March 7, 2023 • 55 mins
In this episode, Laura speaks with Dr. Shannon Wheatley Hartman of the Interactivity Foundation. Listen if you are interested in learning more about:
- A collaborative approach to academia and the classroom
- Dealing with group think
- When NOT to collaborate
- Embracing cultural humility
- Community conversations and democracy as an aspirational idea
- Avoiding both-sides-ism
- Bringing together communities and building inclusive events
About Shannon:
Shannon is vice president of the Interactivity Foundation in the US, an organisation that engages citizens in the exploration and development of possibilities for public policy. Prior to working at IF, she was full-time lecturer of international relations at Arizona State University, and her academic interests include nonviolent resistance, postcolonialism, participatory action research, and deliberative democracy. Links: https://www.interactivityfoundation.org/people/shannon-wheatley-hartman/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannon-wheatley-hartman-420ba41b https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/ About Laura: Laura is a former Executive Director of the International Mediation Institute and a negotiation and mediation lecturer. Her doctoral research asked “in what ways does blame make villains in politics” and covered the gamut from literature studies and linguistics to psychology and neuroscience, victimology to political science. Her expertise includes emotions, polarization, blame, and international politics. Feel free to connect with her on LinkedIn or ResearchGate—or even both!Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Laura May (00:11):
Hello, and welcome to the Conflict and, and listening in some
ways recognizing that you don'tnecessarily know what you're doing or
know how to act, and you start fromI'm your host Laura May, and today
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: Thank you, Laura. (00:55):
undefined
Laura May (00:56):
I am very excited to have you here because you and I had a chat last
week and we were losing track of timejust about . So I wanna start out though
by asking you what was the path thatled to your current work at the Interact
Foundation interactivity Foundation
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (01:13):
thank you.
Thank you for that question, andthank you for having me today.
You know, I, oh my path, you know, it, it,obviously, it was not a, a straight path.
I was uh, teaching at ArizonaState University and I was working
on my research, which dealt withborder politics and in particular,
(01:35):
everyday resistance in border zones.
And, thinking back, I loved teachingand I also loved loved my research.
And I think, oh, around this time Iwas also feeling a tiny bit burned out
around a lot of, of what I was doing.
Like for example, when I defended mydissertation in 2010, during the same hour
(02:00):
that I'm defending my dissertation, whereI'm advocating everyday resistance at the
border and also everyday cosmopolitanism,like the border zone is a place where
people are coming together and findingconnection and resisting all forms of
identity in the spirit of creating alarger, we, while I'm saying this where
then Governor of Arizona was signing intolaw the worst anti-immigration legislation
(02:25):
to hit the US in, in a long time.
And so just that juxtaposition of like, I.
I, I just, I love seeing people connectedand coming together and, and doing so not
just to make their own life go on, butto build community and then to see that
happen as legislation is being passed.
It's really designed to destroycommunity and divide people.
(02:49):
I mean, it was it waskind of heartbreaking.
And then while I'm, I'm doing all ofthis, I was also introduced to, around
the same time, the interactivityfoundation through one of my
friends and mentor at Arizona State.
And, and he was someone that I I wouldwork with closely in terms of teaching.
So we would talk a lot aboutteaching pedagogy and how do we
(03:13):
really elevate the classroom, howdo we make it more interactive?
And so he, he shared me like, there's thisorganization doing this really good and
innovative work in the classroom and it'sreally, it's not just student-centered,
but it's about like really empoweringstudents to own the classroom experience.
And so I slowly was introduced tothe organization and to the people
(03:34):
and to the methods, and I startedusing those in my classroom.
And then just kind of organically,my attention started to shift
more and more to the interactivityfoundation and and their educational
initiatives and also their work withcommunity building through dialogue
and deliberation and, and slowly my.
(03:55):
My research and alsojust my work with a s u.
The balance began to shift in,in the favor of the foundation.
So then I eventually cameon as a full-time fellow for
the Interactivity Foundation.
And I've been with them now for,goodness, I think 13 years or so.
So it's,
Laura May (04:11):
That's what your LinkedIn says,
you've been there a while, which is
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (04:14):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So slow and steady.
Yeah.
Laura May (04:18):
Absolutely.
And so when you talk aboutthese interactive methods to
use in the classroom, can yougive some examples of those
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (04:26):
Oh, sure, sure.
So in terms of teaching innovation andwhat we're doing in the classroom, one
thing that we're focusing on now um, Whichis really an, an exciting new initiative
that we launched about two years ago.
It was our collaborative discussionproject, and this project is
something that we have developedwith uh, dialogue and deliberation
(04:47):
practitioners and educators.
And so it's not something that wedeveloped internally and then, and
then rolled out into the world.
It's something that's been slowly buildingin partnership with these collaborators.
And the idea behind it is that we need towork on um, intentional interventions to
develop collaborative discussion skills.
(05:08):
If you think about it, we teach.
Children and students how to read.
We teach them how to write where andhow are we teaching them to discuss
in a collaborative way, in a waythat's designed to, to really bring
out the best ideas of the group.
And behind this project is the notionthat we think better when we think
together, but under the right conditions.
(05:30):
And so this project is a community projectand it's also open access, open source.
So we have a toolkit and wehave a certificate program.
And the toolkit are, are theseactivities that can be used in the
classroom, and they're designed tobe used also in the workplace or in
the community workshops, but they'reintentional activities designed to
(05:52):
develop collaborative discussion skills.
And these skills could be things rangingfrom listening to understand, to cultural
humility, to expressing your ideas withconfidence, but also humility building
on the ideas of others, like generatingthought versus tearing down thought.
And for me, this is a, a reallydifferent way of thinking about how
(06:15):
we engage the classroom experience.
So, you know, I, I grew up through inundergrad, a liberal arts education.
So discussion was always really important.
But.
Oftentimes those discussionswere really opportunities to
showcase your powers of analysis.
It's about finding the internalcontradictions of what someone else
(06:35):
said and, and use it to tear them apart.
And, and so sometimes especially inhigher education, we, we come together
in these groups to discuss, but notso much to build ideas together, but
to dissect ideas, to dissect the otherperson, to tear them down in the spirit
of making yourself look really smart.
(06:57):
And I've done that so many times, in, inclassroom conversations, not so much as
a faculty member, but as a participant.
And so for me, the vision behind this,and I think the growth for me as a
participant and also as an educator,is to see this discussion environment,
not as a place to really showcase yourintelligence, but it's to bring out the
(07:18):
innovative thinking, the diversity, thecreativity, the courage of the group.
And so it's really aboutbuilding on the ideas of others.
It's about elevating the conversationthrough using collaborative methods.
It's not that analytical methods don'tmatter, they do, but we're really
highlighting and putting front andcenter the, the power of collaboration.
Laura May (07:41):
So I'm gonna pause you there for a moment because I did recently
read this book about this idea of thepower of the extended mind and the
central thesis was that actually we dooutsource all of our thinking to our
mobile devices or to our computers orto our space or to physical objects
like whiteboards, but also to othersas you've just highlighted right now.
(08:04):
Right?
Like we think betterwhen we think together.
But I'm wondering, I mean, when you areteaching this type of pedagogy, which I
realize that we say very differently thanwe have accent, I mean, how do you manage
this need to innovate and collaboratetogether with the problems of group think.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (08:24):
Right, right.
So, That, that's a good question.
I, I think when groups do get together,I think one thing, and this is one
of the activities is recognizingpower in the discussion and who
has, or who's wielding or who's usingpower in the discussion and why.
And sometimes that's one wayto think about like am I
(08:47):
yielding or am I cowering to.
Idea because of theperson who's saying it.
And we often see that inworkplace discussions, right?
You know what I'm saying?
So, and, and in the classroom,likewise, like I, I think any
instructors always mindful of therole and the power of their position.
And then, so I think as an educator,oftentimes the instructor's mindful of
(09:10):
not sharing their perspective too muchor not trying to influence the group.
So when it comes to group think, I thinkone, acknowledging the role of power and
how it's playing out in the discussion.
And then we also have other activitieslike trying to think of how to
promote curiosity in the group.
Or how to acknowledgebias and assumptions.
We have activities for how do we, how dowe acknowledge and think about who or what
(09:36):
ideas are not part of this conversation.
So you're actually seeking outdivergent thinking instead of
defaulting on what the group's saying.
And then activities likeidentifying stakeholders.
So if you are talking about a particulartopic and everybody in the group is
kind of saying the same thing, thereshould be an alarm bell going off, right?
Like if we're all saying the samething, then we don't understand
(09:58):
the topic or we're thinking aboutit just from our positionality.
So how do we expand that?
And so there's an activity for thinkingabout around this topic, who are the
stake coders, and then if they're notin this discussion, like what would
they contribute to this discussion?
And then how does that influence theway that we're thinking about it?
So the goal is to make a topic and thediscussion more complicated, not less.
(10:18):
And this runs counter, I think, manytimes, the goals of a discussion.
And oftentimes a goal of a discussionor a working group is to get to the
solution or to get to the answer.
And our process with the interactivityfoundation for discussions is always
to, to slow that down, that rush todecisions, that rush to answers.
(10:40):
And we start with let's complexify it.
Let's complicate it.
Let's expand or blow up the problem.
And then as we do that, let's look at it.
Let's surround the topic, let'slook at it for multiple dimensions.
Laura May (10:53):
I think you've touched on a few really powerful points there.
You know, cuz you really addressedquite clearly the problem of
where the group starts, I thinkall in the same way, right?
And particularly revealing wherethere's that power dynamic where
perhaps actually on the surface ofthings, the group might be thinking
and saying the same things, but maybethat's really an an issue of power.
(11:14):
I guess.
I guess the reason I asked thiswell, two reasons actually.
One is I recently recorded an episodewith Brianna Hernandez of Florida
International University, where wetalked a bit about this challenge
of balancing expertise and opinion.
And the second part is that I, I myselfhave experienced being in a workplace
(11:38):
where everything was so collaborative thatdecisions would take six to eight months.
To get made, which was extremelyfrustrating for me as a
very type A kind of person.
So I'm just kind of wondering, I mean,when you are teaching this really
valuable, really collaborative, reallyinnovation focused and perhaps community
(12:01):
building approach as well, how doyou balance these other things of the
equation of expertise and opinion andalso the need to occasionally do things?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (12:12):
Mm-hmm.
. Mm-hmm.
. Yeah.
Right.
Well, this is one toolin the toolbox, right?
So it's not the best approach forevery issue or for every topic.
And I think that's one thingthat the folks need to know.
Like there are multiple tools, right?
And so it depends on what your goal isand what you're trying to accomplish.
But, if, like, my husband hatesit when We have a discussion about
(12:36):
where do we wanna go for dinner?
Because I'll be like, well, we coulddo this and we could do this, and then
I'll explode and complexify, and I'llbe like, I hate asking you questions.
And they're like, I know I'm the worst.
I'm the worst.
And so it's horrible, right?
And then we end up like eating asandwich in the kitchen because
I can't, like that's, that's whenthis process is a horrible idea.
(12:58):
Don't do this.
Just, you know, make a decision.
Like, if we're on an airplane, doyou want us all to sit there
together and talk about how shouldwe be flying this plane today?
And who wants to take the role of this?
And like, we don't want that.
We want the expert, we wantthe pilot in the plane.
