The Worldwork Seminars: A Personal Learning Overview

This issue of the journal focuses on process-oriented Worldwork. What exactly is World-work? This is the question I've been thinking about a lot as I've been wondering how to present an overview of the past two Worldwork seminars. Worldwork is the extension of process oriented theory and tools to large group and world situations. Worldwork includes all the levels and applications of Process Work, and thus works not only with large groups but with the individuals, relationships, different channel experiences, and sub-groups within the larger group.

As a method of group work, Worldwork stands out due to its roots and philosophy. There are various methods today for working with groups, and some of them, such as organizational development, have a somewhat psychological focus, i.e., on the importance of the dreams and visions of a group. What fascinates me about Worldwork, and what keeps me hanging in there in apparently chaotic, violent or scary situations, is the process-oriented idea that what is happening is potentially meaningful, that the seeds of resolution exist within what looks like impossible conflict. This hopeful attitude is most inspiring to me about Worldwork - it provides me both with a framework that makes sense in regard to group work and conflict resolution, and with skills and metaskills that develop out of the momentary situation with each group.

So - with that in mind, I'd like to take on an impossible task and attempt to summarize some of the events of the last two Worldwork seminars, which took place in June/July 1991 on the Oregon coast in the United States, and in June 1992 in Stoos, Swit-

zerland. The feature articles that follow in the journal are about specific aspects of Worldwork. This article is more of an overview, an attempt to provide an introduction for those of you who are reading the journal, but who may not have experienced process oriented Worldwork first hand. What follows are my impressions, my experiences of the group and my own learning. I know from talking to other participants that people have had very different experiences of the seminars, and that my experiences may not ring true for others, but I hope they'll provide a feeling sense of these powerful seminars.

The main point I would like to make is about the way I personally have felt changed by the experience of the Worldwork seminars. I found the emotional experiences of these large groups very intense, and difficult to articulate, due in part to feeling so many different things during the course of the group processes throughout the seminar. Being in a large group of people where the focus is on the issues the group wants to work on is different than any other experience I have had in a group. At these seminars the format is designed to provide lots of large group focus. Typically, in the mornings, the large group would come together, learn theory, and then have a group focus on whatever issues the group "decided" to focus on for an hour or more. Often before or after these group processes we would focus on learning exercises. In the afternoon, groups of about ten people met with Process Work facilitators to work on learning and to practice Worldwork skills. These groups also provided a forum to process issues in a smaller group. In the late afternoon smaller groups could bring their problem areas back to the large

group, and all of us could learn from the different issues which arose in the small groups. Following this was an open seat, where an individual or couple or small group could work on issues which related to the large group. Evenings had various foci, ranging from presentations by people from different countries about their situations, to theory, questions, and more group process. The format of these seminars is thus very group-oriented, with a combination of theory, focus on the large group, and focus in smaller groups, plus learning how to be aware of oneself while in a group.

To spend two weeks with a large group of people with the goal of focusing on what emerges, particularly with regard to unresolved cultural issues, is a deeply moving experience of high emotional intensity. The closest feeling comparison I personally can make is to travelling in areas of tension i.e., across the Greek/Turkish border. When I made this crossing in 1987, the tension between those two countries was palpable, almost visible in the air. I was travelling by bus from Athens to Istanbul. We all had to get off the bus, stand in a line, and be searched by both Greek and Turkish border police, who were carrying machine guns and looking as if they wouldn't hesitate to use them. Then we had to get back on a different bus, since the busses weren't allowed to cross the border due to fears of terrorism, to make the rest of the journey through Turkey. The procedure was repeated in reverse when we re-entered Greece. The flags of the two nations were flying on poles not ten feet apart, but the feeling was of controlled separation, caution, and difference. That was my first experience of being in a group where it felt that half the people wanted to annihilate the other half.

