Report: ‘Failed (Seating) Dependency’? A personal report on the Autumn workshop, ‘Large Groups: Contemporary Challenges’.

This year’s Autumn format event (9th – 10th November 2018) was held at the Coin Street Neighbourhood centre close to Waterloo station in central London, a welcome change from being squashed into suburban accommodation at Daleham Gardens or the top floor of the Tavistock Clinic; Coin Street is neutral territory for all. Walking north past the Coin Street building and the National Theatre the Thames is quickly reached, the river flowing strongly between its banks, a crowded scene of barges and tourist vessels, while on the embankment people saunter enjoying the view and open air.

For the Friday afternoon we were bound for the bunker-cellar of the Centre. While windowless, this space was nevertheless a tall, large room that contained the seventy participants easily. After presentations from Earl Hopper, Teresa Howard and Gerhard Wilke – Teresa’s contrasting with the others by including large illustrations of how public buildings can be group and user-friendly – and a refreshment break we returned to the bunker for the first of three large groups, the theme for the weekend. We were surprised to find the chairs still in rows. Our convenors, Jale Cilason and Goran Ahlin, invited us to create three concentric circles for our meeting from the 5 lines of chairs. We managed about two and one-third circles, with some gaps between, which raised comment. Was this what we expected? Is not seat arrangement something that convenors are expected to do? Are we being looked after at a basic level? This was a theme of the weekend, whether the body of participants were subject to ‘failed dependency’ or not, which was voiced throughout our time together; a basic expected structure had been absent initially and we were expected to do the arranging ourselves. The group seating pattern was created by participants not by the convenors.

The following morning, we had moved space to the ground floor which was in total contrast to the evening’s bunker. It was well lit via tall windows and with shaded artificial lighting. Only this time we found the seating arranged as if for a ‘neo-liberal’ idea of a situation for dialogue: chairs had been set up by the centre’s staff as a square of three rows on four sides and facing inwards. This was not what our convenors had been expecting so they again invited us to form 3 concentric circles; again we struggled to make it more than two and a bit. Once more an underlying theme was failed dependency as well as rebellion.

Then we had a break for refreshment. When we returned for the morning presentations the seating had been changed to a single circle of seventy – the room was large enough to allow this with ease. Members were faced by a large open space while the speakers (Peter Zelaskowski, Sally Skaife, Marina Mojovic, Emma Lightfoot, Anca Ditroi and Bracha Hadar, Dick Blackwell) spoke on large groups in circumstances specific to their workplaces. Carla Penna chaired this session, with facilitated discussion across the circle.

Here we ended for lunch, which I took with a walk beside the river and viewing the extraordinary changes in the London skyline around this area, pleased that St Paul’s cathedral can be seen still in its glory.

Back at the Centre, chairs had been left as they had been for the morning presentations in readiness for the AGM, except that a table, with chairs behind it numbering to about twelve, had been placed against one side. This for the Management Committee high table. I had expected there to be rows of chairs as this was the business meeting and ruling body of the Society, when the Management Committee’s annual reports can be scrutinised by the membership. Leaving the chairs as for large group presentations seemed unwieldy for the business meeting in hand. At first the President handled the meeting as though discussion was allowed across the floor, literally. I held up my hand and was deemed (it seemed) to have turned it into a meeting where those present would speak ‘through the chair’, as the Committee phrase has it. I spoke my protest at the cramming of the AGM into a timetabled 75 minutes in the midst of a workshop that had processes in large groups as its theme. Are these the time and placement boundaries most likely to assist the Members’ scrutiny of the Committee’s work? I thought not and think not: I had my protest noted down. We moved on to the Honorary Treasurer’s Report which was accepted after explanation and discussion. A major point was that a surplus of £18 000 had come to the Society from the Berlin Symposium.  I noted afterwards that the Unrestricted Funds of the Society now totalled £140 000+.

Next came the Membership Secretary’s report that gave news of a considerable increase in membership since 2010, the detail of which was well received. Then the ‘bad news’ was that there would be an increase in Members’ subscription fees, due to publishers Sage raising its publishing costs by 5.5%: for this reason and because the accountants had advised raising the fees so that they contributed 44% of the income, the MC has been forced to increase the membership fee for next year by 4.6% for all membership categories.

The President stated that accepting the Membership Secretary’s report and the increase in fees were inclusive, i.e. that to vote to accept the Membership Secretary’s report meant also that the fee increase was agreed simultaneously. I questioned this; any increase in fee for the membership had to be approved by the membership on a separate vote as it was a future financial (or fiscal) measure, and not part of the report on the previous year. Furthermore, an increase in fee should be accompanied by a budget showing projected expenditure for the following year. I made a proposal that we separate the report from the fee increase, and vote on them in turn. This led to some heated and confused discussion. Dick Blackwell then proposed an amendment to my proposal, that the report be accepted as it was, though with the provision that any such future fee increase had to be a separate vote. This was put to the membership present and was voted through. I voted against this amendment along with 3 others that I counted.

By this time the 75 minutes allowed for the AGM had passed: people were leaving. The President brought the meeting to a close by saying that the remaining reports had to be assumed as accepted (if I recall correctly).

Then followed a further refreshment break. We returned to the seating for the final large group session (followed by a Reflection Session and which included those members who had attended for the AGM) which commenced as previously with the two convenors inviting us to form, this time, two concentric circles. We did, though with some large uneven space between the outer and inner circles. Apart from one member commenting a little on the AGM hiatus, it was otherwise virtually unnoticed. When the Reflection meeting of 35 minutes was reached chairs were arranged back to the format of one large circle. This final reflective session acted like a short large group. I felt that this time might have been added successfully to the AGM time, which meeting would have been placed at the end of the workshop and not included within its allocated time.

The event was planned by Linde Wotton and Carla Penna. My thanks go to them and all others who contributed to a thought-provoking weekend beside the River Thames.

Kevin Power
powerk455@gmail.com