Cooperation: innate or learned?
A look back at Resistance Decision-Making at Dragon Dreaming and Possibility Management 2024' Summer Camp.
What makes cooperation so hard?
It’s not certain that after years of learning patriarchy, submission to school and hierarchical work, it’s possible to be an excellent co-operator with the swing of a magic wand. And those with whom you cooperate must have the same points of reference as you: the same life experience, the sideways steps you’ve been able to take, the inner deconstructions you’ve been able to bring to fruition.
You might as well say it would take a miracle. And sometimes miracles do happen. Perhaps our task as cooperators is to have smaller but more frequent miracles¹.
Being a cooperator or a facilitator in collective intelligence is a bit like healing a dislocated social body. A cooperator can only be a transformer, recreating the missing links that allow us to heal messy meetings, ill-assumed conflicts and our whimsical desires to avoid friction in a group.
So, rather than playing dice, or going to fairy tailes and convincing ourselves that “things will work out”, or adopting a mysterious posture by consulting obscure oracles in order to convince ourselves that “the group will find itself”, I propose an approach of deep, radical honesty.
How clear and frank is this new culture, daring to say what its rules of engagement are, or is it content to ride the wave of imprecision and obscurantism while validating the social adaptability imposed in the education system and later at work?
What are your group’s rules of engagement? (e.g. coming on time to meetings and activities, accepting feedback, being present at such and such a place, facilitating at least x meetings…)
-
-
-
-
What do you absolutely not want to see (e.g. alcohol, verbal abuse, etc.)?
What are the exclusion factors (e.g. violence, constant disengagement, sabotage)?
The clearer the list, the more obvious it will be who you really want on your team, and not to sabotage yourself by saying “but that’s exclusion!
Well, yes! And, it’s only by being able to consciously exclude that you can consciously include. It’s real. Who do you want on your team?
The absence of limits is a limitation.
If we take on the responsibility of opening up social spaces as facilitators, we also have to take the measure of our commitments and skills. If we don’t, we’re selling the dream, and there are social networks for that.
We need to be able to create the space-time necessary for encounters to take place: a new culture in its own right, so that cooperation can manifest itself.
We can only cooperate by rediscovering our conflictual nature, by saying what we want and don’t want. We have to be able to get away from the social handicap of adaptability: let go of the pretentious smile that “everything’s fine” to accept that “it’s not fine” and finally say ““I’m going to say it!”.
Accepting that we are problems for others.
“Conflictual multiplicity is the basis of a dynamic common ground”
-Miguel Benasayag, TEDxConcorde 2012 — In Praise of Conflict
Learning to cooperate starts with gauging levels of involvement and responsibility. Right from the start. Because there can be no lies or fantasy worlds: together, we dive straight into reality.
Who comes just to observe or just to criticize? Who comes with maximum presence and involvement? Who comes not knowing, but in a spirit of self-discovery?
If this question is asked, not as a simple question but as a collective research process, then the possibility of confronting reality appears, and with it the possibility of evolving emotionally, in short, of growing up and becoming more adult.
The status quo dictates that we “don’t make noïse²” and accept to be good, docile sheep who will obey the orders of the hierarchy — this is what is instilled in us from an early age in traditional families and at school. So don’t make waves, don’t disturb and, if possible, disappear.
What is the reappearance path?
I’d say it’s non-linear, with no method, but empirical learning through trial and error. The process I’m about to describe is part of it. No method, just a set of practices to reappear and humanize.
Levels of responsibility vary, depending on the moment, the situation and the emotional state.
To propose as a research context that levels of responsibility are not the same in a group — without judgment and in an authentically neutral way — and that this observation can lead to a change in levels of responsibility, and therefore commitment, is the basis of the resistance decision-making process. It’s a process of deep observation that makes change possible.
“As soon as I accept myself as I am, I change; now there’s a curious paradox.”
— Carl Rogers, founder of active listening.
