dear all,
I am following Robert comments about being aware of the relativity of
politeness in terms of the cultural background {and I don't mean just
corporate culture ;-)} and the need for disagreement and agreement. As a
professional facilitator, I feel that the difference between practice and
theory of what I am teaching can be a fine line. The biggest piece of the
work in my opinion, is to stay aware of when you are no longer detached
from the sides present, understanding the value and systemic connection of
them, but if you are drawn in to one side, thinking it is the right one.
There is a subtle = -=- actual not so subtle - difference in supporting a
side because you can see at that very moment, that it needs the support
the most, realizing that it is only temporary however, from supporting the
side because you truly believe that the others wrong.
I must say I feel for both of the positions that came up in this
discussion. We all know that not moderated discussions on the internet
have their pitfalls, and tend in the majority of cases to either die or
become such a slaughterhouse, that many people who cannot or don't want to
defend themselves against it, will eventually leave it. On the other hand,
moderation, even if it is done as well and balanced as Rick does it, has
its problems too. Some will feel repressed and as it was pointed out, take
up more subtle (or not so subtle) means of expressing their viewpoints on
that. There are many forms of disagreement and conflict, and cynicism and
sarcasm are part of those. In my personal viewpoint, they are less of a
problem than the lacking awareness of when they are present. For some of
us, the comment that someone is pressing the delete button because they
basically believe that the majority of comments are worthless and cynical,
will come across as cynical also, others will believe that finally someone
was able to take that side more strongly and silently cheer on. The
attempt to suppress the emotional side of conflict and pretend it is a
neutral discussion only where facts should be presented in a
thesis/antithesis style neglects in my view the learning of the last 20
years in group work, that it is the relationship issues, that finally
binds us humans together.
greetings from rainy cozy Oregon Coast
Max
rbacal@escape.ca wrote:
>In the part of your message that talked about dialogue, you mentioned it
>as the reason you like this list. I think one issue (and this is a
>general one, too), is the degree to which dissent (disagreement, pointed
>questions and comments), is part of dialogue or not.
>
>Putting aside the issue of civility (well, that's a cultural thing, but
>anyway), I benefit most, NOT from polemics or long explanations, but by
>the point/counter-point, or thesis-antithesis forms of dialogue.
--"Max Schupbach" <max@max-jytte.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>