1/24/05:  We spent considerable time introducing ourselves, given that this was our first meeting.  We discussed how IFS might contribute to social change.  Highlights:

~  Most social change work does not allow for interior change.  When things break down, there is a lack of attention to the interior individual and interior collective.  It is important to establish a container to invite the interior to show up.

~ The Self can “work magic”—when it shows up in the room, it also changes the world—there is a radiating effect.

~  When people are trained in IFS methods, there is “a lot of connecting and opening”.  This is more than just individuals growing; it is the creation of a subculture.  If we wanted to transform society, we could just keep expanding that subculture.

~  You can dis-identify with your position in a group and express vulnerability, yet still be attacked by one of your parts.   Groups can be successful, yet when discussion moves to the personal level, it’s really scary for the person who goes first.

~  It’s ok for us to flounder in our teleconference conversations.

(7 participants)

1/31/05: 

1. We examined our experiences with consensus decisionmaking (originally a set of Quaker skills):
   1. Consensus techniques are deeper than activism without reflection.
   2. “Standing aside” is similar to a technique Jon uses called “gradients of agreement” (to assess where each person stands along a scale they find themselves).
   3. Consensus techniques are usually introduced when a decision is contentious.  Individuals are identified with a part.  IFS could help with language at this point.
   4. Also valuable to identify parts people share in a group.  Jay’s list of parts might be helpful here.
   5. ITP group in SF uses Integrated Transformational Practice: consensus techniques developed at Esalen.  “Staying current”= if something is going on with another person, each has a responsibility to stay current with the other.  “Makes for a beautiful community.”
   6. Consensus takes time.
   7. Consensus does not need to take time; using Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication techniques shortens the time.

2. We (people in teleconference) all have IFS as something in common; there is an assumption of depth in how we all work.
   1. Doing activism again is an “unpleasant choice” for two participants.
   2. It would help in making a commitment to know that there is a community committed to doing internal work.

3. Crisis is a way of creating change, but it isolates the actors.  Dialogue is not something you do in a crisis.
   1. Crisis is firefighter led.  Social change is usually manager led.
   2. Hard to know how to get going without a crisis.
   3. Firefighters keep us from having a vision and moving toward it.

4.  History of social change movements:

4. Pre-1960’s: oriented toward alleviating poverty.
5. 1960’s and 70’s: oriented toward identity (Black Power and Women’s Movements).
6. Now is time for another shift: not crisis oriented, but toward fundamental change in society: IFS, with it’s interior orientation, has much to offer.
7. IFS helps people see they can take care of themselves, not depend on a charismatic leader.  Different from Socialist model: criticism and self-criticism.

4. Need to see ourselves in terms of legacy burdens: cultural unburdening/cultural burdens of particular groups.
   1. Activists bring cultural legacy parts to their work.
   2. How might we share our own stories with one another, to help unburden the legacies and other parts we bring to social transformation.

(6 participants)

2/14/05:  We agreed that we are still in a process of discovering who we are as a group that teleconferences.  We agreed to share live examples of what is going on in our lives that might invite using the IFS model.  We agreed to each invite one person to the next teleconference.

1. Jay shared an overview of a parts system he is developing, similar to the Eneogram or Myers-Briggs.  He hopes it will be useful in teaching IFS to the public, especially in developing a community that will use IFS techniques and do peer counseling.

2. Roberta shared her experience of being invited to join the Ministry and Counsel Committee of the Friend’s Meeting (Quakers) where she attends.  Two people in the Quaker meeting were strongly against her joining the committee, dividing the group.  Roberta provided information on parts that might belong to the group and parts coming up personally.

(5 participants)

3/15/05: 

1. Discussion of workshops teleconference participants would like to offer at September IFS conference in Chicago:
   1. Mark will offer a workshop that appreciates conflict as a way to strengthen the social fabric.  He has developed group process strategies similar to the work of Marshall Rosenberg and is influenced by the human development model of Robert Kegan.
   2. Jay will offer a workshop on the “Pattern System” that examines how our parts are related to each other at different levels.  Included will be problematic attractions, how some parts are naturally conflicting, and how we are frightened by some parts in others.
   3. Discussion of how we might develop a workshop on social transformation together.  Examine “what is the breadth and diversity of our thinking” on social transformation and look for common themes.  Challenge: how to bring together the people who have been teleconferencing (talking regularly) with those who have been on the sidelines?  Personal connections are a critical part of the process: meet people where they are, as well as bring people up to speed on the current conversation.  Challenge: how to bring people into the conversation who have less experience with social activism?

2. Mark shared information on conflict within the community where he works with men who batter.  In particular, he raised the issue of how traumatized parts shape the behavior of the larger group; e.g., some women have parts that believe no interventions with men who batter will ever work, and how this in turn shapes the allocation of resources in a network of groups that work with domestic violence.

