7/23/2019 “Shut Up,” He Explained. Reflections on Generative and Not-so-generative Communication in Academia. Integral …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shut-up-he-explained-reflections-on-generative-and-not-so-generative 1/6

Articles from Integral Leadership Review

8/15 – Reflections on Generative and Not-So-Generative Communication in Academia.2014-08-15 17:08:23 Alfonso Mon tuori

“Shut up,” he explained.Ref lections on generative and not-so-generative communication inacademia.

Alfonso Montuori

 Alfonso Montuori

When I f irst came t o t he US to go to graduate school, I spent hours and hoursin heated, cof fee f ueled discussions in the pat io of the universit y cafeteriawith just about anybody I could f ind and of ten cont inue late into t he night.These conversat ions were cent ral to my decision to st ick with this academicstuf f and forget about my previous life in music for a while. Some people wereclearly more fun to talk with than others, to be sure. But the bestconversat ions would be open and f lowing and moving into all sorts of newdirect ions. I’d get home and immediately head for my desk to write–in longhand. This convivial play of ideas was one of the reasons why I ended up in

academia.

Sadly, those of us who have spent some t ime in academia professionallyknow that many if not most academic exchanges, part icularly in the f ormalset t ing of conferences and seminars, are rarely as excit ing. And if there isexcitement, it ’s of ten because of intellectual jousting, which, as members of the integral community known, can be quite nasty even among the most“enlightened” folks. It ’s an open secret that we can get very at tached t o our own ideas, to being right. Academic discourse ref lects this at tachment, andthe joust ing can go sout h fast . Already in the language we of ten use we cansee where t his is going. “I def ended my dissertat ion.” “He at tacked myposition.” “She demolished his argument.” If argument is war, then academia isthe bat t lef ield. It ’s as if being a “good” scholar involves, perhaps above all, theabilit y to rip apart somebody else’s argument .

7/23/2019 “Shut Up,” He Explained. Reflections on Generative and Not-so-generative Communication in Academia. Integral …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shut-up-he-explained-reflections-on-generative-and-not-so-generative 2/6

If academia has created an adequate and somet imes exaggerated turf for intellect ual skirmishes, we have surely not done as good a job of fosteringcontexts t hat st imulate excit ing, provocative, creat ive interaction. At a recentinvitat ional conference, a colleague came up to me and whispered that shedidn’t really feel safe in this environment. She didn’t feel people were workingtogether , even though the ent ire conference was allegedly about collaborat ive

work. I had heard t hat there had been some rat her rude interrupt ions and put-downs, even during the lunch breaks, and was a little taken aback. Most of thepeople at t he conference were decent sorts, after all, generally f riendly, andready to hang out in the evening over a drink or two. My colleague remarkedthat every t ime she opened her mouth to say somet hing, somebody, usuallyan older male part icipant , had shut her down with comments like, “you haven’tread XYZ,” or “the problem with this sort of thinking is…” or just regular old“mansplaining.” I was tempt ed t o give her “welcome t o t he f arm” talk aboutacademic discourse, male egos, “seniority,” the tendency in our hallowed hallsto worship the “crit ical” view, that some academics like to show of f by provingsomeone else wrong, how all too of ten a crit ic will focus on one small aspectof what we’re saying and drone on about how this view has been discredited,and so on. Then I realized that this would simply be perpet uat ing a kind of academic environment and “dialogue” that I also detest. Ironically, the wholepurpose of the conference was to generate scenarios for the f uture. It soondegenerat ed into “my cat ast rophic scenario is bigger than yours,” and “howcould you not account for t his or that reason why t he world will end.” Anybodywho at tempted to focus on what could be was shot down with yet another dose of catastrophe theory.

I later went for a long st roll with my colleague. We had a most memorableconversat ion, and occasionally got lost because we were so engrossed inconversat ion we had st opped paying at tention to where we were going. Bythe t ime we found our way back to t he conference, we had covered anynumber of topics of mutual interest and were planning any number of projects.So what was the difference that made t he diff erence? Well, a key diff erencewas that we were actually listening to each other, and the conversat ionopened up possibilit ies, shed new light on shared quest ions, provided insights

into topics we were both exploring. Our att itude was different, it seemed. Wewere not trying to prove each other wrong, imposing our view, poking holes,tearing each other’s views apart . Arguably, we wanted to bring out the best ineach other—and in ourselves. Our met aphor was not war, but more like whatWilliam Irwin Thompson called mind-jazz.

In other words, in creat ivit y-speak, our focus in academia seems t o be most lyon convergence, not divergence. We’re good at shutting discussion down, or at least shut t ing ot her people down. And while t here are obviously notable

except ions, more generally we’re not so good at creat ing an openenvironment for divergence, for real open dialogue, with conviviality andplayf ulness and risk-taking, stepping into t he unknown. We don’t exploretoget her very much any more, and we certainly don’t encourage students todo so. But what if we did in fact support much more explorat ion, playing with

7/23/2019 “Shut Up,” He Explained. Reflections on Generative and Not-so-generative Communication in Academia. Integral …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shut-up-he-explained-reflections-on-generative-and-not-so-generative 3/6

ideas, taking a “what if” approach, going out on the edge, t aking risks?

