1) It is not enough to care about only the voices in our society which are powerful and articulate. If we are to live up to our promise as an American Democracy, then we have to care about even those voices which seem weak and powerless. We must show respect to persons whose voices have previously not been heard in our society. (AKA, “disenfranchised”)
2) By using dialogue processes that are both socially and intellectually inclusive, we can encounter even complex, seemingly impossible problems and resolve those problems successfully. When concerned, dedicated, and well-trained persons work together in communities where true dialogue is alive, miracles can happen. In the Thunder City scenario, a community which hears the voice of a single elderly woman becomes organized to produce a creative solution. When a creative solution to a complex social problem shows itself to be both workable and sustainable, then that qualifies as a miracle. Looking at our society today, I would say that we need some miracles. Once again, please feel free to correct me, if you feel I am mistaken about this.
3) In a complex, chaotic environment, a single voice can develop harmonic reverberations that impact the whole system. Something like this may have happened in the Minnesota bridge collapse, where the jackhammer being operated by the repair crew on the bridge reverberated with the pulses of the freight train passing underneath the bridge, and set up a rhythm that propagated along the existing cracks in the structure. On the other hand, a single voice can develop harmonic reverberations that can organize previously untapped creative potential in the system. In the Thunder City scenario, failing to hear Ida Mae’s voice led to system failure, but choosing to hear her voice led to a creative solution. If we are going to generate “workable and sustainable solutions” to the problems which confront our world in the 21st Century, then we need to learn how we can tap into, and effectively organize, previously untapped creative potential.
4) Navigating a complex, chaotic environment requires both logic and intuition. If we rely too much on logic to resolve the complexities by identifying major issues, then we may fail to notice apparently insignificant factors which signal the presence of powerful energy sources.
From Landon:
Dear Friends,
It is noteworthy that our present conversation was generated by Steve Mantz’ email on 8/9/07, after the bridge collapse. Could there be a more perfect metaphor than bridgebuilding for the work we do as the NCDD community?
Let’s consider the following scenario:Somewhere in America, sitting on both sides of a mighty river, there is a metropolis called Thunder City. For reasons yet to be specified, our beloved Federal Government decides to build a new Interstate Highway Bridge across the river. The Government hires a General Contractor with a proven record of completing projects on time, under budget, and in compliance with environmental guidelines. This General Contractor, recognizing that the new Bridge will impact persons from multiple constituencies, convenes a series of Town Hall Meetings, hoping to create productive community involvement. The Bridge Project impacts many constituencies (groups of persons who share common interests) who are in the path of construction, but in this scenario we focus on only two groups: a large group of mostly Hispanic workers at a clothing factory, and a small group of elderly Black folks who live in an old, run-down neighborhood on the southeast side of the river. At the first Town Hall, attended by over 100 concerned citizens, many Hispanic workers are present, ably represented by an attorney from the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). The Black folks are represented by a single elderly lady named Ida Mae, who has come because her great-grandson, who has just been deployed to Iraq, had learned about the meeting, and had told her that she needed to go.
At the meeting, everyone divides into groups of about a dozen folks each. At this point, our scenario breaks into two variations, variations which illustrate the difference between consensus planning and dialogue planning.
The First Variation moves immediately into a well-designed process for identifying major concerns shared by significant numbers of persons. The facilitators in each group are well-prepared, presenting relevant information clearly and succinctly, and asking well-designed questions which elicit free expression of ideas from nearly everyone present. The concerns of the Hispanic workers, which center around their loss of employment, are addressed by developing a plan to relocate the factory, including a commitment by the City Administration to ensure that adequate public transportation will be provided, so that workers can commute from their existing communities to the new location. By the time the meeting is over, all expressed priorities have been addressed, and a consensus is reached that the project should move ahead as planned. Everyone leaves the meeting with a feeling that good work has been done. Everyone except Ida Mae.
