Glenn's little ugly blog

Ah, it's New Year's Eve, and time to actually make some resolutions for the coming year. I don't recall if I made any last year, and if I did I don't have any idea what they were.

1. Keep a to-do list for my personal life like I do at work. At my job I am reasonably well organized with a to-do list that maps out all of my active tasks. I've lately been finding myself somewhat unmotivated, probably because I can't see at a glance what I need to work on - which means I procrastinate and feel overwhelmed.
2. Along with my to-do list, I'm going to try to keep a list of active projects, both at work and at home, so that I can get a good bigger picture view of what is going on in my life. This is a piece of the Getting Things Done system that I tried to implement once, but never managed to keep going.
3. Continuing on in the GTD vein, I'm resolving to do a weekly review, both at work and at home. My work one will be Friday afternoon, and my home one will be on Sunday afternoon.
4. I'm also going to really try my hardest to write a new blog post at least once per week. That means every week I'm going to write at least once. I guess I'd better sit down and come up with a good list of topics. Any suggestions?
5. I'm organizing the Animal Advocacy Camp coming up in just a few weeks, and I'd like to resolve to organize a series of smaller events focused around envisioning animal rights. If that topic doesn't seem to be a good one, then I'll at least aim to organize a series of smaller dialogue events about something to do with animal rights.
6. I'm also going to resolve to read more books by women this year. To make it measurable let's say I'll read 4 novels written by women this coming year.

Once again, I have not been keeping up my commitment to write posts on this blog more regularly.

I have a few post ideas I'm working on. I've just finished reading Europe Central by William Vollmann (took me almost 5 months!) and will try to write a review soon. I also intend to write a review of Eating Animals. I also just read (in 2 days) Nick Cave's new novel, The Death of Bunny Munro.

Mostly, I think it's laziness that keeps me from writing. When I get home from work, unless I have something I am compelled to write about, I don't really want to focus too much on something. So, I instead read emails, watch tv, work on things that don't involve too much thinking.

But this is really an example of a lack of discipline. My life is pretty disorganized. Let's see how good a job I can do at turning that around in the new year.

Hailed for its utter simplicity -- and its power, Open Space starts with open-minded leadership, an issue that really matters, and an invitation to co-create something new and amazing. What happens in the meetings is high learning, high play and high productivity, but is never pre-determined. And what emerges, over time, is a truly inviting organization, that will thrive in times of swirling change.

– Michael Herman

Open space begins with a circle – we gather in a circle, itself a challenge to the normal state of affairs in the world. The circle puts us all on equal footing, no matter our status outside the space.

I have a mental picture of the whole meeting as a series of circles, or concentric spirals, spinning in and around the large opening circle, contained within the large closing circle. Like a chaotic clock, whirling around, everything happening as it must and the only way it can on the inside, but disorder and chaos from the outside.

We (myself and a number of other people) are working on Animal Advocacy Camp, an open space event focused around the issue of effective animal advocacy. So far, we've had 60 people register for the event in just one week.

Open Space operates under four principles and one law.

The four principles are:

1. Whoever comes are the right people
2. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened.
3. When it starts is the right time
4. When it's over it's over

The Law is known as the Law of Two Feet:

"If you find yourself in a situation where you are not contributing or learning, move somewhere where you can."

The four principles and the law work to create a powerful event motivated by the passion and bounded by the responsibility of the participants.

– Open Space Technology, Chris Corrigan

Why open space?

Communities are essentially arbitrary collections of people, sometimes focused geographically, sometimes more deliberate. The animal advocacy community in Vancouver is a bit imaginary, but exists if you think hard enough about it. Or, the hazy edges are visible like dust in the sunlight.

We can be deliberate about bringing together a whole range of people and groups working to improve the lives and lot of animals.

Open space is a tool for facilitating a meeting and a sharing between passionate people. Beliefs and ideas may clash, personalities may conflict, but open space is a form that offers space to hold, contain, and absorb the energy of a group.

