Hi everyone—I’d like to kick-start a conversation on social grounding vs. immediate trust.
On the zoom call Daniel G. mentioned that it takes many hours to build the social capital and shared meaning before productive dialogue can happen (that is my memory and re-framing of it). Very true, especially if the group moves into decision-making modes. Layman also wondered to what extent a group is limited until it goes in far enough risk to move past being nice and allows real differences, disagreements, and dissonance to emerge.
From another perspective, in an early email Bonnie raised the question of the possibility of immediate trust. My interpretation of this is: what do individuals have to drop or leave behind in order to enter into dialogue fully and immediately? And what is possible, perhaps in a shorter amount of time, when they do?
Which, for me, brings up the question of skillfulness. If one gathers together a group that does not have a concrete shared history, but has a shared capacity for “going deep”—what is made more possible? (That is the elitist version; the more democratic version would ask what are the entry requirements and support systems needed to allow less skilled individuals to enter into such a space.)
Stable productive groups capable of deep dialogue are difficult to come by, and are somewhat miraculous when they do happen (think of all of the failed attempts to get a group to hang together after conferences or workshops). But, there seems to be a place for “invitational flash mobs” of the sort we are experimenting with, where opportunities are set up to allow a group to discover a few insights together that did not exist before.
What do you think?