More than the banal and easy ‘letting go’ that levels human groups from the bottom (the most disengaged stay), this learning to cooperate takes place by leveling from the top (the most committed stay). Positing from the outset that resistance has wisdom honors the human capacity to be a problem for others, and puts a dynamic back into the dreary “I’m fine, everything’s fine” that says “fuck!” inside. It’s a way out of the dreary, pretentious adolescence of “everything’s going to be all right” and into real experimentation, where everyone is their own experimental laboratory. It’s all part of the “relational safety framework” that makes cooperation work.
Often, cooperation is thought of as an inclusive process, which has the disadvantage of discouraging the most committed. Such collective thinking can only lead to further disengagement. It presupposes that commitment is difficult and should therefore be made more accessible (if we follow the logic of inclusivity). It sets aside the possibility that some people won’t and don’t want to engage. It also sets aside the possibility of an inclusive hell where the most disengaged rule.
Remind you of anything? It does for me. It reminds me of the dystopian society in which most of us are wandering as best we can.
Starting without prejudice, and gauging levels of responsibility from the start, puts the ball in the center of the game, making the underlying emotional stakes visible.
Often, inside people it’s “will I be judged if I go to the center?” — a recurrent thought in a country that confuses inspired leadership with domineering leadership. If leadership is inherently bad, we’ll all be waiting for someone to start. This is what I’ve explored in different cultures. Nowhere is the fear of going first more visible than in France. I always feel like I’m in the Wild West: “Who’s going to draw first?” Not a sexy way to invite cooperation, you might say.
Ice breaker? Yes, and then you’ll need a snow piercer.
But that’s the way it is in France, where it’s a marked cultural trait to shoot those who speak up first or dare. The unspoken rule is “don’t move”, “make yourself small and everything will be fine”. I don’t think that’s inviting for anyone. So I’ve started to break this logic by starting first, and speaking a little louder. My personal practice is called “zero bullshit”, I become the person who goes first and makes the first move with others by inviting them.
Because while it’s easy to share common values, such as Authenticity, Integrity, Connection, Empowerment… it’s hard to embody them. Moving from words to deeds, from what counts to what is put into action, is what the “crash test” is all about.
One of the first and most delicate actions is making a decision.
Here’s a vivid account.
During the summer camp Giving Body and Roots to our Dreams, 12 to 16 people came together over 10 days to experiment with cooperation. The first two days were necessary to lay the foundations for our interactions.
What’s at stake? The stronger and more sincere the objective, the more tension will be present — and necessary — in expressing what matters, and the more emotions and strong feelings will surface. This is by no means a limit, but it can generate fears about managing emotions and fears of friction.
What if friction were a possibility rather than a limit? That’s what we’ve been experimenting with.
Resistance decision-making
The first process proposed at the summer camp is decision-making by resistance.
The really tricky part is decision-making. Some will want to escape, or be too shy or too scared of the group. Others will be perceived as too directive. But the group needs all the channels associated with their Responsibility.
1. The first cornerstone is to restore tensions to their rightful place: the status quo is an illusion.
The tension of taking individual responsibility is a first marker. Wanting to make decisions without taking responsibility behind them is like saying “that’s not right” in a group and then walking away. It accomplishes nothing, except to say “I disagree”.
Resistance involves the person directly, without knowing why — and that’s what can be scary.
The resistance-based decision-making process works like this for maximum fluidity and speed: whoever has the highest resistance to the first proposal made is responsible for making a counter-proposal. Without a counter-proposal, the initial proposal continues, and you can choose the resistance below. The invitation is to take only one of the multitude, or the strongest, because as the proposals and counter-proposals are refined, all resistances will be able to express themselves. It’s the strongest resistance that takes precedence. Decisions are not taken by consensus, but by consent. First ‘no’ through resistance, then ‘yes’ through the expression of the new proposal.
“But how do we deal with those who are too shy to express themselves?” someone asked me when we were setting up the process at a citizens’ assembly.
