Support Groups for Activists?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Wade Hudson
Jul 26, 2010, 11:27:49 PM7/26/10
to Charter Network Discussions
One respondent to the Holistic Transformation Questionnaire addressed
the need for personal growth among political activists when he
described conversations among activists that are “overshadowed quickly
and easily by competitiveness…; turf concerns; fear of organizers
(authority, hierarchy…); a sense that this is someone else’s fault and
I am not a part of the problem.”
Another correspondent, in response to “Compassionate Politics: Pro and
Con,” recently articulated similar concerns when he discussed
meetings in which the language of liberation, and also the language of
process and involvement, is used extensively and proactively – yet the
entire circumstance becomes a horse-and-pony show where people are
induced to out-do one another in showing off how enlightened about
involvement and communication they are.… People cut each other off to
tell others how to be better listeners… Cliques form…. I have seen
people of very good will, deep struggle, and great intention and
enlightenment be driven out of these circles….
Thirty-eight of the 42 respondents to the Holistic Transformation
Questionnaire, most of whom engage in political activism, reported
that they work regularly on self-improvement. Some of the more common
objectives included:
· Be less judgmental/forgive others/ forgive myself/ be more tolerant.
· Learn to let go of negative feelings.
· Listen better.
· Better time-management/self-discipline.
Yet few activists set aside special time to meet with fellow activists
to report on their efforts to undo conditioning related to these
matters.
Activists often find support informally in at least one or two
relationships that involve occasionally reflecting on mistakes and
self-improvement plans. Sometimes close friendships evolve
spontaneously from their activism, for human beings are innately
inclined toward kindness. As one correspondent said, “Most of us have
been activists for some years and have our own personal support
systems.”
It may be that informal support of this sort is adequate. There may be
compelling, good reasons (such as time pressures) why few intentional
support groups for political activists exist. As one correspondent
commented, “Many people are so meetinged out that it might be hard to
get people to come.”
Openly sharing deeply personal matters may be best suited for only a
few trusted associates, for others can use revelations to hurt those
who reveal them. Since the specialization and compartmentalization
common in modern life enhances productivity, it may be perfectly
acceptable for activists to generally relate to one another in a
relatively impersonal, functional manner like robots and find personal
nourishment from only a few individuals, whether or not they are
fellow activists.
On the other hand, many political activists who are committed to
ongoing self-improvement might benefit from structuring quality time
to pause, reflect, and listen to one another concerning their efforts
to correct mistakes, overcome bad habits, and become more effective.
As one respondent said, “Objective feedback [concerning his self-
improvement efforts] would be helpful, but at present I have not
solicited such.” Others may share his sentiment.
It might be helpful for political activists to incorporate into their
efforts lessons learned from the multitude of support groups that have
proliferated in the modern world. These support groups, composed of
people facing similar life challenges, have enabled many people who
share a common burden to provide one another with various types of
help. Political activism and a commitment to self-improvement might be
such “burdens” that could be alleviated with more support from others.
Though most support groups have focused on a specific health-related
issue, some have had a more positive focus, like writing, exercise, or
meditation (simply gathering together provides a source of support).
“Consciousness raising groups” from the women’s movement aimed to
advance a better understanding of women's oppression. Christians have
found that “cell groups” and “house churches” are an effective way to
build community and engage in outreach. “Affinity groups” composed of
a small group of activists who engage in direct action is another
instance of small-group association that provides mutual support..
Many Latin American “base communities” rooted in Liberation Theology
invited members to bring any personal need to the community, which
would try to respond with assistance.
These examples suggest that intentional support groups for activists
might be beneficial. Some of the benefits from such groups could
include:
· Simply putting feelings and intentions into spoken words can be
helpful, especially if others listen closely.
· Making a clear, public commitment to self-improvement can nudge us
to put a bit more energy into those efforts.
· Between meetings, participating in such groups can remind all
participants to focus on their self-improvement efforts.
· Being more open about our personal struggles can be a learning
experience for everyone involved. Each participant can hear what
others report and learn from those reports.
· Others’ comments can help us realize that others share our
experiences, that we are less alone than we thought.
· If we expand our personal support network, we can benefit from more
feedback.
· Such sharing can help surface issues about how we work together, for
process is as important as product. It can foster honesty,
transparency, and internal democracy.
