Stone Soup - How a Group Should Work
(as I recall it)

Long ago in Europe, just after the Thirty Years War came to an end, two weary soldiers were making their long journey home. They had been given a three days supply of food when the army disbanded. Home was at least three weeks away. For the past two days, they had managed to stretch out the last piece of dry bread, but now that was gone.

They had asked people in the villages they passed to give them something to eat, to no avail. The countryside had been scarred by the years of fighting, and times were hard. For years, the villages had been ransacked by one army or the other, and the villagers were not feeling terribly friendly toward soldiers.

After a cold and uncomfortable night's sleep in the fields, the soldiers trudged toward the next village, just visible in the distance.

"Maybe they'll be different," the short soldier said.

"Don't hold your breath," the tall one grumbled. "I think they'd be happy if we starved to death."

"Well," said the first, "I guess we'll just have to make stone soup."

The other rolled his eyes, as if to say, "Great! now you've really lost it."

Meanwhile, the first soldier bent down and carefully selected two roundish dark grey stones, just the size to fit in the palm of the hand. "Just wait till tonight, and you'll see."

By now they were nearer the village, and several children out playing had caught sight of them and run back to warn the others. By the time they arrived, almost everyone had barricaded themselves behind closed doors. Only one old man, who hadn't been able to run as fast as the others, was still hobbling down the street, trying to get home before these outsiders tried to get any of his supplies.

"Good evening, uncle," the short soldier greeted him.

The old man quickly blurted out, "If it's food you're wanting, we don't have any!"

The soldier went on, "We are on a long journey back to our home. It's time to eat, and we're looking for a place to make stone soup for dinner. If you could lend us a big pot, we'd be glad to share it with you and your neighbors."

The old man was so surprised and relieved at hearing that they weren't asking for anything, that he ran and brought a huge pot to the town square, where there was a large open place perfect for cooking.

The villagers, who had been peering out their windows, were curious. When they learned that the soldiers weren't here to take their food, and in fact were planning to share their soup with the village, they gathered around to watch. To tell the truth, they were also a bit skeptical. Just how were those guys going to turn stones into soup?

It took a while for the big pot to come to a boil. Then the short soldier carefully drew the two stones from his pocket. He dusted them both off, and plunked them precisely into the very center of the pot. Then he stirred and stirred, and after a while sipped judiciously from the spoon. "You know," he said to his friend. "I think this is the tastiest stone soup we've ever made. Though maybe it could use a pinch of pepper."

"I might just possibly have a bit of pepper in the kitchen," one of the villagers said; and he soon ran back with pepper, some salt, and a handful of herbs.

The soldiers took turns stirring and tasting. The tall soldier said, "It's really perfect as is, but remember when we had some onions in it? Wasn't that a great soup!" Another of the villagers said, "If I look real hard, I might be able to find an onion or two," and quickly returned with several in her apron.

After several more tastes, the first soldier mused, "Of course, some of our very best stone soups had carrots, too." And a couple of villagers thought they might just have a carrot or two lying around, and returned with their hands full.

Before long, everyone in the village had contributed something to the pot -- potatoes, leeks, a bit of chicken -- whatever they could come up with.

And before long, the stone soup had turned into one of the richest, most delicious, most nourishing soups anyone around could remember. People stayed for seconds, and continued into the night talking and singing. Even the small children were allowed to stay up late, playing and making joyful noise.

Several times during the evening, one villager was heard saying to another, "You think there's something magic about this soup? We haven't eaten this well or had this much fun since the wars began. Let's remember the recipe!"

* * *

Note: There's no copyright on this recipe. Feel free to replicate it whenever you feel hungry.

Notes on Meetings

(On effective group work, constructive criticism, and community-building)

We are all products and to a degree casualties of mass society. We have learned habits and patterns of thought from the mass culture which serve to impede or obstruct the full development of individuals and the building of community. Such impediments are residues of mass culture in which little or nothing is expected of a person participating in a group.

A person's behavior is the best judge of their priorities. Individuals should take responsibility for their own participation and activity in a group and all aspects of group life, by being the active subject rather than the passive object of events. Criticism begins with oneself and change begins first with one's attempting to live the change desired in others.

Ideally leadership is shared. Each person takes responsibility for their own participation in the group and for the well being and direction of the group as a whole. In a community each member assumes equal responsibility for leadership. They do not habitually or unconsciously look to others to perform leadership functions. Nor do they automatically or unselfconsciously look to others to perform leadership functions. In a community all persons are co-responsible for the success or failure of any particular activity or meeting.

