"Leadership School" is a formal group event that began in the 70's in the Pacific Northwest District of the UUA. This is the second part of a three part paper. The first part is a narrative and the third is a discussion of relevance to clergy. The paper was written for a class at Meadville/Lombard Theological School.
LEADERSHIP SCHOOL
by Mary Scriver (1978)
“A liberal religious group comes to function as both a learning and redemptive community when its members become sufficiently disciplined to pose fundamental questions about human life.
“Following the poet Rilke’s concept, when a community not only poses basic questions but also tries to live its own answers on the basis of the knowledge it gain, it enters upon education. The classically adequate way to present a religion implicit or explicit, is therefore to create communities in which the central prophesy is lived as well as taught.”
-- Khoren Arisian, “Spirituality and Reason,” Kairos, Autumn, 1978
Unitarian-Universalism is a pluralistically religious organization existing in the context of a pluralistically secular culture. As such it presents some very difficult problems. Some of our Ethical Culture and Humanistic people seem secular to other religious bodies and some of our Natural Religion or Christian people seem superstitious dreams to other secular bodies. I think it is no accident that Unitarianism was an enthusiasm for so many framers of the Constitution of the United States, written when democratic pluralism seemed an exciting new freedom that protected the interests and growth of all people. Since that time technology, accelerating change, population pressure, and a raised consciousness about the meaning of freedom have made pluralism into something potentially explosive.
How do we talk to each other about our differences without arousing so much anxiety that the community is torn? It seems easier to smile and change the subject when heartfelt religious subjects come up. But if we never negotiate or communicate among ourselves, how do we present a united front to the world? And if we don’t present that united front, our power to protect our people against a hostile world is drastically reduced. How does a person really know whether they belong or not, if the organization is slippery about what it stands for? And yet, if we nail down the parameters of our thought, someone’s toes are bound to be hurt.
Democracy takes a lot more skill on the part of a lot more people than any other form of government. Self-consciousness about democratic skills such as organizational development, discussion skills, and group dynamics has greatly expanded in the last few years. We “must learn organization as our fathers learned farming,” says Peter Drucker. Any group of leaders who ignores such valuable tools is bound to be handicapped. But bringing to consciousness such group interactions is as threatening as psychoanalysis. Indeed, there’s a close parallel in the potential for revolution.
Leadership School operated in a number of ways.
1. It gave us a vocabulary. There has to be some way to talk about phenomena that re-occur enough to be noted. “Person-oriented” versus “task-oriented” is an amazingly useful concept, but you need the terms before you can ask yourself whether the idea applies.
2. It gave us a mirror. The instruments and experiences fed back to us a great deal of information about our own styles and priorities. It forced us to verbalize a lot of inchoate stuff and suggested all sorts of new avenues of investigation. Unless a person gets honest feedback about the kind of impression he/she is making on others, he/she is seriously handicapped in trying to make positive changes.
3. It taught us how to use ritual. Victor Turner tells us that one of the main functions of religion is to act as a doorkeeper between the major stages of life. It helps separate us from the old, mark the threshold, and reconcile us to the new. The classic “rebirth” experience is a key paradigm. Turner says that a ritual is not really valid unless it is participated in or recognized by at least three “significant others.” In modern society the stages of life come hard upon each other: no longer are they limited to birth, coming of age, marriage, retirement and death. Levinson’s research suggests a new stage every seven to ten years. The transitions are difficult and dangerous, both for society and for the individual.
By teaching us to design and use worship and rituals, even very simple ones spontaneously done, our religious community is able to respond more effectively. In my own church a woman whose child was in danger came to our sharing group and asked for some sort of reassurance but said she didn’t believe in prayer. Instead we held hands in a circle and “sent strength” over to her. She said she had an almost physical sensation of energy coming into her and was able to calm down and cope.
4. It taught us to be authentic. Sheer fatigue caused us to drop our social faces and once they were gone we found we were good enough without them. There was a constant challenge to “put your money where your mouth is” -- that is, act as your stated ideology requires, or else stop saying that’s what you believe -- your words are not congruent with your actions.