· By letting others know about such meetings, they can serve as a
model to encourage others to do the same.
· By meeting unmet needs, such groups could attract more people to
activist organizations.
· Personal sharing helps work relationships avoid becoming impersonal
and exploitative.
· Being open can help us learn how to deal with troublesome emotions,
such as being hurt by what others say, and steadily become less
vulnerable.
Intentional support groups for political activists would not
necessarily need to engage in problem solving or conflict resolution,
though they might.
Concerning the basic notion of fostering “compassionate politics,” one
correspondent commented
By their nature, bonding and emotional process things are different
from goal-oriented task things. The same group can do both, but
generally not at the same time. They can also adopt certain principles
(e.g., a kindness or compassion screening process) to use in defining
the specific goals they will strive for and the range of techniques
they are willing to employ. But I think you're doomed for failure if
you try to jumble the two modalities together continuously…. [H]ow to
keep the friendship/personal support side of things somewhat
compartmentalized from the get-it-done, task-focused aspects of our
work together [is important]. It's possible, but it takes attention.
These comments are sensible. Achieving concrete goals requires focus.
At the same time, it seems that on occasion, perhaps once a month, we
could set aside special time to share feelings, especially with regard
to how we are working together.
Though the responses to the Holistic Transformation Questionnaire and
answers to follow up questions indicate a considerable degree of
interest in such support groups, my inquiries thus far have confirmed
the existence of only one intentional support group for political
activists, the Rochester Circle of Compassion [ link ]. John Testa,
founder of that group, reported:
Self-development is still a significant part of our Circle meetings….
Some of the issues that have been discussed are:
· finding the right balance between family life and activism;
· focusing activism on a few areas rather than trying to solve all of
the world's problems;
· learning which are the activities where one can provide the most
value;
· using artistic and musical skills in community service and political
action;
· attending a healing session;
· using healing skills to teach a course in Qigong at a peace camp.
Despite the success of that group, the support group model for
political activists described here might not be widely viable or
needed. But I remain interested in learning about any such groups that
are underway or being considered.
the need for personal growth among political activists when he
described conversations among activists that are “overshadowed quickly
and easily by competitiveness…; turf concerns; fear of organizers
(authority, hierarchy…); a sense that this is someone else’s fault and
I am not a part of the problem.”
Another correspondent, in response to “Compassionate Politics: Pro and
Con,” recently articulated similar concerns when he discussed
meetings in which the language of liberation, and also the language of
process and involvement, is used extensively and proactively – yet the
entire circumstance becomes a horse-and-pony show where people are
induced to out-do one another in showing off how enlightened about
involvement and communication they are.… People cut each other off to
tell others how to be better listeners… Cliques form…. I have seen
people of very good will, deep struggle, and great intention and
enlightenment be driven out of these circles….
Thirty-eight of the 42 respondents to the Holistic Transformation
Questionnaire, most of whom engage in political activism, reported
that they work regularly on self-improvement. Some of the more common
objectives included:
· Be less judgmental/forgive others/ forgive myself/ be more tolerant.
· Learn to let go of negative feelings.
· Listen better.
· Better time-management/self-discipline.
Yet few activists set aside special time to meet with fellow activists
to report on their efforts to undo conditioning related to these
matters.
Activists often find support informally in at least one or two
relationships that involve occasionally reflecting on mistakes and
self-improvement plans. Sometimes close friendships evolve
spontaneously from their activism, for human beings are innately
inclined toward kindness. As one correspondent said, “Most of us have
been activists for some years and have our own personal support
systems.”
It may be that informal support of this sort is adequate. There may be
compelling, good reasons (such as time pressures) why few intentional
support groups for political activists exist. As one correspondent
commented, “Many people are so meetinged out that it might be hard to
get people to come.”
Openly sharing deeply personal matters may be best suited for only a
few trusted associates, for others can use revelations to hurt those
who reveal them. Since the specialization and compartmentalization
common in modern life enhances productivity, it may be perfectly
acceptable for activists to generally relate to one another in a
relatively impersonal, functional manner like robots and find personal
nourishment from only a few individuals, whether or not they are
fellow activists.
On the other hand, many political activists who are committed to
ongoing self-improvement might benefit from structuring quality time
to pause, reflect, and listen to one another concerning their efforts
to correct mistakes, overcome bad habits, and become more effective.