Recurrent signs of irresponsible participation in group life which have surfaced in our community life include:

- the failure to prepare for discussion;

- perpetuating passive roles for certain persons against their wishes and choice;

- failing to leave space in discussion for less verbal persons;

- failing to give substance to verbal commitments by a proportional commitment of time and energy to their follow-through;

- arriving late for discussions;

- saying we will do something which we haven't the time or will to do.

In order to overcome such internal impediments to community life, we see the need to work hard to:

1. Share the role of initiating and facilitating group discussions;

2. Make the facilitator's role formal, rather than trusting in informal sharing of this role. This allows more passive persons to participate and more active persons to relax and know that leadership will be taken care of;

3. Specify ahead of time who will facilitate each discussion and share/ rotate such leadership;

4. Project agenda items far enough in advance to allow preparation for discussion and decision making;

5. Arrive in time for discussion and meeting;

6. Make an accurate estimate of the time necessary to follow through on an item for community discussion, and set that amount of time aside;

7. Specify the preparation appropriate for a particular discussion or decision;

8. Meet only if there is a reason for meeting;

9. Prepare for discussions and decision making;

10. Refrain from saying we will do something which we have neither the time, energy nor will to do;

11. Clearly distinguish between meetings which everybody is expected to attend, well-prepared and on time, and gatherings which serve the function of getting to know one another better and building fellowship within the group, but which are optional, less structured and require no preparation.

Community recognizes the variety of gifts and different levels of participation which people may bring to it. A community does not seek an arbitrary and superficial "equality" in levels and types of participation, but creates an atmosphere in which persons feel they have freely chosen their kinds of contributions and level of participation.

***

from the Winter 1980-1981 newsletter of the Resource Center for Nonviolence, P.O. Box 2324, Santa Cruz, CA 95063

Anti-Interupter and Interupters

DEADLOCK?

THE ANTI-INTERRUPTERS VS. THE INTERRUPTERS

ANTI-INTERRUPTERS INTERRUPTERS

"It's obvious-- you're just "It's clear-- you're just selfish
arrogant and inconsiderate. and superior. You deliberately
You're not interested in what refuse to share your ideas with
anyone else has to say." the rest of us."

-- --

"If you cared about my ideas, "If you have ideas, why don't you
you'd leave me room to speak." just jump in and say them."

-- --

"I'm only comfortable if there's "I'm only comfortable if people are
a pause between speakers. I need so interested in the discussion,
room to digest what's been said, and so in tune with each other, that
and get in touch with what I want one person's speaking flows straight
to say." into the next, or interweaves."

-- --

"Starting to speak before the last "Silences mean boredom, non-involve-
person has finished means you ment. We must prevent them at all
weren't listening, or respecting. costs."
Interrupting must be prevented at
all costs."

ABSOLUTISM: "There's only one right answer."

SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS: "I'm the one who's got the right answer."

WIN/LOSE: "If you win, I lose." "For me to win, I've got to make you lose."

POLARIZATION: "There are only two sides, and it's a duel to the death."

NICE-ISM: "Avoid conflict and confrontation at all costs; if something's wrong, look the other way."

CRISIS-LINE: "Quick, quick! do what I say or the sky's going to fall!"

COMPUTER-LINE: "No room for human beings here; we've got business to tend to. Feelings get in the way."

STRUCTURELESSNESS: "Spontaneity is the only virtue. Agendas, facilitating, focus and direction -- all are tyranny."

MARKING TIME: "If we bullshit long enough, we'll never have to act."

STRUCTURISM: "Free exchange of ideas is a waste of time."

CALVINISM: "If we're having fun, something's wrong. We should expect to leave here feeling bad."

PSEUDO-EGALITARIANISM: "Division of labor means hierarchy. We should all be responsible for everything, even if it means nothing gets done."

LEADERISM: "If she/he isn't here we can't proceed." "If we didn't accomplish what we might have, it's because he/she let us down."

GUILT-TRIPPING: "Everyone should put as much time/ commitment into the group as I do. (Work and family and participation in other groups have nothing to do with it.)"

BIG MOMMA (or BIG DADDY): Telling someone what they think, not checking it out, making assumptions about what's in their head. "Don't tell me what you think. I haven't finished telling you!"

LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY: "It doesn't matter whether I do what I said I'd do. Nobody's going to notice (or care)."

UNSPOKEN ORTHODOXY: "There is a (not defined) 'right way to think' in this group. If you think differently, don't let on."

(More -- ?

(from group work in the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, UC Berkeley, 1981)

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM I:

Ground rules

Criticize the act, not the person.
Criticize on the basis of shared principles and goals.
Understand the roots of the problem.
Recognize how each of us has contributed to the problem.
Make specific suggestions for change.

