Collaborative Power

As a culturally diverse team, one exercise we engage in regularly is sharing our observations about how others encounter the three of us. Whether we have an informal meeting with a colleague, or meeting with potential collaborators for the first time, not long after, the three of us will share with each other how we observed the interaction. To whom did the other person speak directly, or did she engage us all equally? Who among the three of us did most of the talking, if any? How did the other person respond to each of us individually? What might we have done differently to present ourselves as a collaborative team? Often the people we meet or work with notice and talk with me, the European American, more than Sia or Giang. Because of our experiences and our recognition that racial preferences operate in society, we try to work in such a way to reveal to others our collaborative effort.

Recently we facilitated a session on power with a group of about 12 people. In preparation, we divided and arranged the work in such a way we felt would present us working as a collaborative team, not a team with a designated leader, or lead facilitator. Sia introduced the day and our objectives, then Giang facilitated the group in setting ground rules for the day. Sia facilitated a discussion on the types and kinds of power, in which the participants identified sources of power and how they can be used positively and negatively. I followed Sia to elicit real examples from the participants and look at how power can be dictated by social constructs.

By then, we had spent about three hours with them, so I posed the question to them, “Who among the three of us (the three facilitators) has power and why?” The first person said I did, because I appeared to be older. Another added that because I was older, I probably had seniority in religious life also. One mentioned that Sia had power because we are on her home continent. Giang was identified as having power because she helped set the ground rules. Again I was identified as having power because when we arrived the other two were busy setting things up and arranging the room but I was not. And someone had observed that I told Giang to move to a different chair at the beginning, which she did. Another said that I had power because the other two presented first and I came afterward to tie it all together. One said I had power because of my physical size.

I noted these observations on the board one by one and then addressed the reality of each assumption. Age, yes I am the oldest, and particularly in most African cultures and many others, age is honorific, and carries power. Seniority in religious life is share by Giang and me as we enter in the same group. Geographical setting gives Sia power through experience and knowledge that Giang and I do not have. Giang’s facilitation of setting ground rules is perceived as an integral part of the facilitation, so some participants see that as a position of power. My physical size does give an appearance of power initially, yet my actual strength and health would actually be weaker than Sia and Giang both.

It is true that Giang and Sia were visible setting things up before we began, preparing for their own presentations. I did not have any preparations to make, but that was perceived as a position of power. Also, I did tell Giang to move to another chair, for my personal needs of seating arrangements, which she accommodated to preserve her need of harmony in front of the group. This was perceived as power, and was unwittingly a play of power on my part.

The organization of work that we had arranged in an effort to present collaboration was not perceived that way. We had decided Sia would begin and Giang would follow giving them visibility first, then I would be third. Participants perceived almost the opposite of our intentions. Had I introduced the day and our objectives, would I not have been perceived to be “in charge”? Had Sia been the third presenter and “tied it all together” would they have perceived her to have power in the group? Had Giang facilitated a different part of the day, how would they have perceived her in the group? Did my telling Giang to change seats dictate the dynamics?

These are valuable observations for the participants, and also for us in our work as we continue. We did not push for the participants to identify race as the indicator of power in our group, but was that operating in their designation of my power? In whatever way we organize our facilitations and presentations, will we be able to reveal our collaborative effort as a team? That is our hope, our intention, and we will continue to try, and to learn each time, and share our learnings as we go.

World Social Forum-January 2007

World Social Forum (WSF) 2007

In 2006, we came to Nairobi, Kenya and had about 4 months to settle into our new home. At the beginning of this year we participated in the World Social Forum held for the first time in Africa. Over 50,000 people gathered from around the globe from January 20^th to January 25^th in Nairobi to talk about social issues and to link people in social movements of transformation under the theme “Another world is possible”. People came together with a purpose to transform the world from the ground up. There were daily meetings around some main issues facing our world today - migration, human trafficking, debt relief for poor countries, land reforms, environmental protection, wars and conflicts, and HIV-AIDs. This meeting was held in contrast and protest to another meeting that was taking place in Davos, Sweden – the World Economic Forum, where the powerful and rich gather to talk about how to make money.

There were many workshops and seminars presenting different topics that attracted us. On one occasion all three of us attended a presentation given by the women Nobel Peace Prize winners who started a project called Nobel Women’s Initiative. They use it as a platform for action on behalf of sustainable peace for our world. Jody Williams, Wangari Mathai, and Sharin Ebadi spoke out against political, economic, social and environmental violence. They highlighted issues of injustices around the world. For instance , we learned that South Africa used its first vote on the UN Security Council against a UN Resolution that points out the injustices done by the Burmese government against its own people. (What seemed to me a grave injustice is how Jodi Williams’ voice has been muffled since winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The New York Times and Washington Post has stopped publishing any of her writings in their Op-ed pages.)

One of the issues that was highlighted with daily presentations concerned international migration. People from Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa talked about how the search for employment, for a better living has affected lives in all corners of the world. We had been familiar with migration issues in the Americas and Asia. It was good to find out the current situation in Africa. The poor of Africa go North to Europe, and they are increasing in number. One similar theme repeats itself for the poor whether they are Africans going to Europe, Latinos going to the U.S. or the from the south of Asia to rich northern Asian countries - discrimination, prejudice and mistreatment.

Despite the many problems, migration will continue to increase because developing countries like Kenya are looking to send their workers abroad. Already the Kenyan government has mandated all nurses to upgrade their studies to an RN degree by 2010 so that they can go abroad to work and send money home. This economic strategy has been employed by other countries in Asia and Latin American for decades with little or no appreciable gains in the lives of the citizens of these developing countries. The WSF was a good space for people from different continents to share and strategize on how to protect the rights of migrants and their families. The 5 day long discussions and networking among people working for the rights of migrants will be included in the final statements coming out of the WSF on the rights of migrants and the issues they face with calls for international attention to their problems. We will certainly keep our eyes and ears open to the migration trend in Africa.

Besides attending different events, we also gave a presentation at the WSF on strategic coalition building: how civil society could provide a more comprehensive and effective service to society without unnecessary duplication or cancellation of efforts. We had a gathering of about 50 people at the WSF who were interested in exploring how coalition building works to for a better society. We saw this as the beginning of our efforts to build strong webs of relationships that will enable societies to sustain and endure turbulences – which make for sustainable peace in societies.

Prior to this presentation, we had convened a meeting with six networks from different sectors working in Africa for their input on this idea of strategic coalition building. They were enthusiastic and wanted us to further pursue this effort with them – to create a space where they could continue the dialogue on strategic coalition building.

Living Interculturally

Immediately following the WSF, the team gave a workshop on intercultural living skills to a group of men belonging to an international religious order. The participants came from 4 different cultures and are all called to live out their religious commitments in an intercultural setting. It was a very good weekend for us and for the participants. We were reminded throughout the workshop of the need for our world to learn how to live together, not just exist along side each other. In light of the issues of discrimination and prejudices that face more and more people in today’s world due to migration and ethnic violence, we feel affirmed in our desire to live in an intentionally multicultural community and to bring our personal experiences in this context to the work that we do as a witness to the possibility and vitality of intercultural living.