5. It taught us that reason and emotion or reason and experience are not mutually exclusive. As Progoff does with his journal techniques, we first experienced and then analyzed. We had practise in using both modes and therefore were better able to consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of both modes in various situations. This gave us insight into our own styles, more to think about when decided what to do, and more options in our ways of reacting.
6. It taught us not to be afraid to be authoritative. So many UU’s join us because they are anti-authoritarian that we tend to become phobic and break out in a rash every time someone acts in a powerful way. We found by experience that authority is fluid, maybe voluntarily passed back and forth, may be shared, and is not evil in any Manichean sense. The evil is in the misuse of authority -- and lack of authority is as much of an abuse as inappropriate or excessive authority.
7. It taught us how much power there is in “ownership” of a well thought-out purpose. Again, our resistance to creeds tempts us to resist any kind of group statement. Yet, no one can tell whether a particular action or strategy is helpful or not unless it is measured against some criterion. Not to agree on a purpose is to be lost in confusion and conflict, unable to take action. To agree on a clear purpose, reached by voluntary consensus, is to be empowered, to “own” the plan.
8. It taught us not to be afraid to tinker with the structure of an organization. But also to be careful with the tinkering because even small changes can be enabling or limiting. Still, experimentation is better than fossilization. And the efficiency of a group can be greatly enhanced by a better adjustment between the people and the task.
9. It taught us never to underestimate each other. people found capacities and talents in themselves that they had never suspected. And one never knew where the good ideas and the real devotion might come from: perhaps from the most nondescript or flakey member of the group.
10. Leadership School taught us the same things that an alert and thoughtful person might learn from real life. The difference was that for an enclosed and ritualized time and space and in a community of people dedicated to a common purpose, one was able to learn a great deal in a short time. In this rushed, pluralistic, secular society a person doesn’t get many chances like that.
Pop psych or “personal growth” techniques just seemed irrelevant in the midst of this week. The focus was on individual in the midst of community. Pure narcissistic navel-gazing meant the gazer dropped out and was left behind the others. People who came expecting lots of enfolding and reassurance didn’t get it unless they pitched in and worked. This is not to say that people didn’t need to be alone off and on, in varying time lengths, just to let the dust settle and pull themselves together.
Group psych type exercises, like making “living sociograms” by walking over to stand by people one trusted most or least, were productive and information-yielding, but they aroused emotions that not everyone could handle. Jim Zacharias is a trained person and was able to direct those emotions, but not everyone was happy.
One of the most troublesome aspects of pluralism is trying to find a normative ethic for oneself. This seems a very relevant issue for Leadership School to tackle. I’m convinced that the ground most UU’s hold in common is “high ethics,” that space just below heaven and just above earth, between non-moral good and holy commandment but not either.
The problem in terms of Leadership School is that most of the ethical action in our culture right now tends to center on money or sex. Money is the more taboo subject. Sex arises powerfully from the “convention syndrome” of being away from home for a week.
What IS a normative sexual standard anyway? We had people openly soliciting for partners and people who were away from their spouses for the first time since marriage and terribly lonely for them. Does every person develop his/her own standard? Are there any givens? How do you use situation ethics effectively when you’re in the middle of the situation and emotion is blinding you?
I think we were on the way to exploring the ethics of sexuality in a positive way when we broadened the subject out from just physical contact to roles in society. How does gender affect human relationships? The fact that we were together in a small space with emotions aroused and deep intimacy forming meant that some people wanted to express those relationships physically. The issues of whether that was a good thing to do was not discussed openly, although it got a good deal of discussion privately. The potential for trouble is high, whether or not the issue is discussed openly.
At Leadership School a great deal depends on the personal qualities and professional skills of the leaders, which don’t necessarily relate to credentials. Sometimes their restraint in NOT intervening is more helpful than any formal “leading.” The “up-front” leaders are not the only important people. Rod Stewart was the real father of Leadership School who thought the idea up, followed it through, and did all the paperwork and structuring outside of the content. The various “para-professionals” who led groups and so on were also a strong contribution to the quality of the event.
The final lesson of Leadership School is to spend 90% of your time planning and 10% acting -- thoughtfully.
No comments:
Post a Comment