At the Worldwork seminars, there were also times when the tension was very high, when it seemed that two sides of a conflict would settle for no solution other than murder. The difference in the Worldwork seminars was that while the emotional affect was high, i.e., when we worked as a group on racism, homophobia, the Polish-Russian conflict, the Nazi-

Jewish conflict - the tension was being processed, so that eventually on most issues there was some resolution2 in our group of two to three hundred people. While the experience of sitting in and working on the tension was very difficult to sustain at times, I was left at the end of both these seminars with a feeling of hope. I felt changed inside just by having sat with a group of people who were interested in meeting and working on the issues that we felt were important. Since I have felt so different inside after each of these seminars, I imagined that others have been changed too, and that each one of us would probably go out in the world with the seeds of a different approach in us which we would then share with other people. Even when I felt that I personally was in no way up to the task of working on the apparently intractable conflicts of the world, at least I felt that I and others were interested in trying to learn and do something about the issues that trouble our planet and lead us to slaughter each other physically and emotionally. This emotional experience of hope and the feeling of desire to attempt change on a small level that I was left with after the seminars has been the most important personal learning for me, in addition to all the other skills and attitudes I have learned.

I am now going to attempt to cover some of the events and learnings of the past two Worldwork seminars.

A Note on Language Usage

I refer often to Arnold Mindell, who led with Amy Mindell the two Worldwork seminars. His name comes up often because many of my learnings were around his theoretical teaching and interventions. In the casual style of these seminars, I refer to him as "Amy."

In an attempt to provide the reader with a sense of immediacy and participation in these seminars, the narrative about the seminar events is in the present tense.

At times there was a clear consensus about what issues to focus on. At other times, the most vocal proponents of an issue brought their issue out before the less vocal issues. At times, there were struggles withinin the group for which issues should be focused on, and struggles about the decision making process itself.

"Resolution" is used here in a specific sense. Li group process, after issues have been worked with and the emotional background atmosphere addressed (through specific skills and metaskills) there is often a moment when change occurs, when a room that has been filled with tension feels quiet, or calm. These resolutions may be momentary or longer term. They typically occur when all parts in the field have expressed themselves.

Worldwork, Summer 1991, Oregon coast

The first Worldwork seminar. The first evening. It's the end of June on the Oregon coast. Over 200 people have assembled in the large room at the Bay-shore Inn in Waldport, a small town. This seminar is in the United States, and the majority of the participants are American citizens, most of them white. There are people from all over the world, including people from the (then) Soviet Union, Poland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Greece, England and Canada. This hotel, with its large conference room, has been used before for Amy's process work seminars, and it usually starts to feel crowded to me with about eighty people present. I'm feeling a little bit claustrophobic and overwhelmed with so many bodies in the space. It's hard to see over people, and it seems that it will be difficult to leave the room with so many people. One of the first things I noticed was that I was checking the exit routes - something about the Worldwork topic, the large group format, made me nervous and anxious that I might not enjoy whatever I imagined was coming. A group focusing on its issues, for two weeks? Sounds wonderful and terrifying.

The theory begins with ideas about leadership, particularly that we have been brought up to believe in one leader, usually somebody outside of ourselves.

Amy emphasizes that leadership is a shared role, that all of us are leaders and teachers. This theme stays in my mind throughout the seminar, although much of the time I feel that I am able to take over the leadership position in such minimal ways. But the idea is there like a spirit, leading me on.

Racism

One of the first issues which arises in the group as a whole has to do with racism. One African American man is upset about the way a dispute over the seminar costs is being framed. He feels that European Americans are framing the issue from their culture, and dealing with his upset about this by trying to get him to accept his minority status. One European woman talks to the man, wanting him to open his heart. He speaks of wanting her and the world to change, about not wanting to give but to be given the material things his people were promised, "forty acres and a mule." Amy speaks from the African American position, saying that the European American side expects him to be forgiving because they are feeling loving and guilty, but that he was promised something which he was not given and he is angry and does not want to change and be forgiving.

Other people begin to speak, are angry about a psychology that tries to take away the anger of the social victim rather than to listen to the rage and to change as a result of it. This leads eventually to a feeling and realization on the part of the white North Americans that it is unfair and unrealistic to expect forgiveness from black Americans, that it is the responsibility of the whites to recognize the wrongs we as a group have perpetrated and to hear the pain and anger about the past and the present from the black group.