Open space is all about responsibility. We each are responsible for getting out what we put in. We each are responsible for creating and organizing our own event, together.

By opening up and letting loose the control over what we want the outcome to be, we can actually learn and grow together, and build a stronger community.

The lesson from Open Space is a simple one. The only way to bring an Open Space gathering to its knees is to attempt to control it. It may, therefore, turn out that the one thing we always wanted (control) is not only unavailable, but unnecessary. After all, if order is for free we could afford being out of control and love it. Emergent order appears in Open Space when the conditions for self organization are met. Perhaps we can now relax, and stop working so hard.

– Opening Space for Emerging Order, Harrison Owen

Reading books like Solving Tough Problems challenges me. Can we solve the problem of animal exploitation through extreme opposition (even if we are right)? Alternatively, what would an open way look like? Can we listen to our opponents and work with people who disagree with us to find solutions? Does listening and respecting others weaken our position, or does it make it more likely that we can succeed?

Sometimes it just feels right to keep, defend, and hold a position. Animals are not ours to use, in any way. My instinct is that this is unquestionably correct — and I am compelled to stand up against those who use or abuse (or endorse the use and abuse of) animal.

Adam Kahane has worked with disparate groups in some of the tensest and toughest situations of our time. After facilitating groundbreaking dialogues between a spectrum of blacks and whites in barely-post-apartheid South Africa, he has worked to explore (and advocate for) the potential of dialogue as an alternative to unilateral or violent solutions to problems.

This book is essentially about listening. He looks at what makes for successful dialogue, and the kinds of listening and speaking that happen in meetings, conversations, and dialogues.

Kinds of listening

The first is downloading, which is speaking without listening to others. Each participant knows what she thinks already and only waits to present her position. She only listens to herself, and only hears whatever supports her own position. The possibility of different factions coming to any sort of agreement is essentially zero. Positions are set and likely only become more hardened. Kahane writes:

The first is “downloading,” or listening from within our own story, but without being conscious that what we are saying and hearing is no more than a story. When we download we are deaf to other stories; we only hear that which confirms our own story. This is the kind of nonlistening exhibited by fundamentalists, dictators, experts, and people who are arrogant or angry.

The second kind opens up to some listening, but this takes the form of debate. Kahane describes this as “listen[ing] to each other and to ideas (including our own ideas) from the outside, objectively, like a judge in a debate or courtroom.”

Neither of these ways of listening and talking opens up the possibility of creation of anything new. We evaluate and choose from the ideas presented.

Both of these kinds of interaction are very common. This is what we see everyday in our lives. Just watching my own conversations through the day, I see many examples of downloading and debating. And very little else.

It feels to me that most vegan outreach and animal rights/protection (or whatever term you want to use) work involves these 2 kinds of communication. There is a lot of talk about empathy and compassion, but how often to we really try to see what our opponents see and feel how they feel? Do we try to know and understand them?

Do we even need to?

When we open up our listening we are receptive to new ideas. Kahane calls this “reflective dialogue.” Speaking of his South African project, Kahane writes:

The members of the Mont Fleur team had listened, not only openly, but also reflectively. When they listened, they were not just reloading their old tapes. They were receptive to new ideas. More than that, they were willing to be influenced and changed. They held their ideas lightly; they noticed and questioned their own thinking; they separated themselves from their ideas (“I am not my ideas, and so you and I can reject them without rejecting me”). They “suspended” their ideas, as if on strings from the ceiling, and walked around and looked at these ideas from different perspectives.

This reflective openness is an openness not only to new ideas, but to new ideas about yourself.

We cannot develop creative solutions to complex human problems unless we can see, hear, open up to, and include the humanity of all of the stakeholders and of ourselves.... This kind of listening is not sympathy, participating in someone else’s feeling from alongside them. It is empathy, participating from within them. This is the kind of listening that enables us not only to consider alternative existing ideas but to generate new ones.”

