Invitation through open programming

The third approach, was concerned with inviting Weekly Service members and members of the public to participate in open

programming processes. An open program was established so that people could suggest themes and put forward potential storytellers. This was an important part of the way in which we sought to ensure a multiplicity of voices were involved in shaping the content that we co-produced. More importantly, it enabled audiences to begin to take ownership over the themes and stories that were shared and discussed, including how transition in these times was framed and contextualised. We created an event to initiate the open programming process, which we called the Tune-in. The Tune-in was an event that was developed by myself, Henry and another member across the summer of 2017. The design of the Tune-in was influenced by our interest in Theory U. Theory U is a framework that proposes a methodology for shifting the awareness of groups from being ego-centric to eco-centric, where the future becomes something that can be sensed as an emergent form of knowing in the present:

...we can sense, feel, and actualize by shifting the inner place from which we operate. It is a future that in those moments of disruption begins to presence itself through us. (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, 2)

The aim of the Tune-in is implied in its name – the event sought to enable people to attune to what was emergent for them in order to develop and co-create content for the upcoming season. Through this process, people were guided towards articulating a ‘burning question’ that they were sitting with (see Figure 33). At the end of the Tune-in people were offered the opportunity to put themselves forward as a storyteller or curator for the upcoming season. The Tune-in provided a space for deeper listening, where people were able to articulate what was concerning, exciting, or soothing them.

Figure 32: The Tune-in promotional image

68

Figure 33: 30+ burning questions These questions emerged from the first Tune-in. Around 35 people attended. A mixture of members and non-members attended.

Through this gentle process, the Tune-in didn’t reveal opinions as such, but rather common points of resonance and tonalities of feeling that might offer pathways for further exploration. This also contributed to a greater sense of ownership amongst those who participated and strengthened the feeling of collaboration. At one Tune-in, a prominent theme centred around how we might collectively move forward

together, given the many challenges that the world is facing. In another Tune-in many voiced their questions surrounding what it means to be human in these times.

The emergent themes from the Tune-in were collected and a call-out for stories was made via social media and the monthly newsletter. As a member group we used members retreats to vote and create a short-list of the stories, which we work-shopped into a program. This opened up discussion surrounding the kinds of stories that were appropriate to weaving a ‘new story’. On one occasion in a workshop that I ran with Caro, we worked in small groups to prepare a program. One group structured the season into three phases: receptive, reflective, and expansive (see Figure 34) which created a narrative arc to the season. Within this workshop we also discussed why one person might be selected over another, or how we might deal with particularly heavy themes across a season. A set of principles were co-created to guide the programming process. Over time, open programming became an important process for enabling the member group in particular, to begin to take responsibility and ownership over how stories might affect others and how they contributed to shaping a ‘new story’ of transition. This ‘new story’ was never defined concretely, rather it was through open programming that we negotiated what we meant by that. Through ongoing discussion we developed our capacity to collaborate with each other.

One way in which open programming emerged as both a limitation and a strength, was that we largely invited participation within our known networks. Storytellers were frequently recruited from within a mesh-work of existing relations, where people stepped into the role of curator in order to support someone they knew. This often created a special kind of chemistry within Services, whereby an audience felt affected not only by the storyteller, but could also witness the mutual regard that lay between storyteller and curator. However, this relational approach to programming also limited the diversity of experiences that were shared, to the known networks of those involved; who were mostly politically progressive, educated and white. While there were definitely exceptions to the rule – where serendipitous connections provided a platform for a broader range of experiences in terms of

70

Figure 34: Programming the season A sketch that one of the groups made during the programming workshop that was held at the retreat. The yellow box highlights how one group of members structured the season into three distinct phases.

11am –12.30pm (doors open 10.30am) Saturdays A weekly gathering around ideas with heart. Nest Co-working 829A High Street Thornbury

Being in community

Purpose & contribution Death / grief

Nature & becoming human Themes we’re exploring this season

Figure 35: Weekly Service Spring Program 2017

72

cultural background, age and belief – the very personal way in which we tended to invite people to be part of a Service, limited who could come along and share. The consequence of this was that less plural views were shared and discussed.

As an act of alignment, open programming (which included the Tune-in, voting and programming stories & curators) invited people into shaping and taking responsibility for what stories and themes were prioritised and explored, and how these might be framed and positioned as potential pathways for transition. Through a deeper engagement with the co-creation of the content, we sought to collectively own and take responsibility for how we were pursuing, exploring and contextualising transition. However, through our invitational approach we also were restricted by who we knew and therefore the outlooks and perspectives that were shared were at times, representative of a relatively homogeneous group.