It is fascinating for me to see how the issue emerges and needs to be addressed on the large group, small group and individual levels, and that just addressing it in one realm is insufficient. Racism emerges powerfully in the process of an individual woman who speaks about her experiences growing up as an African American woman and being hated

He is referring here to a promise made by the United States government to former slaves after the civil war. Each freed slave was promised that the government would provide forty acres of land and a mule. This promise was broken. As a white North American woman of European ancestry, I'm speaking from my own perspective, and am aware that there are many other perspectives. Thus I use "we" as a member of a privileged group who learned about my own privilege from this experience.

for her color. Next, the racial issue comes up between two members of one of the smaller groups, this time between an African American woman andaEuropean American woman. The African American woman speaks of how tired she is of dealing with the projections on her brown skin which she has faced since childhood. After this confrontation, the white members of the group want to work on our racism. This was a powerful confrontation for me, in which I learned as a white woman how much I need to work on my own racism, by myself and with other white people, rather than expecting help or support from people of color. I'm startled to discover this particular racist attitude in myself, that to work on racism I need the input or assistance of people of color. It's a painful but powerful revelation. Throughout the first day, the topic of racism has been expressing itself at so many different levels, giving our group a chance to work on ourselves as a large group, in relationships, and on our individual pieces of the problem. The next day an individual brings up his own racist projections onto people of color, completing an aspect of the process which hadn't been addressed.

Women and Men

The next issue to surface in the large group is the dynamics between men and women. A number of conflicts between individual men and women arise and are not resolved, and one woman screams out her feelings furiously. The group is trying to listen, and Amy is facilitating by pointing out how hard it is to truly listen to anger but that the group is trying. The men's subgroup wants to work on its issues first, and gains consensus with the whole group to do this. The men's subgroup works on feelings and pain and it is powerful to watch. One of my learnings here was a generalization from my learning in the group process around racism. What I discovered in myself was what a relief it was to watch a group of men working on themselves. I realized that I as a woman had often worked on myself and my development around sexism and oppression, but that I also wanted to witness men, the group by whom I felt oppressed, working on themselves around these issues of power and oppression.

Quiet People and the Nature of the Group

At the beginning of the second week, the first issue in the group is the emergence of the quiet people. Amy helps one individual complete a process and says that these are important moments of resolution for the group when one person can finish up with

something. In relation to this process, he talks about the feelings people sometimes have of hating groups or the world, feeling that the group or the world is too big. This is interesting to me due to my feelings at the beginning of the seminar that the group was too big. I notice that I haven't been feeling that since the first night, before we started to focus on our issues as a group. Amy points out that feeling that the group is too big is an edge, and the question to ask when a person feels this way is, "Too big for what?" I ask myself this question and realize that my feeling in the beginning had to do with past large group experiences when I felt that nothing "real" happened. I was afraid that the group was too big for real feelings or issues to emerge. The minute that we as a group were actually working on the emotional background, and on issues that were important to us, I no longer felt that the group was too big. In fact, it began to feel less crowded to me in the room than it had in past smaller seminars, when there had been far fewer people in the space.

Criticism of the Leader

Another interesting group process is around criticism of the leadership. Amy makes a fascinating intervention as leader by bringing himself forward as the leadership to be criticized. People bring in various areas where they are unhappy with the leadership.

This stood out to me in particular because I had never seen a leader invite criticism, listen to it, and encourage people to really explore their feelings and ideas about him/her as a leader in particular and leadership in general. This learning stays with me, and I've found it useful over and over again in situations where I am the identified leader.

Nazi/Jewish Conflict

A very powerful moment in the large group, and an event I will always remember, is around a confrontation between a young Jewish woman whose parents had been in concentration camps and a man, blinded in World War II, who was a soldier in Hitler's army. The interaction between the two of them is very strong, with the young woman begging, provoking, pleading with the older man to feel and express any emotion about having been a soldier, about having been in some way responsible for the pain, torture and death of so many people. He is not in a place to do this. The issue doesn't resolve between the two of them and the tension is incredible. The next morning, the group goes on with the process. Different people attack the German man, placing him on "trial." Amy

helps him with his side and talks about how the "Jewish" side will keep resurfacing until some resolution is reached. He makes an analogy with other situations, where the side which has been persecutory, here the "Nazis," expects the other side to drop the issue, but that this is impossible; when people have been so badly battered they can't let go. He says that the only thing which relieves this kind of situation is for the side which has been oppressive not to expect any kind of forgiveness.