Ida Mae goes home feeling that there was never a space for her to speak, that there was never a time when she could raise her voice. In the months to come, she hears of more Town Hall Meetings, but she makes no effort to attend, believing that it would do no good. The project rolls along, and one day Ida Mae receives an Eviction Notice, informing her that the Government is exercising its right of Eminent Domain, and that she will need to move, because her land is needed for an important construction project.
As it happens, Ida Mae’s great-grandson James is home on leave on the day when the Eviction Notice arrives, and he is not pleased. He is not risking his life every day in the name of Freedom so that elderly Black people can be pushed aside in the name of progress. James calls a high school teammate who is a lawyer, and who is well-connected politically. As they talk, James learns of the accommodations provided for the Hispanic workers, and he begins to suspect that Ida Mae and her neighbors are being mistreated because they are Black. In reality, race has nothing to do with the decisions being made, but as soon as this issue raises its ugly head, the local media get wind of it, and they know that nothing pumps up ratings for the Evening News like a good story of Racial Discrimination. Suddenly there are picket lines being organized, lawsuits being filed, and the whole project comes to a crashing halt. In media interviews, the General Contractor and the Federal Government lament the fact that even though they did everything they could to be inclusive, it is never possible to include everyone in a planning process, and the will of the majority obviously needs to override the concerns of a small number of elderly Black people living in a few ramshackle old buildings. Our First Variation has now come to a stalemate, so let’s go back and think through a Second Variation.
In our Second Variation, the facilitators at the Town Hall Meetings begin with exercises designed to generate a sense of social connection among everyone present in the room. Ida Mae makes personal contact with 3 younger persons who seem very friendly, and who make her feel welcome. As the Town Hall progresses to the stage of identifying priorities, one of these young persons notices Ida Mae has not said anything, and asks if she has any concerns. Ida Mae responds that she wonders what will happen to herself and many other elderly people in her neighborhood as the bridge is being built. No adequate answer can be immediately provided, but several persons agree to form a Task Force and address Ida Mae’s concerns. In the ensuing months, this Task Force, which incorporates local religious leaders and community activists, works out an agreement by which everyone in Ida Mae’s neighborhood is given the opportunity to move into a new retirement facility being constructed on nearby government land from a former Air Force Base. With involvement of the Task Force, the retirement facility is built as part of a community project which also provides day-care (partly staffed by on-site retirees), job training, and youth sports activities. Local employment goes up, the land is well-used, and Ida Mae’s quiet voice has been heard in ways she never anticipated.
In the First Variation, the failure to hear the voice of one elderly woman leads to a stalemate that greatly increases the overall time and cost for the project. In the Second Variation, the commitment to hear the voices of even those persons who seem weak and insignificant generates a creative problem solution that reaches far beyond the initial area of concern. That’s the difference between consensus based decision making and dialogue based decision making. Consensus based decision making is a big step forward from the monolithic, authoritarian decision making of our colonial past, but in the 21st Century we need to go further. In 21st Century America—a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy—we need to practice dialogue based decision making.
The consensus approach seems to start with the assumption that we can’t possibly hear everyone’s voice, so let’s do the best we can to include the voices of everyone who is influential and articulate. The dialogue approach starts with the assumption that we can at least make an effort to hear everyone’s voice, and realizes that sometimes what starts out as a whisper can end up being heard as thunder. It seems to me that our job as dialogue facilitators in the 21st Century is to ensure that the voices of those persons who have traditionally been disenfranchised are given as much honor and respect as the voices of those who are powerful and influential. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Landon Shultz,
Bluebonnet Hills Christian Church,
Austin, Texas
Looking forward to seeing what happens next on your site.
]]> Mon, Jul 23, 2007 09:51:24]]>Welcome
Jon Lebkowsky : I'm here.
Paul : OK Taylor stepped away for a minute
Jon Lebkowsky : Cool... guess we have a few minutes.
Paul : yes. I hope some people show us
Paul : Jiohn, how did you get the pictures to show up on attendr? I tried one today, but it didn't seem to work
Paul : you're just special...
Paul : good
Paul : great we can use the help
Jon Lebkowsky : Okay I lost this page for a minute
Taylor Willingham : yep
Rod Reyna : Yes you are.