The fact is, many people censor themselves or wait to be given the floor. This creates a wait-and-see attitude and delegates authority to a few figures (often facilitators or leaders).
2. This isn’t school, nor is it a rescue at sea: horizontality is an illusion that levels down and disengages.
If the person can’t talk in the group because of a persistent emotion (probably fear in this case), other people in the group can hold the space for her, to help her verbalize what’s important to her, for example with friends or trusted people, out of affinity or necessity (the person who’s there is the right person). She then extracts herself from the group with one or two other people, in order to work through her emotions, or at least to allow her to become aware of what’s going on for her in a listening space. During this time, the group can continue its process. The person can come back and verbalize what they had to say in the flow without interrupting the process.
Emotional Intelligence can enter the process: emotions are welcomed by a trusted peer during deep listening, in order to return to the present moment.
An important distinction: an emotion comes from the past, is an unfinished communication, serves to transform the emotional charge, and lasts more than 3 minutes. A feeling comes from the present, lasts less than 3 minutes and is used to act, make a decision or take action.
If the decision is taken from an emotion, or an emotional state that doesn’t allow the person to be lucid, then the group is impacted by a loss of lucidity.
Our inability to navigate our emotions — no one teaches us this, either at school or at home — must be allowed to become a factor of opportunity rather than blockage.
What’s more, the group becomes an emotional learning factor.
When an emotion creeps into the process, we need to be able to recognize that it’s an emotion, and that it can be dealt with outside the group without impacting its decision-making. Many groups spend an inordinate amount of time debating when the person creating the disturbance is acting or speaking from an emotion from the past, rather than a feeling from the present.
It means getting away from the concept that emotions are bad, just as much as from the denial that there are no emotions (some people think there are!). It also means moving beyond a certain intimacy and closeness between people. Emotion becomes a bonding factor rather than a limit.
Negotiating skills
“There is no democracy without intimacy and proximity.”
— Anthony Giddens
“How about we raise our hands and take turns speaking?” said Nadia.
- No,” I objected. “If we do that, we leave the power to the facilitator and go back to school. The idea of levelling things out, of making them horizontal, doesn’t work because it leaves room for a dead process instead of letting the fulgurance of the present moment seize the moment. It kills spontaneity.
- what if I want to do it myself?
-In that case, is it all right if I continue to express myself without raising my hand and you raise your hand?
-yes ok
-and if I ignore your raised hand because I don’t want to be at school, is that okay with you? I’ll keep talking regardless of your raised hand.
-we can try it that way.”
Emotional confrontation is part of the decision-making game, so knowing how to negotiate is an essential skill to be acquired by everyone in the group.
Make clear proposals: accept feedback to adjust your proposals
Sometimes, the lack of clarity comes from an emotion such as: a tight throat, confusion, a feeling of embarrassment, shame, guilt, etc. Make room for feedback to learn from the intelligence of the group.
A clear proposal is one that is sufficiently concise and direct to be fully heard by the group.
Some people will get angry or sad because they feel an emotion of injustice at not being understood. It’s also part of the process of confronting reality: “Is my message being heard?” That’s what feedback is for.
We have to come to this dizzying realization: most of us have to relearn how to speak and think!
I’ve been through this a few times, and I think it’s something we’ll have to revisit again and again. It’s humbling to realize that I’m partly responsible if my message isn’t heard, and that my communication can be constantly improved.
Are you ready to ask the group for feedback, and acknowledge your own incompetence? Perhaps you’ll have to let go of the imaginary world you’re able to express clearly. Will you be able to ask for and receive space to listen?
Receive and welcome the wisdom of resistance to its proposal
“On the count of three, show me your hands!
Closed fists: 0 resistance, the proposal passes, ten fingers of the hand raised 10 resistance, maximum opposition to the proposal given.
The process of resistance honors the speed of decision-making and is in line with the group’s values, raising the level: the group doesn’t adapt to the slowest by getting rid of the fastest (which is what happens in groups that use a rough consensus, they have to separate themselves first from the inventive and spontaneous geniuses) but it takes the slowest into account by offering them spaces to listen.
