Scott's August Query - Was Benjamin Franklin's Junto an anomaly?

[Scott Nesler]

Was Benjamin Franklin's Junto an anomaly?

Benjamin Franklin's Junto was originally a main component of the Do
Good Gauge. As the refinement continues, I have discovered that it
is a replaceable component. There are numerous systematic process
of generating an intelligent argument.

Egocentricities make it difficult to form a Junto and harder to
maintain over a long period of time.

There are many unknowns of what contributed to the longevity and
productivity for Franklin's Junto.

Some guesses of what led to Franklin's success:

1. Small group with little turn around or additions. Less time
understanding the dynamics and complexities of new personalities.
Respect was easier to maintain.

2. Benjamin Franklin was in his early twenties. I'm assuming the
remaining members were below 30. Younger people are less
hardened, inquisitive, and open to alternative points of view.
Regular meetings at this age could have contributed to a lasting cycle
for inquiry.

3. Respect may be key, but it is complex. Boundaries must have been
crossed. I image that anger in discussion was anticipated and
possibly welcomed. Since the meetings were in a tavern, my thought
is that anger was treated like the beer frame in bowling.

A deviation of the evil cycle is the hate cycle: Disrespect, anger,
hate, fear, back to disrespect. Beyond respect, Franklin's Junto
must have had a handle on preventing this cycle.

My query for this month welcomes comments for contributions for
Franklin's success and comments on possibilities and complexities for
Junto's in todays society. The House of Junto captures a minority
of Franklin's original concept, but it does face many of the same
obstacles. Has the current group anticipated the complexities of
longevity.

[Jake Patterson]

Would say that their intense mutual respect was certainly an issue.
Ben gathered a variety of the most intelligent acquaintances he had
and put them together. Rather than being some folk who like to chat,
these were masters of their trades and provided insights that their
respective specialities held. They were also very influential members
of their society who gathered not only to discuss but so improve
Philidelphia in revolutionary ways.

While we do have a variety of professional fields represented here, we
are so dispersed as to be able to be little more than a debate group.

One way we can be more like the original is to have challenges that we
agree to as a group. I thought Scott's idea of gathering data/ideas
and making a publication was a good one. Another was Adam's
suggestion a long time ago that we host "block parties" to get to know
our neighbors better. Little things like that may make a real
difference in our communities, since none of us share a community
(Thom and I live about twenty minutes from each other and I think
we're the closest two members of the Junto, barring Isabel who lives
in my house).

[houseo...@gmail.com]

I would agree that it was an anomoly. But not a necessarily difficult
one to reproduce. One key was interest. Jake mentioned that the
original Junto were more than merely some folk who like to chat. That
is true, but it would have gone nowhere without a desire on each of
its members' parts to interact in the way that Franklin wished.

The original Junto was drawn together by respect, mutual interest, a
desire to debate, and desire for self improvement, but as different as
all those men were, they shared these things. Without mutual interest
in each other and in their goals, the Junto would never have
survived. This is the most difficult thing to reproduce: a group of
people willing to sacrifice time and expend effort together to meet
their common goals.

On Aug 14, 9:18 pm, Scott Nesler <sile...@dogoodgauge.com> wrote:

[Brett Kraus]

Respect is not a complete necessity for a successful Junto.
Professionalism is and so is reality. A agree that there should be a
level of deference given, but I am sure taht some of the disagreements
stemmed from a lack of respect of the opinion of others. The thing
that won out was their interest in having people challenge their ideas
and prejudices (we all have them). We want people to tell us why we
are stupid, and what ideas we have that keep us hopelessly cut off
from the real view of the world. Many people I have been dealing with
lately think that all of their problems could go away if my boss just
tried harder for them, when the reality is, their problems stem from
not seeing the way things are, and the way others will perceive them.

I will wait to post on the power of perception in society until the
discussion of the Lord of the Flies is kicked off by our discussion-
master, but it applies to this scenario.

All you need for a successful Junto are people who realize that there
is a value to challenging your current way of thinking and giving
voice in a relatively safe environment. We are not going to say that
you are dumb or bad for beleiving a certain way, we just are going to
attack your thoughts and tell you why what you think is dumb, and if
people give it the right way and take it the right way, people grow
and learn.

That is one reason why I have tried to come up with controversial
issues to raise, or to ask questions that we often don't think about.
In my experience, I have seen very few instances of hate coming from
disrespect, it comes more from ignorance and misunderstanding. Those
that hate the religious right don't understand the religious right.
Those that hate child molestors don't understand them. Those that hate
liberals don't understand them. Hate and violence are closely tied
together, and education does wonders for that perspective.
Understanding is the key to fixing the problem, and I think those in
the original Junto knew that are were willing to suffer the
indecencies of when the lines were crossed. Smart people arguing about
heavy issues tends to do that.

Being willing to get over the fact that someone does not like you is a
big thing. Knowing someone does not like you and still being
professional towards them is the hallmark of a successful person.
Enjoy it.

[Adam Webster]

I'd like to add just a little to what Brett has said here. Perhaps
calling Franklin's Junto an anomaly is a bit too harsh against others.
Several members of his little club formed organizations of their own
with varying degrees of success. While none had the renown of the
Junto, they did achieve some good things. What I think really made the
Junto so good was a mixture of three things: 1) the openness to
intellectual and ideological conflict, 2) the willingness to act, and 3)
the Brilliance of Benjamin Franklin. If we have that third element in
our group, it isn't something I bring to the table. I have noticed,
however, that we do seem very open to intellectual and ideological
conflict. What we don't have much of is action. Jake mentioned a few
issues with this (mostly geographical). I tend to think of this as more
of a benefit than a hindrance as it could help us impact more
communities. Perhaps, as they say, "the soul is willing but the flesh
is weak." Or maybe it's just that we do not know where to aim our ideas
or good intentions.