That's not really up for conversation.
(13:18):
There's absolutely a place for expertiseand not everything needs to be.
Collaboratively implemented.
Oftentimes it's, it's more aboutlike at what stage of development.
And so for us, I think, when you'rein earlier stages of development
where you don't have a game plan yet.
If you can bring in as many voicesas possible, you may be able to
(13:40):
see it from different perspectives.
And you may come up with a differentstrategy, but at some point you
have to implement that strategy.
And at some point you have tosay, okay, let's, let's implement.
And yes, it could be extremelyfrustrating if if you're trying
to implement in a collaborative wayand, and not all voices are equal.
Obviously, it really depends onthe topic that you're discussing.
Laura May (14:01):
Great.
Well, you've asage my personal name best.
Thank you.
And so I'm just wondering as well, causeobviously you deliver these programs
and you perhaps see the outcomes, andI'm not asking this in an academic
sense, but what are some of theresults you see from this process?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (14:18):
Hmm.
There are a lot ofoutcomes with this program.
We are building a network of educatorsand practitioners who are interested and
invested in collaborative discussion,and they wanna see more of it in their
classroom and in their communities.
And so the outcomes, I think can be.
Multifaceted.
I mean, there's the, the civic pathwhere we are educating for civic
(14:42):
participation and building civic muscle.
And so the hope here is thatfolks either work to help build
this collaborative project or ourparticipants in our certificate programs
they become more civically engaged.
But many of these things I'mtalking about are social skills.
And so this helps especially with studentsfor career preparedness to be able to work
(15:02):
in teams even to be able to interview.
But the idea is that we'redeveloping these skills, I hope
to, to build community as well.
Folks can work better in their communityif they can collaborate with one another.
So that, those are the, thehopeful outcomes of this.
And, and this is a little bit, it'ssimilar but different than, than what we
do with our community conversation work,because those are also collaborative
(15:26):
discussions, but we're not emphasizingthe skill and we're not teaching.
It's rather their spaces forfolks to come together and
have exploratory conversations.
And so it's not an educationalinitiative as much as it's a community
initiative where we create the spaceand then folks come together to talk.
And we can talk more aboutwhat that looks like, but
Laura May (15:48):
I am gonna
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (15:49):
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Laura May (15:51):
promise.
I promise.
But first I wanted to go back tothis idea of, of building skills for
future generations, to have civicdiscussions and to build communities.
And I'm gonna, I'm gonnatalk about myself again.
I feel like this is becoming likea really narcissistic podcast.
But I mean, I know I shared withyou already that we actually had
personal development in high school.
Yeah.
(16:11):
And so I remember doing the Thomas Tillmanconflict styles test at that time, you
know, to sort of see where you are in thecollaborative compete kind of situation.
It was all done withvery friendly animals.
Right?
See, I remember had Teddyaround the middle or something.
And I was the shark . I was, you know,I was the complete compete, tear them
apart with my teeth kind a person.
(16:31):
Which, you know, I'm sure you can relateto cuz you mentioned already being
in that academic context where it'sabout tearing people down rather than
building them up, which is somethingI did not love about academia either.
Thinking of my current paperI'm reviewing anyway and.
But I mean, for myself, a realturning point was actually learning
mediation skills later in life.
Cuz it really does shift yourthinking to going, well actually we
(16:54):
can get more if we work together.
And it's not about just gettingmore, it's about building
that relationship of course.
And then even beyond that, I rememberwhen I worked at the International
Mediation Institute, the Global PoundConference Series show showed that
this is actually a very common effect.
That once people had experienced themediation process, there were socialized
and they actually started to changetheir behaviors and how they acted in
(17:14):
future mediations and future cases.
So, you know, this work thatyou're doing is, is very important.
You're really laying a lotof important groundwork.
So huge kudos on that.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (17:24):
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Laura May (17:26):
Of course.
And just before I go on to ask you aboutthe community dialogues you're working on.
I noted that when you were talkingabout what you teach in these different
programs, one of them was culturalhumility, which I found a really
interesting framework, and I wonderwhether that related to your background
(17:46):
in post-colonialism or what that wouldmean and where that idea comes from.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (17:51):
Mm.
Well, within the toolkit, we havefive modules, overarching modules, and
one is being culturally responsive.
And so I think, especially rightnow in the United States there's
a real emphasis and desire tobe more culturally responsive.
I think there's a sincere effort towant to be able to engage in difficult
(18:14):
conversations and do it respectfully.
And, we often hear that peoplecan't engage in civil dialogues.
And we hear that it's shouting matches.
But I, I see so many people wantingto have these conversations and,
they're also acknowledging thatthey need to learn how to do it.
Like it's hard, right?
It's all hard.
We've all are are learning aswe're going and people, I, in my
(18:37):
experience, people really don't wantto offend or say something insensitive.
They really want to.
Engage in a respectful way.
And sometimes, they make mistakes andsometimes their language and their
use of terminology is not up to date.
And you can understand howit comes across as offensive.
And I don't think that's theintent, but nonetheless, there's
(18:58):
a responsibility to learn.
And so I think that's why thatthat module is is popular and people
are trying to incorporate it intoclassroom conversations or community
conversations because there is thisneed and this desire, I think to.
To communicate morerespectfully and really listen
and learn from others as well.
(19:19):
And that's where power comes into play.
And definitely I think withpost-colonial studies, power
representation are key or key aspectswhen we talk about post-colonialism.
Like you can't discuss post-colonialismwithout talking about the role of
power and representation as well.
Laura May (19:37):
And so can I understand then that to be culturally humble is really
sitting there and listening in someways and recognizing that you don't
necessarily know what you're doing orknow how to act, and you start from there,
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (19:55):
I think that's definitely one way to go about it.
Many times things that.
Part of our identity and things thatwe just take for granted are socially
constructed or they are a resultof our experiences within a very
limited space and time in the world.
And that helps to increase, I think,cultural humility or make folks more
(20:17):
aware of it, that their experience isnot a universal experience and their
identity is not a universal identity.
And so putting it in the context of thereare so many identities and experiences
and it helps one to be more aware of andappreciative of difference, I think,
and actually seeing the value of it.
Another component is looking at andseeking out and valuing difference.
(20:42):
,like perspective taking is also like,not just trying to put yourself in their
shoes, but also trying to like wherethose ideas are are coming from, like
in a sincere way and not in a way whereyou're trying to dismantle their argument,
but really expressing like intentionalempathy, and even like critical empathy.
(21:04):
So not so much that I empathizewith you because I understand where
you're coming from, but actuallyunderstanding the cultural and
contextual underpinnings of where you'recoming from, that's much deeper, right?
And so all of this helpsto encourage more curiosity.
and more awareness of differenceand appreciation of difference
(21:27):
and then, and then seeking outthose voices in the conversation.
Then also being aware of yourown power in the conversation.
Like as a white woman with a PhD, Iam aware that when I talk, I, I, I
can sometimes say something slightlyintelligent and, and then, and if the
Laura May (21:48):
vague.
Only slightly.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: only, slightly only moderately. (21:50):
undefined
I was, i, I, I heard your,your intro on being, you know,
self-deprecating, so I needed to throw in
Laura May (21:56):
it's gotta deliver.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (21:58):
Yeah.
. And so, yeah.
So, but like, as an instructor,of course, you could always be
mindful of your power in the group.
And, here's an example in aclassroom ages ago, every
class was co-facilitated.
And the idea would be that I wasn'tthe the person at the center of the
classroom, the students were, andthey were actually designing the
(22:19):
curriculum for the class as well.
And so they were facilitating andI was encouraging them to do a
warmup activity at the beginning.
And so one student said,okay, let's do musical chairs.
And so they lined up thechairs and we were doing it.
And I was a participant.
I wasn't the facilitator.
But I noticed like, huh, we didone round of this and I won.
And I was like, ok, let's do it again.
(22:39):
And if we did again, and I wonagain, it's because they didn't
wanna bump into me, right.
Like I was the instructorwho can deliver grades.
So I'm like, this is fascinating.
I am old and I am slow, and you all keeplosing to me because you're afraid to
bump into me and push me out of the way.
And so, like
Laura May (22:58):
Sorry, this is the podcast, so no one listening is gonna to see you.
But Janet not old.
She's not like some decre lady therewith, she's like a normal woman.
This is like a high risk activity.
So
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (23:14):
Right, right.
Like they can bump into me, right?
I wouldn't melt, I wouldn't crumble,but they wouldn't do it because I was
the symbol of power in the classroomand you can't knock your teacher over.
And so, yeah, it was justone of those examples.
So I mean, this happensall the time, right?
And so we want to think about whatplace am I occupying in this conversation
(23:37):
and how can I move myself out ofthe center and make room for others?
And how can I use my voice tohelp elevate the voices of others?
And how can I make other people,or help other people to feel
comfortable expressing theiropinions in their own voice?
And so a lot of our work, I thinkwhen it comes to cultural humility
or being culturally responsive, isto acknowledge how to be a good ally.
(24:02):
How to also be willing to bequiet and make space for others.
And that's a lot of work.
And so there are various activities inthis module that help to get at that
overall goal, which I guess is, iscreating a more inclusive and an equitable
space for folks to contribute their ideas.
Laura May (24:24):
And so what I'm hearing then is that we need to take this
training, build a time machine, startdelivering it maybe like 40 years ago
and have that Arizona law never passed.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (24:37):
Yeah.
Well, you know, I mean, there'sso much injustice right now.
Fortunately for us,there's so much injustice.
So we can, we can apply and encourageand, and teach cultural responsiveness.
Anywhere, anytime.
Like, we're never gonna be in a spacewhere like, oh, this isn't necessary.
It's always going to be necessary becausewe never arrive right at inclusivity.
(25:01):
We never arrive at democracy.
It's always a process and an aspiration.
And so we're alwaysworking in that direction.
And that's the thing too about thistoolkit and also our work, when we
describe it as skills, we're not talkingabout it as conceptual concepts that you
either understand or you don't understand.
We're saying that these are practices,these are mindsets that are always
(25:22):
developing and can always be improved.
So none of us ever arriveat cultural responsiveness.
None of us ever arrive at creativecollaboration, but we're on that path and
the idea that we're trying to improveour skillset or our mindsets as well.
Laura May (25:41):
Absolutely.
So thank you for sharing allthat, Ben, about the educational
programs you've been working on.
And so finally, I wanna hear aboutthese community dialogues as well.
Cause you've mentionedthey're not about teaching.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (25:54):
Mm-hmm.
Laura May (25:54):
are they about?
Who do they involve?
What happens in them?
Tell me everything please, Shannon
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (26:02):
Um, So with the Interactivity Foundation,
we have multiple initiatives andour mission is to improve democracy
through dialogue and deliberation.
The ideas that we wanna bringfolks together to talk and to
collaborate, to work together.
And behind this idea is that wecan't have a democracy if folks
can't come together and haveconversation and also shape the
(26:26):
society that they wanna live in.
And so how do we do thatand where do we do that?
And part of what we do here is wecreate these spaces for folks to come
together and explore possibilities.
And we say policy possibilities, butthere are possibilities for creating
the world that you wanna live in.
And so our community conversationsprograms are thematically organized.
(26:48):
We'll have a topic, and they'realways public, they're always small
group, they're always facilitated,they're always free to join.
