 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | |
Copyright 2002 Carrying Council in the Wilderness Coercion It is important for any council facilitator to be alert for any coerciveness in the council session. Many people are unused to speaking from their heart, lack courage, feel embarrassed or intimidated or awkward, or simply have a greater need or desire for privacy than others in the circle. It is very easy for people in the circle to feel pressured into being more forthcoming than they really want to be at that particular time and place. Any coerced speaking at council is inevitably counterproductive. First, such speaking is never forthright, truly from the heart; instead, it is grudging, distorted, partial. Second, a person who feels coerced into speaking is seldom able to listen from the heart or even attempt to be spontaneous; instead, the person is thinking of what to say, how to say it, planning on how to give the minimum possible disclosure, deciding what pseudodisclosures may satisfy group demands for community. Third, the person may not be back. The council experience was unpleasant, awkward, and embarrassing. A person who feels coerced into disclosure at council has suffered an abuse of trust, and will hesitate to repeat the experience. Thus, it is important for any council facilitator to emphasize that silence is always acceptable. Once the four intentions have been laid out, no one should be pressured to participate. No one has to explain silence. Indeed, silence may be the most salient contribution a person can make. Moreover, no one should be made to feel ashamed at awkwardness or reluctance. It should be made clear that to say “I’m just not used to disclosing myself in this kind of situation, so I think I’ll pass” is as honest and brave as any other disclosure, and should be honored. Coercion can be subtle as well as overt. As we have noted, after each participant finishes his or her turn the other participants recognize the communication with an affirmation, usually the syllable ho! There is some ambiguity about the use of this affirmation. To some facilitators, the ho! is an acknowledgment that the listener has been moved or touched in some way by the speaker’s words or silence; to others, the ho! is simply an acknowledgment that the communication has been heard. My own preference is for the latter use of the affirmation: every communication is affirmed, whether the listener likes it or not, agrees with it or not, or was touched by it or not. I believe that every communicative act in council, including silence, should be perceived as sacred; in fact, the affirmative ho! is a recognition that, in each communicative act, spirit is trying, however awkwardly, to make itself heard. If the ho! is construed as being in some sense a signal of approval, on the other hand, then, it can become – even unintentionally – covert reinforcement for a particular content or manner of speaking desired by the rest of the council. | ||
Back to the top
      
| ||
