revisiting Against Deliberation in the age of Trump

Posted on October 9, 2019 by Peter

In Introduction to Civic Studies, we recently discussed Lynn M. Sanders, “Against Deliberation,” Political Theory, June 1997 v.25 no. 3

Here are some illustrative arguments from her important piece:

“Appeals to deliberation, I will argue, have often been fraught with connotations of rationality, reserve, cautiousness, quietude, community, selflessness, and universalism, connotations which in fact probably undermine deliberation’s democratic claims.” (p. 2)
“Some citizens are better than others at articulating their arguments in rational, reasonable terms. Some citizens, then, appear already to be deliberating, and, given the tight link between democracy and deliberation, appear already to be acting democratically.” (p.2)
“Deliberation is a request for a certain kind of talk: rational, contained, and oriented to a shared problem” (p. 13). “Arguing that democratic discussion should be rational, moderate, and not selfish implicitly excludes public talk that is impassioned, extreme, and the product of particular interests. (p. 14)
“Prejudice and privilege do not emerge in deliberative settings as bad reasons, and they are not countered by good arguments. They are too sneaky, invisible, and pernicious for that reasonable process. So worrying about specifying what counts as a good argument, or trying to enhance reason-giving either via the formulation of better rules and procedures or by providing the time, money, and education necessary to become a responsible deliberative citizen, does not engage some of the most serious challenges to the possibility of achieving democratic deliberation. Some people might be ignored no matter how good their reasons are, no matter how skillfully they articulate them, and when this happens, democratic theory doesn’t have an answer, because one cannot counter a pernicious group dynamic with a good reason.” (p. 4)

I see these as serious concerns. Rose Marie Nierras and I found that many activists from the Global South felt them acutely. (Levine, Peter and Nierras, Rose Marie [2007] “Activists’ Views of Deliberation,” Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 4.)

But I also sense that the main problem has shifted, requiring a reevaluation of these arguments against deliberation.

It’s true that reason-giving can favor the privileged because they are good at it (or they can hire professional reason-givers, such as lawyers), and because they are basically OK with the social system in which reasons are exchanged.

But it is also a characteristic of privilege not to feel any compulsion to give reasons. It is the autocrat who says, “Because I said so.” Donald Trump is completely unwilling to give or hear reasons, and he may have developed that attitude as a result of extreme socio-economic privilege. His opponents and critics want reasons from him and are willing to give reasons for their demands.

Indeed, there is a long tradition of the people demanding reasons, and authoritarian elites trying to evade reason-giving. When we have that tradition in mind, it’s natural to equate deliberation with political equity. On the other hand, when we think about formal deliberative bodies within a stable but imperfect state–American juries, for example–we worry that deliberation and equity can conflict, because those with advantage prevail in such discussions.

As with many issues, Donald Trump reminds us of the positive case.

This is World Commons Week!

Posted on October 8, 2019 by David Bollier

We’ve entered World Commons Week, a second annual celebration/research fest organized by the International Association for the Study of the Commons! “The overarching idea,” explains the IASC, is “to celebrate and draw attention to commons research an practice and devote a week toward promoting local-to-global events.” Events began on Sunday, October 6, and will continue through Friday, October 12.

Local events range from teach-ins and local talks to community practitioner meetings and organizing events for commons. A map on the World Commons Week website lists three dozen or more events around the world. They include a showing of a documentary film on common land at the University of Aveiro, in Portugal; a webinar on peer production and commons by Michael Bauwens at Copenhagen University; and a webinar conference on open data mapping in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

For my part, I will be speaking at an all-campus makerspace at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, on Friday, October 11, about my new book with Silke Helfrich, Free, Fair and Alive. (Details in righthand column.)

Every day of Commons Week will also feature a “keynote webinar” by a commons scholar from diverse locations around the world. You can check out the list of webinar talks here.