The group itself changes when people begin to speak about their feelings of responsibility during World War II. A Swiss man speaks about his own family history of not assisting the Jews with asylum during the War. Other people talk about ways in which they or their families have been responsible for persecution. The Jewish group also begins to talk about its own anti-Semitism. Afterwards, the feeling in the group is different - it has reached a momentary resolution after the "Nazi" side takes some responsibility and the "Jewish" side admits its own tendency to anti-Semitism. (I have put these labels in quotes throughout to emphasize that the positions are also roles. It was clear during the group process that all the parts were present in everyone, and many people were able to speak out for both sides.)

After this process, Amy also talks about how the "Jewish" group was at an edge to say they will never forgive, can't forgive. He talks about the dynamics of "Hitler" within the Jewish group, that there is a strong pressure to be rational, to make what happened insignificant, to be anti-Semitic.

Minority Issues, Pain, and Listening

Arny also talks about the general learning around listening to the pain of the minority. He says that if the pain of the minority is not heard and appreciated, it will escalate. Paradoxically, if it is heard, the people in the role then feel free to step out - but if they are expected to get out of the role it will never work. Arny talks about how we can learn only through suffering something. This process happened first between the black and white sides, and then the same process occurred between the Nazi and Jewish sides. Arny says that this is because we need to suffer through these things personally in some way to really get the learning.

Gay and Lesbian Issues

The next process that emerges in the large group is about homosexuality. An interesting point about this issue is that there is a lot of fighting and process

for the issue to be worked on. The issue is brought up, but other issues emerge around it, and there is a struggle about what to focus on. The gay and lesbian issue has to fight for focus and attention. The group equates this to the world situation where the gay and lesbian groups have to fight for attention. The issue does get focus when someone says that the only way for this issue to get focus is for it to be forced on the group, because people who are against the issue will never give consensus for it to receive attention.

As the group begins to focus on the issue, gay and lesbian participants tell personal stories about the pain of oppression, such as not being able to marry a same sex partner, being in physical danger as a result of sexual orientation, being identified as straight or homosexual when one is actually bisexual, etc. Arny suggests that since so many people are feeling persecuted that the homophobic feelings must also be in the room and that it would be useful for the group to play out the conflict. The gay and lesbian and anti-gay and lesbian sides become involved in a heated debate, going back and forth. In the large group role play, the issue isn't resolved, and Arny brings up an interesting point that the issue is not at all resolved in the outer world and it doesn't seem that it could resolve on the world or the large group level because it was not resolved on the individual and relationship level. The group then did a learning exercise in dyads about homophobia and homosexual feelings.

Asian Perspective

There are several Asian and Asian American participants in the seminar, and the large group seems eager to address the Asian subgroup. The Asian subgroup comes into the middle of the big circle, and begins to sort out how it wants to work on itself. Arny brings up Tiannamen Square, where student activists had been killed by the Chinese government earlier in the year. He honors the Asian inner-directed method of working on events, and says that nothing needs to be done about the events at Tiannamen Square, but he wants to mention it as something in the air.

Then the Asian subgroup works on itself - this is very interesting as people talk about the differences between Japan and the United States. The Japanese people explain how in their country, the doors between people seem to be closed in the beginning, that people have a rhythm of getting to know one another that is slower than in the United States. They contrast this to their experiences of being in the United States, where doors between people may seem very open in the beginning, but that over time, the opening may

not be as consistent or as wide as it was first presented to be.

A number of people speak about their experiences of not being truly seen as individuals with unique and different backgrounds, heritage, ethnicity and history. One Chinese American woman tells some of her personal story about growing up as a Chinese American. Others talk about being seen only as "Asian" and not as first or second generation Americans, as Japanese, Chinese, Korean or of mixed heritage.

Final Musings

At the end of the seminar, I know I have been involved in an experience that has changed me inside, and feel that I've been lucky to be with a group which has focused on so many areas that I might not otherwise have learned about. In the time that has passed since the seminar, my various learnings about oppression, leadership, and the capacity of a group to work through painful topics return again and again.

