This discussion took place via several emails which initiated with the Community Ed committee but quickly became relevant for the whole Board. Also, there were a few different threads. I've combined them here to the best of my ability and am posting them so everyone can read them as one coherent discussion.

Next steps are to be determined, but I think we should invite all "would-be" presenters to join the Deep Educators group (or another one created for them if need be) and host these kinds of discussions for them and with them. Please weigh in by commenting below if you like.

______________________________________________________________________

 August 9-11, 2013

BONNIE

I wanted to to check in with you regarding the Community Ed committee and brainstorm how we should best move forward on the Community Education initiative. James, Patricia, and Jesse: you were on the original kick-off call for the committee, and Craig, Donna, and Michael: you have each volunteered an offering for the program so for now, I'm hoping you'll participate on the committee since you have a hands-on perspective.

Currently we have 22 respondents (including Michael and Donna) to the survey asking individuals if they'd like to present in some way. As we began discussing this initiative among the board, some expressed a desire to create a process to screen and vet these individuals so we felt comfortable with what and how they would present. I am all for that, but would like to streamline that process as much as possible because it could be rather time-consuming depending on how we go about it. 

I personally know (or know of) a handful of these people and would feel comfortable giving the go-ahead based on how they answered the survey and what I know about them (including Donna and Michael, of course). I was wondering if you would each look at the list and see if you know any of them and feel the same way (List is attached to this email) or you can view all the results of the survey online here: http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e7qzr1vhhihns1i6/results

Beyond that, I would like to know how you all think would be best to move forward at this stage? 

1)--How do you think we should best go about vetting the ones we don't know...a phone call from one of us? Something else? Keep in mind they can choose to participate in a number of ways and some will want to offer an audio teleseminar or webinar while others might just agree to host a written group online.

2)--What's the easiest way to move forward and get the "program" up and running? As you may know, Craig has stepped up to offer a webinar on "Mythic Activism" which we scheduled for August 28 (Link here: http://www.depthpsychologyalliance.com/events/webinar-mythic-activism-telling-the-story-behind-the-story-craig ).  Donna and Michael, would you be ready to do something soon and what would you most like to do?

3)--Should we identify the ones we know and ask them to pick a date? Technically, because the Alliance events pages are only viewable to members,  I will need to create a "public" web page so we can appeal to everyone who is not yet a member, so I will need to know as far in advance as I can so I can pace my time investment.

4)--Shall we schedule a general training call to teach everyone how to use the software for teleseminar/webinar--or would any of you be wiling/able to learn it (it's very simple) and train people as needed?

What else? I'm open and really wanting to take some action. Hopefully you feel the same. If anyone would like to head up this committee and drive the next steps, I welcome  that as well. Otherwise, if you can offer your opinions, that will be great.

CRAIG

The only name on the list I recognize is Katrina's, and I'm glad to recommend her.

1. What about a Skype call with the potential presenter and, if they have it, a sample of them doing a presentation somewhere? If not, asking them to explain their topic--"Give me the two-minute version of your presentation"--might suffice. Perhaps also a short list of related presentations they've done in the past.

2. This is very general, but: I'd like to explore at some point what the Alliance can offer the non-member public. Both for free and for fees or donations. Most people don't even know what depth psychology is, let alone why they should be interested in what it offers. But that's not hard to demonstrate to people. 

Many organizations host events for the public with a discount for members. Salons, webinars, panel discussions, workshops, even conferences could offer applications of depth psychology to current events or everyday issues. 

I hope to do a bit of that with the upcoming Mythic Activism slideshow, but the possibilities for more public involvement are endless. A few off the top of my head: What does DP have to say about global warming and the defenses we use to ignore it? What myths are being reenacted in Washington DC (which, by the way, is situated between rivers that look like fallopian tubes: Woombington DC, where maturity is rare), or in Moscow (where the revolving wheel rolls throughout its history), Tokyo, etc.? How is the rise of the computer the return of the Golem, and mass surveillance the many-eyed Argus? What about a personal myth workshop, or one on basic dream analysis? A film interpretation evening? Something on psychological types, symptom interpretation, shadow/projection work, etc

3. I'd be in favor of scheduling the folks we know and picking dates.

4. I'd be glad to get trained, although once Fall semester starts I probably won't have time to do trainings for other people.