And so on our website, we have acalendar of events and, you can
register, folks listening can registerfor any of these conversations.
And what they can expect is a exploratorydiscussion where we're not there.
(27:09):
Debating or deliberatingfor a particular purpose.
We're there to explore the concept andthe idea, and then also imagine like, why
does this idea matter for our society?
And we try to often used anticipatorythinking, like mo thinking ahead.
Like what's the future of this topicand how do we imagine it where we're not
just being reactionary, like doing what'salways been done, but really tapping
(27:32):
into like what's around this topic.
Let's say it's there's a whole series oftopics that we can do, but around this
topic, like how do we want it to be?
And
Laura May (27:40):
I saw you had one about citizenship, for example, and I remember
one of the questions was like, well,will AI eventually have citizenship?
So that'll be very thinking to.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (27:50):
Yeah.
Yeah.
That, that is interest.
That is really interesting.
So I can't wait for youto join that conversation.
So yeah.
So that, and within our conversationwork, we do have two different programs
or initiatives and our communityconversations are opportunities
for anybody, everybody to join andtalk with others around a topic.
(28:14):
And the hope is that you leave that topicyou leave that discussion feeling like
you've had a meaningful conversation withothers and you understand the topic, and
the topic is more complicated now thatyou've had this conversation with others.
And you also have thoughts oflike, ooh, maybe, action steps or
next steps are to do X, y, and z.
(28:35):
We do not advocate particular actionsteps because we're non advocacy,
but we do encourage folks to takethe next steps , and to continue the
conversation in their own communities.
And so right now with ourcommunity conversations, we are
doing a series on democracy.
We just had a conversationyesterday and the focus was on
(28:56):
what if democracies is in decline?
What if democracies, oh, not even.
What if democracy is,
Laura May (29:02):
It is
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (29:03):
democracy is being threatened right now.
There are threats to democracy.
Let's explore that.
What are the threats to democracy?
And the one yesterday was an activityactually from the toolkit called telling
the history of the future where youstart with imagining a future and
then you work your way back wheresaying like, how did we get there?
And, Normally you imagine avery positive future and you
(29:27):
think about how do we get there?
So using positive psychologyyesterday we experimented with
let's really play this out.
Democracy's under threat.
And then nothing happens.
Like, let's imagine you're in thisfuture scenario and democracy's gone.
, it's no longer a democratic society.
What does it look like?
How do you know?
What does it feel like?
What do you see?
(29:47):
What do you hear?
What do you smell?
And so let's paint that picture togetherand then let's walk it backwards,
like how do we get to that point?
And, and so that was ourconversation yesterday.
And so it's rather exploratory,but it's always very generative.
And so many people justshared a lot of ideas about.
Oh, like, that's a very complicatedvision of what that future looks like.
(30:07):
And then walking it back, many of theroots for that future are in place now.
We can see ourselvesbeing on that path now.
And so then of course it opensup opportunities to think about
how do we get off of that path,or how do we alter this future?
And so it creates again, a verygenerative exploratory discussion
(30:27):
on like, what can we do?
What and what should we do?
Laura May (30:30):
I, I wanna go full poly science nerd for a moment here because
what I find really interesting is that.
You described what if democracywas gone tomorrow, but the idea
of democracy still exists, right?
And that, I guess as long as there's booksor discourse about it, it still exists.
And so it's more about, as youmentioned, the feeling of what
(30:51):
it is to be in a democracy ora particular idea of democracy,
which is obviously so core to us.
Politics in particular, it'ssomething that's really like,
oh, we are bringing democracy.
Right?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (31:02):
Mm-hmm.
. Mm-hmm.
Laura May (31:03):
And so it's quite interesting that we measure democracy
as achieved or not achieved.
And I'm wondering whether dialoguesas you've described, are actually
a really good point to go, well,is democracy the endpoint we want?
I mean, not, sorry, not anauthoritarian way, but like is
this the perfect solution for us?
Right?
There's that, I can't remember who saidthat quote, was it Winston Churchill or
(31:25):
somebody who was like, I know democracyisn't perfect, but it's the best.
We've got something
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (31:30):
Yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
Yeah.
That can be part of this discussion.
Like what what are the goalsand what is the endpoint?
And maybe it's not democracyas we currently understand it.
I mean, democracy as we currentlyunderstand it in the United States
is a primitive form of democracy.
It was an early form of democracy.
Other states have have developeda different forms of democratic
(31:53):
engagement that might actually be moredirectly democratic than some of the
processes within the United States.
So there's a lot of room forgrowth and re-imagining.
But I, I think one thing that youwere saying there that I, I think
is also important to highlightis democracy in the United States
(32:15):
and perhaps around the world.
It's aspirational.
And it's about, Being on the path Idon't think it's ever achieved.
It's isn't that a, a dare concept?
There's a democracy to come.
We never, we never reach it, but we'realways working towards it or we should
be or could be working towards it.
And, and then of course you wanna get atlike, well, what do you mean by democracy?
(32:36):
And that's also what can beexplored in the discussion.
And there are different forms ofgovernance and maybe democracy
doesn't have to be the only one.
But I think where we are going,because the interactivity
foundation is a nonprofit.
And while we're non advocacy, wedo stand firmly on the principle
that we are pro-democracy.
(32:57):
We do believe that we should bea self-governing country and so
I think sometimes we do have toput those values front and center.
And this is, I think, somethingof a debate within the dialogue
and deliberation community in theUnited States because there are
anti-democratic factions in the US andthere are strategies and initiatives,
(33:21):
people are promoting and um,encouraging anti-democratic behavior.
Democracy, you know, it's an aspiration.
And it's not everyone's aspiration,but I think it's worth pointing
out, and maybe this ties into yourquestion about you know, cultural
humility and responsiveness.
(33:41):
I think this is probably truefor places everywhere, but
especially in the United States.
Our country wasn't reallybuilt on democracy.
Right?
Like, like it It's never like this idea.
It, it's, it's never been democratic.
The United States was not built reallyon democracy or democratic principles.
And so democracy arrives or maybe neverarrives, but democracy is experienced
(34:05):
differently by different groups in theUnited States and at different times
democracy if it arrives, arrives atdifferent times for different people.
And so when we say we're worriedabout democracy being in threat,
that's from the position of mypositionality as a white person,
middle class in the United States.
(34:26):
And.
I, have friends and colleagues who like,yeah, our community has never really
experienced democracy and it's great thatyou're concerned about it's declined.
We're still concernedabout having access to it.
So as a country, we had differentexperience and we've always have had
different experiences with our interactionwith democracy and part of what we need
to think about as we continue to try topromote and or protect democracies, it
(34:52):
still has to be so much more inclusive.
And I guess where many of us have fearsthat we we see it backsliding where
it's not only is it not including groupsthat have been historically excluded,
but even folks who have gained someaccess to democracy are now losing it.
And so the L G B T Q community women inthe United States, right, like this is,
(35:15):
this is scary for for many people becausewe're seeing democratic rights and access
being removed rather than extended.
And the goal is, I have tothink, the goal is to always
figure out who are we excluding?
And now how do we createmore inclusive pathways?
And we're doing the opposite.
(35:35):
Like, ooh, who are we including?
How can we get rid of them?
And that's, that's scary.
And so what's informing a lotof our work right now is that
we see the SPACs lighting.
And we can't just put our heads inthe sand and say, well, let's just
have a neutral conversation on atopic that is easy to talk about.
We really have to take on thistopic you know, head on and do
(35:57):
so in a way that's not pullingpunches where we say, oh, well,
Republicans, they have their problems.
Democrats have their problems.
Oh, you know, good people,bad people on both sides.
That's, it's just really nota helpful way of framing the
challenge that we're in right now.
Laura May (36:16):
So really that idea then of both sides, ism.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (36:20):
Oh, sure, sure.
So And, within the dialogueand deliberation communities
organizations have this challenge.
Like they want to engage that.
It's part of a bridging movement, right?
They want to bridge.
But you know, I think one thingthat we have to think about is
(36:40):
like, Bridging for what purpose?
Like it's a challenge for thiswork because you certainly don't
wanna create a space and a platformfor bad actors to come and promote.
They use inclusion, they use toleranceto promote intolerance, or they use what
we would consider democratic dialogueto promote anti-democratic behaviors.
(37:03):
Like that's a challenge for us.
And so I think sometimes one thing thatwe're working on, and I think other
organizations are also moving in thisdirection, is that we have to announce
and put front and center our values.
We do.
Value equality, we value democracy.
We're not going to have or hostconversations where you get to come
(37:25):
and dehumanize or call into questionthe humanity of other participants.
Like that's not okay.
And so we have to have boundaries.
It can't be an anything goes environment.
We can't create a space wherewe're promoting both sides.
And this is something that I thinkjournalists in the US and and abroad
are also dealing with is when peopleare perpetuating misinformation or
(37:48):
strategically using disinformationare journalists ethically required
to re-share it, to amplify thatmessage or ethically required to not
reshare it and amplify that message.
And that's the same question for thedialogue and deliberation community.
Like when people are strategicallyusing myth and disinformation to really
shake the foundations of reality like.
(38:11):
Can you allow that in that spaceand say, well, both sides matter.
Like, no, they don't.
Not always.
Right.
And so I think that's, that's important.
Like we need to have ethical boundaries.
We have to stand at some point orelse where the various strategies
that we're using to promote communitycan be used to destroy community.
The strategies of deliberative democracythat we're using to build community
(38:36):
and collaboration between citizens anduse to become a self-governing country,
like those can be used against usto, to actually dismantle governance.
And so I think we have to be carefuland mindful that there are bad actors
and we don't want our programmingto be used in a way that actually is
the antithesis of the whole mission.
(38:57):
And I say all of that and I'm alsovery sympathetic to dialogue and the
liberation organizations and practitionerswho want to engage and their goal is
to engage, engage, bring people in.
And, I think that matters too.
But as we were saying earlier, likethere's different tools in the toolbox.
I think sometimes when you're dealingwith folks who have not just really
(39:18):
different ideas, but they have ideasthat actually call into question
the right for other people to exist.
Laura May (39:24):
Hmm.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (39:24):
I'm not sure that our process of public
community conversation forums is theright place to explore those ideas.
I think those ideas couldbe better explored through
one-on-one deep interaction.
Those are explored better withsustained conversation with
trusted loved ones who care.
I don't know if the publicforum is the right place to say,
(39:48):
okay, let's really dive deepinto your white supremacist ideas.
Like, I don't know that there's gonnabe much transformation or sincere
faithful engagement in a public forum likethat, but I know that's something that
we're all exploring and thinking about.
Laura May (40:03):
Well, I think one of the things that really illustrates
actually what you were just talkingabout in terms of white supremacists,
the example you gave and how they needthat ongoing one-on-one support and a
loving dialogue with people around themis actually the story of Derek Black
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (40:17):
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
David Duke's godson.
Yeah,
exactly That's exactly the example.
Yeah.
Laura May (40:23):
Yeah.
Cuz I mean, he was the voice ofyouth, white supremacy in the US and
I mean, I read the book about himrising at a Patriot, which was based
on extensive interviews with him.
And yeah, the focus is on, wellactually, I went to his liberal arts
college, , and you know, everyone talkedto me and they didn't cuss me out.