Worldwork, Summer 1992, Stoos, Switzerland

This year I notice that I'm less nervous, even though there are more people. Over 250 people from more than 30 countries, all gathered together. In Europe this year, the feeling is different. We're meeting in Stoos, a tiny village in the foothills of the Swiss alps. No cars are allowed in the village, and we have come up by funicular train, a sort of cable track conveyance that goes up a steep hill where it looks like nothing could go except a mountain goat. The setting is idyllic - isolated, beautiful vistas of the valley and lakes below, misty green mountains around the village, a brown wooden church in the

meadow, and a huge hall, the Reithalle, where we are going to meet. The hall was originally for indoor horse riding, and it is enormous. Last year, I felt as if the group were pushing the physical limits of the room, like we might burst out the windows at any moment. This year, with everyone present, there is much more space around our group than we are filling in the room. I don't think I've ever been in such a large indoor space that wasn't a stadium filled with seats. The group feels much more international this year. Little groups of people chat in many languages, and I'm aware that there are some I can't identify.

Amy begins by talking about theory, and I'm immediately struck by something interesting which I haven't thought about before, his idea of standard projections and Worldwork consciousness. He talks about how many of us are often not aware of our own unconscious beliefs about men, women, all different colors of people, countries, sexual orientations, etc. He points out that we don't intend to be hurtful with our lack of awareness of our beliefs about people, but that what we believe unconsciously causes lots of pain. On the flip side, he talks about the usefulness of being aware of how the world will perceive you, even if you don't identify with it. People notice certain things about me if I am a female North American of European ancestry in my 30s; it behooves me to be aware of what will commonly be projected onto me because of this, regardless of my own personal psychology and whether or not the projections fit. This is an enlightening new perspective, and one that has often since been useful to note, both when I have been the projector and the one projected on.

Racism from Many Points of View

The first group process in the large group focuses on racism, and the conditions of the Kurdish people. The whole group is rapidly involved, and we move into social activism at the end of the process, with a decision to form a committee to take political action. The large group focuses on different aspects of racism for several days - the black and white issues in the United States, the oppression of the Kurdish people, the dynamics of racism and privilege. Another interesting aspect of the racism process is between two leaders in the African American community who have different opinions on how to deal with pain from the past. What emerges from this is awareness of diversity within the community (and in any individual), and an appreciation for different points of view.

Amy speaks about privilege in a profound and moving way during a group process on racism, pointing out that one of the privileges of any dominant culture is the privilege not to listen to the pain of the oppressed group. To listen is the beginning of giving up privilege. In this case, listening is the very beginning of working on racism and giving up the privilege of not having to listen to the groups who have suffered from the racism of the dominant culture.

This idea of privilege is very moving for me personally and forces me to take a look at myself. I notice how much easier it is for me to focus on the ways in which I feel or have felt oppressed, as a woman, as a bisexual or a lesbian, as a survivor of abuse. It's harder to begin to look at the privileges I do have, as a person who was raised in an upper middle class family, as a person of European ancestry, as a person who has had the opportunities of higher education. I watch myself flip back and forth inside every time I identify one of the ways in which I am privileged, the little voices that say, "but what about such and such disadvantage..." It's hard to stay with the privilege part, to truly identify with it, but it feels right to me. I see how focusing only on the ways in which I feel oppressed prevents me from being able to truly listen to any other person's or group's pain.

Creating Conflict

Another learning that sticks out for me in these first days of processing racism is the idea of creating conflict. Amy points out that creating conflict is a useful thing to do; that if we let potential conflicts slide by, i.e., if somebody makes a racist, sexist, homophobic, nationalistic, etc., remark, and I ignore it, I'm not doing anything useful. In fact, I'm perpetuating the attitudes behind the remark. I've been so trained to avoid conflict that it is really helpful to think that I could be doing more good for the world and myself by noticing the implied conflicts and bringing them out in the open.

Psychiatric Repression

Awareness of how the psychiatric system represses many people emerges as an issue in the group. Several people courageously speak up about their experiences on the receiving end of psychiatry and psychiatric hospitalization. Amy makes an interesting point that one of the reasons psychology and psychiatry have been so repressive is that they have been developed primarily by individuals and have focused very much on individual psychology. They haven't had much group awareness, and they haven't

developed out of the processes of groups. Therefore, they end up reflecting whatever the individuals who develop them are against and are thus racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnocentric, and oppressive in many ways.