Approach

1) Reveal yourself as you are, without bending to inner or outer pressure to fulfill someone else's conceptions.
2) Give criticism as a statement about yourself, and receive criticism as a statement about the speaker.
3) Experience and express your differentness and conflict as a chance for growth and learning, rather than as rejection.
4) Be committed to sticking with any feelings that arise until each of you feels openly heard and understood.
5) Be responsible for your own boundaries and limits so that you do not pass the blame for what you do or don't do onto someone else.
6) Respect each other's limits.
7) Understand that though you may unintentionally irritate or disappoint each other, you do not intend or want to hurt each other.
8) Give what you can to each other without hurting your own selves.
9) Be as honest and compassionate in criticizing your self as you are in criticizing others.

Modes of response (from Peter Elbow):
letting someone know how what they said affected you

1) Pointing out what struck you most, positively or negatively.
2) Retelling briefly what you understood the other person to have said.
3) Describing your feelings in response to what the other person said.
4) Showing metaphorically -- through color, sound, image, etc., -- the impact the (individual or group) communication had on you.

For instance:
"I feel as if we were sitting around in bow-ties and tuxedoes."
"We started out in grays and brown, but now it's more green."
"There was a mugginess in the air, as if it couldn't quite rain. Then the thunder and lightning made things clear and alive."
"At first it felt like slogging through a swamp with alligators in it."
"The snow's melting, and someone just gave me a mug of hot chocolate."
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM I:

Ground rules

Criticize the act, not the person.
Criticize on the basis of shared principles and goals.
Understand the roots of the problem.
Recognize how each of us has contributed to the problem.
Make specific suggestions for change.

Approach

1) Reveal yourself as you are, without bending to inner or outer pressure to fulfill someone else's conceptions.
2) Give criticism as a statement about yourself, and receive criticism as a statement about the speaker.
3) Experience and express your differentness and conflict as a chance for growth and learning, rather than as rejection.
4) Be committed to sticking with any feelings that arise until each of you feels openly heard and understood.
5) Be responsible for your own boundaries and limits so that you do not pass the blame for what you do or don't do onto someone else.
6) Respect each other's limits.
7) Understand that though you may unintentionally irritate or disappoint each other, you do not intend or want to hurt each other.
8) Give what you can to each other without hurting your own selves.
9) Be as honest and compassionate in criticizing your self as you are in criticizing others.

Modes of response (from Peter Elbow):
letting someone know how what they said affected you

1) Pointing out what struck you most, positively or negatively.
2) Retelling briefly what you understood the other person to have said.
3) Describing your feelings in response to what the other person said.
4) Showing metaphorically -- through color, sound, image, etc., -- the impact the (individual or group) communication had on you.

For instance:
"I feel as if we were sitting around in bow-ties and tuxedoes."
"We started out in grays and brown, but now it's more green."
"There was a mugginess in the air, as if it couldn't quite rain. Then the thunder and lightning made things clear and alive."
"At first it felt like slogging through a swamp with alligators in it."
"The snow's melting, and someone just gave me a mug of hot chocolate."

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM II:

-- a tool many groups have found valuable for:

- identifying and resolving conflict
- building mutual respect and trust
- communicating effectively
- freeing creative energy
- strengthening our ability to work well together

You'd think this would be easy. It's not. It takes courage, and trust, and lots of practice.

We've all been taught that criticism is negative, a way of tearing each other down, a battle of power. No wonder we try to avoid it, minimize it, be "nice."

This system works from the opposite assumption -- that constructive criticism is a way to strengthen ourselves, each other, the group as a whole. You have to care deeply to be willing to take this kind of risk, make this kind of effort.

It is only a tool, not an end. It's important to set clear limits on the time we spend on it. The idea is to let us work more effectively, not take the place of our working.

Because it takes energy, focus, attentiveness -- it won't work if skimped or rushed. Ten minutes is usually too little time. Fifteen makes it possible to get beyond surface formalities.

Every meeting -- essential. It doesn't work to wait until there are major problems. By doing it at the close of each meeting, we can learn to trust the respect and caring behind the criticism. It's then no longer a threat we have to defend ourselves against. And it becomes more comfortable to speak as well as hear criticism.

It helps to start by silently, individually, getting in touch with what you feel about the meeting:

What went well?
What didn't go well?
What would you like to see changed next time?

When you share your feelings/ ideas with the group, speak from your own experience. Be specific.

The goal is, together, to strengthen all of us.