And then I had this girlfriend whowas really supportive and engaged with
(40:43):
me even when my ideas were totallyrepugnant and it was that , maybe
those words weren't used exactly.
Um, But it was that long-termengagement and acceptance and I
guess a psychological safety as well
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (40:57):
Yeah.
Laura May (40:58):
that allowed him to not only disregard those prior views, but start to
work against them, which involved as well.
Don't forget going against his familywho were huge in that movement in the us.
So, that's a really good example of that.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (41:12):
I, I agree.
I agree.
And that's, that's the thing is like,I feel like that's a successful example
of engagement but when we think aboutdifferent methods for transformation
and within the dialogue and deliberationcommunities, I'm not sure engaging
in like public community conversationswould've had that end goal, right?
(41:33):
Because it does involve that deepconnection and sustained engagement and
like you said, psychological safety.
Laura May (41:41):
I noticed that before when you were talking, you were talking about
these different sides and I mean, here'sthe case of white supremacists versus
people not right or in the US systemsobviously very divisive in terms of
you're on this side, you're on this side.
Do you think it's feasible for anykind of dialogue to take place where
we frame ourselves as part of a side?
(42:04):
I'm thinking of a particularexample of the uk right?
Because earlier you were talkingabout this idea of dehumanization.
We've, yeah, we'veobviously mentioned racist.
We've mentioned anti-democraticelements, which obviously
super, super visible in the US
space, but also elsewhere.
And I think that both of us areprobably in civil political positions
and so it's easy for us to say, well,it's them who are always the problem.
(42:27):
Right?
And again, I'm kindaboth sides this right?
But when I was interviewing people inthe UK who voted to leave the EU from
every single person in this interview,so were there any prompting question?
They all chose to share that one ofthe big reasons they had decided to
vote leave is because other peoplecalled them stupid and racist.
(42:50):
And that entrenched them in their view.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (42:53):
mm-hmm.
Laura May (42:54):
this dehumanization was really taking place in a lot of different
for, and it's, I think it's hard.
I mean, you mentioned earlierthis idea of humility.
It's hard to not feel like we havethe higher ground and that that bells
take place on both or all sides.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (43:09):
Sure.
Laura May (43:10):
And so I'm wondering, I mean in your community forums, is
there a way to manage whether people seethemselves as part of team A and team B?
Is there a way to create an area which isa shared space where people can overlap
without being reified into Democratand Republican or, you know, leave and
remainder in the UK or whatever it might.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (43:33):
Hmm.
Yeah, so, that's a good question and I'mgonna give you a very messy answer, but I
I think with our community conversationprogramming, we certainly would never
ask upfront people to identify with anysort of political affiliation and we
would never do something like that.
And then we also we try to exploreideas and not the abstract like identity
(43:57):
or political party behind that idea.
So there's certainly room tohumanize the perspective of others.
and you might get a glimpse like,oh, I think this person might be
a supporter of Trump based onthings that they're saying.
But I also see, like,people are complicated.
This person's also putting forththese other values that I embrace.
(44:19):
And so I think there's certainlyroom to connect on that individual
level and to see the complexity ofpeople, even if they vote for Brexit
or they vote for Donald Trump.
They're still complicated people.
And personally, I, I don't think, usingthese sweeping labels to characterize, a
hundred million people, like, well if,if you are a Republican in the United
(44:41):
States, then you're a racist like that.
That's not a helpful statement.
And anybody's saying things likethat, that's not helpful at all.
Nor is it accurate, right?
But the challenge I think, inthe United States at least, is that
when we talk about, in particularthe Republican party, I feel like
our levels of analysis are blurred.
(45:02):
Like we often talk about it as if it'sone, monolith and it's not right.
There's so much variation.
And then the other part is we'realso not distinguishing between the
strategist and those who are perpetuatingstrategy for a reason and for an
ingo and members of the party who areconsuming messaging and believing it.
(45:27):
And, and in many ways, I thinklike there's a difference there.
However, I, I.
One political party is using strategiesthat are really designed to
use fear as a mobilizing tactic.
They're using strategies ofsimplifying issues, creating it,
boiling it down to a single messageand repeating it over and over again.
(45:49):
And I wouldn't say both parties in theUnited States are using those strategies
in the same way or for the same reason.
And so I think it matters that wemake those distinctions and then I
think there's definitely room and Ithink a responsibility to distinguish
between those who are, again, thestrategists, those who are actually
perpetuating anti-democratic strategy.
(46:12):
And then those are who arerecipients of a bad strategy.
It sounds condescending though.
And I don't mean for it to sound that way.
Laura May (46:19):
But we also don't wanna get into the Structure Agency problem.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (46:24):
Right.
Right.
And I also, yeah.
Well, and I, I think also like we, we doneed to have an honest conversation too
that, when I say it's not a monolith,even the folks who are, let's say, part
of this party and either they believe orthey don't believe this messaging, they
may believe it for different reasons.
Some folks may actually havea sense of white superiority.
(46:47):
And this messaging really appealsto them and explain to them like
why they feel like their positionin society is being challenged.
They feel like they're being leftbehind and that they have some sort
of, they should have some sort ofguarantee of privilege in society.
And so it appeals to them.
And then let's not pretend like that'snot part of American culture too.
(47:07):
There there is racism there, thereare folks who are motivated to
use their white privilege and thinkthat they are entitled to do so.
And that's part of the mix,but that's not the whole story.
And so I think to your point,we make a, a big mistake by
suggesting that's everyone.
And we really alienate agroup that we could otherwise
engage and we want to engage.
(47:29):
So it's messy when we're dealing withsuch a large country and not a singular
political party or a political identity,but very complicated identities.
Laura May (47:39):
I think the thing really strikes me as we're having this
conversation, You know, you just used theword messy, but actually the consistent
message is you wanna complexify.
And so yeah, you are making partiesmore complex and groups more
complex and issues more complex.
And that gets to your work with thecommunity dialogues and with the
collaborative classrooms discussionsas well, which is fantastic.
(48:01):
And so, cause we've just gotten reallyheavy, I do wanna ask you a slightly
more frivolous question only slightlymore, and that is, who actually
signs up to attend these sessions?
I mean, when I go to sessions inBrussels, it's because they give
me free wine we come, why do they
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: Yeah, it's a mix, right? (48:16):
undefined
And so right now we are entirelyonline and have been because of the
pandemic for the last two years.
And so I think in the past my colleagues,y Nuno and Pete Shyly and Jeffrey Dome,
they would host in-person dialogues.
And oftentimes like an affiliation witha public library in DC for example.
(48:39):
And it depends on the topic,but like sometimes there, there
might be if we're doing like.
The role of art in society.
There might be artists or there mightbe dancers, American musicians, and
so they're there for that component.
And then the discussion, almostalways food of some kind when
we're doing in-person discussions.
But online it's a different model.
(49:00):
So online it's folks who are reallyinterested and passionate about
the topic, but also the process ofdiscussion and always having partner
organizations that will help to.
Recruit from their network,their communities, that's always
successful or not always successful.
But that's a successful modelwhen organizing community events.
We have our network, but when we partnerwith others and they bring their community
(49:23):
to the conversation that's helpful.
And then in broad terms, fordialogue and deliberation events.
I think a challenge for the wholefield is we still skew towards
progressives and liberals.
Women show up more oftenthan men in general.
And older folks generally showup more than younger folks.
(49:44):
And so these are all things thatwe're aware of in the field.
It's not unique to our programmingand things that the whole
field is trying to figure out.
Like how do we create a more inclusiveenvironment, and what's the right
strategy or formula forgetting folks to show up.
And so it's mixed for sure.
Like even the time of day.
Our discussion yesterday wasat two o'clock Eastern time.
(50:06):
So that means a lot of folks who areworking wouldn't be able to attend.
And these are things to think about.
Many organizations will piggyback onwhere folks are already gathering and then
figure out how to include a discussion.
So I don't think there's a perfect model,but, you know, it's, it's experimentation.
Yeah.
It's, I think it's alwaysexperimenting and, and figuring it out.
Laura May (50:29):
Absolutely.
And so when you're practicing, whether youare facilitating dialogues and processes,
or whether you are perhaps even takingpart in these dialogues and processes
and aiming to complexify, that can be avery destabilizing process and obviously
really cognitively demanding as well.
It takes a lot of what Ilike to call brain use to do.
(50:52):
And so how do you regroundafter that process?
So what are some of the thestrategies people can use?
Say they listen to this podcast, theygo, oh, I need you to start thinking
about everything in terms of differentgrades and, and what have you use.
What can they do to then reground,recenter and maintain healthy as opposed
to developing an ongoing anxiety.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: Yeah, yeah, yeah. (51:14):
undefined
So maybe if we thoughtabout it as an arc.
Like if your starting point isto complexify and really engage
in divergent thinking, makeit as complicated as possible.
You're right.
You can't for most topics, stop there andfolks won't leave that feeling satisfied.
They'll leave that feeling.
(51:36):
Wow, that's morecomplicated than I thought.
I might even disengage nowbecause I can't get my head
around like what I can do next.
And so I do think it's important.
And the idea is to leave folks thinkingabout next steps and also having an
opportunity for folks to, really, like,once they can imagine it on a whiteboard,
(51:57):
once they generate all of their concernsor look at the topic, the area of concern
for multiple dimensions, how do we thencontract or constrict and then converge
and think about like, Of, of all ofthis, what matters most to us right now?
What is most actionable right now?
What is most aspirational right now,where do we wanna focus our energy?
(52:18):
And then even as a group, thisis where deliberation comes into.
So if we're talking about dialogue andexploration earlier on now deliberation
comes into play where we have toconsolidate, we have to prioritize, and
this is where hard decisions can be made.
And for us, we don'tdirect particular pathways.
(52:39):
We don't advocate particularagendas, but we do encourage folks
to think what are our next steps?
What are pathways forwardthat I can take now?
And part of that might belike, I need to learn more.
I need to dive deeper intothe topic and information.
It might be a personal pathof growth and learning.
Or it might be, I need to talkwith my community about this.
(53:00):
Or it might be I need to advocate apolicy in my community, or I need to take
on a leadership role around this topic.
So I think those actionablesteps depend on the participants.
But I think you're totally rightfor folks who are organizing
this kind of work, you can'tend it with a broad exploration
(53:21):
.Like, if you were a travel guide and let's say you're taking folks,
let's stay into the desert, andyou're like, wow, this is expansive.
Go and explore.
And then you run back to the van andtake off . While they're, while they're
roaming and exploring you, you jumpin the van and you go back to the
hotel and you have dinner with yourwine, that would be irresponsible.
(53:42):
Right.
So you, you definitelywanna bring them back.
Laura May (53:45):
good.
Yeah.
Oh my goodness.
Fantastic.
Well, look, Shannon, thank you so muchfor joining me today, and for those who
are interested in learning more aboutyour work, where can they find you?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (53:57):
Oh, thank you.
I'm trying to think ofa, where can you find me?
Like in the bar, you can find me inthe bar, but you can't because I have
children and no life whatsoever.
You can find me behind my desk atall times like a complete nerd.
But you can findus@theinteractivityfoundation.org.
And that website is where youcan contact any of us about
(54:19):
exploratory community conversations.
Also our collaborative discussion projectis collaborative discussion project.com.