As one respondent said, “Objective feedback [concerning his self-
improvement efforts] would be helpful, but at present I have not
solicited such.” Others may share his sentiment.
It might be helpful for political activists to incorporate into their
efforts lessons learned from the multitude of support groups that have
proliferated in the modern world. These support groups, composed of
people facing similar life challenges, have enabled many people who
share a common burden to provide one another with various types of
help. Political activism and a commitment to self-improvement might be
such “burdens” that could be alleviated with more support from others.
Though most support groups have focused on a specific health-related
issue, some have had a more positive focus, like writing, exercise, or
meditation (simply gathering together provides a source of support).
“Consciousness raising groups” from the women’s movement aimed to
advance a better understanding of women's oppression. Christians have
found that “cell groups” and “house churches” are an effective way to
build community and engage in outreach. “Affinity groups” composed of
a small group of activists who engage in direct action is another
instance of small-group association that provides mutual support..
Many Latin American “base communities” rooted in Liberation Theology
invited members to bring any personal need to the community, which
would try to respond with assistance.
These examples suggest that intentional support groups for activists
might be beneficial. Some of the benefits from such groups could
include:
· Simply putting feelings and intentions into spoken words can be
helpful, especially if others listen closely.
· Making a clear, public commitment to self-improvement can nudge us
to put a bit more energy into those efforts.
· Between meetings, participating in such groups can remind all
participants to focus on their self-improvement efforts.
· Being more open about our personal struggles can be a learning
experience for everyone involved. Each participant can hear what
others report and learn from those reports.
· Others’ comments can help us realize that others share our
experiences, that we are less alone than we thought.
· If we expand our personal support network, we can benefit from more
feedback.
· Such sharing can help surface issues about how we work together, for
process is as important as product. It can foster honesty,
transparency, and internal democracy.
· By letting others know about such meetings, they can serve as a
model to encourage others to do the same.
· By meeting unmet needs, such groups could attract more people to
activist organizations.
· Personal sharing helps work relationships avoid becoming impersonal
and exploitative.
· Being open can help us learn how to deal with troublesome emotions,
such as being hurt by what others say, and steadily become less
vulnerable.
Intentional support groups for political activists would not
necessarily need to engage in problem solving or conflict resolution,
though they might.
Concerning the basic notion of fostering “compassionate politics,” one
correspondent commented
By their nature, bonding and emotional process things are different
from goal-oriented task things. The same group can do both, but
generally not at the same time. They can also adopt certain principles
(e.g., a kindness or compassion screening process) to use in defining
the specific goals they will strive for and the range of techniques
they are willing to employ. But I think you're doomed for failure if
you try to jumble the two modalities together continuously…. [H]ow to
keep the friendship/personal support side of things somewhat
compartmentalized from the get-it-done, task-focused aspects of our
work together [is important]. It's possible, but it takes attention.
These comments are sensible. Achieving concrete goals requires focus.
At the same time, it seems that on occasion, perhaps once a month, we
could set aside special time to share feelings, especially with regard
to how we are working together.
Though the responses to the Holistic Transformation Questionnaire and
answers to follow up questions indicate a considerable degree of
interest in such support groups, my inquiries thus far have confirmed
the existence of only one intentional support group for political
activists, the Rochester Circle of Compassion [ link ]. John Testa,
founder of that group, reported:
Self-development is still a significant part of our Circle meetings….
Some of the issues that have been discussed are:
· finding the right balance between family life and activism;
· focusing activism on a few areas rather than trying to solve all of
the world's problems;
· learning which are the activities where one can provide the most
value;
· using artistic and musical skills in community service and political
action;
· attending a healing session;
· using healing skills to teach a course in Qigong at a peace camp.
Despite the success of that group, the support group model for
political activists described here might not be widely viable or
needed. But I remain interested in learning about any such groups that
are underway or being considered.
Marcella Womack
Jul 27, 2010, 12:04:43 AM7/27/10
to charter-netwo...@googlegroups.com
Hide
OneLife Institute SUPPORT GROUP meets tonight 7PM at the Ella Baker Center. Free. All are welcome. Activists, organizers, caregivers, changemakers, community healers especially encouraged. Let somebody know. Please see link for details. Peace.
