilitation techniques there is also another usage of them which leads to a certain strategic direction for Occupy, and it can be discussed within Occupy itself whether it wants to take this direction – and that is that dialogue and visioning processes like Open Space Technology, World Café, Theory U, Future Search, Appreciative Inquiry can also be used to create community dialogues in which people who have so far have had more ideological differences with the Occupy movement can also be included. Inclusive facilitation methods have been hailed by some as to what enabled the multiple demographics of South Africa to work together to end apartheid. Can inclusive facilitation processes at Occupy be a participatory democratic process that allows an even wider set of demographics to work together to navigate us towards a future more palatable to all?

Co-intelligence Institute: info on facilitation techniques

Art of Hosting: about holding and harvesting community dialogues

Tapping into something deeper to find the vision for Occupy

Sharif Abdullah is an extraodinary man who did a lot of courageous work helping the different sides in Sri Lankan come together during a civil war to dialogue and to consensus about what their vision was for their society.

He has been writing a series of articles on Occupy. Here are his thoughts  in his latest article on how Occupiers can vision together :

“This week’s offering for the “Occupy Together” phenomenon has a theme: “The 3 D’s: Direction – Devotion – Discipline”.

Today, we’ll focus on Direction.  Since I’ve already spent much time talking about the necessity of Vision, I will spend a little time focusing the concept.  (Please refer to my earlier “Moments” on vision…

Many people don’t know the difference between a “vision” and a “good idea”.  A “vision” comes from the heart, and it comes from beyond the individuated self.  Let me give you a story on what that means…

 I once led a group in a weekend workshop.  I had asked the 60 people to bring an item for a group altar.  At the end of the workshop, the question was: what to do with the items? 

 All of them started giving their opinions and ideas.  Give everything back.  Make a medicine bundle and bury it.  Make a medicine bundle and burn it.  Make a medicine bundle and keep it. Give it to me. Throw it all in a dumpster…

 I suggested that we all sit for 10 minutes in silence. During that time, they were to push aside their own ideas and thoughts, and listen for another Voice, the Voice of Spirit to guide them.  It was not about having an idea, but about accessing Spirit.

 After 10 minutes, I brought them back.  One person said, “I just had the intuition to give the bundle to Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the elders in our group.”  Surprise lit up on virtually everyone’s face: all of them had the same idea!

 Except Mr. Smith, who was slowly shaking his head.  “I didn’t get that.  What I got was that we should give it to HER (indicating his wife).”

 There was silence in the room.  Mrs. Smith said slowly, “That’s interesting.  What I got was that you all should give the bundle to ME. I wasn’t going to say anything, because that sounded egotistical to me.”

 Sixty people, complete unanimity of thought, ten minutes (okay, we were together for the whole weekend…)  I think arriving at consensus is that easy… once we know how to set aside our own thoughts, fears, wants, needs… and focus ourselves on the Spirit/Source.

I have direct experience in leading people through very differing political and cultural landscapes to arrive at powerful consensus… (Anglos/Latinos; rich/poor; urban/rural; legal/undocumented; powerful/powerless…) The trick is to get people “out of their heads”.  It all revolves around the questions that you ask, and your willingness to allow Spirit to emerge within the group… ” – Sharif Abdullah