The Silence Of The Facilitators: Grandstanding And Masked Illusions

For part 1 of this piece – refer here

The Collective Void

Once in a while, if we’re able to cultivate and befriend a deep silence within ourselves, we experience an alarming void. Within the void, everything is destroyed and a creative treasure trove is born through the ashes of nothingness. Through the void, we are each given a new blank slate. 

Entering a blank slate can be a profound experience. As an individual, entering a personal void is transformative and the possibilities are endless. It is also deeply uncomfortable. It is so frustratingly uncomfortable that we attempt to fill the silence with anything: any thoughts, any noise, any behaviour that we can get our hands on to negate the ‘nothingness’ of our experience. Therefore, it isn’t often that we experience these in our lives. However, what is rarer is to experience a collective void. 

During the CPFCP program, the facilitators participated in what I would like to call ‘absurd behavior’. After inviting a group of 30 enthusiastic social workers into a 6-day session, they divided us into small T-groups to conduct a social experiment. In each T-group, the two facilitators sat across from each other in our circle. No words were spoken by them for 5 days and no rules were provided. No structure, and no instructions shared. Zilch. Nada. 

As you can imagine, this was uncomfortable. It is not a common experience for a group of strangers to sit for extended periods, while simultaneously remaining completely present, and doing nothing. And saying nothing. 

The Rules Of Exchange: Silence And Power Dynamics

This ‘collective void’ started to weigh on us. The discomfort slowly became increasingly unbearable and people started introducing ideas into the space between us. Where did these ideas come from? Who called the shots and who decided what the rules were? This article will explore these social dynamics that unfolded within our T-group. 

A recurring theme that occurred within our space was silence. The theme of silence recurred because no rules were set within our T-group and nobody knew what they could bring into the space and what they couldn’t. This discomfort, or the collective void, was experienced repeatedly as the rules of the space started becoming more apparent and members started participating more openly.    

Despite the seeming nothingness of the silence, the silence was loud between us. When rules are set within society, each member knows how to conduct themselves. Sometimes, these rules are dysfunctional or skewed towards one group over another; over time, the members collectively internalize a code of conduct and behave accordingly even if that behavior does not suit them. Similarly, those in places of privilege maintain specific privileges over extended periods without ever letting go of them. An example of this dynamic presented itself within the group.

Shifting Power Dynamics

Our group contained 6 India Fellows out of 10 people in the T-group. As a majority, we knowingly or unknowingly set the pace for the group. As we started speaking, our values ‘became’ the group values. Within the T-group, we were younger, had existing relationships with each other, had an easier time expressing thoughts and feelings, and came from places of relatively greater privilege than the rest of the group.

The 4 others in the group didn’t know each other.One of them spoke only Bengali and her words and sentiments had to be translated by another member. The other member could not completely dip into their feelings because he had to constantly maintain enough presence to continue translating. The unspoken dynamics that were set in the first few days of the T-group were as follows: 

1. Talking is better than not talking
2. Emotions are welcome and necessary
3. Feelings are better than mental frameworks
4. Different languages need to be translated into Hindi to make it most accessible for us and Hindi will be translated to Bengali for the member who does not speak Hindi
5. Expressing powerful emotions like crying happens ‘outside’
6. If we know each other, we will sort out our problems outside the T-groups but not do it in front of everyone because it is uncomfortable
7. Inviting someone to join the space or to participate means they will automatically take up that invitation and speak up
8. If someone does not speak up, they are complicit in creating disharmony in the space

Catalytic Events

The space was interesting because the rules created within our group were quite contrasting to the rules created within society. I think this also speaks to the people who created the rules being quite different from the society that we live within. This disparity between the world ‘outside’ and the world ‘inside’ the T-group was a jarring and transformative space for the group.

However, since the rules were made by a few, not everyone was participating in these new norms despite repeated invitations to join the circle. Additionally, some who were empowered to speak in specific circumstances were disempowered to speak in others. The power dynamics were complex and layered within the group where different people held different amounts of power at different periods. Dynamics of gender, caste, and religion were expressed and suppressed and many of these moments catalyzed powerful changes in the group dynamics.

Gender And Society

Another moment of reckoning the group had was when our facilitator shared something about his internal process. He shared that sometimes as men, we feel the need to be the people who are stable for our families and our communities. This means that we do not have the space and potentially even the tools to share our internal processes. Over time, this means that we also potentially do not know what is happening inside of us. This exploration of his own path toward opening up created an invitation for the men who weren’t participating to start speaking up. However, a single invitation was not enough for them to step into the circle. 

As a group, our dynamics were interesting. We had different group values as opposed to conventional society. This meant that people who were more able to express themselves and more able to share their thoughts, feelings, sentiments, and observations were more comfortable doing so. This meant that those who spoke more felt that they weren’t able to trust those who were unwilling to share their perspective and explicitly stated that the silent spectators held all the power in the room as they were unwilling to disclose their cards.