JAMES:

Just to weigh in here: I generally agree with Craig in regard to 1. Giving the go ahead to people you/we know and feel comfortable with and 2. Vetting others with Skype and/or brief sample presentation, along with an outline.

My only other suggestion/question would be: how might we develop some kind of basic outline that asks presenters to meet certain objectives such as (and I'm just brainstorming here, these are not actual suggestions); How is your program congruent with the DPA's values and mission; how will it further these goals?; How will your program empower participants in their own lives?; How will your program contribute to raising consciousness around issues that are important to humanity today? Questions like that.

In other words, I would like to see us push presenters to raise the bar and think about how addressing individual concerns can/will impact big picture issues. In other words, can the DPA really impact and be part of the groundswell of those who want to raise consciousness on a global level.

These last ideas are as much questions to the board (i.e. is this something we want to think about?) as they are (potential) suggestions.

MICHAEL

I agree that there are many venues by which we can promote DPA. I speak and do a variety of classes and will promote this alliance as I come to understand it more. Are we looking to add those who have a nascent interest, or just those who are "professionals"? Is it possible or feasible to create (or maybe it already exists) some hard copy literature to make available at public presentations? I am an enthusiastic promoter once I am clear and convinced about the object/subject of promotion.

Another concern, one that often arises for me and a "minority" of DP folks I know, is that of political affiliation and points of view. Issues like global warming, abortion, the Tea Party, progressive v. conservative, race and gender issues, et. al. are not "matters of faith" as I understand the DP approach. Twenty years ago I left the evangelical movement because they were intolerant of my liberal views; today I am finding my many progressive New Age and Jungian friends can be just as dogmatic and intolerant (though much sweeter and passive aggressive ) of conservative and libertarian views. I wasn't a fan of conservative religionists dressing their morality or politics in the biblical myths, nor am I fan of liberal progressives taking the same approach with other myths. 

I say openly that I am not a fan of this President and believe that both/all sides of the socio-cultural issues are fair game for a depth analysis. Mythically speaking, traditionalist and progressive archetypal perspectives are equally valid and of value. If I am expected to line up with a certain socio-political creed, it won't work. I am pretty sure that is not the case, but wanted to make sure. And, I am pretty sure that most of the members of this group will be making certain assumptions that I may not always make. My intention is neither to cause problems nor stir the pot just to be stirring, but to make sure that Psyche in all her various guises is genuinely welcome.

CRAIG

I too like the screening idea. Some months back I watched a presenter at a school gathering ramble incoherently for an hour. I found out later that nobody had inquired about whether the presenter could present.

I guess I don't see that depth psychology isn't political. Jung, Adler, William James, Wilhelm Reich, Harry Stack Sullivan, and many others have espoused political causes like women's rights and public education. Andrew Samuels wrote an entire book on Jungian psych and politics; Mary Watkins writes and lectures on behalf of migrant worker rights. By exploring the question of vanishing bees, Bonnie is looking at a very political question. 

However, I definitely support refraining from pushing a particular party or agenda, especially these days when big problems like climate change cross all political divides. Ecopsychology started as a counterculture movement with a heavily liberal back-to-nature agenda. Result: the shadow this constellated has now hardened into a clique of technocrats attempting to commercialize, professionalize, and take over the field. Had the first ecopsychologists been clearer about what their outlook excluded, they might not be facing a loss of professional standing and voice. 

