NEW YORK METRO FOCUSING
We are pleased to share with you meeting notes from the December 5, 2014 meeting of New York Metro Focusing, which was attended by over 40 participants. Susan Deisroth opened the meeting, welcoming the facilitators, Rosa Zubizarreta and Bruce Nayowith. Naomi Glicken, in introducing the Rosa and Bruce, explained that the NY Metro Planning Group was very interested in the question of how to maintain a focusing attitude when conflict and differences arise. For some time now, we have been working with this issue in different ways and found it to be challenging. So we were very much looking forward to the theme of the evening: Holding Space in Challenging Situations: Dynamic Facilitation and Focusing.
Rosa began by telling a bit about how she came to Dynamic Facilitation in 2000, after having practiced Focusing for five years. She found that the same principles were applicable to both practices. In Focusing there was a listener, who held a space for the focuser, using listening and reflection. During the focusing process the focuser experienced internal change: a shift from structure to flow, from difficulty to ease. In the first Dynamic Facilitation workshop Rosa attended, she was drawn to the deep listening and reflecting by the facilitator. By the end of the workshop, the participants, corporate middle managers and young protesters, who had very different views of the WTO protests in Seattle, were able to listen to one another. Around the same time, Rosa also attended a Treasure Maps workshop and was struck by the synergy between working with conflicting inner parts in the Treasure Maps/Interelationship Focusing way and what Dynamic Facilitation does at the outer level.
In a focusing partnership, usually the partners are not in the same “life world.” This makes it easier for them to hold the space for each other. Where people occupy the same life world, such as a married couple, a group, an organization or a community, it is harder to hold the space in a neutral way. Dynamic Facilitation is a way for people in a situation to hold a space for one another by having the least triggered person holding the space. If that person becomes triggered, they can ask to step back. Another, less triggered person, can then hold the space. The listener needs to be able to “hand off” her role to another, so that she will also be able to speak. All perspectives need to be heard.
Rosa asked us to pick a local issue on which attendees had different perspectives, so that she could demonstrate how Dynamic Facilitation works. She would listen to a group of 6-9 sitting in a semi circle in the center (the “fish bowl”) and write down their contributions. The rest of us would sit around the “fish bowl” and observe, both Rosa’s interactions with the fish bowl participants and what was going on within ourselves as we observed.
Two issues were put forward. One was whether, during our meetings, we should break into small groups to practice the focusing exercises or should do them as a large conversation involving the entire group. During previous meetings, some people had strongly preferred one or the other approach. The other issue, suggested by an attendee, had to do with the use of force by the police against black men, the response by the judicial system, and the recent street demonstrations around this issue. The second question had more emotional charge and was chosen for the demonstration. Rosa asked people who felt strongly about the issue of street protest and were willing to participate to come sit in the fish bowl.
Before starting, she said that it was important to note anything that helps create safety and anything that helps elicit creativity. She said that all of us have conflict avoidant parts. We want to avoid conflict to keep relationships. She drew a four part grid. 1. Why avoiding conflict is beneficial. 2. The drawbacks of avoiding conflict. 3. The advantages of engaging in conflict. 4. The risks of engaging in conflict. In sum, engaging in conflict can be an opportunity to address deep issues, but people can get hurt. We want to maximize creative tension while minimizing interpersonal anxiety. To do this, Rosa asked the participants to commit to four agreements. 1. To speak one at a time so that the listener can listen deeply. 2. To be willing to not stifle yourself even if you feel what you have to say is different from all the others and “out in left field.” 3. To talk to the listener and not to each other. 4. To hang in there when it looks like a jumbled puzzle – it won’t develop in a clear and logical way, but development will occur.
After the participants in the fish bowl had agreed to at least try to keep these agreements, Rosa asked that someone who cares about the issue begin. Rosa listened to each person in turn, reflecting what they said and when they became quiet asking “is there more?.” Sometimes she reflected “I’m hearing something underneath. Let me check with you.” When the person had nothing further, Rosa finished by asking what they would recommend or do. Rosa made notes of the key statements of each person in two columns: problem and solution.