A big salute to IASC for helping to bring more public prominence to commons scholarship and practice!

new chapter on Elinor Ostrom and Civic Studies

Posted on October 8, 2019 by Peter

A newly published volume: Ostrom’s Tensions: Reexamining the Political Economy and Public Policy of Elinor C. Ostrom, edited by Paul Dragos Aligica, Peter J. Boettke, and Roberta Q. Herzberg.

I contribute a chapter entitled “’What Should We Do?’ The Bloomington School and the Citizen’s Core Question.”

I argue that Elinor Ostrom’s thought offers powerful resources for people who see themselves as active members of communities (“citizens”). I discuss her emphasis on means, not ends; her vantage point as a citizen, not a state; how she deals with value questions in policy; and her work as a complement to deliberative theory and non-violent social movement theory (Habermas and Gandhi).

Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, 1914-1948 by Ramachandra Guha

Posted on October 7, 2019 by Peter

Guha’s biography is the essential work on Gandhi: much more detailed, better researched, and more persuasive than the earlier biographies that I know of. Volume Two, focusing on India, is 1,104 pages long but moves at a brisk pace. It’s detailed but never ponderous. The story is often suspenseful, even if you know how it will turn out in broad outlines. For example, just when all seems lost, Gandhi suddenly pulls off the Salt March. And the end of his life has the inexorability of a classical tragedy.

Guha generally proceeds chronologically, but now and then he pauses for an essay on a special topic, such as “Gandhi’s personal faith, his personal morality, as expressed in his words and actions in this decade of the 1920s.” The narrative is enlivened by numerous quotations from original documents, many never printed before. Along with Gandhi’s voice, we hear an amazing range of human beings who interacted with him or commented on him in one way or another, from Black American pastors to anarchists to the advertisers who used his silhouette as a brand.

One of the larger themes that emerged for me was Gandhi as polemicist. The Mahatma relished arguments, even though some of his opponents alienated and infuriated him. You could summarize his thought by capturing his long-lived debates with a few key rivals, especially B.R. Ambedkar and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But he also sparred with many others.

For instance, I love to think of Margaret Sanger, the sex educator and popularizer of the phrase “birth control,” staying in Gandhi’s ashram and arguing with the celibate old man about first-wave feminism:

‘both seemed to be agreed that woman should be emancipated, that woman should be the arbiter of her destiny’. But whereas Mrs Sanger believed that contraceptives were the safest route to emancipation, Gandhi argued that women should resist their husbands, while men for their part should seek to curb ‘animal passion’. (p. 585)

Sanger was just one of scores of such visitors.

Guha is even-handed, judicious, and open-minded. Only at the end, in an epilogue on contemporary interpretations of Gandhi, does he emerge as a defender of his subject. By then, Guha has explored many flaws, errors, and vices, but he insists that Gandhi was far more complex and responsive than some of his critics have been. For instance:

[Arundhati Roy] presented Gandhi as a thoroughgoing apologist for caste, further arguing that this was in line with his views on race. Gandhi, she suggested, was casteist in India because he had been racist in South Africa. Roy claimed that Gandhi ‘feared and despised Africans’; this he certainly did in his twenties, but just as certainly did not in his forties and fifties. Reading Roy, one would not know that Gandhi decisively outgrew the racism of his youth, a fact that people of colour themselves acknowledged, and appreciated. … Roy has all of Ambedkar’s polemical zeal but none of his scholarship or sociological insight. … [She seeks] —by the technique of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi so beloved of ideologues down the ages—to prove a verdict they have arrived at beforehand.” (p. 876)

In contrast, Guha situates Gandhi in his time and cultural context, appreciates the Mahatma’s critics and opponents, explores his flaws and limitations (and occasional weirdness) at length, and paints a real-life portrait–which thereby emerges as a portrait of greatness.

Guha, Ramachandra. Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, 1914-1948. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. See also: the question of sacrifice in politics (on Gandhi and Ambedkar); Gandhi versus Jinnah on means and ends; Gandhi on the primacy of means over ends; and notes on the metaphysics of Gandhi and King

Florida Afterschool Alliance Recognizes the Efforts of the Lou Frey Institute!

