checking in - c2d2
June 21, 2005Hi all. This is a first for me. Great two days last week. As a matter of fact, I really wanted to come back to Montreal this week to attend Jessie’s public conversation on Reconciliation. Hope if goes well Jessie. Someone let me know how it goes if anyone goes.
I have been in touch with several conference organizer colleagues about my participation in the learning circle on public conversations last week. Eric and Joanne and others, there is an opportunity to bring the experience here to Ottawa and in advance of the conference. One of our committees is looking to outreach projects in the community and bring the learning to the conference. I think that this could be done by and with the National Capital Commission on a topic which could be determined in concert with them and our Outreach group. Eric or others at the Institute would need to coach the Ottawans in public conversations or University of the Streets Cafe…if anyone is interested, let me know and I will put you in touch with the appropriate person here in Ottawa.
Also, I am thinking of going to Herardo’s session in July if my timetable permits. I really want to see one of these in action.
Cheers all. Hope this works. This is a first. Sandra. 10/4
Hi Sandra
I went to last week’s public conversation, facilitated by Jessie and Eric. As Jessie mentionned, part of the evening was sort of highjacked by a journalist who became quite invasive (she sat in the middle of the circle, stuck her microphone in people’s face (she was taping), and started making comments after every intervention). Eventually she was asked to stop taping, but at that point the meeting was close to ending and unfortunately the discussion on reconciliation never really took off. the fact we were in the park, while lovely, was also distracting: we were 20-30 people, so it was sometimes difficult to hear people talking across the circle, with the outside noises; sometimes people would stop by, out of curiosity, linger a while and then move on; it took us a while to get started, with all the logistics of meeting in one spot, finding another spot, settling down, and doing a native ritual (the guest was a very spiritually oriented native old lady). So, bottom line, there wasn’t much conversation going on. A few questions, a few comments. sort of like skimming the issue. But after the meeting a few of us ended up chatting, went to a cafe and there we had an interesting conversation.
The next day I shared my impressions with Jessie, and there too we had an interesting conversation (well, for me anyways…)
Conclusion? maybe it’s easier to have a good conversation when the number of participants is smaller. Certainly the noise level is a factor as well. The media, well, I don’t know. Maybe this journalist was particularly insensitive to vibes, and the need of other people. I think Jessie was tactful in the way she handled her, and I’m sure I wouldn’t have been nearly as patient, but in the future boundaries would have to be clarified. I also don’t think that a journalist should be allowed to act both as a participant and as a journalist, because it becomes more difficult for everyone to know what foot to dance on. If she had been allowed to tape but not to talk, it would have been less intrusive, and the conversation might have been more flowing. I also suspect that for some participants, being taped distorts the experience and makes it into the opposite of a conversation: a self absorbed solliloquum. Well, voilà, for what it is worth, my comments about this conversation. It was interesting because each experience is different, and I enjoyed very much all the little informal conversations we had afterwards. With Frederic, Gerardo, M.Tan, Eric, Jessie, Carole, etc…
Marie-Pierre
Comment by Administrator — June 30, 2005 @ 2:38 am