(4 participants)

4/12/05:  The conversation continued focusing on Mark’s description of the struggle in the domestic violence community in St. Louis.  He shared some detail of Robert Kegan’s model of human development, which includes 6 levels of Self, and added some language from the IFS model: 

            Level 1:  I am my experience. (infant)

Level 2:  I am the one who is having the experience, and if I want to be different, I can change myself.  (child)

Level 3:  I am my role and who others think I am.  (adolescent; most people make it to 3^rd level and struggle getting to the 4^th)

Level 4:  I choose what roles I play and what relationships I have.  Issue: how to be honest and also act in ones own best interest?

Level 5:  There’s a part of me that wants to be this way, and another part that wants to be another way.  Which of these aspects do I want to be now?

Level 6:  I’m the one that draws from these parts to choose how I want to be now.

We are all at all six levels all of the time, but we are unconscious of it.

Mark described a meeting of 20 organizations that work on domestic violence issues where he had hoped to move the conversation from 3^rd level engagement to the 4^th level.  His curiosity lay with discovering that one woman coming from a 2^nd level order of Self undermined his effort.  During the teleconference conversation, it became apparent that the organization is itself at the 2^nd level, although most participants are at the 3^rd level.  As individuals they could consider a conversation at the 4^th level, but as a group they could not.

From an organizational development perspective, Jon suggested that it is important to build a “relational field” before tackling a contentious issue.  From an IFS perspective, Mark’s position (representing the batterers) may be so triggering that building the relational field may be extremely difficult.  Furthermore, pre-existing power relationships may impact the level individuals act from in a group, especially if most powerful are at 2^nd level of self. 

(7 participants)

5/3/05:  Continued conversation regarding the struggle in the domestic violence community in St. Louis.  Roberta reframed the problem: “it is unsafe for battered women to be in coalition with men who batter, but this is carrying over into organizations, and this is not healthy.”  Mark spoke some about Spiral Dynamics (Don Beck model) where social change agents stay ½ step ahead of where constituents are and show constituents how transformation is in their own best interest.  Another group, based on respect and confidentiality, has formed among some of the members of the broader domestic violence community and Mark feels that as this group develops, it may serve as a catalyst for change.  Mark also shared how the experience of support from others through the teleconference has helped him.

(3 participants)

6/21/05:  Discussion of how to bring IFS to general public.  Issues discussed included:  1.  Constraint model (asking parts to step aside until Self is present) vs. the Resource model (developing qualities of the Self before inviting Self into the room);  2.  whether anyone has developed materials for people who are not IFS clients; 3. safety: how to know when something is coming up that should not be tackled by non-professionals.

(5 participants)

7/12/05:  Regulars on teleconference calls were joined by members of CSL who have done two 3 day workshops with IFS clients on how to use IFS in their daily lives.  Introductions:  Jay would like to develop a new community based on peer counseling; John and Mark are interested in work with churches and activist groups; Lindsay is interested in work with activist groups; CSL is exploring work with existing clients, their families and possibly to the corporate world.  In the existing CSL pilot programs, individuals have support beyond the workshops in that they are clients in IFS therapy with trained therapists: if they go deeper in training than they can presently handle, they have back-up.   Workshops give people the big picture, working with parts by themselves and with peers, learning to unblend, learning more about the model.  Activities include firedrills, sculpting, and working with Self.  Future pilots may go for 6 weeks: do a weekend workshop followed by 6-8 weeks of follow up. 

Dick would like to take the model to the general public; Gretchen hesitates.  In August, there will be a client conference in Chicago, and clients are being encouraged to bring family members.  Bill (?) on the East Coast is doing 13 week workshops (2 hrs./wk.) with general public.

Question was asked: how do you structure the workshop to keep it at the manager level, not take it into the exile world?  Response: people go anyway.  We had 20 clients, 4 assistants and 2 workshop leaders to deal with this.  Could also follow up workshops with group coaching, focused on a topic.

Jon has worked with interfaith coalitions to do leadership training.  Churches have a social justice tradition but usually not activist, e.g., politically moderate.  Relationships are important in the building of community.  Interpersonal work between congregations, where small groups shared around social justice and family issues was valuable.  Mark has also taught conflict resolution in his church.  Jon might take the IFS model to individual churches, not as a workshop but to use as a tool in the norms of congregational life (budget committee, grounds committee).  Linda would like to use it this way in corporate life.  Gretchen and Dick took the model to train managers of DSS in Chicago: deliberate sequence.  First step was to become familiar with own parts (might not acknowledge publically, but learn to unblend).  This was a huge learning as a competency, and created enough safety to allow individual to decide whether to reveal vulnerability.  Everybody can get the concept of speaking from parts vs. speaking for parts.

Issue: how to gather people in?  Suggestions: find one person, share model, and ask them to invite others.  Existing IFS tapes of marriage partners working on interpersonal issues is a way of showing the model to new people.  It is important to distinguish between organizational development and teaching interpersonal work: you must analyze your entry point.  Example: in a church, is it the pastor or the deacons?  One can use the IFS model to assess an organization: where are the exiles, where is the Self energy?  Gretchen has done this with organizations, Dick has done this with banks in Germany.    Another suggestion: there are a lot of leading edge organizational development people willing to try new methods.  Also, organizations want to attract the best workers, which might make them more open to the model.

(8 participants)