Hello Artur, everyone;
You wrote:
> I am sure that At always try to "avoid judgement"; I also think that this
> is the dominant attitude in this list and generally within many LOs. And
> I find it is ok. But sometimes I wonder if with that attitude we are not
> avoiding positive conflits, and doing the contrary to "raise conflits
> quickly". I wonder if with that we are not loosing an opportunity to learn
> quickly. I wonder if we are not loosing an important tool to learn when we
> systematically avoid words like "criticism", "discordance",
> "disagreement", etc.
You're cutting into some good stuff here! I too have been fascinated by
the notion (or false notion) of being able as a human to "withhold
judgement". I find it difficult, and sometimes impossible, no matter how
hard I try.
But I also have learned that to withhold or supress an emotion or thought
might have negative consequences for me as well...not to mention the poor
soul I am covertly trying "not to judge".
Maybe more meaningful is to take your suggestion one step further into a
model for interaction proposed (if I recall correctly) by Roger Fisher and
Bill Ury. This model (for the Harvard Negotiation Project) was a simple
way to examine the results of one's judging behaviour. They warned to not
assume a "position" that is based on the judgement you make. They
proposed that conflict arises when people take positions based on their
assumptions (judgements) and are then compelled to defend their choice of
positions. I think the intent there covers both "positive" and "negative"
judgements or conflicts. The implication (to me) is that after someone
makes a judgement (or assumption) and then grabs all the data he or she
can to substantiate their view; they usually take the next step to defend
their viewpoint, or position. And this involves a whole universe of
defense and rationalizing behaviours. I think it also sets the stage for
continued conflict (negative) and is a major problem in having a true
dialogue. (Another model for understanding is the ladder of
influence/Chris Argyris)
J. Krishnamurti, a buddy of Dr. Bohm's, stated (sic) "Think of how
beautiful a sunset would be if you could just leave it alone; instead of
thinking how much redder it should be or the positioning of the clouds be
different..."
So it may be, as you suggest Artur, a much healthier and efficient and
learningful way to proceed with the notion of "dialogue" by allowing the
internal event of judgement to "happen"; then stopping to examine the
immediate behaviors that tend to happen contiguous to that event. Then
turn possible immergences into emergent learning by avoiding the
positioning behaviors that become obstacles to dialogue... Hmmm.
Thanks for helping me take a bit of tacit knowledge and spit it out here
for what it's worth...my hope is that I am not simply restating the
obvious...
--Charlie Saur <csaur@remc8.k12.mi.us>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>