In this essay I intentionally subsume the thinking processes of official decision-makers into the thinking processes of the citizenry as a whole. I realize that official decision-makers can and do make decisions independently of the will of the people, unless that public will is united and organized. But elite decisions made independently of the public do not qualify as “public thinking” – at least in any democratic sense – and in this essay I am attempting to explore the nature of public thinking so that ... (continue)

In several interactions today with colleagues I began to see a pattern of modes of engagement with dialogue and deliberation work that seemed to me more usefully complex than merely “theory” and “practice.” The insight was triggered primarily by hearing about “liberating structures” for the first time and learning more about The Art of Hosting. I found my thinking expanding to cover five broad categories of mediums or doorways through which we can engage with this work. These five mediums/doorways are briefly articulated below. I’m ... (continue)

Here is a thoughtful commentary submitted yesterday by NCDD blogger Tom Atlee, president of the Co-Intelligence Institute… Among the most important qualities of a just society is that we are able to meet our needs without undermining the ability of others to meet their needs. Among the many needs we humans have is our need to be seen, heard and taken seriously. The only way we can have a just democracy is to truly see and hear each other, and to take each other seriously. ... (continue)

The process and mandate of panelists in citizen deliberative councils tend to make randomly selected people act much more responsibly as citizens while on the council. A recent article in the New York Times Magazine notes that randomly selected panelists in Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative Review — organized by NCDD members Ty Reitman and Elliot Shuford and studied by NCDD member John Gastil – knew they were “expected to base their opinions on hard evidence” and “felt obligated to consider the measure more carefully than they otherwise ... (continue)

The power of conversation is real but not total. People sometimes take an oversimplified perspective of the power of dialogue, deliberation, and choice-creating to deal with tensions between people. EIther they think “just talk” can’t do much to resolve serious conflicts or they think talking can resolve any and every conflict. I think both perspectives fail to appreciate the specific gifts powerful conversation brings to the table in times of conflict. I’ll share here how I think about these potential gifts. It is important to ... (continue)

Pollsters, politicians and pundits quote public opinion polls to tell us what the public thinks. Deliberative democracy advocates promote public judgment to deepen public opinion. Few people talk about public wisdom – what it could be and what it could do. I think we need all three forms of public sensibility. I think we can make useful distinctions between them. I believe we need to be particularly clear and creative about public wisdom. We need real wisdom to guide us through the unprecedented challenges of ... (continue)

In Eugene, Oregon, the Co-Intelligence Institute is engineering a community-focused process to increase local capacity for healthy, creative group dialogue. By combining trainings and workshops with a series of dialogues around a substantive issue — in this case, the economy — we plan to demonstrate the generative power of group process even as we stimulate conversations that strengthen the Eugene community. We’re calling the project “Let’s Talk: Our New Economy,” and we’re holding the opening events early next month. The people of Eugene are no ... (continue)

A BIG breakthrough for all group process folks… For almost 5 years I’ve been involved with envisioning and creating a “pattern language” for group process.  (A pattern language is a set of design factors to guide people in creating things that are wholesome and life-giving – vibrant communities, effective curricula, engaging software… and great conversations.)  That process has now come to fruition. In 2008 Peggy Holman and I did an all day workshop on “A Pattern Language for Conversations that Matter” to introduce the idea ... (continue)

Consciously convened conversations have many functions. Many seek simply to get people talking with each other. Others try to bring together what they call “the whole system” to address that system’s collective issues or dreams. Who is involved in these “whole system” conversations? A “whole system”, in this case, involves all the parties who play – or could play – roles in some social unit or situation. The social unit could be a family or relationship, a group or organization, a community or a whole ... (continue)

The day before the Cascadia NCDD gathering last November, I was sitting with a dozen process folks in Portland playing with a set of 78 cards describing the underlying dynamics of good group process.  The draft card set was being developed as guidance for meeting planners, hosts, facilitators and participants. The cards had names like All Grist for the Mill, Expressive Arts, Listening, Moving Towards Alignment, Purpose, Transparency, The Whole System in the Room, etc. Like others in that November work session, I had 7 cards in ... (continue)