It's all about communication! How successful we are likely to be in achieving what we want to achieve is all about communication. Well, maybe not ALL, but a fair portion of our success lies in how and what we communicate with others. Here's the story that has me focusing on this today:

I live on an estate managed on a day to day basis by us residents - we have a resident run company. En route to my stairwell this evening, I passed a fellow resident and said "Good Evening!' He asked if I had seen Ed. I hadn't and asked him what was up, as he was frowning. He - le'ts call him Jack - explained that he was having plumbing problems and was looking for Ed to help him out. Jack's kitchen sink had not only been blocked but had been spewing out awful, smelly stuff. For the time being the problem had been solved - Jack had used really strong chemicals to clear it out after plunging didn't work. After explaining this all to me, Jack then said:  "If it happens again I am going to call the police and say someone is doing drugs on the estate!" I did not quite get the connection, so asked him to elaborate. His rationale was that it can only be drugs that would be blocking up the drains like that.  

Hmmm.

My response: 'Well you don't know that drugs have anything to do with your sink problem and I'm not sure calling the police would help anything. Have you told Pete?" Pete is the resident Director of Building Maintenance. "Yes, and he told me to find Ed', Jack replied with a slightly raised voice and added "Typical, always passing the buck on to others." Knowing that Pete takes his Director role very seriously, I suggested it wasn't the case and that we go knock on Pete's door and have a chat.  

As we walked up the stairwell, Jack asked me: "So you think he'll listen to you more than he did me?" I said I thought that two residents are more powerful than one and that it is a matter of how the issue is communicated. So, we knocked on Pete's door, and I explained that I had bumped into Jack and that Ed was not home. Pete explained that a plumber needs to determine the cause of the overflow - whether or not it is the external drain pipe or something in someone's flat - and that Ed is a plumber. Pete also talked about a previous problem there had been on the estate and how it had long costly process of getting it fixed, how old the plumbing was and so forth. Jack responded to this by focusing on the fact that it clearly wasn't his fault and told his story of all that he had to go through to deplug the train, emphasizing that he had heard someone wandering up the landing the day before with a similar problem. 

What was I doing while all this was going on? I reframed the dialogue. For example, I clarified for Jack (because I could tell that Jack wasn't hearing this from Pete's explanation) how the process works here - that internal plumbing matters are the resident's responsibility. We are obliged to call in a plumber and if they conclude the source of the problem is external than the Management company gets involved. But the first step is identifying the source of the problem. I stressed that Pete was offering up Ed as person who would have a look for free, when Jack said that calling in a plumber would cost a fortune. I empathised. For example, I said to Ed that I could see he was frustrated and fearful - what if this happened again and was something he couldn't fix?  I also reminded him it was frustrating for all us residents that this is how the process works - with the aim of helping him feel connected with others in his experience.

By the end of the conversation, Jack suggested to Pete that he thought the cause might be someone's dishwasher and the food waste going through it. I assumed - that being the case - he no longer thought a call to the police would be appropriate should he have plumbing problems in the future. Pete gave Jack Ed's mobile number and told him to give Ed a ring and say that they had spoken. He assured Jack that he would get to the bottom of this matter.

Why did I get involved? I'm a qualified and practicing mediator. I suspected that a a conversation at the end of a workday between an angry, frustrated, sceptical and worried resident and the Maintenance Director (who I knew had the spent the past week grappling with the tough and costly issue of window repairs) would not go well if they were left to their own devices. With this suspicion in mind, I made the suggestion to Jack that we go talk to Pete together. I wanted to facilitate expansive and constructive communication. I wanted Jack to feel satisfied that his concerns had been heard and taken seriously. Jack shook my hand as we parted and I said if he bumped into me again he must let me now how it all unfolds. As I was walking away for him, he paused to ask another resident who was just coming home if he was having plumbing problems. In fact, he was - and I found myself thinking that perhaps now Jack will feel less isolated in all this and that will be a source of comfort. As for Pete, I didn't want him to be shouted at and/or bullied for what Jack had felt was a dismissive response when he first raised the issue. I don't think it was dismissive to tell Jack to find Ed. Rather, it lacked a necessary full explanation and an exchange that would have given Jack the sense of being heard and taken seriously. 