Posted on October 4, 2019 by stevemasy

Some happy news, friends! The Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government (LFI) was recently recognized for their work with the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Florida’s After School Zone by the Florida After School Alliance (FASA). LFI was honored with the inaugural Special Recognition Award for their contribution to the civic well-being of Florida’s youth.

Since 2017, LFI and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Florida have partnered to provide a hands-on, civic learning experience for students in their after school program. The Civic Action Project (CAP), was designed in collaboration with the Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF), and is a free resource available to schools and community groups from CRF. CAP provides young people with opportunities to deliberate, collaborate, and form civic relationships with their peers as they investigate issues that matter to them. The premise of the project is to get young people to be thinking about their community, the impact public policy has on their community, and the ways they can interact with the decision makers to positively affect the issues they identify happening in their community.

In their nomination of the Lou Frey Institute to the FASA Awards Committee, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Florida said,

“The UCF Lou Frey Institute collaborative supports our Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Florida After School Zone mission of inspiring and enabling all young people including those from disadvantaged circumstances to reach their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens. The Civic Action Project equips our middle school students with the tools for positive participation in local politics, social advocacy, and community engagement. Through the community involvement of the Lou Frey Institute, our young people are empowered to work as a team with their peers and adult leaders to promote historic initiatives that have the potential for lifelong benefits within the Central Florida region and beyond.”

Young people participating in the After School Zone have addressed projects that include, but are not limited to:

Cyber bullying prevention
Advocacy for adapting school and community playgrounds for children with disabilities
Elevating education for middle school students
Mental health support services for students
School gun violence prevention
Food waste prevention among school cafeterias in Orange County, Florida

Kelvin Curry, Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Florida’s Director of Middle School programs said,

“The Civic Action Project truly inspires and enables our young people to have a real voice and leave their positive mark on society as those who can stand on the right-side of history.”

The Lou Frey Institute was honored at the Florida After School Alliance’s annual awards banquet held at the end of September.

If you are interested in learning more about the Civic Action Project for your school or community group, please contact the Florida Joint Center for Citizenship’s Action Civics Coordinator, Chris Spinale. You may also reach out to LFI Interim Director Steve Masyada for more information.

Event: The Role of Play in Human Evolution and Public Life: Work, or Play?

Posted on October 4, 2019 by Peter

Please join us for this month’s Ludics Seminar at Harvard’s Mahindra Center to explore the role of play in human evolution and public life. Details are below:

Peter Gray, Boston College

Peter Levine, Tufts University

The Role of Play in Human Evolution and Public Life: Work, or Play?

Monday, October 28, 2019 – 6:00pm

Location TBA

PANEL SYNOPSIS

The Ludics Seminar, Mahindra Humanities Center, Harvard University will kick off its 2019-2020 series of talks with a panel discussion between Professor Peter Gray, Boston College, and Professor Peter Levine, Tufts University, on play and public life. Peter Gray will speak about his recent work on play and egalitarianism in hunter and gatherer cultures. Peter Levine will speak about Harry Boyte’s notion of public work, teasing out this binary between work and play in public life. If play is a corollary to egalitarianism as Peter Gray suggests, then why is the business of contributing to public life most often associated with work?

“The Role of Play in Human Evolution”
Peter Gray, Boston College
Humans are the only primate (apparently) that can live peacefully, or at least relatively so, in multi-male, multi-female social groups. From an evolutionary point of view, how did we manage that? I will suggest here, based on research among contemporary band hunter-gatherers, that we did it at least in part by expanding upon the general mammalian capacity for play and bringing it into adult social interactions.

