Group Genius

Palden Jenkins

Discussions about a web-discussion group called GWell, 1999

What I like about group process in its various forms is its capacity to activate synergy, group lift-off, where the whole becomes more than the sumtotal of its parts. A group genius kicks in where well-above-ordinary things arise, and all participants are enabled and inspired to move forward. People discover new capacities and new roles, and new opportunities emerge which never were there before - it has a miracle-working quality. Or, at least, it is stimulating, innately supportive and gives a forward-moving feeling - even to the group's aggrieved.

What I've found though, for this group synergy to happen, is the need for 'containment'. A leaky bucket holds no water, and the universe therefore doesn't pour energy in! There are two main ways of making a 'containing field': by clear leadership/facilitation, or by group consensus - and with an agreement of spirit at the core. Group consensus is often held as the ideal, though it actually involves more discipline and challenge than the former. In our busy days, this can be difficult to sustain, and needs to be kept manageable if it is to be sustained. But, in my experience, without careful construction of a 'ring of power', the power doesn't rise, or catastrophes can happen. We've just had the latter.

Nowadays, we're faced with Our Times. Life is filled with pressures and distractions. It takes a lot of commitment to hold a ring of power. I am currently part of a group where we have a mutually-agreed, signed commitment to do a coordinated meditation at a stated time every week, and to meet up for four weekends per year, longterm - we've been at it three years. It really works. It's amazing. I'm not suggesting this kind of commitment for GWell. But I do suggest that there's a commitment-level appropriate for GWell, which allows it to lift off and find its wings, and which creates the necessary 'safe space' for 'free flight' to happen. This involves agreement over what one is committing to.

It's not about freedom to state one's opinion. Kept at a low level, freedom of speech makes us like starlings, all just jabbering about what we believe and think. To me, it's about freedom to emerge from opinion, into a more dynamic interaction of individualities-in-a-group. A mutually-empowered space. The swallows are coming soon. They make a racket too, yet they play and swoop around one another in a unified game, and they stick together ongoingly.

Containment requires a mutual set of agreements which everyone agrees to subscribe to. Entry and departure and behaviour agreements are crucial. I do not seem to share the same phobia about these dratted 'rules' as some others do. I'm willing to sign an agreement of good behaviour if I want to be part of something I value. I am willing to have the energy-holders of a venture define, in their wisdom, whether or not I am out of order - and generally I am not, so it's irrelevant! If I know the rules of the game, I'll play with them or get out in peace. It's no sweat. But I need to know what I'm part of and contributing to, and what its aim is. Life is too short for just ricocheting around.

Rules can be stated, or they can be evolved. In the last two months, a solid yet unspoken social agreement was demonstrated: in the heat of the dissension, *everyone* bar our two 'friends in question' (I would judge) behaved with restraint, care and maturity - odd mistakes were made, and that's the grist for the mill, but serious, persistent mistakes were not made, despite all the pain being felt. This was a symptom of an inherent emotional consensus which marks a community from a crowd. We got ourselves a read-out on where we've got to, in blatant terms, and where we next need to go.

There are borderland areas where a group is not so sure. They haven't 'grown together' sufficiently to have sorted these boundaries out, behaviourally. Much discussion ensues, much of it at cross-purposes - starlings, again. However, I believe we overcomplicate things here. We come back to containment.

The gist of it is: if we want just to chitter-chatter, opine, and all trolley along through life as if nothing much were happening, then few or no agreements are necessary. The aspiration isn't too high, and it's a 'talk-shop'. The group energy will not attract wasps or ants (as to the honeypot) - which, archetypally and magically, it always will, if there is energy and there isn't a membrane of 'rules' around it. If we want to move into deeper levels of discussion and interaction, where some sort of evolutionary results come, then the 'ring of power' needs the containment of knowable agreements and/or rules. Without them, the circle gets blown out or goes into slow puncture.

And it certainly needs moderators (or someone) to 'hold the door' and keep an eye outside the circle as well as within. There are times when the moderators or doorkeepers can see and judge things which the circle might not. I believe we need a small group of five-ish people available to advise the moderators when circumstances are tricky, who can assist them in the perceptual difficulties which can arise in these knotty group situations and give them a useful 'read out' on the state of the circle.

As for our discussion list, I believe we stand at a crossroads. There will be those who want to work in a more 'contained' circle, and those who don't like it. Either one of these sub-groups will prevail, or two circles will sooner or later emerge. This could happen either by discussion or by default. However, I think the worst option would be to omit to clarify this issue. It's unhealthy for our group karma. We can agree to disagree, but I believe we need to get off the fence and state our preferences, so that we can get the measure of the whole circle.

 TOP

 NEXT

 BACK

 INDEX

 HOME

Paldywan Kenobi's

archive of 1990s articles