That's a separate site, but it is stilla project of the Interactivity Foundation
. And of course, it's.
Clearly not a Woo Woman show.
We are a small organization and mycolleagues do so much of this work.
We're a small team.
(54:40):
We work very well collaborativelytogether, and they really should
get so much of that credit.
So, Jeff Pome, Pete Shive, Lee Veno, ourPresident Jack Bird, and we also have this
wonderful staff in Parkersburg in WestVirginia where our foundation is located.
Even though we are allover the United States.
Laura May (54:58):
Thank you so much again and for everyone else, until next time,
this is Laura May with a conflicttipping podcast from mediate.com.
Hello, and welcome to the Conflict and, and listening in some
ways recognizing that you don'tnecessarily know what you're doing or
know how to act, and you start fromI'm your host Laura May, and today
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: Thank you, Laura. (00:55):
undefined
Laura May (00:56):
I am very excited to have you here because you and I had a chat last
week and we were losing track of timejust about . So I wanna start out though
by asking you what was the path thatled to your current work at the Interact
Foundation interactivity Foundation
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (01:13):
thank you.
Thank you for that question, andthank you for having me today.
You know, I, oh my path, you know, it, it,obviously, it was not a, a straight path.
I was uh, teaching at ArizonaState University and I was working
on my research, which dealt withborder politics and in particular,
(01:35):
everyday resistance in border zones.
And, thinking back, I loved teachingand I also loved loved my research.
And I think, oh, around this time Iwas also feeling a tiny bit burned out
around a lot of, of what I was doing.
Like for example, when I defended mydissertation in 2010, during the same hour
(02:00):
that I'm defending my dissertation, whereI'm advocating everyday resistance at the
border and also everyday cosmopolitanism,like the border zone is a place where
people are coming together and findingconnection and resisting all forms of
identity in the spirit of creating alarger, we, while I'm saying this where
then Governor of Arizona was signing intolaw the worst anti-immigration legislation
(02:25):
to hit the US in, in a long time.
And so just that juxtaposition of like, I.
I, I just, I love seeing people connectedand coming together and, and doing so not
just to make their own life go on, butto build community and then to see that
happen as legislation is being passed.
It's really designed to destroycommunity and divide people.
(02:49):
I mean, it was it waskind of heartbreaking.
And then while I'm, I'm doing all ofthis, I was also introduced to, around
the same time, the interactivityfoundation through one of my
friends and mentor at Arizona State.
And, and he was someone that I I wouldwork with closely in terms of teaching.
So we would talk a lot aboutteaching pedagogy and how do we
(03:13):
really elevate the classroom, howdo we make it more interactive?
And so he, he shared me like, there's thisorganization doing this really good and
innovative work in the classroom and it'sreally, it's not just student-centered,
but it's about like really empoweringstudents to own the classroom experience.
And so I slowly was introduced tothe organization and to the people
(03:34):
and to the methods, and I startedusing those in my classroom.
And then just kind of organically,my attention started to shift
more and more to the interactivityfoundation and and their educational
initiatives and also their work withcommunity building through dialogue
and deliberation and, and slowly my.
(03:55):
My research and alsojust my work with a s u.
The balance began to shift in,in the favor of the foundation.
So then I eventually cameon as a full-time fellow for
the Interactivity Foundation.
And I've been with them now for,goodness, I think 13 years or so.
So it's,
Laura May (04:11):
That's what your LinkedIn says,
you've been there a while, which is
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (04:14):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So slow and steady.
Yeah.
Laura May (04:18):
Absolutely.
And so when you talk aboutthese interactive methods to
use in the classroom, can yougive some examples of those
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (04:26):
Oh, sure, sure.
So in terms of teaching innovation andwhat we're doing in the classroom, one
thing that we're focusing on now um, Whichis really an, an exciting new initiative
that we launched about two years ago.
It was our collaborative discussionproject, and this project is
something that we have developedwith uh, dialogue and deliberation
(04:47):
practitioners and educators.
And so it's not something that wedeveloped internally and then, and
then rolled out into the world.
It's something that's been slowly buildingin partnership with these collaborators.
And the idea behind it is that we need towork on um, intentional interventions to
develop collaborative discussion skills.
(05:08):
If you think about it, we teach.
Children and students how to read.
We teach them how to write where andhow are we teaching them to discuss
in a collaborative way, in a waythat's designed to, to really bring
out the best ideas of the group.
And behind this project is the notionthat we think better when we think
together, but under the right conditions.
(05:30):
And so this project is a community projectand it's also open access, open source.
So we have a toolkit and wehave a certificate program.
And the toolkit are, are theseactivities that can be used in the
classroom, and they're designed tobe used also in the workplace or in
the community workshops, but they'reintentional activities designed to
(05:52):
develop collaborative discussion skills.
And these skills could be things rangingfrom listening to understand, to cultural
humility, to expressing your ideas withconfidence, but also humility building
on the ideas of others, like generatingthought versus tearing down thought.
And for me, this is a, a reallydifferent way of thinking about how
(06:15):
we engage the classroom experience.
So, you know, I, I grew up through inundergrad, a liberal arts education.
So discussion was always really important.
But.
Oftentimes those discussionswere really opportunities to
showcase your powers of analysis.
It's about finding the internalcontradictions of what someone else
(06:35):
said and, and use it to tear them apart.
And, and so sometimes especially inhigher education, we, we come together
in these groups to discuss, but notso much to build ideas together, but
to dissect ideas, to dissect the otherperson, to tear them down in the spirit
of making yourself look really smart.
(06:57):
And I've done that so many times, in, inclassroom conversations, not so much as
a faculty member, but as a participant.
And so for me, the vision behind this,and I think the growth for me as a
participant and also as an educator,is to see this discussion environment,
not as a place to really showcase yourintelligence, but it's to bring out the
(07:18):
innovative thinking, the diversity, thecreativity, the courage of the group.
And so it's really aboutbuilding on the ideas of others.
It's about elevating the conversationthrough using collaborative methods.
It's not that analytical methods don'tmatter, they do, but we're really
highlighting and putting front andcenter the, the power of collaboration.
Laura May (07:41):
So I'm gonna pause you there for a moment because I did recently
read this book about this idea of thepower of the extended mind and the
central thesis was that actually we dooutsource all of our thinking to our
mobile devices or to our computers orto our space or to physical objects
like whiteboards, but also to othersas you've just highlighted right now.
(08:04):
Right?
Like we think betterwhen we think together.
But I'm wondering, I mean, when you areteaching this type of pedagogy, which I
realize that we say very differently thanwe have accent, I mean, how do you manage
this need to innovate and collaboratetogether with the problems of group think.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (08:24):
Right, right.
So, That, that's a good question.
I, I think when groups do get together,I think one thing, and this is one
of the activities is recognizingpower in the discussion and who
has, or who's wielding or who's usingpower in the discussion and why.
And sometimes that's one wayto think about like am I
(08:47):
yielding or am I cowering to.
Idea because of theperson who's saying it.
And we often see that inworkplace discussions, right?
You know what I'm saying?
So, and, and in the classroom,likewise, like I, I think any
instructors always mindful of therole and the power of their position.
And then, so I think as an educator,oftentimes the instructor's mindful of
(09:10):
not sharing their perspective too muchor not trying to influence the group.
So when it comes to group think, I thinkone, acknowledging the role of power and
how it's playing out in the discussion.
And then we also have other activitieslike trying to think of how to
promote curiosity in the group.
Or how to acknowledgebias and assumptions.
We have activities for how do we, how dowe acknowledge and think about who or what
(09:36):
ideas are not part of this conversation.
So you're actually seeking outdivergent thinking instead of
defaulting on what the group's saying.
And then activities likeidentifying stakeholders.
So if you are talking about a particulartopic and everybody in the group is
kind of saying the same thing, thereshould be an alarm bell going off, right?
Like if we're all saying the samething, then we don't understand
(09:58):
the topic or we're thinking aboutit just from our positionality.
So how do we expand that?
And so there's an activity for thinkingabout around this topic, who are the
stake coders, and then if they're notin this discussion, like what would
they contribute to this discussion?
And then how does that influence theway that we're thinking about it?
So the goal is to make a topic and thediscussion more complicated, not less.
(10:18):
And this runs counter, I think, manytimes, the goals of a discussion.
And oftentimes a goal of a discussionor a working group is to get to the
solution or to get to the answer.
And our process with the interactivityfoundation for discussions is always
to, to slow that down, that rush todecisions, that rush to answers.
(10:40):
And we start with let's complexify it.
Let's complicate it.
Let's expand or blow up the problem.
And then as we do that, let's look at it.
Let's surround the topic, let'slook at it for multiple dimensions.
Laura May (10:53):
I think you've touched on a few really powerful points there.
You know, cuz you really addressedquite clearly the problem of
where the group starts, I thinkall in the same way, right?
And particularly revealing wherethere's that power dynamic where
perhaps actually on the surface ofthings, the group might be thinking
and saying the same things, but maybethat's really an an issue of power.
(11:14):
I guess.
I guess the reason I asked thiswell, two reasons actually.
One is I recently recorded an episodewith Brianna Hernandez of Florida
International University, where wetalked a bit about this challenge
of balancing expertise and opinion.
And the second part is that I, I myselfhave experienced being in a workplace
(11:38):
where everything was so collaborative thatdecisions would take six to eight months.
To get made, which was extremelyfrustrating for me as a
very type A kind of person.
So I'm just kind of wondering, I mean,when you are teaching this really
valuable, really collaborative, reallyinnovation focused and perhaps community
(12:01):
building approach as well, how doyou balance these other things of the
equation of expertise and opinion andalso the need to occasionally do things?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (12:12):
Mm-hmm.
. Mm-hmm.
. Yeah.
Right.
Well, this is one toolin the toolbox, right?
So it's not the best approach forevery issue or for every topic.
And I think that's one thingthat the folks need to know.
Like there are multiple tools, right?
And so it depends on what your goal isand what you're trying to accomplish.
But, if, like, my husband hatesit when We have a discussion about
(12:36):
where do we wanna go for dinner?
Because I'll be like, well, we coulddo this and we could do this, and then
I'll explode and complexify, and I'llbe like, I hate asking you questions.
And they're like, I know I'm the worst.
I'm the worst.
And so it's horrible, right?
And then we end up like eating asandwich in the kitchen because
I can't, like that's, that's whenthis process is a horrible idea.
(12:58):
Don't do this.
Just, you know, make a decision.
Like, if we're on an airplane, doyou want us all to sit there
together and talk about how shouldwe be flying this plane today?
And who wants to take the role of this?
And like, we don't want that.
We want the expert, we wantthe pilot in the plane.
That's not really up for conversation.
(13:18):
There's absolutely a place for expertiseand not everything needs to be.
Collaboratively implemented.
Oftentimes it's, it's more aboutlike at what stage of development.
And so for us, I think, when you'rein earlier stages of development
where you don't have a game plan yet.
If you can bring in as many voicesas possible, you may be able to
(13:40):
see it from different perspectives.
And you may come up with a differentstrategy, but at some point you
have to implement that strategy.
And at some point you have tosay, okay, let's, let's implement.
And yes, it could be extremelyfrustrating if if you're trying
to implement in a collaborative wayand, and not all voices are equal.
Obviously, it really depends onthe topic that you're discussing.