New understanding and new ideas can come out of this sort of dialogue. When we listen to others and ourselves in this way we gain a greater understanding of why we think the way we do. Opening up ourselves to feel what others are feeling, to really knowing and understanding them, can create new ideas and new solutions.

There is a 4th stage called “generative dialogue.” Kahane describes this as “listen[ing] not only from within ourselves or from within others, but from the whole of the system.” This is dialogue where the group begins to think as a group, instead of a collection of individuals. In generative dialogue, we not only “listen and be, but we also need to talk and act.” This is “open speaking” and “open talking.”

How can this apply to anyone working towards animal rights? Can it be applied to that struggle?

What we can do

In the conclusion of the book, Kahane asks:

How can we solve our tough problems without resorting to force? How can we overcome the apartheid syndrome in our homes, workplaces, communities and countries, and globally? How can we heal our world’s gaping wounds?

The way we treat animals and the rest of the natural world is very definitely on of our world’s gaping wounds. It is a huge and chronic problem for which we present a vegan lifestyle as a solution. Do we too often resort to force to push this solution? Force is not always physical force, but can be enforcement through laws or peer pressure.

What would it even look like to involve representatives of every group that has a stake in the question to dialogue about it? Chances are some would not even recognize that there is a problem. I can’t really even imagine what it would look like to have animal rights activists, animal welfare organizations, veterinarians, farmers, scientists, pet store owners, and more in one room trying to dialogue. That it would even be possible for all of these people to talk to each other openly, to reflectively dialogue, seems almost completely impossible.

But what we can do is try to at least speak to each other and listen to each other within the animal protection movement in this way. I can imagine representatives from across the whole range of groups working to protect animals, welfare to abolition, rights to humane use, sitting down to talk and create new solutions to the problem. In this way positive ways of interacting and working together can be modeled, which may spread across the entire movement.

Then, when we’re on the street talking to people, we may end up being as open to everyone’s perspective as we are dedicated to promoting our own perspective.

Kahane sees the solution to the difficult questions we face as coming out of dialogue:

We have to shift from downloading and debating to reflective and generative dialogue. We have to choose an open way over a closed way.

He presents 10 simple but not easy suggestions for getting started in this shift:

1. Pay attention to your state of being and to how you are talking and listening.
2. Speak up. Notice and say what you are thinking, feeling, and wanting.
3. Remember that you don’t know the truth about anything.
   Engage with and listen to others who have a stake in the system.
4. Reflect on your own role in the system.
5. Listen with empathy.
6. Listen to what is being said not just by yourself and others but through all of you.
7. Stop talking.
8. Relax and be fully present.
9. Try out these suggestions and notice what happens.

In closing, he writes:

Every one of us gets to choose, in every encounter every day, which world we will contribute to bringing into reality. When we choose the closed way, we participate in creating a world filled with force and fear. When we choose an open way, we participate in creating another, better world.

If we truly want to see a compassionate world where people respect and try to empathically understand all of the beings who live with us on this planet, we need to start living that world in ourselves.

Building community, influencing policy, making change from the inside while we wait (possibly for a long time) for government to make positive changes. These are just some of the reasons behind Headlines Theatre’s after homelessness..., a theatrical event that employs forum theatre to engage the audience and cast members in a discussion about how we can work on real solutions to the problem of homelessness in our city, province, and country.

The result of a week-long workshop, the play is an artistic rendering of the real-life issues faced by people dealing with homelessness. 20 people from the community were selected from a much larger number of applicants, and the six cast members were drawn from this group of 20 to perform the play. Over the next 3 weeks, the director (David Diamond), the cast, and a team of designers molded the raw material from the workshops into a half-hour performance.