Paul : sounds good
Jon Lebkowsky : Oh, okay.
Jon Lebkowsky : good.
Tom Peters : Hi, Everyone
Jon Lebkowsky : I saw David this PM, I expect to see him here in a sec.
Tom Peters : I always knew that!
Jon Lebkowsky : I hear the ringing, too.
Jon Lebkowsky : It's very subtle.
Taylor Willingham : my ringing is not subtle
Taylor Willingham : I don't need no stinkin assistant!
Rod Reyna : I think you can turn it off under Options and then configure talk sounds
Taylor Willingham : not that kind
Rod Reyna : Or, go to Actions and disable sound effects
Taylor Willingham : Oh Peace!!!
Taylor Willingham : Thanks Rod
Rod Reyna : no problem
Paul : is everyone seeing the title page on extreme democracy
Rod Reyna : That is what I'm seeing as well.
Charles Knickerbocker : I also see the TX Forums page
Jon Lebkowsky : Me too.
Tom Peters : Now I see your first slide
Paul : i thought id di
Rod Reyna : I see slide 1 of 11
Charles Knickerbocker : I see page now
Paul : ok
Charles Knickerbocker : same 1 of 11
Rod Reyna : no
Donna : Now I see it
Tom Peters : I hear you loud and clear
Paul : every time we start one of these up, it ffels ag bell calling his assitent
Taylor Willingham : ok
Donna : Sound is good
Charles Knickerbocker : Sound is good. I can't my headset
Jon Lebkowsky : Testing, 1. 2. 3. Testing.
Charles Knickerbocker : I took it out of the laptop bag so Diane could use it for her Mac. Now it's nowhere to be found
Charles Knickerbocker : Dang Macs
Taylor Willingham : bummer!
Jon Lebkowsky : Okey doke.
Taylor Willingham : Welcome Chin!
Taylor Willingham : Welcome Lynn
Taylor Willingham : gadget!
Taylor Willingham : Hello David
Charles Knickerbocker : Diane Miller is here with me
Lynn B : Thanks
Donna : Hi Diane & Charles and Taylor and all!
Jon Lebkowsky : done!
Jon Lebkowsky : And Mitch and I had always expected a second edition...
Jon Lebkowsky : Can't hear you, Paul.
Jon Lebkowsky : ok, volume control helped.
Taylor Willingham : If you have a mike, go ahead and request
Taylor Willingham : yeah!!!!
Lynn B : Hi my name is Lynn, I'm a college professor from CA who just learned of this forum today at the NIF website.
Donna : Your mic works just fine
Donna : National Technological University
David Burks : Hello, I'm David Burks and I heard about this from Taylor and it sounded interesting to me.
Taylor Willingham : Lynn, what college?
Taylor Willingham : David, you're going to help with technology, right?
Lynn B : Fresno City College
David Swedlow : Welcome Oliver!
Taylor Willingham : yep
David Swedlow : Hi Diane!
Donna : Yes I hear U
Rod Reyna : Hi Diane!
Paul : anyone else?
Taylor Willingham : boohoo
Taylor Willingham : yep
Jon Lebkowsky : Unfortunately the Mac issue will prevent us from getting many of our authors on board.
Taylor Willingham : sounds great!
Donna : Hi Oliver
Jon Lebkowsky : Hi, Oliver!
Rod Reyna : yep
Martin Carcasson : y
Paul : yes
Jon Lebkowsky : yes
David Burks : Yes
Charles Knickerbocker : We hear you
Donna : Thank you!
Taylor Willingham : The microphone is a toggle so you have to click on it to turn it on and to turn it off.
Martin Carcasson : is that what offices will look like in the future?
Jon Lebkowsky : I think we have to click 'next' to get the next slide, correct?
Taylor Willingham : slide #2
Jon Lebkowsky : I got it by clicking next.
Taylor Willingham : It might not because of the conversion software I used.
Martin Carcasson : i also had to click next
Charles Knickerbocker : we had to click on Next
Donna : yes you have to click next
David Swedlow : That worked
Jon Lebkowsky : Just tell us when to click.
