For instance, a minority group on campus might want to open up a dialogue about the merits and demerits of affirmative action.
| courtesy |
These were "tip of the iceberg" characteristics. They were all students at the same school. They were all members of the same race or ethnicity, which was pretty clear by the color or their skin, and perhaps some other shared physical features, not to mention that they were all members in good standing of the "____" Student Alliance/Association/Union, etc.
Then we talked about "under the water" characteristics, or those that make up 90% of who we are, just as the bulk of any iceberg is hidden under the surface waters breaking around it. The facilitators might share something revealing about themselves at this point – their religion, their family situation, or something else that most certainly would set them apart from what, otherwise, might appear to be a homogeneous group of students all attending the same school (Go, Johnny Hop!). Members of the student group/alliance/association/union would join in, sometimes revealing differences they'd never told anyone before, but always pointing out that, as much as was evident about their conformity, this group of students was really a group of individuals, full of hidden depth and identity.
What the exercise did, in the case that it was being used to open up an affirmative action debate, was to build transient respect. In a sense, it was a cheap trick to tame the crowd, because once you know someone's dad died when they were little, that they've opened up to you like that, you're probably not going to flat out call their idea about affirmative action stupid, self-hating, or anything else less-than-civil, even if you don't agree.
Why the exercise accomplished this is important. While I don't have a degree in group dynamics, I think I know what happens here. When we have even a bit of this underwater view of someone's life, we are no longer capable of 1) "knowing" who they are based on the tip of the iceberg, or 2) seeing them as a "_____" student of the "____" Student Alliance, Association or Union anymore. They are someone with their own name, story, and future, whose thoughts, actions and dreams are shaped by meaning we'll never fully discover.
Maybe he feels that way about affirmative action, because his dad stressed the importance of self-reliance to him as a boy. Maybe his dead dad has nothing to do with it, because he's clearly someone shaped by more than just his color, his school, or even his family. There are a million other reasons for him to see the world the way he does, some of them so sacred to him that you have no right to judge them. And this exercise, in 5-10 minutes, cleared the air - temporarily of course - in just that way.
Out of school (and away from my rewarding role there as a diversity workshop facilitator), I deal with the concept of behavior change all the time. How can an idea be inspiring to a group of people so as to change the way they think and behave? How can I, because of what I know, persuade them to see it my way?
For the most part, I stick to focusing on improving my own behavior. But at times, I'm called to stick my nose in other people's business, when the quality of my organization's work is at stake, or when someone asks for my advice or insight.
All I can say is that, even the best changes in society come slow, or not at all. They're taking place under the radar all the time, waiting for history to mislabel them revolutions. When we wrestle with contentious ideas that can change the world, we're truly working to move mountains inside ourselves and hidden inside others.
I wouldn't discount that there's a reason why people are who they are, try to change it overnight, or be anything less than civil.











