Here's a photo from last year, during Mom's Day:
That's the twins on the right-hand side, Dad on the left. This is in Boston, actually, for Mom and Dad's first trip out to Sis's home. We made pancakes and I made a concerted effort to stay awake.
Spent the night at Mom and Dad's as I often do, on the weekend, when the Hodges come over, only this time I was so exhausted I hit the hay before I got to see them off for the night. I think it was because of that training I alluded to earlier, the one that Sonya just ranted about. I can say with a great degree of certainty that it was unlike any training I've ever been to. Dai led the first part, Amee and I went next; our section was fine and we had some great discussions, but we had to cut down on time and move quickly because Dai's section went over the 2 hours he was given, and almost all of that time was spent in introductions and 'agitation.' He had each person stand up, say who they were, why they were there, and to name a person in the public arena that had particular meaning to them. Then they would sit down and he would get on with agitation. Believe me, it was uncomfortable. Or rather, after two hours of it, the process became so normal and comfortable, you'd almost think it was perfectly OK for people's general security to be violated. It didn't matter if the people there knew Dai well or were just meeting him for the first time; if they were in high school or if they were an elder; if they were shy or very confident. Dai hammered on each of them, making judgments, asking accusatory questions, saying "This is not a training for people to make friends or like each other or help people or become a better activist. This is a training about you knowing yourself and challenging yourself to be POWERFUL, to practice respect and dignity, to have a vision and build relationships with people that will support your path toward that vision. I'm not hammering on you and I'm not hating on you. I'm doing this because I care about each and every one of you."
There was some interesting psychology going on in that room. When people collectively laughed, you could sense an intense desire to lighten things up and ease the tension, mostly unsuccessfully. Sometimes a participant would take great pains to make the correct statements in their introduction, only to find Dai pounce on them, recognizing that this was done mostly to deflect attention and 'get off easy' instead of being true and being vulnerable. Sometimes a participant said, "I came here because Amee invited me" or "I'm here because this seemed interesting" and Dai would immediately note how this signalled an inability to accept responsibility or be strategic about what one does or have anything like a personal vision or commitment. When someone else would pipe during another's introduction to help them out, Dai looked at them and said, "Stop being a caretaker." And it continued like that.
All my previous trainings--both the ones I've facilitated and the ones I participated in--were vastly different. Most all of them had ground rules, including things like "speaking thoughtfully," "acting respectfully towards others,"and this would all get laid out before anything else. Most had everyone do straightforward introductions--who are you, why are you here, what's one thing you hope to take away today, if you could be a slice of pie what would it be etc.--with no fear of how people would react, because no one was allowed to respond. Most value where each person is at in their growth, beliefs, values and thinking, and do not presume judgment, and if challenging is necessary, it is done respectfully, as in, "I hear what you're saying, and it's great that you're thinking about it so much, but there's something else I want you to consider/something else you may want to remember in the spirit of this training and the ground rules it's based on." In other words, my previous trainings--at least the really good ones--are founded on a temporary atmopshere of sacredness, a sacred space. In yesterday's workshop, at least during Dai's section, you are meant to feel as though you are never safe and there is nowhere to hide.
In any other setting I would dismiss this and refuse to participate in any similar training again, but for some reason I can't. I think because:
1) "This is the same training, from the Gamaliel Foundation, that has trained many organizers, including Barack Obama." So say the folks at TakeAction Minnesota, and apparently this is true. Not that everything associated with Barack Obama is good (or even useful), but, shit, if this has been tried on lots of people to much success and a freaking foundation actually puts money and resources into making a good training, then I'm sure they have an answer to every criticism I can think of and I'm sure those answers can't be easily dismissed.
2) The participants' introductions were all very weak, honestly. I don't think this reflected people's poor preparation (they didn't know how to prepare anyway) so much as what Dai was getting at: people have lost the ability to be true to themselves, especially when the pressure is on them and it counts the most. We're socialized and trained to dismiss our own human dignity and self-respect, to avoid having a vision and a way to get there, to fail at being truthful even if it's difficult or makes us vulnerable or looking bad. In so many trainings I've been in, it's awfully hard to know if people are really engaged, or just offering up answers, statements, and opinions that sound 'correct'/aren't well thought-out/don't really mean anything/are pure b.s. This was the first one I've been in that called this tendency out. A harsh way of doing it, but still, I've never seen a group of people so engaged and attentive and, well, vulnerable enough to really start taking things to heart.
3) If it's true that important aspects of our lives must be 'caught, not taught,' then it stands to reason that whatever's being thrown must be bulls-eye firing instead of wildly errant throws. I think of the many times Mom was asking me if I was considering grad school, and every time I said no, not because it didn't interest me but the way she put it--going to med school to be a doctor, to law school to be a lawyer, getting further education so that I can create change at a higher or larger level--never resonated with me. Quite the opposite. Every time she mentioned grad school, I became even more anti-grad school. Well, I feel a lot like Mom when I'm in discussions with people, or facilitating a workshop, and I throw something out there that, even though it sounded good and smart and reasonable and caring at the time, falls with a thud at the feet of the person who's supposed to field it--if they don't outright chuck it back at me in annoyance or disgust. But then, when my co-worker Reggie told me after 8 months of getting to know me, "Dude, you need to get out of this job, go get your doctorate, take six years to read and study and write about something you love, then you'll get a secure job and you can do anything and everything you want with your life and you'll only be 30 years old," somehow I caught it and held it, and have since kept it. What's particularly odd about that is I don't fully agree with his line of reasoning (Ph.D's don't get you any kind of security anymore) and I don't want the quickest ride to independence and freedom and ease and I'm still very hesitant about giving over six years to a higher education system I am very critical of, and yet this all matters less than Reggie's ability to discern what is holding me back and his bulls-eye throw intended to move me forward. Because he wants me to contribute a lot and grow a lot and be of service, but if he doesn't ask me direct about it and doesn't lay down a possible path for me to take, then he knows I might settle for less and be OK with it--only he won't be OK with it. Call it a refusal to lower the bar. I think that's an important thing to ask of the people you love.
I'm still very critical of the training. I don't know how you can demonstrate respect and love with 'agitation', no matter how much you say you're doing this out of respect and love. I don't know how we can create a culture of love if we aren't always practicing it. I don't know if you can really make people critical through agitation, or just turn them into hardened foot soldiers as they slog through organizing 'boot camps.' And I definitely get suspicious of anyone, smart training though they operate, who works hard to scrub complexity, nuance, and contradiction from our lives in order to engage us and 'empower' us.
But I'm not writing it off yet. Because I think part of embracing complexity is finding the incredible in terrible and hideous things, and that includes workshops which fundamentally value human dignity and encourage us not to settle for less, even if the facilitating of them is poorly thought-out and bizarrely executed. Eduardo Galeano wrote of writing, "I do not believe in the frontiers that, according to literature's customs officers, separate the forms." The line between moving from a place of love and moving through 'agitation' may not exist after all.
Yo sis--thanks for the rant. Remember that even organizers are not supposed to be working with each other. Maybe it's what they put in our Kool-Aid, but I think contrariness is in our blood. We're much better at bickering and criticizing and going off into strange lands fed by b.s. ideas. It's depressing, but in its own way, very interesting. (I'm sure the folks in my movement research collective are laughing their heads off at that euphemism.) More on that some other time.
Closing off today--quick study in uncanny attractive/unattractive twin contrasts:
No comments:
Post a Comment