“Civic Engagement as Public Work, or Play?”
Peter Levine, Tufts University
Often, acts of civic engagement are defined as acts that people undertake voluntarily without being paid, such as voting, protest, or discussing issues. The very definition of “volunteer service” is any work for other people that isn’t remunerated. This distinction between work and citizenship goes back to Aristotle. Harry Boyte and other proponents of “Public Work” have criticized it, arguing that it trivializes civic life by reducing it to after-work voluntarism and marginalizes the many ways that paid, employed people contribute to public spaces and institutions. The democracy of ancient Athens was not just a discussion among gentlemen; it was also a set of physical spaces–like the Pnyx, where discussions occurred–that people had built with their hands. However, we are not just public workers and artisans in the common world; we also like to play. We are homo ludens as well as homo faber. Designing civic engagement to be more play-like or game-like has been shown to make it more attractive and productive. So how should we think about the relationship between work and play in the civic domain? And what may happen to that relationship if work disappears for many human beings while opportunities for play expand?

BIOS
Peter Gray is a research professor of psychology at Boston College who has conducted and published research in neuroendocrinology, developmental psychology, anthropology, and education. He is author of an internationally acclaimed introductory psychology textbook (Psychology, Worth Publishers, now in its 8th edition, co-authored with David Bjorklund), which views all of psychology from an evolutionary perspective. His recent research focuses on the role of play in human evolution and how children educate themselves, through play and exploration, when they are free to do so. He has expanded on these ideas in his book, Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life (Basic Books). He also authors a regular blog called Freedom to Learn, for Psychology Today magazine. He is a founding member and president of the nonprofit Alliance for Self-Directed Education (ASDE), which is aimed at creating a world in which children’s natural ways of learning are facilitated rather than suppressed. He is also a founding board director of the nonprofit Let Grow, the mission of which is to renew children’s freedom to play and explore outdoors, independently of adults. He earned his undergraduate degree at Columbia College and Ph.D. in biological sciences at the Rockefeller University many years ago. His own current play includes kayaking, long-distance bicycling, backwoods skiing, and vegetable gardening.

Peter Levine is the Academic Dean and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs in Tufts University’s Jonathan Tisch College of Civic Life. He has tenure in Tufts’ Political Science Department, and he also has secondary appointments in the Tufts Philosophy Department and the Tufts Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. He directs the Civic Studies Major at Tufts. Levine graduated from Yale in 1989 with a degree in philosophy. He studied philosophy at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship, receiving his doctorate in 1992. From 1991 until 1993, he was a research associate at Common Cause. From 1993-2008, he was a member of the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy in the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. During the late 1990s, he was also Deputy Director of the National Commission on Civic Renewal. Levine was the founding deputy director (2001-6) and then the second director (2006-15) of Tisch College’s CIRCLE, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Levine is the author of We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America (Oxford University Press, 2013), five other scholarly books on philosophy and politics, and a novel. He has served on the boards or steering committees of AmericaSpeaks, Street Law Inc., the Newspaper Association of America Foundation, the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, Discovering Justice, the Kettering Foundation, the American Bar Association’s Committee for Public Education, the Paul J. Aicher Foundation, and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium.

The Economist Magazine Gets Religion on the Commons

Posted on October 3, 2019 by David Bollier

It’s only a short article with not much analysis or detail, but The Economist magazine seems to have embraced the commons. This is a stunning reversal for a publication that has long regarded Garrett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” fable as gospel and sufficient reason to expand private property rights.

Yet there it was, in the September 12 issue: “The alternatives to privatization and nationalization,” the headline declared, proposing commons as a better way to manage wealth. This was followed by the heretical subheadline: “More public resources could be managed as commons without much loss of efficiency.”

Gobsmacked by this conclusion from a champion of market economics, I immediately pored through the unsigned article to see the reasoning behind the article. Alas, there was not the indepth analysis that I had hoped for. Still, it was encouraging to see The Economist reconsider the English enclosure movement. Instead of celebrating the Industrial Revolution as a necessary Great Leap Forward, the article questioned whether enclosures actually resulted in productivity gains, as frequently claimed by capitalist historians.

“Privatising shared resources, it turns out, does not always lead to a productivity boom,” writes the author, nor does it “always lead to a productivity boom.” Citing research by Robert Allen of NYU Abu Dhabi, the author notes that English lords did not necessarily reinvest their profits to improve productivity and spur innovation: “Most indulged in fine living; many were debtors rather than savers.”