Taylor Willingham : oops, sorry.
Taylor Willingham : didn't realize that!
Taylor Willingham : The advantage is that when you look at index, you have options to print outline and other toys that are helpful. It's a trade-off.
Taylor Willingham : Welcome Doug. Are you seeing slide #4?
Taylor Willingham : paul.schumann@centexwfs.org
Doug Crocker : no, just the Texas Forums page
Taylor Willingham : how about now, Doug?
Doug Crocker : seeing it now.
David Swedlow : Welcome Lynn, you should be seeing slide 4 as well. Are you?
Lynn B : Yes thanks.
Taylor Willingham : Doug, Can you tell people (text) where you are and how you found out about this. (as an introduction)
Doug Crocker : Yes --I'm in Southern California and I found out about The Texas Forum throught the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation.
Charles Knickerbocker : Type out the question
Rod Reyna : Good idea
Charles Knickerbocker : please
Taylor Willingham : how much of these elements and what form do we have
Charles Knickerbocker : I don't believe that the US is in the top ten of any of these among the developed nations
Paul : tyranny of the media
Taylor Willingham : Charles, examples?
Rod Reyna : Filtered democracy
Charles Knickerbocker : I caught on NPR today that the US is 34th in freedom of the press, 47th in health care, etc. I'm afraid I didn't hear the source of the data.
Taylor Willingham : It would be interesting to see what the factors are that went into that data.
David Burks : Corporatism is eroding many of these principles--too much concentrated power. The media I think often subverts citizen wisdom & education.
Taylor Willingham : Charles, do you remember the program?
David Burks : I don't understand how you would rank something like that...
Donna : The thing that concerns me the most is the fact that our mass communication outlets are all owned by large corporations not having the listeners/readers in their best interest. The thought of Rupert Murdock owning the WSJ makes me ill.
Rod Reyna : When it comes to citizen wisdom, you often have to find citizens who are subject matter experts, champions of the people. An informed citizenry takes endurance and patience.
Rod Reyna : It takes someone leading the discussion and doing research.
Doug Crocker : Can the presenter(s) elaborate on the meaning of 'Reasoning without knowledge'?
Charles Knickerbocker : The founders tried to establish checks and balances with the Congress, Presidency and Judiciary. So we didn't have to depend upon majority rule of the masses
Charles Knickerbocker : Athens had slavery. I don't believe their democracy was all that inclusive. Did women have equal weight in deliberations?
Taylor Willingham : google "citizen Juries"
Doug Crocker : (the wisdom of crowds).
Doug Crocker : thanks!
Paul : cant hear you oliver
David Swedlow : Oliver, check you mic volume
Rod Reyna : They are relevant but usually the extremists get the attention (airtime).
Taylor Willingham : Oliver, holding down the ctrl key turns on the mike, but there's a way to turn that off. I think that's your problem. Let me check.
David Burks : I think we're moving as a whole in the wrong direction although there are pockets bucking the trend. Seems to me like unfettered free markets don't positively contribute.
David Swedlow : Hmm. Seems like Martin can't speak.
Taylor Willingham : or maybe I'm the only one who can talk!
Charles Knickerbocker : I unclick the mic when I stop talking. Is there more I'm supposed to do to indicate that I've finished speaking?
David Swedlow : Paul has the mic
Martin Carcasson : so nobody heard my brilliant lecture?
Taylor Willingham : yep
Tom Peters : I hear Paul
Taylor Willingham : Sorry Martin, do it again!
Taylor Willingham : We REALLY do want to hear you
Tom Peters : Still not hearing Martin
Charles Knickerbocker : Didn't hear you Martin; still not
David Burks : Not hearing Martin
Lynn B : It seems clear to me that we are moving away from a respect for wisedom and reasoning, and instead many Americans seem to respect "feelings." This does not lead to thoughtful and deliberative decision making.
Charles Knickerbocker : We heard Paul
Martin Carcasson : i got an error message awhile back, let me close and reenter...