Generally, I wanted success, peace, and satisfaction for both of my fellow residents - and I knew that the key to getting that would be how they communicated with each other. And that a little help with that could go a long way.

I was at a gathering recently of about a dozen or so lefties - I'm sure everyone in the room would agree to the broad label. 'Broad' is definitely the operative word; the spectrum of beliefs within this group was interesting, if not highly entertaining and provocative. We talked about the recently publicised 'boy banned from wearing corn-rows hairstyle to school' issue; female genital mutilation, the movie MATRIX (which seems to have a very important social-philosophical message for some), national identity, human rights principles - are they really universal?; sexuality; sexuality in the workplace and more. We came from diverse backgrounds, a range of national, ethnic, racial and religious identities were in the room. I suspect we all came from similar class backgrounds, but cannot confirm that.

It was a social happening - which means people were laid back and felt comfortable (as far as I could tell) being honest – so honest that we had plenty of arguments.  These arguments included not just loud voices, but dismissive tones, talking over each other and other similar forms of communication. So, why am I sharing this? I am sharing this because of a reminder I took from it: we who call ourselves 'progressive' are a hugely diverse lot and while we can put aside our differences to focus on coalescing around broad shared values and judgments/critics about the 'opposition' we also might serve our selves well to be delving into how and why we disagree with each other, exploring how we move together when engaging with the more controversial areas. In short, I’m calling out for us to have greater ‘movement' awareness.

A social movement requires a shift, motion - as the word 'movement' suggests.  A key question: 'How are we moving? Applying the physical movement work I do to social movement, I see how we can think of ourselves as inhabiting three spaces (thank you, Ya'Acov and Susannah for this!): our deep internal space (what we are engaging with inside ourselves), the space immediately around us (how we start to move outwards, while still focused internally on what's alive inside ourselves), and our wider space (how we move further outwards, giving awareness to and interacting with our surrounding environment). I'm inclined to call these spaces (I'm using different terminology than Ya'Acov and Susannah) internal, intermediate, and expanded. We are constantly moving within and between/across all of them. 

Thinking about this has got me reflecting on this space we call 'progressive' - and how we move within it, individually and collectively. I'm considering how each of us moves within our inner space, our intermediate space and our expanded space - and how we connect them all. I ask myself: what's alive and moving internally, and how does this take form when I move in my intermediate space, and finally what shape does my internal movement take when I open it up into expanded space? Do I integrate with the movement around me? Do I carry on my movement regardless of what surrounds me? Do I find myself losing my sense of internal movement and become completely absorbed by the movement of others - and unconsciously imitate them or react to them without conscious agency of what I'm doing? 

How do these questions apply more collectively? What I'm thinking here is that if we are trying to grow a progressive movement, we all (whoever 'we' are) could benefit from reflection - in order to understand more clearly how we actually are moving - separately and together. When doing physical movement work, we come to awareness - for example - of repetitive motions we get stuck in, of movement we resist, of when we forget our inner and intermediate spaces and get totally absorbed by others in the expanded space. What might we gain if we apply the same practice - awareness - to our social movement, focusing firstly on the inner space and than moving outwards into the expanded space where we consciously connect (or not, as the case may be) with our 'progressive' peers? 

In working with our movement in this way, we can gain awareness of how we are moving – firstly among ourselves. We also can create the opportunity to transform our movement – reshape it, so that it flows more freely even while we are negotiating shared space with others. We can become aware of our patterns in negotiating shared space - constructively and destructively. We can explore new ways of moving and opening up our opportunities for engagement with our selves and others. Then, with this experience and awareness alive within us, we can expand out into wider, more challenging spaces, e.g. involving the ‘opposition’.

In doing so – expanding outwards - we would take with us a deep understanding of our movement. As a result, I believe, we will become stronger and more empowered ‘movers and shakers’. 