The author goes on to reference Ostrom’s research showing that commons are often stable and durable, such as the Swiss commons of Törbel, which have managed shared irrigation systems for 500 years. “An exclusive focus on states and markets as ways to control the use of commons neglects a varied menagerie of institutions throughout history,” the author concludes.

In a final note, the author invites us to consider how commons could change society: “A world rich in healthy commons would of necessity be one full of distributed, overlapping institutions of community governance. Cultivating these would be less politically rewarding than privatization, which allows governments to trade responsibility for cash. But empowering commoners could mend rents in the civic fabric and alleviate frustration with out-of-touch elites.”

The author even cites Ostrom’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, in which she called on policymakers to “‘facilitate the development of institutions that bring out the best in humans’. This prompted the author to offer a benediction: “That sounds like common sense.”

I remain amazed that this piece was able to survive a gauntlet of business-minded editors at The Economist. While I appreciate the good press for the commons (instead of the umpteenth retelling of the "tragedy" story), I frankly would have welcomed a deeper analysis of the larger cultural and political ramifications of commons.

But relax, I tell myself, this is a moment to be gracious. Thank you, Economist, for opening the door a little on the realities of commoning. May you find the courage to entertain a richer treatment of the non-capitalist possibilities already unfolding all around us.

Register for Next Week’s Online Facilitation Unconference!

Posted on October 3, 2019 by Keiva Hummel

The sixth Online Facilitation Unconference (OFU) is happening on Oct 7-13, 2019! This digital gathering is hosted by the Center for Applied Community Engagement LLC, and is a great opportunity for anyone interested in virtual facilitation – no previous experience needed! OFU is part of the International Facilitation Week and members of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) can receive a 30% discount! This global event is happening next week so make sure you register and get your tickets ASAP! Follow OFU on Twitter with the hashtag #OFU19 for more #FacWeek updates. You can read the announcement below for more info or find the original on the OFU Exchange site here.

Online Facilitation Unconference 2019

Welcome to the sixth Online Facilitation Unconference (OFU), the week-long international learning exchange exploring the art and practice of facilitating in virtual environments.

Join us on October 7-13, 2019. Tickets on sale now!

Who should attend?

OFU aims to connect people from these three broad groups:

Facilitators
Practitioners from other fields whose work also includes facilitation
Technology providers

We welcome participants from all backgrounds and across all levels of expertise regarding facilitation and the use of online technology.

For example:

You are a senior facilitator who has just recently started to deliver your services in virtual settings. Do you have questions or roadblocks you’d like to discuss?
Or maybe you are already an expert in virtual facilitation. Are you currently exploring some cutting edge method and would like to try it out in a friendly, constructive environment?
Or maybe you work in an entirely different field (e.g., business management, education, the non-profit sector) and you are frequently tasked with leading productive online meetings or expect your staff to be able to so. Do you have insights you can share? Or are you looking for approaches to training that fit your needs?

What to expect?

OFU provides an opportunity for attendees to explore, share, learn, and connect with colleagues from around the world. We hope you will:

Explore a wide range of topics related to online facilitation
Find answers to questions or challenges you have encountered in your work
Discover new tools, methods, resources, etc.
Make new connections with colleagues from around the globe!
Come away with new energy and plenty of new ideas to try out next!

As is the nature of unconferences, our attendees are active participants who will create the agenda collaboratively based on their shared interests and needs. Yes, you will help shape what will be talked about!

Event timeline

October 7–9 – Join one of several live welcome sessions (each approximately 45 minutes long via videoconferencing) as well as several other pre-scheduled sessions. More details soon!
October 10–12 – Unconference sessions
October 13 – Room for spill-over sessions (if needed)
Later in October – Event follow-up

A few key things to note:

The Online Facilitation Unconference (OFU) is an annual learning exchange on the art and practice of facilitating in virtual environments. It is a community-driven event that brings together people from diverse backgrounds from all around the world whose work includes, or who otherwise have an interest in, facilitating in the virtual realm.
OFU is an event for newbies and experts alike. Whether you are a seasoned facilitator pro or a beginner, whether you are already highly skilled using technology for this work or still trying to figure out the possibilities – OFU provides a venue where you can ask and answer questions, share and solicit advice, discuss your latest project, challenge or idea, explore new tools, discover new tricks, and find like-minded colleagues.
Aside from a handful of pre-scheduled sessions, OFU is an unconference (an event where the participants co-create the agenda). OFU is a blank slate for you to pitch your ideas in collaboration with fellow attendees. The agenda will emerge based on your and everyone else’s needs and interests.
OFU is a not-for-profit event. It is important for us to keep the event open and accessible for everyone who is passionate about the topic. If you aren’t in a position to pay full price, please make use of our low-income options and encourage others to do the same.
Sometime in early September, we will announce a more detailed schedule that will specify the various main time slots during which the majority of unconference sessions are expected to be held. These time slots are optimized for trans-continental collaboration and sharing (Americas, Europe/Africa, and Asia/Australia). We highly encourage our session hosts to schedule their sessions within these designated time slots as much as possible so as to maximize global participation.
Session hosts are encouraged to record or otherwise document their sessions. Following each session, any available recordings or documentation will be posted to the OFU website in a timely manner.
OFU works best the more people contribute. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to learn and share about facilitation in virtual environments and bring along your friends and colleagues from around the world!

Learn more about the session offerings on the OFU Eventbrite site at www.eventbrite.com/e/online-facilitation-unconference-2019-registration-71022166211.

You can find the original version of this on the OFU site at www.ofuexchange.net/.

the “America in One Room” experiment

Posted on October 2, 2019 by Peter

On the New York Times op-ed page today, James Fishkin and Larry Diamond report the results of convening 523 randomly selected registered voters for several days of deliberation. These voters were surveyed before and after the discussions. Their appraisal of democracy rose markedly. They also shifted their views in specific ways:

The most polarizing proposals, whether from the left or the right, generally lost support, and a number of more centrist proposals moved to the foreground. Crucially, proposals further to the right typically lost support from Republicans and proposals further to the left typically lost support from Democrats.

I have known Jim Fishkin and his work for 20 years and admire it a lot. These experiments are illuminating, and they open possibilities for reform. They also remind us that the politics we see around is the outcome of specific institutional arrangements that could be changed. For instance, we are not hard-wired to fall into two partisan camps; that is a feature of our electoral system. If we were randomly recruited into deliberative bodies, we would see very different results. If we can change something, we should consider changing it.

But I do have some worries:

Does the shift to moderate opinions demonstrate that deliberation is desirable? It could also be interpreted as a bias: putting people together in heterogeneous groups disadvantages the radicals and their ideas. I try to challenge myself by seriously engaging several opposing political movements with which I disagree. That is my own approach to deliberation, and it could be considered a form of moderation. But I don’t find myself shifting to centrist positions, many of which I find thin gruel and incommensurate to our problems.
What is the overall theory of change? If we like this alternative form of politics–much more deliberative, and also more moderate, than the status quo–how should we institutionalize it? The easy part is to invent policies that would make democratic deliberation mandatory. The hard part is figuring out who would fight for those policies, and why. More people are motivated by political agendas and identities than by procedural ideals, and especially procedures that favor the center.
What about people who are not invited to deliberate, or who don’t like the results of the deliberation? Do we see them as worse qualified to express themselves?
Is this experiment a form of civic education that teaches people to value interactions that are civil, professionally organized, calm, and “invited”–thereby implicitly devaluing such forms of politics as social movements, strikes, competitive elections, and litigation? If that is the lesson, is it an acceptable one?

Wednesday Webinar Roundup with Courageous Leadership Project, NCL, and more!

Posted on October 2, 2019 by Keiva Hummel

Here are the upcoming D&D online events happening over the next few weeks, including NCDD sponsor org The Courageous Leadership Project, NCDD member orgs National Civic League, National Issues Forums Institute and Living Room Conversations, as well as, from the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) and the International Associate for Public Participation (IAP2).