The performance

The actual performance is unlike any other theatrical experience I had ever been seen. I was used to sitting in a dark theatre and watching actors on the stage present a story. In most performances there is an invisible (and expected) barrier between the actors and the audience. after homelessness... is much different. David Diamond opened by speaking directly to the audience and framing the event, explaining the process and preparing us for a participatory experience. I was really impressed with how well he explained the reason for the performance and why he was using the theatre to open a dialogue about homelessness.

After Diamond’s introduction, the half-hour play was performed. It felt like we were watching real people facing real issues. In a conventional play, no matter how much I suspend my disbelief I know that I’m watching actors playing roles. Here, while I knew that these actors were playing fictional roles, the experiences were real and their performances were coming from a very real place. It wasn’t just acting, it was re-acting, and, quite possibly, re-living. Knowing the context of the source of the material made the play more visceral. Even if the acting wasn’t professional quality, the actors were completely believable.

After the half-hour-or-so performance, Diamond returned to the stage to facilitate the rest of the evening. With the house lights up and with no sound effects, the play was performed again, scene by scene. During moments of conflict or struggle any audience member could yell “stop!,” replace a cast member, and try to work through the scene towards a positive outcome. He handled the difficult process of drawing the audience into participating in the performance really well, prodding us until someone spoke up. The first participant was the hardest; after that people were more willing to get involved.

Theatre for Living

This kind of process is based on “forum theatre” which is a part of “Theatre of the Oppressed,” a method developed by Augusto Boal. Boal, a Brazilian, was interested in using theatre to transform our world into the world we want it to be. It’s really a method of creation in the real world, not just an artistic creation. Re-creation doesn’t rely on “magic” but rather on re-envisioning what is possible.

Diamond’s work with Headlines Theatre is based on Boal’s ideas, bringing participatory theatre and dialogue together to explore and potentially solve some really tough problems. One of their previous works was Meth, which explored drug addiction, methamphetamine addiction in particular. I recall hearing about the workshops leading up to that performance, but never made it out to see it.

Even more powerful than the initial performance of after homelessness... were the performances of the “spect-actors” who took on the re-imagining of roles. In most if not all cases they weren’t just playing the role, they were living their own story in the play, working through their own issues towards a positive solution. Even thinking back about it now makes me emotional.

With the performance pushing just over two hours with no intermission, it actually felt too short. Watching the audience members work through the scenes that focused on drug addiction, particularly crack addiction, I felt the powerlessness and fear, the feeling of being overwhelmed and incapable of handling life. I remembered my own experiences in that dark place. But, as I watched them speak to their struggle, as I watched them work through these issues, I could see how empowered they became. And I felt for them. I felt with them. This nearly made me start to cry: this play was a gift to people who needed a way to speak, because by speaking truthfully they can become strong and heal. I am immensely grateful to have experienced those moments.

The outcome

Three community dialogues were held to address different aspects of homelessness. One dealt with the location of housing, another with safe and appropriate housing, and the third with financing housing. The results of those dialogues, together with the ideas generated by the performances, will be compiled into a “Community Action Report” which the city and other organizations have agreed to use in determining their policies around homelessness and mental health.

It will be quite interesting to see what sort of effect this report has on future policy. It will also be interesting to see if this project has any effect on the issue from the inside — empowering people to build stronger communities and support networks, changing their own future while government slowly moves towards a solution.

Addiction, mental health, and homelessness affect us all. There are very few people in Vancouver who have not in some way experienced these issues very personally. We can help to end homelessness and create safe and appropriate housing as a basic human right. after homelessness... is a step towards a greater knowledge and understanding of the issues – and the use of participatory dialogue brings everyone into the story.

Remember, it’s not about you and me or them, it’s about us.

I just took a 3-day course with Charles Dobson, who wrote a fantastic book called The Troublemaker's Teaparty. The book is a distillation of his years of experience doing activism and public interest organizing.

There are chapters on choosing and running campaigns, running a group, media advocacy, and pretty much any area of grassroots work that you can think of. If you are doing any work in this area, this book needs to be on your bookshelf. It's almost impossible to underline the important parts, because almost every sentence is important!