I do a lot of work with movement/dance. Last weekend, I participated in a workshop where I was very conscious of this idea of (in)visibility. One woman stands out in particular. She is stunning looking in a host of ways – including a number of tattoos. I have seen her at other movement events and sense that she likes to be visible. The tattoos alone – in very readily seen places on her body – create a loud invitation to look at her. But also, the few times I’ve seen her, she has been always conspicuous in terms of being in the centre of the room or standing while everyone else is sitting. Again, I hear ‘ Look at me.’ This has me thinking about the ways we encourage others to look at us and the extent which we are limiting or expanding  what people see. The question that comes to mind is: How can we use our power to appear and disappear most effectively to bring about the change we desire?

I make a huge assumption with this question. I assume we have control over our visibility. At one level, this is fundamentally untrue. Try as we might, sometimes people simply refuse to see us. What then? What do we do? Well, I will come back to that particular issue in a future post. For now, I’m going to roll with the assumption: I/you/we can control and direct when and how we are seen – at least to some degree.

Our power is rooted in self-awareness. What do we see in ourselves that we want to make visible to those around us? What do we want to hide from others?

Social changemakers – whether in small or large ways – often are wanting to make our anger visible. We are driven to pursue change because of an injustice and wrong, a sense that ‘things should be different’ and we are angry that they are not.  What happens if we focus on putting our anger out there – on being seen as ANGRY?

Anger, depending on its form, will receive a variety of responses. And that’s the key – what form does our anger take? When a group of protestors burns down a bunch of shops, they are seen as angry – but also as reckless, disrespectful, dangerous, and perhaps stupid, i.e. if those shops are in their own neighbourhood. In such a situation, I imagine witnesses – those for whom the anger is meant – become less inclined to pause and ask ‘Why such anger?” or “What responsibility do I have to try and engage with this person’s sense of injustice?’ Rather than become curious, witnesses to such anger are more likely to become confused, dismissive and silent.

This is by no means a suggestion that we encourage violent anger by responding to it – by sending the message ‘be violent, it is the way to get seen and heard.’  Again, that raises a related but different topic. Nor is it to suggest that we avoid expressing anger. The pressing question is: What are the most effective ways of bringing our angry selves into visibility – the ways which encourage others to engage with it and us and the others aspects of our selves we want them to see, e.g., the creative problem-solver, courage, compassion?

I like to answer this question by focusing attention firstly on the source(s) of the anger. Why are we angry and what request(s) do we want to make of others to change what it is that draws us to anger? What aspects of our requests are fixed and what actually are fluid, i.e., we want a more fair decision, but we aren't locked on one route to achieve that sense of fairness. Then I focus on the direction of the anger - to whom is it towards? In my actions, am I being truthful or misdirected, e.g., am I wrongly shooting a messenger for a message created by someone else?  Next, I wonder 'What does escalation look like?' That is, what does a request look like and if that meets resistance, what does my demand look like? When does it make most sense to request? To demand? What is the most effective way to express either?

I also am aware of a set of questions I think can get easily lost: How can I connect with the people who have the power to meet my request/demand? How can I connect with others who may be sympathetic to my request/demand - and support me in the asking? 

When people look at us, what they see is inevitably determined both by what we make visible and what's alive in them and shapes the lens through which they are viewing us. The final set of questions coming to mind on this topic, for right now: What do I want people to see in me? How do I know if they are seeing it - and if not, what are they seeing in its place? If I'm hiding something - rendering a part of myself invisible - why am I doing that and what is the consequence?

“You ache with the need to convince yourself that you do exist in the real world…and you strike out with your fists, you curse and you swear to make them recognize you. And, Alas, it’s seldom successful.” The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison 

I have so much I can say on this topic. Firstly, it always takes me back to the United States. I cannot hear the word ‘Invisible’ without thinking of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man – a seminal book describing the ways in which a Black man in the U.S. moves through his life invisible – seen through, rather than seen. Notwithstanding our Black President, this narrative line is still relevant. In my coaching work, I have been reminded repeatedly these past few months of how the status of invisibility is widespread, e.g. women in the workplace.