Language Awareness

A number of interesting points around language use emerge during the seminar. One of the first issues to come up is around the political implications and awareness of language. I'm left thinking of the many ways in which our language usage is unconsciously racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnocentric.

Another language issue that surfaces regularly is that of the privilege of speaking English, and the fact that many of the seminar participants are not speaking their first language.

Women and Men

The issue of women and men and the relationships between them arises in the group, and we process it in the large group. There are several edges in the process - for the two groups to confront each other and have it out; to feel and mourn over the pain of the issue; to take over the role of the abuser.

Amy talks in detail about working on the abuse, i.e., that it's not ethical to expect people to just be able to pick up the role of the abuser and that to expect this is to perpetuate the abuse. He talks about the need people often have to work on abusive situations privately before working on them in public. He also talks about the interesting dynamics of different ways that abuse can manifest. For example, survivors of abuse need coalitions, but building coalitions against the abuser can become abusive.

Amy talks about revenge in relationship to abuse and his learning from working with "terrorists" or "freedom fighters." He talks about the way that revenge can temporarily relieve intense pain - there comes a point where the body/psyche is in so much pain that it just flips and goes for revenge and that this can temporarily relieve the pain.

Gay and Lesbian Issues

In this seminar, as in the first seminar, the topic of gay and lesbian issues goes through hot debate about whether or not to address it before it is focused on by the group. The issue is finally pushed forward strongly, and the group begins to focus on it. An interesting development that is different from the previous year is that many people who identify themselves as heterosexual want the issue to be addressed,

saying that they feel their own issues usually come first.

Quickly this year many people come forward and take up the homophobic side, which is different than the previous year when people were not so quick to take up this side. Different feelings are expressed on this side, including parents wanting their own children not to be gay or lesbian, and the feeling that heterosexual sex and love is superior. This constellates a conflict between a lesbian woman and an older heterosexual woman who has been expressing these feelings, and the two women work on their conflict until it reaches a momentary resolution. The feeling in the group is very real, and escalates, with lots of passion on both sides. One man then comes forward and says he feels that homosexuality is a choice and not something to be worked on, and that homosexuals are the cause of AIDS. At this point the group erupts into shouting and anger on both sides, and both sides of the issue look similar, except that on the homosexual side there are little groups of people crying. This issue doesn't resolve itself, and Amy points out that this is an expression of the world and an issue that isn't able to be resolved in the large group. Many of the small groups worked on this issue later in the afternoon.

The Environment, and How Issues are Addressed

The environment and environmentalism surfaces regularly as an issue, but the group doesn't focus much on it. There is one strong moment when a woman screams loudly with what she then explains is an expression of the pain of the world. Other issues (the world finance system, work with the develop-mentally delayed, etc.) have emerged at different times, and have not been addressed. At the end of the seminar, the group begins to discuss how issues are brought up and which ones are addressed. There are many aspects to this - that the loudest speakers are

able to get the attention, and that the interest that is able to push its way to the front is the one which gets the focus.

On the last day, the group decides to have the people who have been more quiet go into the middle in an attempt to address things in a different way. A number of people speak about their feelings, and then a woman whose parents are Italian talks about her personal experience of having no place. She has been born in Switzerland and has lived there all her life, but due to the legal system, she does not have Swiss citizenship. She thus doesn't have the privilege of voting or of leaving the country at will. In fact, if she is gone more than a certain amount of time, she will not be able to return to Switzerland. The group is brought together around this quiet woman speaking out, and there is a special feeling atmosphere as the seminar is closing up.

In Closing

Once again, I am left moved and inspired after the seminar, feeling that my learnings from the previous Worldwork seminar have been deepened and that V ve learned many new things. I look forward to these ongoing seminars, and feel that dealing with the emotional aspects of groups, and really processing the issues which emerge, makes a difference in the state of the world.

Leslie Heizer has a PhD. in Clinical Psychology and is a diploma candidate in process work. She has a private practice in therapy where she especially enjoys working with adolescents. Leslie is assistant editor-in-chief of this journal and also works at the Process Work Center of Portland as the Master's program registrar. She hopes to be reincarnated as a cat.