OneLife Institute is a nonprofit interfaith organization providing resources for the integration of spirituality and social action to create a world of wholeness, justice, and compassion. Wade, thought you might like to see this. Found it through my facebook page. It's like nothing else I've heard of, so far. Liked your summary!
Wish we had something similar in Kansas City. Keep up the good work!!! Marcella (Womack)
Marcella R. Womack
NEW DAWN LLC
Consultant, Writer, Speaker
Kansas City, Missouri
THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
"...to freely bloom - that is my definition of success." Gerry Spence, 1929
--- On Mon, 7/26/10, Wade Hudson <wadehud...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Wade Hudson
Jul 27, 2010, 11:40:08 AM7/27/10
to Charter Network Discussions
A correspondent replied:
thoughtful (as usual) summary. thanks.
thoughtful (as usual) summary. thanks.
Wade Hudson
Jul 27, 2010, 11:44:30 AM7/27/10
to Charter Network Discussions
Thanks much, Marcella. Very interesting. Will explore.
On Jul 26, 9:04 pm, Marcella Womack <marcella2...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
On Jul 26, 9:04 pm, Marcella Womack <marcella2...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Hide
> OneLife Institute SUPPORT GROUP meets tonight 7PM at the Ella Baker Center. Free. All are welcome. Activists, organizers, caregivers, changemakers, community healers especially encouraged. Let somebody know. Please see link for details. Peace.
>
> OneLife Institute SUPPORT GROUP meets tonight 7PM at the Ella Baker Center. Free. All are welcome. Activists, organizers, caregivers, changemakers, community healers especially encouraged. Let somebody know. Please see link for details. Peace.
>
> OneLife Institute for Spirituality & Social Transformationwww.onelifeinstitute.org
> OneLife Institute is a nonprofit interfaith organization providing resources for the integration of spirituality and social action to create a world of wholeness, justice, and compassion.
>
> Wade, thought you might like to see this. Found it through myfacebookpage. It's like nothing else I've heard of, so far. Liked your summary!
> OneLife Institute is a nonprofit interfaith organization providing resources for the integration of spirituality and social action to create a world of wholeness, justice, and compassion.
>
Yo
Aug 4, 2010, 11:36:44 AM8/4/10
to Charter Network Discussions
Wade, thanks for a thought-provoking message. While I can't begin to
address all the issues it raises, I do think that one needs to be
faced squarely before we can expect any real progress.
To my mind, the chief reason support groups - like the ones you
envisage - struggle is that people are uneasy about and unwilling to
participate in something that smacks of the public confession and
implicit "self-criticism" of various evangelical groups, from
revolutionary terrorists to charismatic Christians to Chinese
Communists. Their unease is readily understood by reflecting just how
vulnerable this kind of self-disclosure can make one; clearly, without
absolute trust in all members of the listening group, one is just
handing a sharp weapon to a potential adversary.
Reducing the size of the listening group proportionately decreases the
risks of having one's own words turned against one; in the logical
limit, sharing such experiences with just one other provides minimal
risk. Thus we have self-disclosure commonly limited to just one very
close and trusted associate at a time. Speaking for myself, even
though I might share my experiences and problems with a number of
friends over time, I'm much happier doing so one on one than to many
at once.
In short, I believe there are fundmental psychological reasons that
make normally prudent people unwilling to share quite as widely as the
notion of "support group" usually entails - which is typically from
half a dozen to two dozen relative strangers, rather than just a very
few close asociates. The trust issue is paramount - as every support
group facilitator knows very well. While it need not be
insurmountable, its importance cannot be overlooked and should not be
minimised. Anyone trying to create a viable support network needs to
do everything possible to help members trust each other and the
administration, particularly with respect to the security of their
information. To this end, facilitators need to be fully au fait with
the relevant privacy legislation, to apply and be seen to apply its
requirements stringently to all information about participants.
Nothing that a little appropriate training can't cover; but such
training is essential.
Also essential is an awareness of the responsibility assumed by
anybody who handles privileged personal information. The very openness
that characterises activists is probably at odds with the tact and
discretion required of successful administrators, counsellors and
support group facilitators.
These thoughts may help us realise why successful support groups don't
grow on trees!
