 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | |
Copyright 2002 Carrying Council in the Wilderness Council Guidelines The four intentions lie at the heart of council. When participants manifest these intentions, council occurs. In addition, there are what we can call guidelines – behavioral recommendations – which can be crucial to the success of council. Confidentiality Confidentiality is probably the single most important guideline for good councils. People simply will not speak their hearts if they fear repercussions outside the sacred space of council. The facilitator should make this condition as clear as possible: nothing said within the circle leaves the circle. Participants may need reassurance on this point from time to time. In an established council, it is to be hoped that confidentiality will have been so fully internalized as a norm that such reassurances become unnecessary. This does not mean, of course, that the concept is without ambiguities. First, there are circumstances under which it makes sense for council matters to be discussed outside of council with permission – for example, “John, I’d like to talk with you privately about something you said in council. Is that all right?” What then takes place must be a small council. The interaction should be informed by the four intentions on both sides. Since the two speakers find themselves in council, there is no breach of council confidentiality. To act otherwise – to use the discussion as a way to throw a council statement back in the speaker’s face – would then be to have breached the sacred space. Second, the requirement of confidentiality should not preclude people from discussing what happened in council. Often things happen in council that are interesting, or sad, or illuminating, and people often want – and should be allowed – to share these experiences with others. What is important here is sensitivity to the principles of privacy and protection that underlie the idea of confidentiality. Names and identities should not be revealed, and circumstantial data that might let these be guessed should also be omitted. Third, there are occasions when confidentiality must be breached. If there is a chance of such circumstances occurring, of course, council participants should be told about these ahead of time. A plausible threat of physical violence, for example, may have to be taken to responsible persons outside the circle. Such circumstances arise particularly in settings involving young people – in a school, say, or on a wilderness trip for adjudicated or at-risk youth. I have heard the acronym DASH used in this connection, standing for drugs, abuse, suicide, and homicide. Especially where the facilitator is a mandated reporter, a claim of sexual abuse made by an underage council participant may need to be conveyed to the appropriate agency. The Acceptability of Silence It is also a fundamental council guideline that silence is acceptable. Any participant may simply pass the talking stick without saying anything. It should also be made clear that participants do not give up their right to speak by passing the stick in silence; there is always another round or another opportunity to speak. A participant may pass the stick immediately, or even hold it in silence for several minutes before passing it on. There are several reason for this guideline. It prevents participants from feeling pressured or coerced into participating or into being open about themselves in ways they are uncomfortable with. Participants may have to let thoughts or emotions settle before expressing them, or may believe that their feelings or positions have already been well expressed by others, or may simply be unmoved to speak at that moment. Indeed, silence may be the most profound and eloquent expression of what the participant is trying to say. Silence should be honored, and all council participants should be reminded of that guideline at the outset. Linguistic Guidelines The Use of “I” Statements Additional council guidelines deal with linguistic conventions. It is, I suppose, easy to dismiss these as merely linguistic; but they are, instead, important ways of making the council circle into a safe and sacred space where people can speak freely. One guideline that a facilitator can set forth for the participants is to use I statements rather than you statements. It may be speaking from the heart to say in council, “John, you really are a disgusting pig, leaving your toilet paper around like that where animals can dig it up,” but it is subversive of right relationship and destructive of council. I vividly recall a disastrous council in a wilderness group. One of the council participants had spent some time in a communal living situation where the trappings of council were used to encourage the participants to “honestly criticize” each other, and thus to enhance, I would guess, the uncriticizable power of the communal leader. During our council session, this young woman said that she felt the need to “speak honestly” to the other participants, and then launched into a series of observations on the intelligence, social skills, mannerisms, sincerity, and physical attractiveness of the other participants. These were you statements run amok. To the speaker, this was speaking honestly from her heart. To the other participants, it was an attack, received in shocked silence. I don’t know what the facilitator was thinking, or why he allowed it to go on, but it took a long time – and some angry exchanges outside the bounds of council – before trust could be rebuilt. In fact, formulas for constructive I-statements have become something of a cliché. One of the most widely used of these formulas is what Bolton (1979, pp. 140-157) calls the three-part assertion message, consisting of statements of behavior, feelings, and effects. Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel (2000) set out the formula as follows: “When you do this behavior, I feel this emotion, because I think/believe/perceive this consequence” – for example, “When you are late for meetings, I get angry, because I think it is wasting the time of the other team members and we are never able to get through our agenda items” (p. 6–27). Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel then recommend a pause to allow the other person to respond, and then: “I would like this action, because it will help in this way. What do you think?” A variation on this strategy is called nonviolent communication (Rosenberg, 1999). The slight changes are, I believe, significant: “When I see/hear/remember/observe this behavior, I feel this emotion, because I need/value/desire/expect this human need, and I would like you to do this action” – for example, “I feel angry when I see you just barge into my room, because I want some respect for my privacy, and I would like you to knock before you come in.” There are two advantages to this formulation over the more traditional one. First, the speaker takes responsibility for the perception of what is happening. The description is not, “When you do this behavior . . .” but rather “When I observe this behavior . . .” Second, the speaker communicates in terms of universal human needs – for autonomy, acceptance, consideration, understanding, reassurance, respect, trust – rather than personal preferences. When expressed in this way, the listener may more easily understand the effect of the perceived behavior on the speaker. However elaborated, the basic principles are fairly easy to communicate – use I statements rather than you statements, talk about how you feel, describe behavior in concrete terms (for general rules, see Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000, pp. 6-26 to 6-30). Then be prepared to explain, especially to teenagers, that saying “I think you’re an idiot” is not really an I statement. The Use of “And” Statements The facilitator can make an additional linguistic recommendation to council participants – that, wherever possible, they use the connective and instead of the connective but. Thus, for example, instead of saying “I heard what John said about splitting up latrine duty, but I think . . . ,” it is preferable to say “I heard what John said about splitting up latrine duty, and I think . . .” This may seem like a small thing, but it has significant communicative consequences. This usage means that the speaker does not intend to contradict the other, or to contest what the other has said; instead, the speaker is adding to the discussion, putting more options on the table, opening things up rather than shutting them down. It means that egos are not at stake, and that right relationship is more important than particular outcomes. Affirmations Finally, a council guideline is that, after each participant finishes his or her turn, even if the participant says nothing, the other participants recognize the communication with an affirmation. Usually – consistent with the mythic connection of council to Native American traditions – this is the syllable ho! This is a way of praising the courage of a speaker, including the courage of staying silent. As we will discuss later, such affirmations may be covertly coercive, and facilitators should be alert to this. But the affirmations provide immediate positive feedback for each contribution to the council. For a shy person making a first attempt at self-disclosure in council, a powerful ho! from the group can be potent reinforcement. | ||
Back to the top
      
| ||