For the most part, the participants expressed a spectrum of concerns about the efficacy of demonstrations, but not views that were in direct conflict. However, one person did express a view on police use of force that was in conflict with the views of the others. As Rosa was listening to him, another fish bowl participant began speaking and Rosa reminded her that “I can only listen to one person at a time.” Afterward, several people commented on how non-judgmental Rosa was when listening, reflecting, and questioning the participant with the minority viewpoint. She sometimes reframed what he said, but was careful to not get into the facts of what happened in the police actions that led up to the demonstrations. People commended him for being willing to speak up, thereby providing an example of actual conflict, rather than differing views on the same side of an issue.
In the discussion that followed the demonstration, Rosa noted that the listener cannot show her own passion while holding a space. There has to be no agenda on the part of the listener. The process will not work if both the listener and the speaker are impatient. By hearing another person, we lend our calm mind to the situation. Instead of people being in direct opposition to one another, a larger space is created. In a community, people tend to suppress conflict to preserve the relationships, but when they don’t feel threatened, and are able to express and listen to all views, there is more creativity. Bruce’s view is that if you create a container, people naturally find the right next step.
During the discussion, a number of the attendees noted that they could see the connections between Dynamic Facilitation and Focusing. The process was slowed down. The listening that Rosa did was active, clarifying, drawing out the speakers so they could say more. It helped more to come, more than they knew they thought or felt when they began speaking, Something more came through Rosa’s engagement as listener. One of the “fish bowl” participants summed up the group process succinctly: “Each of us was a felt sense and Rosa was the focusing attitude.”
We look forward to the first meeting of 2015, on Friday, January 30 at 6 pm, with Marcella Calabi. Our topic that evening will be “Exploring Resolution: What is it? How do we resolve the unresolved?”
Prepared by Diana Kirigin
We are pleased to share with you meeting notes from the December 5, 2014 meeting of New York Metro Focusing, which was attended by over 40 participants. Susan Deisroth opened the meeting, welcoming the facilitators, Rosa Zubizarreta and Bruce Nayowith. Naomi Glicken, in introducing the Rosa and Bruce, explained that the NY Metro Planning Group was very interested in the question of how to maintain a focusing attitude when conflict and differences arise. For some time now, we have been working with this issue in different ways and found it to be challenging. So we were very much looking forward to the theme of the evening: Holding Space in Challenging Situations: Dynamic Facilitation and Focusing.
Rosa began by telling a bit about how she came to Dynamic Facilitation in 2000, after having practiced Focusing for five years. She found that the same principles were applicable to both practices. In Focusing there was a listener, who held a space for the focuser, using listening and reflection. During the focusing process the focuser experienced internal change: a shift from structure to flow, from difficulty to ease. In the first Dynamic Facilitation workshop Rosa attended, she was drawn to the deep listening and reflecting by the facilitator. By the end of the workshop, the participants, corporate middle managers and young protesters, who had very different views of the WTO protests in Seattle, were able to listen to one another. Around the same time, Rosa also attended a Treasure Maps workshop and was struck by the synergy between working with conflicting inner parts in the Treasure Maps/Interelationship Focusing way and what Dynamic Facilitation does at the outer level.
In a focusing partnership, usually the partners are not in the same “life world.” This makes it easier for them to hold the space for each other. Where people occupy the same life world, such as a married couple, a group, an organization or a community, it is harder to hold the space in a neutral way. Dynamic Facilitation is a way for people in a situation to hold a space for one another by having the least triggered person holding the space. If that person becomes triggered, they can ask to step back. Another, less triggered person, can then hold the space. The listener needs to be able to “hand off” her role to another, so that she will also be able to speak. All perspectives need to be heard.