Donna : Don't hear you Martin
Charles Knickerbocker : Technology is our friend
Lynn B : yes
Taylor Willingham : yep
Tom Peters : I hear Donna
Doug Crocker : yes
David Burks : yes
Charles Knickerbocker : Got you Donna
Taylor Willingham : yeah
Paul : yes
Donna : ywa
David Burks : Lynns comment reminds me of how spin is uses to bend the reality or go around reasoned analysis. People can justify nearly everything thru spining the arguement and yes, they use feelings.
Rod Reyna : Being good citizens doesn't make the news. Yelling at each other does and sensationalism/feelings. Everything that doesn't follow the first democracy principles is what the news gravitates toward.
David Burks : I agree
Charles Knickerbocker : I've worked with five different state legislatures in my career and I believe if people knew more about what is happening there would be mobs in the streets.
Tom Peters : Charles, please elaborate!
Tom Peters : Influence peddling?
Taylor Willingham : Anybody want to buy a water buffalo?
David Burks : They're nasty critters...
Donna : I am making my economic contribution to the depressed Ohio economy by buying a 'fridge and a washer & dryer
Taylor Willingham : but where were they made and are they energy efficient? Oh, it's so complicated being a socially responsible consumer
Taylor Willingham : This balancing is what we challenge people to do in deliberation
Donna : They are actually made here in Ohio. This is the heartland for appliance manufacturing. And yes they all have the "energy star"
Charles Knickerbocker : Tom, Yes, if you want to see greed in its institutional form, watch how a state legislature works.
Paul : equality?
David Burks : Paul can you give an example...
Charles Knickerbocker : Paul, what's the question again?
Jon Lebkowsky : Tyranny of the majority is more of an issue with direct democracy.
Paul : what's the bais of equality
Charles Knickerbocker : It's always been about wealth and who controls the source of it.
Jon Lebkowsky : I.E. Some are more equal than others.
Charles Knickerbocker : It's been the coarse of human history so far.
Jon Lebkowsky : I don't think we have a tyranny of the majority. Why do you think so, Paul?
Jon Lebkowsky : Are you saying we have a tyranny of the majority, or a FEAR of it?
Rod Reyna : I think we have a tyranny of the extremists...sometimes they appear to be a majority/mainstream but that is not necessarily so
Donna : The last national congress where we had republicans in both the house, sentate and president.... now we have democrats in the senate and to the point we are still no closer to breaking a log jam of wrong direction
Doug Crocker : would money be as important if mass media wasn't so important and expensive in national elections?
David Burks : Well, if 60% of the people don't believe in evolution and school boards start adopting policies that have intelligent design taught in addition--would this be an example of tyranny of the majority?
Jon Lebkowsky : That could be.
Rod Reyna : tyranny of partisanship...we think we always have to be in competition as opposed to doing what is best for the greater good
Jon Lebkowsky : If that 60% figure was correct.
Donna : But it is really a so called majority -- often it is a minority acting as if it is a majority
Lynn B : I agree w/ Rod that the tyranny is created by the relationship between extreemists and the need of the media to create or exploit conflict.
Jon Lebkowsky : But I don't think those guys are in the majority; I think it's a vocal minority. (Or have you seen numbers to indicate toherwise?)
Rod Reyna : they claim to be a majority
Paul : yes because of a lack of participation
Taylor Willingham : But that log jam could be a good thing, Donna. We sure didn't have it when it was time to vote to give pres authority in the first place.
Martin Carcasson : y
David Swedlow : Hear you now
Donna : hear you loud and clear
David Burks : i just made the 60%up trying to have a concrete example of tryanny of the majority
Jon Lebkowsky : David: got it. I think that could be an example, but I think it's more often a case where the majority undermines minority rights.
Donna : And it would have been a good thing if we had had a log jam when it came time to vote on giving the pres more powers
David Burks : Ok, got it.
Donna : It is good to be an encumbent
Taylor Willingham : I lost my election to 2 incumbents!
Jon Lebkowsky : You kinda have to define tyranny. Majority rule isn't inherently tyrannical.