The thing to be decided must be important enough to justify using this process. If it’s a matter of deciding what color wipes to use to clean the room, everyone will understand that there are other ways of doing things.
This kind of decision-taking levels the playing field for integrity: everyone takes responsibility for their own communication and decisions. Nothing is swept under the carpet. It’s a process that brings with it deep honesty, and leads to deep and lasting self-knowledge. It’s much more than a simple decision-making ‘technique’; it’s a profoundly democratic and evolutionary process.
Yes, it stirs up emotions and reactions: tensions are made visible.
On the one hand, our ability to honor our choices, to hear our fears and overcome them (if need be, by being listened to or having a space held by a facilitator), and to be as clear as possible. It’s a circular, rapid apprenticeship in the circulation of speech through chaos. Here we learn to let go of the spells of technique³ for the reality of creative chaos.
It rocks? Yes, totally.
That’s why two other spaces have emerged to encourage decision-making through resistance: “assert yourself!” (saying what I don’t want and what I do want) and “learn to listen” (really listening by being fully present).
I’ll report on these in another article.
Are human groups ready for such intensity?
It means conceding part of the decision-making process to learning by doing: feedback.
But how?
If we matter to each other, life matters.
At the end of the summer camp, a facilitator was appointed each time for the morning circle listening sessions. In this way, the floor and responsibility rotate, allowing each facilitation style to express itself and grow. The intelligence of feedback: what works and what doesn’t can take its place.
Did you keep time properly? Yes-no, why not?
Did you leave room for everyone to express themselves? Why or why not?
Was your expression clear and concise? Why or why not?
Etc.
In a new culture, there’s no room for passive and active people on one side. There can be no consumers on one side and actors, responsible people on the other, but rather a continuous flow of proposals from both sides.
Individual power is used to help others grow, and one of my processes was to accept myself as a powerful being at the service of the collective. If the leitmotiv in human groups is to make oneself small so as not to make waves, I chose the opposite: to make myself big so as to make waves and bring out the unspoken.
“Isn’t it dangerous to be as powerful as you are?” one of the people reproached me. This not insignificant comment implied that power was bad and that the group should level down. Instead of swallowing the suggestion and making myself small — an easy thing to do in a culture where leadership of any kind is associated with ‘domination’ — I decided to make myself big.
The next day, I declared to the group during the intention-sharing circle: “Today I’ll be a conscious bastard: bullshit man”. My practice was not to let anything slip by: when someone bottled up, said yes to say no, held back their expression, I’d say “bullshit!”, refreshing!
I invite you to do the same and see.
And invite creative chaos
The rest we experienced through the non-linear and creative processes of Dragon Dreaming: dragon dance, Karrabirdt, dream circle, determining the snowball goal, force field, crossing the action threshold, gratitude circle, rhythmic budgeting, determining roles (pilot, dragon, resource and participant)… among others.
The question I’m asking is, can we move into creativity all at once by skipping these stages in the creation of a common culture?
I don’t think so, it would be like doing a parachute jump without checking that your parachute is properly attached… it might work and… it might not.
Cooperating means letting go, welcoming and transforming your emotions (irritation, frustration, isolation, shyness), using your full potential to say what you have to say… in short, it means getting fully involved.
One toe in the water is not enough to say “I swam! You also need practice.
When do you (re)start? And…
So, why not give it your all means from the start?
¹Expression taken from Starhawk in the 5th Sacred thing: “In life and death situations, unexpected gifts happen to us beyond what we can usually accept. Miracles happen. But to be a healer is to try to make lesser miracles more predictable and regular.”
²French expression which original form is “don’t make waves”
³Unicornia is a fantastic world in which solutions grow all by themselves in the woods, which are inhabited by beautiful, powerful, benevolent and blissful unicorns. In the words of philosopher Miguel Benasayag, here “everything is possible, but nothing is real”
