Creating traffic: the quickest way into co-sensing
Being, CoHo, Collaboration, Conversation, Emergence, Facilitation, First Nations, Organization, Practice
One of the key skills in deliberative dialogue is figuring out what we are, together. This is often called “co-sensing” or “feeling into the collective field.” There are many ways to talk about but the practice is on the one hand tricky and subtle, and on the other, blazingly obvious.
In general, in North America and especially among groups of people that are actively engaged in questions about co-sening the collective field, a speech pattern I have notcied goes something like this:
- I feel that we need to…
- My thoughts are that we should…
- I just throw this out there for consideration…
- I’m not sure but I think we…
In other words, oin our efforts to discern the collective, we very often start with a non-definitive statement about our personal relation to what might be held collectively. Very often these kinds of statements serve to keep us stuck in individual perspectives. What we end up talking about is our own perspectives on things. Instead of sensing into the whole, we are negotiating with the parts. There is no emergent sense of what we have between us.
Last week, I was working with some ha’wilh (chiefs) from the Nuu-Chah-Nulth nations of the west coast of Vancouver Island. (We were in this building). Although this was a somewhat standard government consultation meeting, these ha-wiilh are quite practiced in traditional arts of deliberation. Much of the conversation during the day conformed to the above pattern, but at one point, for about a half an hour, there was a deep deliberative tone that came over the meeting. We were talking about a government policy that is aimed at protecting wild salmon, an absolutely essential animal to Nuu-Chah-Nulth communities.
When talk about the policy, the pace of the conversation slowed down and the ha’wilh entered this pattern:
- We need to support this policy. I support it.
- We have to find a way to involve the province in this. Here’s who I know on this.
- Logging in our watersheds affects these fish and our communities are affected as well. What can we do about that?
The essence of this pattern is that one waits for something to be so obvious that a dclarative statement about “we,” “us” or “our” begs to be stated. And once it is stated, it is supported with a statement about how “I” relate to that whole.
This produces a number of profound shifts in a field, and very quickly. First, it slows everything down. It is not possible to rush to conclusions about what is in the collective field. Second, it builds conidence and accountability into the speech acts. It is very, very difficult to say “we need to support this” if you are uncertain of whether we do or not. This shift takes us from random individual thoughts and speculations into a space where we need to think carefully, sense outside of our own inner voice and speak clearly what is in the middle.
This is a very abstract notion, but anyone who has driven a car or ridden a bike in traffic knows what I am talking about. When we are driving our cars together, we are actually creating traffic. Traffic is the emergent phenomenon, the thing that we can only do together. In order to create traffic that serves us, we need to be constantly sensing the field of the road. This involves figuring out what other drivers are doing, noticing the flow and engaging safely but confidently. You need to both claim space and leave space to drive safely. Anyone who offers something into the field that is too focused on the individual disturbs the field significantly. They drive like road hogs, dangerous, not fully connected to the field around them.
So the teaching of the ha’wilh is very straightforward for any form of deliberation and co-sening: quickly go to the “we.”
[tags]co-sensing, deliberation[/tags]
Photo by Wam Mosely
Wow! What a fabulous metaphor! It turns the abstract into something so intuitive you just *know* it’s right.
The thing that gets me about a skilled facilitator is how you are able to be both a part of the process and an observer of it at the same time, so as to be able to come up with such an insight. That’s an art I never mastered.
There is no end state to this learning Andy. You are either mastering it or not, and if you are you are, and if you aren’t you aren’t.
…grasshopper…
🙂
Beautiful observations of language and pattern!
Interesting to feel how physical the traffic thing is, how the skill of feeling the space all around our vehicle and matching our speed to the place we intend to take or keep is a skill we can learn till it becomes second nature. When I imagine being part of the dialogue and deliberation example, I don’t feel that visceral sensation of moving together (though I can imagine bodily sensations arising in each individual) till the part where the ha’wilh slow way down, and then it seems to become very dance-like.
Chris–
Profound.
What is profound to me here is more in your finding of the “we” in this group than in the metaphor. I suspect it is not something to be done quickly, either, yes?
So have you noticed what any others have done to move toward “we?” You certainly can’t force it, nor can you offer “we” too early, or people will feel they were usurped. Must it be emergent as you suggest, or are there things that a member of the circle might do? For instance, ask questions in the “we” voice, or talk about how this affects “us” and “our grandchildren?” Those seem too obvious, once I write them. Or is it really more subtle than that?
:- Doug.
Your last paragraph sums it up wonderfully.
There’s a South African (perhaps global as well) example that comes to mind when thinking about traffic – when a traffic light is out. Typically, and legally, you need to regard it as a 4-way stop with the rule of first-in, first-out. If the drivers have a group mindset, traffic flows and the out f order lights are not an issue. But when some drivers display an individualist mindset, they “derail” the whole process which leads to more congestion and subsequently, more frustrated drivers who then react individually.
and then, to add to your list of discursive patterns, I’ve noticed in South African culture we tend to use the phrase, “For me, I feel we need to …”, “From my perspective, we can … ” or “In my mind, what would get this right is …”
In order to create traffic that serves us, we need to be constantly sensing the field of the road. This involves figuring out what other drivers are doing, noticing the flow and engaging safely but confidently. You need to both claim space and leave space to drive safely. Anyone who offers something into the field that is too focused on the individual disturbs the field significantly. They drive like road hogs, dangerous, not fully connected to the field around them.
I have reasonably often driven in Paris, other French cities and in Italian cities. IMO that is a good way to get a really good and quick practical lesson in co-sensing, as the experience is fundamentally different than driving here in NA and requires that one adapts pretty quickly to the context and dynamics with which one finds oneself suddenly enmeshed 😉
Goodness this blog brings the sentiment of missing Sennen! I always enjoyed his insight and worldview!
Geez Carol Anne, I hadn’t realized Sennen had died last year. When I saw your comment I Googled him and discovered that he had been killed in a car accident near Fort St. John. Terribly sad. We were very close for a time at Trent UNiversity in 1988-89 and travelled together to Heshquiaht that year.