Self-creation is an art of fire. – M.C. Richards Staying in the fire means letting ourselves cook. It is not so difficult when the heat is low, when we are simply annoyed by aspects of our own or others’ behavior. It grows more difficult when we argue, stop listening, grow frustrated, and see all progress, or any hope of it, come to a screeching halt. When we wonder why we are here and what will ever come of the process. When the animal instinct in us is to fight or flee. Caught in these traps, we commonly react by attacking others, compromising ourselves, or seeking easy solutions. Some might look for a leader to take charge or try to force their will on the group. Others constrict attention and insist upon sticking to the agenda, or deny that anything is wrong. Sometimes breakdown occurs. We ordinarily think of this as a failure in group process, and it might be. But it also might be precisely what the group needs to coalesce at a deeper level, to discover a sense of purpose or direction, to nurture learning or innovation. This is when staying in the fire is crucial. When our bodies are filled with overpowering emotion or the group field is charged with tension, we stay conscious and work with what is arising instead of acting out. We contain and ground the electricity that runs through us like lightning, seeking a target. We trust that, even if we burn, we will rise like the phoenix from the ashes. In fact, breakthrough may require that our current identities or conditioning be consumed. Staying in the fire, we form the alchemical vessel in which emotional transformation can occur. As an archetypal practice, staying in the fire expresses our faith in the regenerative capacities of soul and spirit. It purifies and prepares us, reflecting our willingness to be changed by the encounter with our own depths, others, and the world. It signals our dedication to each other, to the possibilities present in our meeting, to the process of presencing, and to what we are creating together. Several years ago, fishermen and environmentalists in the northeast United States met to create a new organizational vehicle for resolving disputes and developing community-based approaches to sustainable stewardship of marine resources. At the time, fishermen were often engaged in conflict with one another over fishing territories, sometimes even shooting at each other. Fishermen generally viewed environmentalists as hostile to their livelihood, and environmentalists viewed fishermen as ignorant of ecology. Both groups struggled with representatives of the federal and state governments who were tightening the rules and regulations on the fishing industry in ways not informed by local wisdom. When they first met to pursue their bold and far-sighted aim of creating an unprecedented collaborative, neither trust nor affection was much present. Early meetings sometimes devolved into shouting matches. Accusations flew as participants pounded the tables and took advantage of the context to bring long-simmering grudges forward. There were many moments when the process could easily have imploded, if not for participants’ willingness to endure the volcanic eruptions of deep emotion and work through distrust, anger, resentment, and frustration until something else emerged. The tide turned when men and women at the table began looking beyond what separated them to what they most fundamentally wanted for themselves, their children, and their communities. There they discovered common ground in a set of fundamental human concerns, including concern for the health of our larger environment, that transcended the many more specific issues on which they disagreed. Trust in one another may not have been present when they began, but commitment to the process was. By staying in the fire together, they developed confidence in themselves, personal and collective self-knowledge, trust in and affection for one another, an innovative organizational concept to guide their work, and a commitment to moving forward together that was unshakably rooted in the strong bonds that were forged by their staying in the fire. In wrestling with deep and complex issues that affected livelihoods and the future of their communities, they did not resort to scapegoating. They did not settle for premature solutions or the familiar compromises that would have eased the pressure. Knowing these courses were dead ends, they followed their anger and fear all the way down to their roots in much more basic human aspirations. They stayed this intense, challenging course even though they did not know where it would lead.
Posted on: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 00:12:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015