If you'd like to check out what he has to say before buying the book, have a look at The Citizen's Handbook. The Troublemaker's Teaparty is essentially the revised and updated edition of the older Citizen's Handbook.

Either book will likely be of value to Americans, but it is focused on grassroots activism in Canada, so there are some significant cultural differences. Any US organizations that are trying to work across the border in Canada should probably pick up a copy if only to be aware of the different tactics that are effective in Canada.

I'm turning 34 today!

If you would like to get me something or do something nice for me for my birthday, the only thing I'm asking for is that you go out and get a copy of Eating Animals and read it. The whole book, from cover to cover. It's not a tough read, and Jonathan Safran Foer is a really good writer.

That's all I'm asking for.

Last night I jotted some notes down for a series of animal activist workshops. They could cover topics like letter writing, effective tabling, online activism, planning a campaign, planning a media event, graphic design fundamentals, leafleting, and much more. Not only would they be events where people could come to learn how to be more effective as animal advocates, but they could also be community-building events.

But there are issues. The wonderful people down south at the Let Live Foundation posted on their website today that they've been struggling to get people out to their workshops and activist events.

We’ve been very deliberate in our language and choice of subject matter to be as inclusive as possible so new folks don’t feel intimidated and more seasoned activists feel that their experience and input is welcomed at events. We’ve tried to get across that we’re trying to build community, no matter where you are in your knowledge, activism, etc. We’ve tried to schedule events at different times and on different days to accommodate peoples schedules.

We’ve tried everything we can think of to expand the community of people here and attendance at our events is not going up.

This makes me realize that there is more to planning a series of workshops than deciding (by myself or with a group of people) what workshops are needed by the community.

I wonder if there is a way to involve the community in the selection and planning of the events? Or a way to integrate the workshops with more socializing? I also wonder if the events can be formatted in such a way to meet multiple objectives, like learning and then practicing what was learned.

The comments on the facebook page where this note is also posted are interesting. There are some good ideas there for integrating socializing and learning, what times work best for different people, and more.

One idea might be to plan events around a smaller group of people and hold them in a cheaper and smaller location.

I think, though, that taking action is more attractive to people than learning how to be more effective with that action – so finding a way to emphasize action or a concrete outcome could be helpful.

We'll see how it goes here in Vancouver. I'd really like to find a way to do a community organized workshop series, so that the people involved would "own" the events, rather than attending an event that I've decided would be good for everyone else.

Any ideas?

This past Friday was the deadline for applications for HMA's Goodstock event (the Vancouver portion, anyway – Toronto has extended their deadline to this Friday). This means that we have to now choose from among all of these amazing charities and decide who to pick for our 24-hour event.

It's not easy.

We want to be able to help them all, and there's a constant urge to make it 4 or 5 instead of 3. Turning someone down feels like we're rejecting them, even though we have to turn a whole bunch of applicants, simply because we aren't able to do that much work in 24 hours.

Making decisions like this means that someone gets picked over someone else. It's not personal, but it feels like it.

On November 12th, the "Charter for Compassion" was unveiled. Basically, the charter is a document asking people to live more compassionately and apply the Golden Rule to their lives.

The organization behind the charter is running a campaign to promote the charter and is asking people all over the world to "affirm" (or sign on to) the charter.

Generally speaking, I think it is a wonderful document, and will be affirming it myself. However, I was somewhat disappointed that human beings were placed at the center of the charter. There is a call "to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures" but "to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect." Note that they write "human being."

I would have like it to be more inclusive of all beings, and to call on each and every one of us "to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single [being], treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect."

I really don't know that we can be truly compassionate if we do not honour and respect the sanctity of every being.

Still, this is a great document, and I'd encourage everyone to try to live up to it.

I've reproduced the charter below, but have a look at the website and share it widely.

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.