Regards,
Yahya
On Jul 27, 1:27 pm, Wade Hudson <wadehudson0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One respondent to the Holistic Transformation Questionnaire addressed the need for personal growth among political activists when he described conversations among activists that are “overshadowed quickly and easily by competitiveness…; turf concerns; fear of organizers (authority, hierarchy…); a sense that this is someone else’s fault and I am not a part of the problem.” ...
address all the issues it raises, I do think that one needs to be
faced squarely before we can expect any real progress.
To my mind, the chief reason support groups - like the ones you
envisage - struggle is that people are uneasy about and unwilling to
participate in something that smacks of the public confession and
implicit "self-criticism" of various evangelical groups, from
revolutionary terrorists to charismatic Christians to Chinese
Communists. Their unease is readily understood by reflecting just how
vulnerable this kind of self-disclosure can make one; clearly, without
absolute trust in all members of the listening group, one is just
handing a sharp weapon to a potential adversary.
Reducing the size of the listening group proportionately decreases the
risks of having one's own words turned against one; in the logical
limit, sharing such experiences with just one other provides minimal
risk. Thus we have self-disclosure commonly limited to just one very
close and trusted associate at a time. Speaking for myself, even
though I might share my experiences and problems with a number of
friends over time, I'm much happier doing so one on one than to many
at once.
In short, I believe there are fundmental psychological reasons that
make normally prudent people unwilling to share quite as widely as the
notion of "support group" usually entails - which is typically from
half a dozen to two dozen relative strangers, rather than just a very
few close asociates. The trust issue is paramount - as every support
group facilitator knows very well. While it need not be
insurmountable, its importance cannot be overlooked and should not be
minimised. Anyone trying to create a viable support network needs to
do everything possible to help members trust each other and the
administration, particularly with respect to the security of their
information. To this end, facilitators need to be fully au fait with
the relevant privacy legislation, to apply and be seen to apply its
requirements stringently to all information about participants.
Nothing that a little appropriate training can't cover; but such
training is essential.
Also essential is an awareness of the responsibility assumed by
anybody who handles privileged personal information. The very openness
that characterises activists is probably at odds with the tact and
discretion required of successful administrators, counsellors and
support group facilitators.
These thoughts may help us realise why successful support groups don't
grow on trees!
Regards,
Yahya
On Jul 27, 1:27 pm, Wade Hudson <wadehudson0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One respondent to the Holistic Transformation Questionnaire addressed the need for personal growth among political activists when he described conversations among activists that are “overshadowed quickly and easily by competitiveness…; turf concerns; fear of organizers (authority, hierarchy…); a sense that this is someone else’s fault and I am not a part of the problem.” ...
Wade Hudson
Aug 4, 2010, 3:00:38 PM8/4/10
to Charter Network Discussions
Yahya,
Thanks much for a very thoughtful and clear comment. I agree with what
you say. It seems that one way to address your concerns would be to
start small and grow slowly and carefully, as well as establishing a
confidentiality pledge.
--Wade
Thanks much for a very thoughtful and clear comment. I agree with what
you say. It seems that one way to address your concerns would be to
start small and grow slowly and carefully, as well as establishing a
confidentiality pledge.
--Wade
Yo
Aug 7, 2010, 3:17:18 AM8/7/10
to Charter Network Discussions
Wade,
Both the measures you suggest are certainly necessary. By themselves
however, they would not be enough. As you know, fostering an
atmosphere of trust depends, ultimately, on being trustworthy. One
needs to be able to show a history of trust well-placed: "by their
fruits shall ye know them". So faith in each other is never ours to
demand, but to give and to receive. Showing a good deal of openness
and trust is one way to invite reciprocal openness and trust. So to
succeed we probably must let ourselves be more vulnerable than we're
all used to ... that may not be a bad thing in itself.
Beyond these three, do you have any further specific recommendations?
Regards,
Yahya
Both the measures you suggest are certainly necessary. By themselves
however, they would not be enough. As you know, fostering an
atmosphere of trust depends, ultimately, on being trustworthy. One
needs to be able to show a history of trust well-placed: "by their
fruits shall ye know them". So faith in each other is never ours to
demand, but to give and to receive. Showing a good deal of openness
and trust is one way to invite reciprocal openness and trust. So to
succeed we probably must let ourselves be more vulnerable than we're
all used to ... that may not be a bad thing in itself.
Beyond these three, do you have any further specific recommendations?
Regards,
Yahya
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages