Karlstad Group update SOLWorld 2009 conference Texel

[Mark McKergow]

Karlstad Group update SOLWorld 2009 conference Texel

Present: Mark McKergow, Fredrike Bannink, Bjorn Johannson, Eva Persson, Paul Z Jackson, Pawel Walentynowicz, John Tarr, Hans-Peter Korn, Peter Rohrig, Ignas Verschuren, Linda Reyerkerk, Danny Janssen, An Baert, Anton Stellamans, Marianne Inghels, Louis Cauffman, Mario Ronzani

What's better?

Connections have been made with people in other intellectual/conceptual traditions:

Positive Psychology (Paul Z Jackson)
CBT (Fredrike Bannink)
Brain science (Michael Hjerth, not present here)
Discourse microanalysis (Harry Korman, Janet Bavelas, Peter de Jong)
Agile software development/agile project management (Hans-Peter Korn)
Feldenkrais/Alexander technique (Paul Z Jackson, John Tarr)
Improvisation (Paul Z Jackson)
Game theory/conflict management (Fredrike Bannink)
Positive Deviance (a PD person has joined the SOLWorld ning group)
Complexity (Mark McKergow)
Evolutionary Psychology (Louis Cauffman – Univ of Neijmegen, they have a fMRI brain scanner)

Jenny Clarke has been putting together ideas on 'metathing' – the (newly emerging) field of things of which SF is an example.


Possible next steps

All – keep looking for opportunities to engage people from other traditions in dialogue etc.
All – keep writing and publishing (in InterAction and other places)
Bjorn – seminar next year with Gale Miller, Harry Korman and Mark in Malmo – could be very interesting development
Louis – We could have a Macy style conference – 'colloque de cerisy' format
Marianne – self-organising might be an interesting direction to look
Louis – swarm intelligence is the thing, complexity in dead
Mark – mix of self-organisation/swarn intelligence/complexity might be interesting
John Tarr – parallels with Feldenkrais worth looking at
Make presentation at other people's conferences.

[An Baert]

Considering we are finding ways to get people to know and to acknowledge SF - both people in the professional field and in the larger field of customers applying SF - I think it might be useful to look at the very positions where fellow practitioners of other traditions on the one hand, and customers/users on the other hand, stand and look from.

In the first place for us to discover what is possibly standing in between us and them. Or for us to learn about what has a good chance to invite them to take a first step in our direction.
Or for us to find out what we’d better stop doing that has been confusing them all along. And for us to find out which things might be helpful doing in order for us to really see them, and in order for them to really see us.
Also for us to discover what is about to work well, what is actually working well and what has worked well already.
And then for us to decide which actions we are going to take first, and next, and next, in order to get closer to our (maybe common?) goal.

I’m in the UK this summer and I offer to facilitate a constellation on that, so that we can look at these questions. I’ll be in Bournemouth from August 2nd till 9th, and nearby London from August 10th till 14th. Who would attend such a session?

[Hans-Peter Korn]

Reading this: "In the first place for us to discover what is possibly standing in between us and them. Or for us to learn about what has a good chance to invite them to take a first step in our direction." it sounds for me a bit like an "evangelicalism".
As long as we expect, that the others should do "a first step in our direction" it will be difficult to have an open dialogue. And as long as we ask "what is possibly standing in between us and them" we are thinking in terms of "constellations of positions and impediments". And we will try (or the others think that we will try) to defence our positions and to eliminate the impediments from OUR side like doing an invasion.

So, I would prefer to start such dialogues by stopping to talk about "labelled positions" standing for "traditions" or "schools" (like "SF" or "NLP" or "systemic" or "Gestalt" or ... ... ...) and instead of it to share our experiences how we work with our clients in specific issues - and how we know, that it was useful for our clients.

[Mark McKergow]

I have been asked to do a book chapter on complexity and sfbt with Gale Miller... we will be working on it over the summer.

[Hans-Peter Korn]

That's a really great chance to underline SF (and not only SFBT as a therapeutic "discipline") with one of the most important theoretical aspects!

[An Baert]

Thank you for your replies. Mark, nice to learn about this chapter on complexity and sfbt!
I understand Hans-Peter is not attending either, for other reasons. It may be useful that I clarify some things about me and my work. The metaphors I'm using apply to the positioning and proces work which is done in structural and organisational constellations work. On the other hand, I happen to be very much into doing and into experiencing what works. Debriefing afterwards and planning what to do next, are also interactions that appeal to me. Unfortunately I have less expertise, and thus less accuracy, when it comes to theoretical discussions. That kind of exchanges are in a way not that appealing to me. And the new suggestion, about describing cooperations with clients that have been useful to these clients, is also an activity that would not really empower me. So I'm glad to let collegues who really enjoy this, have all the fun with it.

[Hans-Peter Korn]

Reading in your reply, An, this: "I understand Hans-Peter is not attending either, for other reasons." I am not clear about the meaning of it: Did you mean, that you will be in UK in the next weeks and you offer to do some constellations about this: "to look at the very positions where fellow practitioners of other traditions .... .... .... discover what is possibly standing in between us ... ... ... invite them to take a first step in our direction." ?
If this is your offer: Yes, I will not attend because 1st I am not in UK this summer and 2nd I think, as I have written above, instead of dealing with positions and with impediments between the positions I prefer to forget such "labelled positions" standing for "traditions" or "schools" (like "SF" or "NLP" or "systemic" or "Gestalt" or ... ... ...) and instead of it to share our experiences how we (as "unlabelled persons") work with our clients in specific issues - and how we know, that it was useful for our clients.

BTW: I have learned a lot about systemic constellation from Insa Sparrer and Matthias Varga von Kibéd and in the course of my psychodrama-training. And I also have directed a lot of SF constellation work myself. And I experienced, that sometimes such constellations tend to enhance the "thinking in positions" due to the fact, that in constellations such positions become very visible.
To show the connections (instead of the borders) between us and other "traditions" or "schools" I would prefer as a constellation something based on Moreno's "social atom": SF (as the focus) is surrounded by several representatives for different "sources" of SF like constructivism, systems theory, complexity science, neuroscience, ... ... ... And the connections from SF (the focus) to each of this representatives is symbolised by a rope. And SF feels like a spider in the middle of his web which is hold by the different sources. And the focus (as SF) now can compliment in some words each source for its contribution to SF.