This Was Complex

In our group, the fellows spoke more. Within the group of fellows, women were generally more expressive than men in their experience of the group. I was a part of this. This meant that while we were willing to share ourselves, we also created more spaces for others to step in. However, we couldn’t force anyone to participate. Participation had to be two-fold: 

1. A space is created for some to step in and speak up: This can happen through an invitation from another member, through sharing a personal story, or sometimes through another participant sharing an experience of how they receive the silence from those who aren’t participating.
2. An internal willingness to participate: This means breaking the internal chains that prevent one from speaking up. Examples of internal barriers can be fear of judgment, internalized normalization of one community or group not speaking up, fear of lack of safety, etc. 

Without both these aspects happening together, a space opening up for someone to step in ‘AND’ a willingness to break through internal barriers to step up,  it is impossible to create a space where everyone is present and participating. This is a monumental task. 

The Turning Point

Despite the enormity of the problem we were facing, a turning point occurred. The people who were used to speaking, stopped. They stepped back. The speaking people, by virtue of speaking and being uncomfortable with silence, were unknowingly taking the space of those who might have stepped in if a longer silence persisted. When a silence lasted longer than a few minutes, someone who spoke automatically took up space and invited others in. Offering repeated invitations was frustrating because an invitation did not always translate to any response.

However, the lack of response and the lack of participation by all members were felt by everyone. Eventually, a member pointed out that the ones who wanted to speak could only speak if those who kept speaking stopped. This was an invitation for those who were in power to consciously step back and redistribute it. It was frustrating to hear because those who spoke said that they had been offering repeated invitations. 

This was true. They were offering repeated invitations. But it was also true that they were taking the space of those who were not able to step up as quickly. This invitation, and potential accusation, created a deep silence within the group. The silence created another collective void. Everything went quiet. Many thoughts were louder in the silence.

The First Conversations

The first non-fellow, male member spoke up. He agreed that he did not feel like he had a space to share within the group. This made those who were used to taking up that space more frustrated and unheard but also simultaneously contemplative. A second member joined in. He echoed the same thoughts. One by one, the group dynamics shifted. More people stepped into the circle. They sat up straighter on their seats and their voices grew louder. All of a sudden, the entire group was present. 

Another pivotal moment within the group involved caste. One of our group members was Dalit. In the first few days, he engaged superficially with the group, often joking or sitting silently but never sharing anything significant. However, on the fourth day, after repeated attempts from the group to hear from him, he recited a poem: 

Poetry

कौन जात हो भाई?

“दलित हैं साब!”

नहीं मतलब किसमें आते हो?

आपकी गाली में आते हैं

गंदी नाली में आते हैं

और अलग की हुई थाली में आते हैं साब!

मुझे लगा हिंदू में आते हो!

आता हूँ न साब! पर आपके चुनाव में।

Translation 

What is your caste, brother? 

We are Dalit, sir. 

No, I mean, what do you come under? 

I come under your abuse. 

I come under the dirty drains. 

I come under the discrimination of separate plates, sir. 

Oh, I thought you come under ‘Hindu’. 

I do, sir. But only in your elections. 

You can read the full poem here. 

He spoke of his childhood. He spoke of playing with friends of different castes only to be fed on separate plates in their houses. Children don’t see caste, but their families do. Over time, he stopped being as open with them and slowly distanced himself from his friends. He said that he didn’t want to put them in an uncomfortable position where they had to disagree with their families to maintain their friendship with him and he slowly distanced himself out of their lives.

As a group, many people then shared their experiences of caste and how it has affected their lives, their friendships, and relationships. He told us, explicitly, that even he opened up and spoke to all of us now, we couldn’t have a relationship outside of this space. What is the point of such a relationship? 

I think I agree with him.

Dysfunctional Societal Dynamics

Something that I have continually noticed as a recurring theme is the dissonance between ‘values’ and the ‘reality’. Anchoring values into a reality that is unwilling to accept these values takes an incredible amount of force that is difficult to muster. As a group, we repeatedly encountered these ‘edges’ where our values came face to face with reality. Some within our group could not take our Dalit group member to their house and promise a different treatment than what he had experienced in the past.

Even if I chose my values intentionally, I have no guarantee that the community around me will oblige him and treat him with respect. I have no guarantee that if I tell a man he can share his feelings with me, he will also be able to do so when he is back in his village where his family is dependent on him mentally, emotionally, and financially. The safety provided in these spaces to do something different and to be someone different does not match the reality of the society that we live in.

In cases like this, I think I agree with him.

Fundamental Needs For A New Group Understanding

I think in order for these values of equity, equality, participation for all, a space for everybody to sit at the table, and a place for everybody to share openly when they are at that table, very different societal structures are necessary. While places like the CPFCP program offer a ground to practice these values, they are far from enough to anchor them into the ‘real-world’.

I might learn to come into an open, trusting, and equal relationship with someone in these spaces only to not be able to continue them in the world outside. I also cannot ensure safety for all. This is telling that these ideas are powerful but we need to create steady structures that support these ideas so that people can express them out into the world. Power needs to shift in big ways and people need to simultaneously learn to be self-empowered to start to see these shifts anchored. In addition to this, we also need a collective change in behaviour to create room for everyone to come into the right relationship with each other. 

These are big asks.