In the world today polarisation is omnipresent also in our
daily conversations. How can Deep Democracy find answers to questions that
occur in interaction between people. Is the method strong enough to sit in the
fire? Myrna Lewis, founder of the Lewismethod of Deep Democracy in conversation
with Fanny Matheusen, instructor of the method in Belgium.
Fanny: In organisations where I worked lately I met a lot of
ill and insane people. The roles of autism, and psychopathy were present in
these organisations. Sometimes in a very extreme way. Often also attached to
people in leadershippositions. The team where I worked with outed the desire to throw them out, to get
rid of these people. I know from my Deep Democracyperspective that although you
can ask or oblige people to leave, that the role will stay. So these practices,
urged me to state these questions: is there always a pathway to keep everyone
on the bus? Is it safe to spread the role if this is a role of insanity?
Here are some thoughts form Myrna’s side: For people with
specific problems or needs, the Deep Democracy method surely offers
opportunities but is as well a challenge or burden in other ways. If we talk
about autism what would surely help a person in a leadership position is to be
able and to learn to follow the four steps in decisionmaking. The guidelines
structure for them the interaction. What would be difficult for people with
autism is that they don’t talk so easily about emotional stuff. They would
prefer to talk about taskoriented stuff. So we will need the others to bring in
the emotions. And here’s an insight: everyone finds it hard to bring in
emotions, we’re not used to do that. So in a way there’s no need tot make autism bigger than it is. Normalize it and recognize that in a way we are all
autistic. People with autism can be seen in this way as a gift for others or
their organisation. They give us the opportunity to become aware of this side
in ourselve that is afraid, confused to express emotions.
Fanny: That is a beautiful way to loosen the burden of this
role of autism. And at the same time I realize that this will not do as an
answer to the problems of the team I have in mind. They really ask themselves:
ragarding that this person holds the role of autism so strongly, can he be not in
the right position. So in a way they ask themselves : do we want a person with
autism in a leadershiprole or is it not compatible?
Myrna: You can have a debate about this question. It is
sensitive but can bring a lot of wisdom in the group if you can clearly state
the debate: like for instance the question: is he in the right position or is
he not? In earning the grains, you give people the opportunity to take back
projections and see what’s their part in
what happened. As well for the team as for the leader.
Fanny: But what with the role of psychopathy in a leadership
position. To me it seems a thougher role to tackle because what’s typical about
psychopathy is that the people who hold this role are often very bright,
intelligent and strategic clever. They will not take any account on what’s
happening, but often put the blame on their ‘victims’.
Myrna: To resolve tensions in such a team where psychopathy
is a role, the first thing to do is to recognize that there was a system
default. A person can play out the psychopath as long as other people don’t
talk about what’s happening with each other. The psychopath tackles them one by
one. And if they do not talk amongst them, he can keep on doing what he does.
In a way the ‘victims’ become perpatrators by not speaking out. That’s why
there’s often a feeling of guilt. They didn’t assist each other. So in a way
you need to flip it. They talk about a person that did harm to them, but ask
them: what do you do now? And what did you do? Everybody is taking part in the
system. To recognize this is the first step in healing. More difficult and, to
be honest, maybe not possible even, is to get the person in the psychopatic
role to recognize this. Those people are one of the thoughest groups to work
with. They don’t feel any guilt.
Fanny: And once people recognize what happened, a lot of
stuff deep down under the waterline, you can start using the tools to lower the
waterline and resolve the tension further?
Myrna: Exactly. That would be the next step to do. Where craziness
is in the room, it tends to weaken when you give people tools to tackle it.
Fanny: One of those very powerfull tools is throwing the
arrows and go into conflict. The question I want to ask you here is about the
premisses before we go into an argument or a Let’s Talk. Before we even start,
we go through tree premisses: no one has the monopoly on the truth; we do this
to learn; we are in relation. Anyway how you state it, these are very important
principles. And unless you have an agreement, you cannot start the process. So my question at this point is, what do you
do when people don’t agree? When they say f.e. ‘these are not people for me,
not humans, so I’m not related’ or ‘I am right, I have the truth’
Myrna: Can you give an example of when and whare this could
happen?
Fanny: I’ll tell you an example, not out of my own practice,
but of some participant in the course. She told the story that she was living
in a neighbourhood with much racial tension and problems in living together.
She wanted to do something about it trying to use the Deep Democracytools. She organised
a meeting with people of the neighbourhood. The polarisation came out strongly
and right at the beginning of the meeting. She wanted to have the argument but
people didn’t agree on the premisses. She felt inconvenienced. The meeting
stopped and people went home with the unresolved tension. I confirmed her that
in anyway it was the right thing to do not to have the argument. I also think
she was not in the neutral position. That could have caused even a more
stronger polarisation. So maybe she should call someone in from the outside to
facilitate. Would that be an option you think?
I’m curious to hear your view.
Myrna: If people don’t want to be in relation, we cannot use
the Deep Democracytools, that’s clear. The first thing to do here, as I see it,
would be to talk in their groups separately. The tensions in the ‘black’ group
and the tensions in the ‘white’ group should be tackled first. And than there
would be space to see if they could work together. So in the group that wants
integration, they need to look at the existing racism they have. This role will
come up if they talk to each other in this group. In tackling the isuue of
prejudices and racism amongst them, they already heal the field. They can think
now about ways how to approach the other group. In the white racist group, the
group that don’t want even to speak to people of colour or their ‘integration-friends’,
you need te search for some sprankle of connection. In a way they would have a
question about: ‘if we want to live here, how do we let make it work?’ You
could have a debate on this. And try to gain as much rolefluidity as possible
in healing the field. In both groups a neutral facilitator is a must. The woman
that initiated the meeting now, was herself too much involved and even if she
could have taken a neutral stance she would not have been seen by the others as
neutral enough.
Fanny: Yes, sure, because there where already so much
stereotypes going around. In such a field, neutrality becomes even more
important.
Myrna: Indeed. Stereotypes make us not want to see the
person who he or she really is. We don’t want to go in relationship and so we
hide behind the stereotypes. So stating: ‘I don’t want this connection’, ‘I
don’t want to talk to them’ is in a way saying I don’t want to see the person.
To get a breakthrough on this part you could use the metaphor of a divorce.
It’s clear that two people divorcing don’t want to be related as partners.
That’s why they divorce. But could there be a possibillity to parent together and
stay related as parents?
Fanny: This metaphor can be very useful I think in setting
out the why of the meeting where both groups would gather after having had
their own sessions. This metaphor would lower the expectations of what will be
the goal of meeting each other. We don’t have to be friends, but can we see how
we can be neighbours?
Myrna: Yes, that’s also being in relation isn’t it?
Fanny: Thank you for this supervision talk. I will check in with
some of my learners in exploring this further.
