Blogs

Over the past weeks, The Connection Project has gone through a bit of a realignment. Four members chose to step away. This matters because relationships had begun to form, and i find real sadness in their departure.

My desire here is not to deconstruct events. But to attempt to harvest what this experience can teach us about the kind of community we are building, the kind of relationships we want to nurture, and the responsibilities that come with both joining (on the part of the individual), and stewarding the vision (for the collective).

Alignment misalignment, glue

When people leave, i am often tempted to assume something went wrong. Of course sometimes that can be true. But equally possible, is that whats happening here is a clarification or renewal of purpose.

With the passage of this very very early phase of the project's life, some frustrations rippled to the surface from a particular quarter. I initially framed this as M. Scott Peck's forming to storming phenomena. But upon reflection, it seemed like there was more to it.

Differences of opinion showed up around perceived leadership, and reservations toward some of our documented practices and contexts, particularly NVC and ventral practices. Was this a settling-in interpersonal conflict, or a values misalignment?

Perhaps what is at stake here is the question of why we are here. I see 'why' as the purpose and the values that holds a community together. Back in the early days of the ecovillage movement, Robert Gilman called this the 'glue' :

Relationship as the context

At its heart, TCP is a pro-relationship container. That is the glue. In the world at large, people are walking away from relationships in large numbers. The number of single person households has never been higher. TCP is saying hey let's course correct, lets figure out what is the minimum viable basis that makes relating possible.

By explicitly holding relating up as our container, the literature supports a view that: strong emotions have a place; that disagreement is to be expected; that conflict is not a sign of failure, but a revealer of drivers and contexts longing to made clearer. It sees conflict as a chance to practice.

Also implied is that "free expression" or unrestrained criticism are not neutral. Science shows us that criticism impacts relationship. From this view, repair is not optional, but an essential part of participation. And it also implies that we as members are each being called to take responsibility for our impact, even when we are upset.

For me, this is not about ideology, trying to control things or avoiding conflict. Indeed, what makes for sustainable relationships is well-supported by decades of relationship science. Gottmans' four horsemen, soft start, Hazan and Shaver's work on attachment, Baumeister's work on the negativity bias, Cacciopo's work on isolation, etc.

I want to be clear, that i absolutely do not believe that participation means being at all times, calm, regulated, and coherent. I do however hold a view that it requires staying in relationship long enough to repair. That makes the difference between a messy at times but otherwise sustainable relationship, and one that just hasn't yet reached it's inevitable conclusion.

Protest, withdrawal, and being seen

Attachment theory has something to offer here. It says that when we rub up against our raw spots, (for example say i have a fear of not being seen) then we tend to adopt one of two management strategies: either protest (anger, criticism, demand) or withdrawal (collapse, disengagement, exit).

In this case, protest showed up on one side as criticism of structure, and on the other side as criticism of language. Withdrawal showed up on one side as an inattention to repair, and on the other side as a failure to listen for underlying meaning.

This leads me to imagine the possibility that relational structure might in some situations be experienced, not as safety, but as control. Invitations into our contexts of owning language and prioritising regulation could lead to a sense of not being seen. What feels like care for the container on one side, could feel like constraint or "confinement" on the other.

Agreement vs. alignment

Another important distinction surfaced for me. The project has agreements, and such agreements are ritually confirmed by signing the participation pledge. Alignment is however, perhaps something all together different. Alignment it now seems clear only really shows up in practice, at times of stress.

I can cognitively agree to particular communication principles, while not yet having the capacity or willingness to hold to them during messy moments. That gap tends to reveal itself precisely when conflict occurs, and during the repair that the conflict is calling me to learn.

A conclusion that i want to propose here is: that the project can easily hold and support just about any amount of budding capacity, but it will have a much harder time holding an absence of willingness. There's a difference.

Lessons for onboarding

This experience also speaks to our responsibility as context holders, as collective stewards of the vision.

There is a substantial gap between the relational norms of wider society and the norms we are attempting to embody here. Expecting people to simply cross that gap without support was maybe magical thinking.

Going forward, possible implications for onboarding might be:

• to be more explicit up front, about the minimum relational demands of this space. Name that repair, accountability, and structure do not disappear when emotions show up, "the heads up".
• specifically resource the learning and practice of repair
• lengthen the practice window where people can encounter the work, and can opt in or out early in the membership process.

Is the bar too high?

This question also seems to want to be named directly. Is the context of the project set so high that almost no one is yet ready or able to join?

I think it is fair to say, that it IS a high bar. Society has a abundance of spaces for the status quo relational 'practice'. But what if we viewed the project's context not as the pursuit of perfect, but instead, as the minimum amount of relational practice required to glue the group together. This context actually then says that: i am going to screw up, i am going to get triggered and become dysregulated, i am going to say hurtful things. But it also says: afterwards, when i calm down, i go back and repair. That's the key.

We live in a culture increasingly shaped by avoidance: fewer long-term commitments, loss of friendship, loss of community organisations and the decline of organised religion etc etc. There is reduced tolerance for friction, and the norm is now to walk away when things get hard. Where relationship once was, humanity is turning toward digital media, pets and artificial intelligence.

Attempting to build, at this particular point in history, something that operates completely counter to that prevailing narrative will of necessity attract only the sensitive dedicated few. The project is admittedly early in the game, we are early adopters and innovators. And so early members will likely be innovators. The invitation then explicitly becomes to adopt the mindset of an innovator, with all its attendant experimentation, trial and error. And that means having some "comfort" for the inevitable messiness.

Everett Rogers' diffusion of innovation model tells us that innovators:

• have a tolerance for risk and failure,
• have comfort with ambiguity
• are motivated by possibility rather than proof
• have a comfort with being on the margins.
• understand that slow uptake and early attrition are normal.

This speaks to me of the (r)evolution. From the mouse sized mammal that evolved specifically to collectively outsmart its large reptile predators (aka the dinosaurs), to working together in conscious, creative ways to heal ourselves, our communities and our planet.

AR is calling us, and equipping us, to turn toward each other. Even if its hard sometimes.