Taylor Willingham : Remember, these books are summarized on the Ext Dem blog
Jon Lebkowsky : tyranny = oppression.
Taylor Willingham : good distinction, Jon
David Burks : I'm curious to know why Novak thinks one must have FM capitalism for Democracy--or is he saying that?
Rod Reyna : Technology can bring more voices that would not otherwise be heard to the table. It can also bring us together more often without having to get together in one location.
Taylor Willingham : The benefit of in-person with online!
Jon Lebkowsky : Charles, you and Diane should share the mic. *8^)
Jon Lebkowsky : Corporate personhood is definitely an issue, but it doesn't have to be the case...
Rod Reyna : To me a corporation would be one of the players but we need to make sure every stakeholder is invited to participate including citizens, officials, etc.
Charles Knickerbocker : Jon, I'm trying to. She won't put the headset on.
Paul : can't hear you oliver
Paul : ok better now
Taylor Willingham : He mentioned the Great Turning
Taylor Willingham : right, Oliver?
Donna : hear you now with you voice close to the mic
Tom Peters : Plutocracy has outstripped capitalism.
Martin Carcasson : interesting, this discussion reminds me of a project I worked on awhile back focusing on FDR's Commonwealth Club address, when he justified the growing need for federal gov in order to control the excesses of national corporations. Essentially, he argued for the need for government to insure individual liberty (economic freedom). Clinton talked a little about making the same move now internationally (needing international gov to insure freedom from the excesses of international corporations...)
Doug Crocker : I like it!
Taylor Willingham : Was that in the blog, or can you type it there?
Taylor Willingham : I do too!
Jon Lebkowsky : Yeah, we've moved pretty far away from Roosevelt.
David Burks : Repeat the quote please--there's alot there.
Paul : it's in the blog
Taylor Willingham : blush, guess who's behind in her reading!
Taylor Willingham : sorry oliver!
Donna : The ability to think clearly is only available when you are not bogged down in trying to stay alive in everyday life
Taylor Willingham : can you stay after class and we'll work on your problem, oliver
Rod Reyna : It does no good to substitute the flawed wisdom of the masses with the flawed wisdom of the experts. There must be a marriage of citizens values with expert knowledge.--paraphrase from The Deliberative Democracy Handbook
David Burks : I think it says we have a responsibility to struggle with these issues and participate as best we can
Jon Lebkowsky : I'm posting an open thread at the blog for followup discussion. http://extremedemocracy.com
Jon Lebkowsky : Interrogation!
Taylor Willingham : Up against the wall, Lebkowsky!
Rod Reyna : thanks
Lynn B : Thanks for an interesting exchange.
David Burks : Thanks I enjoyed it...
Charles Knickerbocker : thanks, all!
Doug Crocker : thanks!
Donna : Thank you, hope some of you had a cold beverage with you!
---
虚拟主机
域名注册
If we ever want to make emergent democracy a reality, this is the problem we have to tackle - how do we make decisions in a distributed, decentralized, network-based environment?
Tim
]]> Tue, Apr 11, 2006 18:09:06]]>I've posted an open proposal for the creation of what can best be described as a universal exchange of ideas. I hope you'll find it a novel contribution to the evolution of democracy.
If social networking technology is the "circuitry" of Democracy 2.0, then what will serve as its "CPU?" This is the idea behind it all.
Here's a scenario describing how it could be utilized by an Internet-enabled citizenry (or any population with common-cause, for that matter).
Let me know what you think.
Extreme democracy has provided me with a paradigm within to work when attempting to contribute to sociology's critical theory. I now have an alternative framework to suggest when attempting to explain the benefits of organizations that are not encumbered by institutionalized statuses and the hierarchies that they typically form within bureaucratized social structures.
Thanks for Your Insights, and If You Have a Chance, Perchance You Could Direct Me to Any Sites That Contained Updated Works,
Russell Cole
Visit Populist America, where there is more unique traffic per day than the Green Party US's site, at http://www.populistamerican.com/