Rosa asked us to pick a local issue on which attendees had different perspectives, so that she could demonstrate how Dynamic Facilitation works. She would listen to a group of 6-9 sitting in a semi circle in the center (the “fish bowl”) and write down their contributions. The rest of us would sit around the “fish bowl” and observe, both Rosa’s interactions with the fish bowl participants and what was going on within ourselves as we observed.
Two issues were put forward. One was whether, during our meetings, we should break into small groups to practice the focusing exercises or should do them as a large conversation involving the entire group. During previous meetings, some people had strongly preferred one or the other approach. The other issue, suggested by an attendee, had to do with the use of force by the police against black men, the response by the judicial system, and the recent street demonstrations around this issue. The second question had more emotional charge and was chosen for the demonstration. Rosa asked people who felt strongly about the issue of street protest and were willing to participate to come sit in the fish bowl.
Before starting, she said that it was important to note anything that helps create safety and anything that helps elicit creativity. She said that all of us have conflict avoidant parts. We want to avoid conflict to keep relationships. She drew a four part grid. 1. Why avoiding conflict is beneficial. 2. The drawbacks of avoiding conflict. 3. The advantages of engaging in conflict. 4. The risks of engaging in conflict. In sum, engaging in conflict can be an opportunity to address deep issues, but people can get hurt. We want to maximize creative tension while minimizing interpersonal anxiety. To do this, Rosa asked the participants to commit to four agreements. 1. To speak one at a time so that the listener can listen deeply. 2. To be willing to not stifle yourself even if you feel what you have to say is different from all the others and “out in left field.” 3. To talk to the listener and not to each other. 4. To hang in there when it looks like a jumbled puzzle – it won’t develop in a clear and logical way, but development will occur.
After the participants in the fish bowl had agreed to at least try to keep these agreements, Rosa asked that someone who cares about the issue begin. Rosa listened to each person in turn, reflecting what they said and when they became quiet asking “is there more?.” Sometimes she reflected “I’m hearing something underneath. Let me check with you.” When the person had nothing further, Rosa finished by asking what they would recommend or do. Rosa made notes of the key statements of each person in two columns: problem and solution.
For the most part, the participants expressed a spectrum of concerns about the efficacy of demonstrations, but not views that were in direct conflict. However, one person did express a view on police use of force that was in conflict with the views of the others. As Rosa was listening to him, another fish bowl participant began speaking and Rosa reminded her that “I can only listen to one person at a time.” Afterward, several people commented on how non-judgmental Rosa was when listening, reflecting, and questioning the participant with the minority viewpoint. She sometimes reframed what he said, but was careful to not get into the facts of what happened in the police actions that led up to the demonstrations. People commended him for being willing to speak up, thereby providing an example of actual conflict, rather than differing views on the same side of an issue.
In the discussion that followed the demonstration, Rosa noted that the listener cannot show her own passion while holding a space. There has to be no agenda on the part of the listener. The process will not work if both the listener and the speaker are impatient. By hearing another person, we lend our calm mind to the situation. Instead of people being in direct opposition to one another, a larger space is created. In a community, people tend to suppress conflict to preserve the relationships, but when they don’t feel threatened, and are able to express and listen to all views, there is more creativity. Bruce’s view is that if you create a container, people naturally find the right next step.
During the discussion, a number of the attendees noted that they could see the connections between Dynamic Facilitation and Focusing. The process was slowed down. The listening that Rosa did was active, clarifying, drawing out the speakers so they could say more. It helped more to come, more than they knew they thought or felt when they began speaking, Something more came through Rosa’s engagement as listener. One of the “fish bowl” participants summed up the group process succinctly: “Each of us was a felt sense and Rosa was the focusing attitude.”
We look forward to the first meeting of 2015, on Friday, January 30 at 6 pm, with Marcella Calabi. Our topic that evening will be “Exploring Resolution: What is it? How do we resolve the unresolved?”
Prepared by Diana Kirigin