NCDD’s online D&D event roundup is a weekly compilation of the upcoming events happening in the digital world related to dialogue, deliberation, civic tech, engagement work, and more! Do you have a webinar or other digital event coming up that you’d like to share with the NCDD network? Please let us know in the comments section below or by emailing me at keiva[at]ncdd[dot]org, because we’d love to add it to the list!

Upcoming Online D&D Events: The Courageous Leadership Project, National Civic League, Living Room Conversations, NIFI, IAF, IAP2

Living Room Conversations Training (free): The Nuts & Bolts of Living Room Conversations

Thursday, October 3rd
2 pm Pacific, 5 pm Eastern

Join us for 90 minutes online to learn about Living Room Conversations. We’ll cover what a Living Room Conversation is, why we have them, and everything you need to know to get started hosting and/or participating in Living Room Conversations. This training is not required for participating in our conversations – we simply offer it for people who want to learn more about the Living Room Conversations practice.

Space is limited so that we can offer a more interactive experience. Please only RSVP if you are 100% certain that you can attend. This training will take place using Zoom videoconferencing. A link to join the conversation will be sent to participants the day before the training.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/training-free-the-nuts-bolts-of-living-room-conversations-19-2/

Online Living Room Conversation: Relationships Over Politics – 90-Minute Conversation w/ Optional 30-Minute Q & A with Hosts!

Thursday, October 3rd
4 pm Pacific, 7 pm Eastern

Is it possible to use Living Room Conversations with our families and close friends? It is ultimately challenging, because family are more likely to break ‘host and guest’ social norms. The emotional stakes are higher, conversations are colored by long, deeply personal histories and it can feel easier to ‘take the gloves off’ and fight dirty, unconstrained by the politeness usually offered acquaintances. How might we hold the tension of our differences while working to repair connection and not further deepen division within our circle of family and friends?

All sorts of people tell us they want to use the skills they practice in Living Room Conversations to help restore connection with friends and family. So, let’s use a Living Room Conversation to talk about just that! This Living Room Conversation will help us listen and learn about where we have different opinions, along with shared ideas about how to best navigate time with family & friends (who may not share our view of the world). HERE is the conversation guide.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/relationships-over-politics-90-minute-conversation-w-optional-30-minute-q-a-with-hosts-2/

Online Living Room Conversation: Race and Ethnicity – A Special Three-Part Series

Tuesday, October 8th
10:30 am Pacific, 1:30 pm Eastern

Check out this four-minute video from our first Race & Ethnicity Conversation Series to get a taste of this conversation! In this series of three conversations, participants explore the complexities of the concepts of Race, Ethnicity, and their impacts on people from all walks of life. We will cover new questions from the three Race & Ethnicity conversation guides found here. The following conversation series will occur on October 15th and 22nd.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/race-and-ethnicity-a-special-three-part-series/

IAP2 Monthly Webinar – 2019 IAP2 Projects Of The Year (USA & Canada)

Tuesday, October 8th
11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern

We are excited to feature the two Core Values Award winners for Project of the Year.

The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) won the USA Project of the Year award for “PedPDX”. This project addresses discrepancies in pedestrian infrastructure around the Rose City, and involved people of a variety of different ethnic and social groups. One city council member referred to the public engagement process as the most robust and comprehensive he had ever seen.

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer used a variety of techniques and approaches in reviewing Canada’s Cancer Strategy, focusing on “underserviced” populations — people in remote areas, Indigenous people, new Canadians, LGBTQ people, for example — often don’t get the same level of cancer care and treatment that others do. The Partnership managed to bring these voices to the table and help re-design a cancer strategy that puts them on an equal footing.

REGISTER: https://iap2usa.org/event-3404391

International Association of Facilitators webinar – Becoming a CPF with the IAF

Tuesday, October 8th
3 pm Pacific, 6 pm Eastern

Making the decision to seek the IAF Certified Professional Facilitator (CPF) accreditation can be hard. Common questions people ask are What’s involved? How much time will it take? Will I meet the requirements? and What if I don’t pass? In response to strong interest from members we will be exploring these questions at a webinar with hosts that have years of experience as professional facilitators and as IAF Assessors.

