What’s our philosophy at Communitas ?
On 'bracketing one's assumptions' and how not to inadvertently impose one's philosophy on a groupAt Communitas, our philosophy is first and foremost that we hold any philosophy lightly.
An excursion on 'bracketing' one's prior assumptions
In this, we are influenced by the Gestalt philosophy of 'phenomenological enquiry' - in practice that means: bracketing one's prior assumptions; coming to a situation with as few pre-conceived ideas as possible. We are not saying that complete 'bracketing' is in fact possible. But we are saying that it's a worthwhile exercise. It is a worthy attempt because the human tendency to see reality in terms of self-fulfilling prophecies is vastly underestimated. We see what we expect to see. We don't see what we don't expect (if you don't believe me, maybe it's because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas of reality ?).
There are any number of stunning experiments that have been carried out by clever psychological researchers, where this phenomenon has been established over and over again: there is a pervasive human capacity for shutting out uncomfortable perceptions that don't fit the pre-existing pigeon-holes. The capacity of human minds to refuse to be boggled boggles the mind.
So, whoever we are and however open and flexible and undogmatic we think we are, we need to make some allowance for our own tendency, as humans and as leaders, to continue seeing what we are accustomed to seeing; to persist in interpreting new realities through the lens of old certainties; to pour fresh, new, tasty wine into the same old wine skins, so it takes on the same old taste.
Phenomenological bracketing of one's prior assumptions is an attempt to allow for this. To not think that my own mind is above this.
What's our philosophy as tutors/leaders ?
As tutors - or as leaders - our philosophy is that we are not trying to impart a philosophy. On the contrary: we are trying not to, as it is likely to get in the way of us, together as a group, discovering something more precious. Imparting a philosophy - our philosophy - is only second-best to what we are trying to do.
There are several reasons for our reluctance to define a 'clear' and unequivocal philosophy that we then stand up for and are then identified with:
a) For a start, to some extent we do not have a coherent philosophy. In practice, we find ourselves having different philosophies, depending on what relationship and social context we are in. For example, in a group of over-controlled and controlling people, I tend to have a philosophy of letting go. In a chaotic, impulsive group I tend have a philosophy of being focussed and interested in conflict.
In this way, the leader's apparent philosophy all too easily becomes an expression of the phenomenon of 'parallel process'. So then my apparent philosophy is no longer a philosophy - actually it is more of an emotional reaction. Nothing wrong with that, but - and here's the rub - it needs to be understood as such. This applies to many - apparently philosophical - arguments.
b) Secondly, as trainers in a self-directed learning community, we are interested in the shared philosophy that evolves. We are certainly wary of imposing a philosophy, although we recognise it will happen and that we cannot help that process. But we are committed to reflecting on this, as tutors and as a community.
How do group norms get established ? Whose philosophy seems to be influential ? Who is being listened to and why ? Is something else being ignored or overlooked ?
Traditional education methods incline us to throw out our own perceptions and our own reality all too readily. So we are alert to self-undermining attitudes around learning. We recognise that most people know more than they know. One of our values is to attend to and allow to emerge the wisdom and knowledge of the group and its participants. having said that, we cannot legislate against the fact that there are always some people who will busy themselves with trying to decipher the leader's supposedly superior wisdom and decode their implicit philosophy.
c) Also, thirdly, we are more interested in keeping our own philosophy evolving than arresting its development by imparting it to others. We are more interested in how philosophies develop than in 'having' one.
d) And, lastly, in the field of groups and organisations, the idea of a unified philosophy or mission statement is often counterproductively used to short-circuit a more complex dilemma, i.e. a clash between two equally valid philosophies. It may be more useful to attend to the clash rather than insist on the oversimplification of one philosophy. There can be something very edifying and productive in a leader's recognition that the only certainty is uncertainty, and something very liberating and empowering for the people they work with.
All of this does not mean we do not have guiding principles, assumptions or models that we draw from. But we prefer to draw from them rather than letting them define us.
Posted by Michael Soth in • Introduction to Communitas • Communitas Philosophy