Laura May (14:01):
Great.
Well, you've asage my personal name best.
Thank you.
And so I'm just wondering as well, causeobviously you deliver these programs
and you perhaps see the outcomes, andI'm not asking this in an academic
sense, but what are some of theresults you see from this process?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (14:18):
Hmm.
There are a lot ofoutcomes with this program.
We are building a network of educatorsand practitioners who are interested and
invested in collaborative discussion,and they wanna see more of it in their
classroom and in their communities.
And so the outcomes, I think can be.
Multifaceted.
I mean, there's the, the civic pathwhere we are educating for civic
(14:42):
participation and building civic muscle.
And so the hope here is thatfolks either work to help build
this collaborative project or ourparticipants in our certificate programs
they become more civically engaged.
But many of these things I'mtalking about are social skills.
And so this helps especially with studentsfor career preparedness to be able to work
(15:02):
in teams even to be able to interview.
But the idea is that we'redeveloping these skills, I hope
to, to build community as well.
Folks can work better in their communityif they can collaborate with one another.
So that, those are the, thehopeful outcomes of this.
And, and this is a little bit, it'ssimilar but different than, than what we
do with our community conversation work,because those are also collaborative
(15:26):
discussions, but we're not emphasizingthe skill and we're not teaching.
It's rather their spaces forfolks to come together and
have exploratory conversations.
And so it's not an educationalinitiative as much as it's a community
initiative where we create the spaceand then folks come together to talk.
And we can talk more aboutwhat that looks like, but
Laura May (15:48):
I am gonna
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (15:49):
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Laura May (15:51):
promise.
I promise.
But first I wanted to go back tothis idea of, of building skills for
future generations, to have civicdiscussions and to build communities.
And I'm gonna, I'm gonnatalk about myself again.
I feel like this is becoming likea really narcissistic podcast.
But I mean, I know I shared withyou already that we actually had
personal development in high school.
Yeah.
(16:11):
And so I remember doing the Thomas Tillmanconflict styles test at that time, you
know, to sort of see where you are in thecollaborative compete kind of situation.
It was all done withvery friendly animals.
Right?
See, I remember had Teddyaround the middle or something.
And I was the shark . I was, you know,I was the complete compete, tear them
apart with my teeth kind a person.
(16:31):
Which, you know, I'm sure you can relateto cuz you mentioned already being
in that academic context where it'sabout tearing people down rather than
building them up, which is somethingI did not love about academia either.
Thinking of my current paperI'm reviewing anyway and.
But I mean, for myself, a realturning point was actually learning
mediation skills later in life.
Cuz it really does shift yourthinking to going, well actually we
(16:54):
can get more if we work together.
And it's not about just gettingmore, it's about building
that relationship of course.
And then even beyond that, I rememberwhen I worked at the International
Mediation Institute, the Global PoundConference Series show showed that
this is actually a very common effect.
That once people had experienced themediation process, there were socialized
and they actually started to changetheir behaviors and how they acted in
(17:14):
future mediations and future cases.
So, you know, this work thatyou're doing is, is very important.
You're really laying a lotof important groundwork.
So huge kudos on that.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (17:24):
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Laura May (17:26):
Of course.
And just before I go on to ask you aboutthe community dialogues you're working on.
I noted that when you were talkingabout what you teach in these different
programs, one of them was culturalhumility, which I found a really
interesting framework, and I wonderwhether that related to your background
(17:46):
in post-colonialism or what that wouldmean and where that idea comes from.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (17:51):
Mm.
Well, within the toolkit, we havefive modules, overarching modules, and
one is being culturally responsive.
And so I think, especially rightnow in the United States there's
a real emphasis and desire tobe more culturally responsive.
I think there's a sincere effort towant to be able to engage in difficult
(18:14):
conversations and do it respectfully.
And, we often hear that peoplecan't engage in civil dialogues.
And we hear that it's shouting matches.
But I, I see so many people wantingto have these conversations and,
they're also acknowledging thatthey need to learn how to do it.
Like it's hard, right?
It's all hard.
We've all are are learning aswe're going and people, I, in my
(18:37):
experience, people really don't wantto offend or say something insensitive.
They really want to.
Engage in a respectful way.
And sometimes, they make mistakes andsometimes their language and their
use of terminology is not up to date.
And you can understand howit comes across as offensive.
And I don't think that's theintent, but nonetheless, there's
(18:58):
a responsibility to learn.
And so I think that's why thatthat module is is popular and people
are trying to incorporate it intoclassroom conversations or community
conversations because there is thisneed and this desire, I think to.
To communicate morerespectfully and really listen
and learn from others as well.
(19:19):
And that's where power comes into play.
And definitely I think withpost-colonial studies, power
representation are key or key aspectswhen we talk about post-colonialism.
Like you can't discuss post-colonialismwithout talking about the role of
power and representation as well.
Laura May (19:37):
And so can I understand then that to be culturally humble is really
sitting there and listening in someways and recognizing that you don't
necessarily know what you're doing orknow how to act, and you start from there,
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (19:55):
I think that's definitely one way to go about it.
Many times things that.
Part of our identity and things thatwe just take for granted are socially
constructed or they are a resultof our experiences within a very
limited space and time in the world.
And that helps to increase, I think,cultural humility or make folks more
(20:17):
aware of it, that their experience isnot a universal experience and their
identity is not a universal identity.
And so putting it in the context of thereare so many identities and experiences
and it helps one to be more aware of andappreciative of difference, I think,
and actually seeing the value of it.
Another component is looking at andseeking out and valuing difference.
(20:42):
,like perspective taking is also like,not just trying to put yourself in their
shoes, but also trying to like wherethose ideas are are coming from, like
in a sincere way and not in a way whereyou're trying to dismantle their argument,
but really expressing like intentionalempathy, and even like critical empathy.
(21:04):
So not so much that I empathizewith you because I understand where
you're coming from, but actuallyunderstanding the cultural and
contextual underpinnings of where you'recoming from, that's much deeper, right?
And so all of this helpsto encourage more curiosity.
and more awareness of differenceand appreciation of difference
(21:27):
and then, and then seeking outthose voices in the conversation.
Then also being aware of yourown power in the conversation.
Like as a white woman with a PhD, Iam aware that when I talk, I, I, I
can sometimes say something slightlyintelligent and, and then, and if the
Laura May (21:48):
vague.
Only slightly.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: only, slightly only moderately. (21:50):
undefined
I was, i, I, I heard your,your intro on being, you know,
self-deprecating, so I needed to throw in
Laura May (21:56):
it's gotta deliver.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (21:58):
Yeah.
. And so, yeah.
So, but like, as an instructor,of course, you could always be
mindful of your power in the group.
And, here's an example in aclassroom ages ago, every
class was co-facilitated.
And the idea would be that I wasn'tthe the person at the center of the
classroom, the students were, andthey were actually designing the
(22:19):
curriculum for the class as well.
And so they were facilitating andI was encouraging them to do a
warmup activity at the beginning.
And so one student said,okay, let's do musical chairs.
And so they lined up thechairs and we were doing it.
And I was a participant.
I wasn't the facilitator.
But I noticed like, huh, we didone round of this and I won.
And I was like, ok, let's do it again.
(22:39):
And if we did again, and I wonagain, it's because they didn't
wanna bump into me, right.
Like I was the instructorwho can deliver grades.
So I'm like, this is fascinating.
I am old and I am slow, and you all keeplosing to me because you're afraid to
bump into me and push me out of the way.
And so, like
Laura May (22:58):
Sorry, this is the podcast, so no one listening is gonna to see you.
But Janet not old.
She's not like some decre lady therewith, she's like a normal woman.
This is like a high risk activity.
So
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (23:14):
Right, right.
Like they can bump into me, right?
I wouldn't melt, I wouldn't crumble,but they wouldn't do it because I was
the symbol of power in the classroomand you can't knock your teacher over.
And so, yeah, it was justone of those examples.
So I mean, this happensall the time, right?
And so we want to think about whatplace am I occupying in this conversation
(23:37):
and how can I move myself out ofthe center and make room for others?
And how can I use my voice tohelp elevate the voices of others?
And how can I make other people,or help other people to feel
comfortable expressing theiropinions in their own voice?
And so a lot of our work, I thinkwhen it comes to cultural humility
or being culturally responsive, isto acknowledge how to be a good ally.
(24:02):
How to also be willing to bequiet and make space for others.
And that's a lot of work.
And so there are various activities inthis module that help to get at that
overall goal, which I guess is, iscreating a more inclusive and an equitable
space for folks to contribute their ideas.
Laura May (24:24):
And so what I'm hearing then is that we need to take this
training, build a time machine, startdelivering it maybe like 40 years ago
and have that Arizona law never passed.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (24:37):
Yeah.
Well, you know, I mean, there'sso much injustice right now.
Fortunately for us,there's so much injustice.
So we can, we can apply and encourageand, and teach cultural responsiveness.
Anywhere, anytime.
Like, we're never gonna be in a spacewhere like, oh, this isn't necessary.
It's always going to be necessary becausewe never arrive right at inclusivity.
(25:01):
We never arrive at democracy.
It's always a process and an aspiration.
And so we're alwaysworking in that direction.
And that's the thing too about thistoolkit and also our work, when we
describe it as skills, we're not talkingabout it as conceptual concepts that you
either understand or you don't understand.
We're saying that these are practices,these are mindsets that are always
(25:22):
developing and can always be improved.
So none of us ever arriveat cultural responsiveness.
None of us ever arrive at creativecollaboration, but we're on that path and
the idea that we're trying to improveour skillset or our mindsets as well.
Laura May (25:41):
Absolutely.
So thank you for sharing allthat, Ben, about the educational
programs you've been working on.
And so finally, I wanna hear aboutthese community dialogues as well.
Cause you've mentionedthey're not about teaching.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (25:54):
Mm-hmm.
Laura May (25:54):
are they about?
Who do they involve?
What happens in them?
Tell me everything please, Shannon
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (26:02):
Um, So with the Interactivity Foundation,
we have multiple initiatives andour mission is to improve democracy
through dialogue and deliberation.
The ideas that we wanna bringfolks together to talk and to
collaborate, to work together.
And behind this idea is that wecan't have a democracy if folks
can't come together and haveconversation and also shape the
(26:26):
society that they wanna live in.
And so how do we do thatand where do we do that?
And part of what we do here is wecreate these spaces for folks to come
together and explore possibilities.
And we say policy possibilities, butthere are possibilities for creating
the world that you wanna live in.
And so our community conversationsprograms are thematically organized.
(26:48):
We'll have a topic, and they'realways public, they're always small
group, they're always facilitated,they're always free to join.
And so on our website, we have acalendar of events and, you can
register, folks listening can registerfor any of these conversations.
And what they can expect is a exploratorydiscussion where we're not there.
(27:09):
Debating or deliberatingfor a particular purpose.
We're there to explore the concept andthe idea, and then also imagine like, why
does this idea matter for our society?
And we try to often used anticipatorythinking, like mo thinking ahead.
Like what's the future of this topicand how do we imagine it where we're not
just being reactionary, like doing what'salways been done, but really tapping
(27:32):
into like what's around this topic.
Let's say it's there's a whole series oftopics that we can do, but around this
topic, like how do we want it to be?