PATRICIA

Very exciting to see this is underway with Craig's upcoming Mythic Activism webinar! As I regroup I too would enjoy presenting, but I also need to watch one or two to have some idea how to do it!  I will need to listen to the recording of Craig's webinar online, as it is in the middle of a work afternoon, but I love that fact this is all getting going. 

I think the questions brought up by several are very good ones. First and immediately, Depth Psychology is not political nor does any one group have a leg up on it, so to speak!  While I hope that there is always room for opposing views and stances, and differences (and given the diversity of members, how could this not be?) I also hope that the space of the Alliance does not become a platform pushing any agenda other than that of communion and communication in a deep way about meaning. Differences make it more interesting and alive; proselytizing, a turn off, and keeps things shallow. Sometimes there is a fine line! We have gotten so divided in our country that it is hard to have a real conversation about differences of thought on some of these issues, like climate change, race and gender, abortion, and certainly politics.  Perhaps in screening these potential presenters this would be one thing we look for. The presenter needs to be able to hold a space that is not a bully pulpit, that allows real discussion even from views very different from his or her own. Perhaps some screening questions would be, Are you able to handle provocative statements from participants in ways that promote discussion and a real examination of the issue? What would be controversial about what you are presenting? etc.  If nothing else, it may train the presenter in a Depth Alliance perspective of holding opposites in a productive way.  

I like James' ideas on screening and his questions about why this presentation belongs on Depth Alliance.  As this gets going I am sure other screening questions will rise. I think we need to know something about presenters and what they have done before in order to select. We could get some real doozies if we do not, and while I am totally open and supportive of diversity of topics, I think we need to screen the person presenting as best we can for competence not only in his or her field, but also in ability to present. 

Anyway,  this is all proceeding wonderfully, and I look forward to the results. My sadness that I cannot more fully participate at this time.

BONNIE

Thank you, Patricia, for your valuable insights. I'm also forwarding this to the whole board so we all have access to the conversation, which is so rich!

I'm realizing this would be an fascinating discussion to have in a group of presenters and that led me to the understanding that this is also part of one of Craig's initiatives, that of Deep Educators. Perhaps we should require everyone who is approved to present to join the Deep Educators group that is just getting going and host these kinds of conversations based on questions that you are all introducing here. We could use it in part as a training platform, but not necessarily on technical issues but on really delving into what it means to be an depth psychology educator in the community...?

Craig, it's your group so I don't want to assume anything but it seems to be a close correlation.

PATRICIA

I like this suggestion, Bonnie, to require presenters to enter this discussion (maybe I better check it out as I have not1) as a kind of training/ statement of responsibility in doing presentations through a depth psychology lens.

JAMES:

This interview with Murray Stein may be of interest in the context of this discussion: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pythia-peay/american-psyche_b_1922820.html

The issue of opposites and opposing viewpoints is not only important to the DPA in terms of political questions, but also in terms of negotiating differing views within the various Depth Psychologies that we hope to promote. I think these are all very important topics. How well we navigate these potentially turbulent waters may have an important impact on how effective we are in achieving our goals.

BONNIE 

Thanks so much for the link to this interview. I had read it awhile back, but it's a great reminder for our discussion here. I particularly like this quote from Murray Stein:

"Differences are necessary in order to have growth and dynamic movement. Out of the dialectic between two polarities, a new possibility emerges. But if the "opposites," or in this case the two parties, become completely unrelated, then the collective psyche is in danger of splitting: There's no forward movement, there's just mutual aggression, stalemate and stagnation. The system doesn't evolve, it devolves, and you don't want to see that happen."

I also like his suggestion for using symbols to unite the opposites.

All: I'm combining our entire "discussion" and placing it online in the Alliance Board Group (reminder: you can get there by clicking on the small "bee" icon at the top left side of the Alliance home page). We had some fragmentation but I think it's important enough to have it all together in one place for further review.

I'm also working on a "prep sheet' we can use for presenters who are vetted. Take a look here and share your thoughts: ProgramPreparationSheet-AllianceCommunityEd.docx