I suspect that the vast majority of us have at one point or another in our lives felt invisible. We all have this in common. Of course, invisibility plays out it different ways, is context-dependent in terms of impact, and is invariably tied in with the politics of power. Clearly, some forms of invisibility have more serious life implications than others.  

As said, I can say a lot on this subject. I believe it to be a very important one when it comes to social transformation. Where to focus? Today (I’m sure I’ll come back to this), I will focus on the ways in which we render each other invisible: 

·      Labels, boxes and roles – we are pushed or pulled into (e.g. through a desire for power) narrow labels, boxes, roles that others use to define us and we sometimes use to define ourselves and our relationships.

·      Constraining beliefs –we consciously and unconsciously are guided by beliefs (including assumptions and attitudes) often rooted in fear, judgement and focusing on limits, lack, and disconnect.

·      Silencing and lack of understanding – sometimes, due to lack of confidence, we keep quiet and other times we are silenced because others talk over us, bully and disparage us, tell us to keep silent, or effectively make us silent by making little effort to understand us.

·      Lack of self-awareness - We allow ourselves to move about without questioning our beliefs, motives and behaviours. We fail to observe the impact our thoughts, words, deeds and decisions have on our own self-perceptions and on our relationships with others; we forget to ask ‘In what ways could what I’m thinking, saying and doing, contribute more to my own visibility? To the visibility of others?  

The other day a friend described to me an incident at a UK Uncut protest in Hackney. Two young men from the neighborhood wanted to access the bank which was closed as a result of the protest. They shouted at the protestors – their language was decidedly vulgar and aggressive. At the heart of the conflict, according to one of these young men, was that he wanted to go into the bank to get money for food. He was questioning the protestors’ right to limit his access to the bank. In response, the protestors tried to explain why they were protesting and how, for example, his local NHS would be cut , e.g. maternity wards, while bankers were taking a fortune in bonuses and not paying their fair share of taxes. The young man's response to this was – by the account I heard – vitriolic and to many ears shocking and offensive. In rather more vivid language, he suggested that in Hackney, people should value how good they have it -  say, compared to a woman in an African country giving birth.

As I listened to this story, I could easily picture the situation. Two sets of people talking at cross purposes – neither demonstrating that they understand each other. Later, at the scene, my friend offered one of the young men five pounds he had found on his way to the protest. He saw, in doing so, that the young man’s demeanor changed. He wasn’t so bold and brave anymore; rather, he responded to my friend with his eyes looking down and a polite ‘No thank you. I don’t take money from nobody.’ My friend tried to insist by saying ‘It isn’t mine, I found it – take it and go get some food.’

The young man declined again. He waited around until the bank re-opened, and my friend observed when he came out that he was clutching five-pound note. Presumably all he had wanted was five pounds – which you can’t withdraw from a cash machine – and some dignity to go with it.

My friend and I agreed it was a shame the opportunity was not more effectively taken for communication and connection. I imagine, from what I heard, a condensed summary of the story goes something like this:  The young men yelled and hurled invectives at the protestors. In response, finding it hard to be sympathetic to their verbal violence and vulgarity, the protestors did not engage with the issue raised by the young men. Instead, they focused on explaining the protest rationale. Because it gathered no sympathy from the young men, the protesters gave up trying to communicate. And the young men continued to be angry.

If someone is yelling and shouting at strangers, I immediately assume that there is a part of them wanting to be seen and heard – they are trying to give themselves visibility. Ironically, perhaps, everyone in this interaction was trying to do the same thing, albeit through different methods: be visible - protestors and local bank users alike.  Unfortunately, what seems to have happened is that they were unable to see each other. They talked at cross purposes and they looked right through one another, so focused were they on their own respective need to be seen.  

And I can't help but think that a valuable 'connective' opportunity - for all involved - was lost.