And
Laura May (27:40):
I saw you had one about citizenship, for example, and I remember
one of the questions was like, well,will AI eventually have citizenship?
So that'll be very thinking to.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (27:50):
Yeah.
Yeah.
That, that is interest.
That is really interesting.
So I can't wait for youto join that conversation.
So yeah.
So that, and within our conversationwork, we do have two different programs
or initiatives and our communityconversations are opportunities
for anybody, everybody to join andtalk with others around a topic.
(28:14):
And the hope is that you leave that topicyou leave that discussion feeling like
you've had a meaningful conversation withothers and you understand the topic, and
the topic is more complicated now thatyou've had this conversation with others.
And you also have thoughts oflike, ooh, maybe, action steps or
next steps are to do X, y, and z.
(28:35):
We do not advocate particular actionsteps because we're non advocacy,
but we do encourage folks to takethe next steps , and to continue the
conversation in their own communities.
And so right now with ourcommunity conversations, we are
doing a series on democracy.
We just had a conversationyesterday and the focus was on
(28:56):
what if democracies is in decline?
What if democracies, oh, not even.
What if democracy is,
Laura May (29:02):
It is
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (29:03):
democracy is being threatened right now.
There are threats to democracy.
Let's explore that.
What are the threats to democracy?
And the one yesterday was an activityactually from the toolkit called telling
the history of the future where youstart with imagining a future and
then you work your way back wheresaying like, how did we get there?
And, Normally you imagine avery positive future and you
(29:27):
think about how do we get there?
So using positive psychologyyesterday we experimented with
let's really play this out.
Democracy's under threat.
And then nothing happens.
Like, let's imagine you're in thisfuture scenario and democracy's gone.
, it's no longer a democratic society.
What does it look like?
How do you know?
What does it feel like?
What do you see?
(29:47):
What do you hear?
What do you smell?
And so let's paint that picture togetherand then let's walk it backwards,
like how do we get to that point?
And, and so that was ourconversation yesterday.
And so it's rather exploratory,but it's always very generative.
And so many people justshared a lot of ideas about.
Oh, like, that's a very complicatedvision of what that future looks like.
(30:07):
And then walking it back, many of theroots for that future are in place now.
We can see ourselvesbeing on that path now.
And so then of course it opensup opportunities to think about
how do we get off of that path,or how do we alter this future?
And so it creates again, a verygenerative exploratory discussion
(30:27):
on like, what can we do?
What and what should we do?
Laura May (30:30):
I, I wanna go full poly science nerd for a moment here because
what I find really interesting is that.
You described what if democracywas gone tomorrow, but the idea
of democracy still exists, right?
And that, I guess as long as there's booksor discourse about it, it still exists.
And so it's more about, as youmentioned, the feeling of what
(30:51):
it is to be in a democracy ora particular idea of democracy,
which is obviously so core to us.
Politics in particular, it'ssomething that's really like,
oh, we are bringing democracy.
Right?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (31:02):
Mm-hmm.
. Mm-hmm.
Laura May (31:03):
And so it's quite interesting that we measure democracy
as achieved or not achieved.
And I'm wondering whether dialoguesas you've described, are actually
a really good point to go, well,is democracy the endpoint we want?
I mean, not, sorry, not anauthoritarian way, but like is
this the perfect solution for us?
Right?
There's that, I can't remember who saidthat quote, was it Winston Churchill or
(31:25):
somebody who was like, I know democracyisn't perfect, but it's the best.
We've got something
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (31:30):
Yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
Yeah.
That can be part of this discussion.
Like what what are the goalsand what is the endpoint?
And maybe it's not democracyas we currently understand it.
I mean, democracy as we currentlyunderstand it in the United States
is a primitive form of democracy.
It was an early form of democracy.
Other states have have developeda different forms of democratic
(31:53):
engagement that might actually be moredirectly democratic than some of the
processes within the United States.
So there's a lot of room forgrowth and re-imagining.
But I, I think one thing that youwere saying there that I, I think
is also important to highlightis democracy in the United States
(32:15):
and perhaps around the world.
It's aspirational.
And it's about, Being on the path Idon't think it's ever achieved.
It's isn't that a, a dare concept?
There's a democracy to come.
We never, we never reach it, but we'realways working towards it or we should
be or could be working towards it.
And, and then of course you wanna get atlike, well, what do you mean by democracy?
(32:36):
And that's also what can beexplored in the discussion.
And there are different forms ofgovernance and maybe democracy
doesn't have to be the only one.
But I think where we are going,because the interactivity
foundation is a nonprofit.
And while we're non advocacy, wedo stand firmly on the principle
that we are pro-democracy.
(32:57):
We do believe that we should bea self-governing country and so
I think sometimes we do have toput those values front and center.
And this is, I think, somethingof a debate within the dialogue
and deliberation community in theUnited States because there are
anti-democratic factions in the US andthere are strategies and initiatives,
(33:21):
people are promoting and um,encouraging anti-democratic behavior.
Democracy, you know, it's an aspiration.
And it's not everyone's aspiration,but I think it's worth pointing
out, and maybe this ties into yourquestion about you know, cultural
humility and responsiveness.
(33:41):
I think this is probably truefor places everywhere, but
especially in the United States.
Our country wasn't reallybuilt on democracy.
Right?
Like, like it It's never like this idea.
It, it's, it's never been democratic.
The United States was not built reallyon democracy or democratic principles.
And so democracy arrives or maybe neverarrives, but democracy is experienced
(34:05):
differently by different groups in theUnited States and at different times
democracy if it arrives, arrives atdifferent times for different people.
And so when we say we're worriedabout democracy being in threat,
that's from the position of mypositionality as a white person,
middle class in the United States.
(34:26):
And.
I, have friends and colleagues who like,yeah, our community has never really
experienced democracy and it's great thatyou're concerned about it's declined.
We're still concernedabout having access to it.
So as a country, we had differentexperience and we've always have had
different experiences with our interactionwith democracy and part of what we need
to think about as we continue to try topromote and or protect democracies, it
(34:52):
still has to be so much more inclusive.
And I guess where many of us have fearsthat we we see it backsliding where
it's not only is it not including groupsthat have been historically excluded,
but even folks who have gained someaccess to democracy are now losing it.
And so the L G B T Q community women inthe United States, right, like this is,
(35:15):
this is scary for for many people becausewe're seeing democratic rights and access
being removed rather than extended.
And the goal is, I have tothink, the goal is to always
figure out who are we excluding?
And now how do we createmore inclusive pathways?
And we're doing the opposite.
(35:35):
Like, ooh, who are we including?
How can we get rid of them?
And that's, that's scary.
And so what's informing a lotof our work right now is that
we see the SPACs lighting.
And we can't just put our heads inthe sand and say, well, let's just
have a neutral conversation on atopic that is easy to talk about.
We really have to take on thistopic you know, head on and do
(35:57):
so in a way that's not pullingpunches where we say, oh, well,
Republicans, they have their problems.
Democrats have their problems.
Oh, you know, good people,bad people on both sides.
That's, it's just really nota helpful way of framing the
challenge that we're in right now.
Laura May (36:16):
So really that idea then of both sides, ism.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (36:20):
Oh, sure, sure.
So And, within the dialogueand deliberation communities
organizations have this challenge.
Like they want to engage that.
It's part of a bridging movement, right?
They want to bridge.
But you know, I think one thingthat we have to think about is
(36:40):
like, Bridging for what purpose?
Like it's a challenge for thiswork because you certainly don't
wanna create a space and a platformfor bad actors to come and promote.
They use inclusion, they use toleranceto promote intolerance, or they use what
we would consider democratic dialogueto promote anti-democratic behaviors.
(37:03):
Like that's a challenge for us.
And so I think sometimes one thing thatwe're working on, and I think other
organizations are also moving in thisdirection, is that we have to announce
and put front and center our values.
We do.
Value equality, we value democracy.
We're not going to have or hostconversations where you get to come
(37:25):
and dehumanize or call into questionthe humanity of other participants.
Like that's not okay.
And so we have to have boundaries.
It can't be an anything goes environment.
We can't create a space wherewe're promoting both sides.
And this is something that I thinkjournalists in the US and and abroad
are also dealing with is when peopleare perpetuating misinformation or
(37:48):
strategically using disinformationare journalists ethically required
to re-share it, to amplify thatmessage or ethically required to not
reshare it and amplify that message.
And that's the same question for thedialogue and deliberation community.
Like when people are strategicallyusing myth and disinformation to really
shake the foundations of reality like.
(38:11):
Can you allow that in that spaceand say, well, both sides matter.
Like, no, they don't.
Not always.
Right.
And so I think that's, that's important.
Like we need to have ethical boundaries.
We have to stand at some point orelse where the various strategies
that we're using to promote communitycan be used to destroy community.
The strategies of deliberative democracythat we're using to build community
(38:36):
and collaboration between citizens anduse to become a self-governing country,
like those can be used against usto, to actually dismantle governance.
And so I think we have to be carefuland mindful that there are bad actors
and we don't want our programmingto be used in a way that actually is
the antithesis of the whole mission.
(38:57):
And I say all of that and I'm alsovery sympathetic to dialogue and the
liberation organizations and practitionerswho want to engage and their goal is
to engage, engage, bring people in.
And, I think that matters too.
But as we were saying earlier, likethere's different tools in the toolbox.
I think sometimes when you're dealingwith folks who have not just really
(39:18):
different ideas, but they have ideasthat actually call into question
the right for other people to exist.
Laura May (39:24):
Hmm.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (39:24):
I'm not sure that our process of public
community conversation forums is theright place to explore those ideas.
I think those ideas couldbe better explored through
one-on-one deep interaction.
Those are explored better withsustained conversation with
trusted loved ones who care.
I don't know if the publicforum is the right place to say,
(39:48):
okay, let's really dive deepinto your white supremacist ideas.
Like, I don't know that there's gonnabe much transformation or sincere
faithful engagement in a public forum likethat, but I know that's something that
we're all exploring and thinking about.
Laura May (40:03):
Well, I think one of the things that really illustrates
actually what you were just talkingabout in terms of white supremacists,
the example you gave and how they needthat ongoing one-on-one support and a
loving dialogue with people around themis actually the story of Derek Black
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (40:17):
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
David Duke's godson.
Yeah,
exactly That's exactly the example.
Yeah.
Laura May (40:23):
Yeah.
Cuz I mean, he was the voice ofyouth, white supremacy in the US and
I mean, I read the book about himrising at a Patriot, which was based
on extensive interviews with him.
And yeah, the focus is on, wellactually, I went to his liberal arts
college, , and you know, everyone talkedto me and they didn't cuss me out.
And then I had this girlfriend whowas really supportive and engaged with
(40:43):
me even when my ideas were totallyrepugnant and it was that , maybe
those words weren't used exactly.
Um, But it was that long-termengagement and acceptance and I
guess a psychological safety as well
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (40:57):
Yeah.
Laura May (40:58):
that allowed him to not only disregard those prior views, but start to
work against them, which involved as well.
Don't forget going against his familywho were huge in that movement in the us.
So, that's a really good example of that.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (41:12):
I, I agree.
I agree.
And that's, that's the thing is like,I feel like that's a successful example
of engagement but when we think aboutdifferent methods for transformation
and within the dialogue and deliberationcommunities, I'm not sure engaging
in like public community conversationswould've had that end goal, right?
