Reviewing Transition

I recently got an email restarting the Transition process and looking into Steering Committee type stuff in town, asking for all those still interested to reply. And I hesitated. I still have not replied.

I was excited about it several months ago, but I feel a little sour about it now. I wonder if perhaps our conflict of vision is what caused us all to walk away/take a break for these several months. I think I was one of the main conflict headers. I think that Transition is cool stuff, is necessary, is win-win, and I want to see it succeed. I wonder if my participation would hamstring it, because I would always be questioning some of the paradigm that seems to get a lot of people really fired up about it. I have seen a tendency for those excited about Transition to be folks who believe in the Peak Oil Apocalypse and the Enlightened Few versus the Ignorant Masses, and those are both Mytho-Realities that I actively question and choose not to live.

With my questioning, I do not want to sabotage the very fervor that would lead to Transition success. Or, as the voice of an old friend and activist whispers to me, perhaps they need my voice questioning those paradigms that keep them limited, so that Transition can be successful. My friend would tell me that my input is highly valuable and I would be an asset to the committee instead of a hindrance. I admit to having a little less confidence than that.

Relatedly, I find that my focus of what I want to work on is changing. My projects seem to be contracting into the personal: baby-making, alternate streams of income via drums, growing my healing practice, and acquiring land to raise our family on. On the one hand, I absolutely believe in the bigger picture and its relevance to all our lives. On the other hand, my kids and partner come first. I am conflicted about it a little, but then again, I can feel myself relaxing into my own advice to other friends who became parents before me: You are doing what you can right now, and that is enough. There is a reason most activists are the young and old. They have the time and energy to work on the bigger picture, while the parents are raising the next generation.

I'll have to keep pondering the Transition question. I think I will call a friend who is still involved and see what she thinks about my contributions and how they will play out in the politics of the thing.

Surviving Our First Conflict

We had our second Steering Committee meeting for Transition last week. It went better. C had volunteered to lead us in a shamanic journey focused on what we as the steering committee should be doing, and then we mind mapped the results. Not everyone was present for that part, but mind mapping and getting everyone on paper in a right-brained graphic representation seemed to help.

The functional power dynamics were much improved, probably because C was leading the journey and mind map process, which caused S step back a little. S is the one who started the ball rolling with Transition, and so for our first meeting, took a bit of a default leader role. S is still using language that implies that she is at the top of the power structure, but I think that is not entirely conscious on her part. It got more pronounced when she felt as if her goals for Transition were being challenged.

I brought up my lack of commitment to teaching about the Peak Oil Apocalypse as we were talking about how to frame Transition in the community. I made the point about how the solutions that come out of Transition are win-win solutions that improve quality of life immediately. They do not require sacrifice or an investment that only pays off once the world falls apart. I think we can frame Transition in terms of benefits and use a carrot instead of a stick. Others agreed with me and fleshed out other benefits that could be used as framing.

S is a very passionate activist who is on fire to teach people about Peak Oil, Climate Change, Sustainability, etc. She has put a lot into raising awareness, and so was a bit triggered by the idea that others on the Steering Committee did not consider awareness raising to be automatically core to our purpose. She got a little upset and made defensive comments about how anyone who does not want to talk about Peak Oil etc. is in denial and she is not willing to be under a gag order.

It turned out okay, though. I let the conversation move on and gave her time to cool down a bit, and then I spoke up about how I thought we were running into a generational difference. I explained how I am generation 9/11 and so am already convinced that the world needs fixing. It's not a matter of denial, it's a matter of okay, yes, Problems, so what are we going to do for Solutions? Why detail the problems when we could be putting that energy into solutions? She was able to hear it.

I finished the meeting by detailing my strengths and why I think I am on the committee (organization, logistics), and then talking about what I think other people's strengths/passions are. I included S's passion for awareness raising, M's commitment to compiling a list of organizations and projects that are doing Transition compatible work, C's focus on process and reminder to us to trust it, and T's training in group processes and reminder of diverse perspectives. It went over well.

I am feeling encouraged.

Steering Committee Leadership?

We just had our first Steering committee meeting for the local Transition initiative. It surprised me because it was called with less than 24 hours notice via a long email thread. I was able to make it work, though. Only my potluck contribution suffered; I took a jar of nuts.

There are 6 of us, and the group is mostly women, mostly white, mostly 40s-50s. We had a strict time limit since there was another green-function meeting that evening that most people were planning to attend, so really there was an hour and a half of meeting time. We managed to spend half of that just eating, and then feeling (well, I felt, anyway) alternately rushed and bored by the rest.

I am unclear as to whether we have a "leader" or not. There seems to be a bit of unacknowledged (or acknowledged, perhaps) pecking order. The person who got this ball rolling behaves as though she is the leader. She brought some notes she had made from the US website and suggested? forced? insisted? assumed? that the agenda be her reading through her notes almost verbatim. The rest of us interrupted some, asked for clarification some, and I didn't feel like any of us got very clear.

I think my role in the meeting was to serve as a focuser. Where appropriate and non-challenging to the the power-status of the "leader", I tried to speak clearly and effectively to summarize and to facilitate understanding. I was the one who named and recognized our last conversation as the beginning of the next step of the process we are engaging, suggested a strategy for how we could all come feeling better informed for next meeting, and said where I thought we should start at our next meeting. I then pushed to schedule and iron out details of the next meeting.

I want to be careful not to do anything to assume a (disproportionately) leadership role because I think this needs to be co-created. That said, I find I am also hesitant to fully challenge or effectively criticize the de facto leader's power, since I do not know the politics of it. After processing here, I realize that should be a clarification conversation before we get much further.

I do, however, have criticisms of her leadership thus far, specifically the effectiveness of agenda and time management, though her enthusiasm helps balance it. She really does want this to happen, and I wonder if some of the reason for me to be a part of this is because I am clearer about how to do those things.

I will ponder this and perhaps sketch out my own agenda for next meeting and see how that goes. If I can present it and we can talk about and modify it as a group, I will feel better, I think.