REGISTER: www.iaf-world.org/site/events/webinars

International Association of Facilitators webinar – Knowing Me, Knowing You – Why do we do/say the things we do?

Wednesday, October 9th
10:30am Pacific, 1:30 pm Eastern

Remember building sandcastles at the beach? As soon as the structure reached a certain height, any amount of sand that we added on top fell to the sides. Why? The base was not wide enough to go any taller. The base or foundation determines the height of the sandcastle.

The same applies to the Altitude we want to reach in our lives. That base is determined by our Beliefs and Values. Becoming aware of what drives us and strengthening the same by conscious living makes our roles purposeful and meaningful. What we do and say shape the results, which in turn affect our reputation and credibility as a professional.

REGISTER: www.iaf-world.org/site/events/webinars

The Courageous Leadership Project webinar – Brave, Honest Conversations

Wednesday, October 9th
9 am Pacific, 12 pm Eastern

Some conversations are hard to have. Fear and discomfort build in your body and you avoid and procrastinate or pretend everything is fine. Sometimes you rush in with urgency, wanting to smooth things over, fix them, and make them better. Sometimes you go to battle stations, positioning the conversation so you have a higher chance of being on the “winning” side. NONE OF THIS WORKS. Instead, it usually makes a hard conversation harder; more divided, polarized, and disconnected from others. The more people involved, the harder the conversation can be. I believe that brave, honest conversations are how we solve the problems we face in our world – together.

In this webinar, we will cover: What is a Brave, Honest Conversation? Why have one? What can change because of a brave, honest conversation? How do you have one? What do you need to think about and do? How do you prepare yourself for a brave, honest conversation?

REGISTER: www.bravelylead.com/events/bhcfreewebinar

October CGA Forum Series: A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want?

Friday, October 11th
11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern

Please join us for a Common Ground for Action (CGA) online deliberative forum on A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want? If you’ve never participated in a CGA forum, please watch the “How To Participate” video before joining. You can find the video link here. If you haven’t had a chance to review the issue guide, you can find a downloadable PDF copy at the NIF website here.

REGISTER: www.nifi.org/en/events/october-cga-forum-series-house-divided-what-would-we-have-give-get-political-system-we-want

Online Living Room Conversation: Race and Ethnicity – A Special Three-Part Series

Tuesday, October 15th
9 am Pacific, 12 pm Eastern

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/race-and-ethnicity-a-special-three-part-series/

October CGA Forum Series: A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want?

Tuesday, October 15th
1 pm Pacific, 4 pm Eastern

Please join us for a Common Ground for Action (CGA) online deliberative forum on Climate Choices: How Should We Meet the Challenges of a Warming Planet? If you haven’t had a chance to review the issue guide, you can find a downloadable PDF on the National Issues Forums Institute website here. If you’ve never participated in a CGA forum, please watch the “How To Participate” video before joining. You can find the video link here.

REGISTER: www.nifi.org/en/events/october-cga-forum-series-house-divided-what-would-we-have-give-get-political-system-we-want

National Civic League AAC Promising Practices Webinar – Leadership Academies: Turning Ordinary into Extraordinary

Wednesday, October 16th
10 am Pacific, 1 pm Eastern

This webinar will highlight two leadership academies that have evolved to offer a more innovative and advanced civic learning experience. Registrants will hear from the City of Wichita, KS and the City of El Paso, TX. Cindy Claycomb, a Council Member for the City of Wichita, KS, will discuss how the city transformed its Citizens Academy into a Civic Engagement Academy. Olivia Montalvo-Patrick, Interim Neighborhood Services Coordinator for the City of El Paso, TX, will discuss the city’s Neighborhood Leadership Academy and Advanced Leadership Training.

REGISTER: www.nationalcivicleague.org/resource-center/promising-practices/