(41:33):
Because it does involve that deepconnection and sustained engagement and
like you said, psychological safety.
Laura May (41:41):
I noticed that before when you were talking, you were talking about
these different sides and I mean, here'sthe case of white supremacists versus
people not right or in the US systemsobviously very divisive in terms of
you're on this side, you're on this side.
Do you think it's feasible for anykind of dialogue to take place where
we frame ourselves as part of a side?
(42:04):
I'm thinking of a particularexample of the uk right?
Because earlier you were talkingabout this idea of dehumanization.
We've, yeah, we'veobviously mentioned racist.
We've mentioned anti-democraticelements, which obviously
super, super visible in the US
space, but also elsewhere.
And I think that both of us areprobably in civil political positions
and so it's easy for us to say, well,it's them who are always the problem.
(42:27):
Right?
And again, I'm kindaboth sides this right?
But when I was interviewing people inthe UK who voted to leave the EU from
every single person in this interview,so were there any prompting question?
They all chose to share that one ofthe big reasons they had decided to
vote leave is because other peoplecalled them stupid and racist.
(42:50):
And that entrenched them in their view.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (42:53):
mm-hmm.
Laura May (42:54):
this dehumanization was really taking place in a lot of different
for, and it's, I think it's hard.
I mean, you mentioned earlierthis idea of humility.
It's hard to not feel like we havethe higher ground and that that bells
take place on both or all sides.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (43:09):
Sure.
Laura May (43:10):
And so I'm wondering, I mean in your community forums, is
there a way to manage whether people seethemselves as part of team A and team B?
Is there a way to create an area which isa shared space where people can overlap
without being reified into Democratand Republican or, you know, leave and
remainder in the UK or whatever it might.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (43:33):
Hmm.
Yeah, so, that's a good question and I'mgonna give you a very messy answer, but I
I think with our community conversationprogramming, we certainly would never
ask upfront people to identify with anysort of political affiliation and we
would never do something like that.
And then we also we try to exploreideas and not the abstract like identity
(43:57):
or political party behind that idea.
So there's certainly room tohumanize the perspective of others.
and you might get a glimpse like,oh, I think this person might be
a supporter of Trump based onthings that they're saying.
But I also see, like,people are complicated.
This person's also putting forththese other values that I embrace.
(44:19):
And so I think there's certainlyroom to connect on that individual
level and to see the complexity ofpeople, even if they vote for Brexit
or they vote for Donald Trump.
They're still complicated people.
And personally, I, I don't think, usingthese sweeping labels to characterize, a
hundred million people, like, well if,if you are a Republican in the United
(44:41):
States, then you're a racist like that.
That's not a helpful statement.
And anybody's saying things likethat, that's not helpful at all.
Nor is it accurate, right?
But the challenge I think, inthe United States at least, is that
when we talk about, in particularthe Republican party, I feel like
our levels of analysis are blurred.
(45:02):
Like we often talk about it as if it'sone, monolith and it's not right.
There's so much variation.
And then the other part is we'realso not distinguishing between the
strategist and those who are perpetuatingstrategy for a reason and for an
ingo and members of the party who areconsuming messaging and believing it.
(45:27):
And, and in many ways, I thinklike there's a difference there.
However, I, I.
One political party is using strategiesthat are really designed to
use fear as a mobilizing tactic.
They're using strategies ofsimplifying issues, creating it,
boiling it down to a single messageand repeating it over and over again.
(45:49):
And I wouldn't say both parties in theUnited States are using those strategies
in the same way or for the same reason.
And so I think it matters that wemake those distinctions and then I
think there's definitely room and Ithink a responsibility to distinguish
between those who are, again, thestrategists, those who are actually
perpetuating anti-democratic strategy.
(46:12):
And then those are who arerecipients of a bad strategy.
It sounds condescending though.
And I don't mean for it to sound that way.
Laura May (46:19):
But we also don't wanna get into the Structure Agency problem.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (46:24):
Right.
Right.
And I also, yeah.
Well, and I, I think also like we, we doneed to have an honest conversation too
that, when I say it's not a monolith,even the folks who are, let's say, part
of this party and either they believe orthey don't believe this messaging, they
may believe it for different reasons.
Some folks may actually havea sense of white superiority.
(46:47):
And this messaging really appealsto them and explain to them like
why they feel like their positionin society is being challenged.
They feel like they're being leftbehind and that they have some sort
of, they should have some sort ofguarantee of privilege in society.
And so it appeals to them.
And then let's not pretend like that'snot part of American culture too.
(47:07):
There there is racism there, thereare folks who are motivated to
use their white privilege and thinkthat they are entitled to do so.
And that's part of the mix,but that's not the whole story.
And so I think to your point,we make a, a big mistake by
suggesting that's everyone.
And we really alienate agroup that we could otherwise
engage and we want to engage.
(47:29):
So it's messy when we're dealing withsuch a large country and not a singular
political party or a political identity,but very complicated identities.
Laura May (47:39):
I think the thing really strikes me as we're having this
conversation, You know, you just used theword messy, but actually the consistent
message is you wanna complexify.
And so yeah, you are making partiesmore complex and groups more
complex and issues more complex.
And that gets to your work with thecommunity dialogues and with the
collaborative classrooms discussionsas well, which is fantastic.
(48:01):
And so, cause we've just gotten reallyheavy, I do wanna ask you a slightly
more frivolous question only slightlymore, and that is, who actually
signs up to attend these sessions?
I mean, when I go to sessions inBrussels, it's because they give
me free wine we come, why do they
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: Yeah, it's a mix, right? (48:16):
undefined
And so right now we are entirelyonline and have been because of the
pandemic for the last two years.
And so I think in the past my colleagues,y Nuno and Pete Shyly and Jeffrey Dome,
they would host in-person dialogues.
And oftentimes like an affiliation witha public library in DC for example.
(48:39):
And it depends on the topic,but like sometimes there, there
might be if we're doing like.
The role of art in society.
There might be artists or there mightbe dancers, American musicians, and
so they're there for that component.
And then the discussion, almostalways food of some kind when
we're doing in-person discussions.
But online it's a different model.
(49:00):
So online it's folks who are reallyinterested and passionate about
the topic, but also the process ofdiscussion and always having partner
organizations that will help to.
Recruit from their network,their communities, that's always
successful or not always successful.
But that's a successful modelwhen organizing community events.
We have our network, but when we partnerwith others and they bring their community
(49:23):
to the conversation that's helpful.
And then in broad terms, fordialogue and deliberation events.
I think a challenge for the wholefield is we still skew towards
progressives and liberals.
Women show up more oftenthan men in general.
And older folks generally showup more than younger folks.
(49:44):
And so these are all things thatwe're aware of in the field.
It's not unique to our programmingand things that the whole
field is trying to figure out.
Like how do we create a more inclusiveenvironment, and what's the right
strategy or formula forgetting folks to show up.
And so it's mixed for sure.
Like even the time of day.
Our discussion yesterday wasat two o'clock Eastern time.
(50:06):
So that means a lot of folks who areworking wouldn't be able to attend.
And these are things to think about.
Many organizations will piggyback onwhere folks are already gathering and then
figure out how to include a discussion.
So I don't think there's a perfect model,but, you know, it's, it's experimentation.
Yeah.
It's, I think it's alwaysexperimenting and, and figuring it out.
Laura May (50:29):
Absolutely.
And so when you're practicing, whether youare facilitating dialogues and processes,
or whether you are perhaps even takingpart in these dialogues and processes
and aiming to complexify, that can be avery destabilizing process and obviously
really cognitively demanding as well.
It takes a lot of what Ilike to call brain use to do.
(50:52):
And so how do you regroundafter that process?
So what are some of the thestrategies people can use?
Say they listen to this podcast, theygo, oh, I need you to start thinking
about everything in terms of differentgrades and, and what have you use.
What can they do to then reground,recenter and maintain healthy as opposed
to developing an ongoing anxiety.
Shannon Wheatley Hartman: Yeah, yeah, yeah. (51:14):
undefined
So maybe if we thoughtabout it as an arc.
Like if your starting point isto complexify and really engage
in divergent thinking, makeit as complicated as possible.
You're right.
You can't for most topics, stop there andfolks won't leave that feeling satisfied.
They'll leave that feeling.
(51:36):
Wow, that's morecomplicated than I thought.
I might even disengage nowbecause I can't get my head
around like what I can do next.
And so I do think it's important.
And the idea is to leave folks thinkingabout next steps and also having an
opportunity for folks to, really, like,once they can imagine it on a whiteboard,
(51:57):
once they generate all of their concernsor look at the topic, the area of concern
for multiple dimensions, how do we thencontract or constrict and then converge
and think about like, Of, of all ofthis, what matters most to us right now?
What is most actionable right now?
What is most aspirational right now,where do we wanna focus our energy?
(52:18):
And then even as a group, thisis where deliberation comes into.
So if we're talking about dialogue andexploration earlier on now deliberation
comes into play where we have toconsolidate, we have to prioritize, and
this is where hard decisions can be made.
And for us, we don'tdirect particular pathways.
(52:39):
We don't advocate particularagendas, but we do encourage folks
to think what are our next steps?
What are pathways forwardthat I can take now?
And part of that might belike, I need to learn more.
I need to dive deeper intothe topic and information.
It might be a personal pathof growth and learning.
Or it might be, I need to talkwith my community about this.
(53:00):
Or it might be I need to advocate apolicy in my community, or I need to take
on a leadership role around this topic.
So I think those actionablesteps depend on the participants.
But I think you're totally rightfor folks who are organizing
this kind of work, you can'tend it with a broad exploration
(53:21):
.Like, if you were a travel guide and let's say you're taking folks,
let's stay into the desert, andyou're like, wow, this is expansive.
Go and explore.
And then you run back to the van andtake off . While they're, while they're
roaming and exploring you, you jumpin the van and you go back to the
hotel and you have dinner with yourwine, that would be irresponsible.
(53:42):
Right.
So you, you definitelywanna bring them back.
Laura May (53:45):
good.
Yeah.
Oh my goodness.
Fantastic.
Well, look, Shannon, thank you so muchfor joining me today, and for those who
are interested in learning more aboutyour work, where can they find you?
Shannon Wheatley Hartman (53:57):
Oh, thank you.
I'm trying to think ofa, where can you find me?
Like in the bar, you can find me inthe bar, but you can't because I have
children and no life whatsoever.
You can find me behind my desk atall times like a complete nerd.
But you can findus@theinteractivityfoundation.org.
And that website is where youcan contact any of us about
(54:19):
exploratory community conversations.
Also our collaborative discussion projectis collaborative discussion project.com.
That's a separate site, but it is stilla project of the Interactivity Foundation
. And of course, it's.
Clearly not a Woo Woman show.
We are a small organization and mycolleagues do so much of this work.
We're a small team.
(54:40):
We work very well collaborativelytogether, and they really should
get so much of that credit.
So, Jeff Pome, Pete Shive, Lee Veno, ourPresident Jack Bird, and we also have this
wonderful staff in Parkersburg in WestVirginia where our foundation is located.
Even though we are allover the United States.
Laura May (54:58):
Thank you so much again and for everyone else, until next time,
this is Laura May with a conflicttipping podcast from mediate.com.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.