The t hing about these kinds of exploratory, creat ive dialogues is that theyof ten involve a glimmer of an idea, something inchoate, ambiguous, ill-formed,far f rom thought out—in fact , of ten barely t hought at all. This inchoate ideacan either be nurtured, developed, and played with for a while, or it can be cutof f at the root . The same thing happens inside us, as it were, when we dismiss

our own emerging inklings as nonsense, a waste of t ime, stupid. Not hing cutsus of f f rom the creat ive f low bet ter than premature classif icat ion. There’s at ime t o be critical, and t here’s a t ime t o let an idea emerge, grow, and revealitself t o us. If we crit ique too soon, it ’s all over. We’ve got to give ideas t ime.This is why tolerance for ambiguit y is associated with creat ivit y. I’ve met toomany people who tell me they have writer’s block only to confess that theyhave an idea, write a sentence, look at it , and convince themselves that it ’sawful. That may well be t he case, but t he point is to keep writ ing and get inthe f low, otherwise we just shut down. Then, later, we edit . And if we throw it

all out, we st art all over again.

If in a social sett ing we aren’t allowed t o present even our well thought outideas without immediate at tack, how can we, in dialogue, be willing t o t ake arisk and go with an ill-f ormed idea, a hint of somet hing t hat we’ve just pickedup and would like t o run with for a while? Somet hing we’d like t o invite ot hersto play with? Why should we be willing to propose an ill-f ormed idea, a hint of somet hing that we think might be worth pursuing, if we know that it’s going toget shot down right away? Clearly this crit ical at t itude is not appropriate 24/7.

There’s a t ime to apply it , of course, no quest ion about it. But you can havetoo much of a good t hing.

The creat ive process involves periods of divergence and periods of convergence, idea-generat ion and idea-selection. Are we good at fost eringclimat es f or idea-generat ion in academia? If convergence is the almostinevitable approach, clearly not . Of course crit ical, convergent, idea-select ionis necessary. This bears repeat ing. But surely we should also be able t ocreate climates t hat are more playful and exploratory, where we act ivelylisten, support emerging ideas, go along with perspect ives t hat may seemweird or unusual or even wrong.

 A basic rule in improvisat ional t heater as most people know, is to go f or “and,”avoiding “but.” In other words, to continue with the idea, add something, andgo with the f low. This serves as a start . I want be clear though that I’m notproposing we have the occasional brainstorming session in class or atconferences. Not just because the lit erature on brainstorming seems t osuggest it does lit t le good, but also because brainstorming is essent ially anart if icial process. It ’s part of the approach that says creativity is not cent ral to

what we do. It ’s somet hing we have to make a part icular space f or outside of the regular st ream of our act ivit ies. What I’m t alking about is a broader at t itude t owards people and ideas, one that sees creativit y as cent ral, andknows about the need for both divergence and convergence as part of the

7/23/2019 “Shut Up,” He Explained. Reflections on Generative and Not-so-generative Communication in Academia. Integral …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shut-up-he-explained-reflections-on-generative-and-not-so-generative 4/6

larger creat ive process. I’m also talking about a different idea of what itmeans to be a scholar, or at least engaged with the world of ideas. An imageof scholarship in which creat ivit y is not somet hing conf ined to a specific t imeand place, if at all, but a way of being in the world that recognizes theimportance of generat ive dialogue, recognizes, in less social scient if ic t erms,that when human beings get toget her to exchange ideas we can do so withconviviality, in a way that appreciates a pluralit y of perspect ives. A way of 

being and relat ing t hat it is not just about proving we’re right , showing of f our encyclopedic knowledge and our ability to “take apart ” somebody else’sargument . I’m also talking about taking a hard look at our academic egos,where, when, and how they show up, and how they get in the way of convivialand creat ive exchanges and somet imes even basic manners.

The academic world has suf fered f rom depict ing itself as engaged in therat ional, object ive pursuit of knowledge, a collection of abst ract mindsquest ing f or t ruth in a st rict ly “mental” pursuit. This is most ly nonsense, in the

end. I’m not making a philosophical stat ement about the nature of t ruth here,but rather saying that academics are human beings. Quiet as it ’s kept , wehave feelings t oo, and yes, we can become incredibly pet ty and small-mindedin our pursuit and defense of our academic goals, enormously at tached to theimportance of our rat ional object ive contributions, and “our” ideas andposit ions. And perhaps this shows up in the way we interact rather more of tenthan we’d like t o admit .

 All the more reason to see our academic work as a locus f or self -

understanding and self -improvement, for ref lection not just on the content  of our work, but on the process of being a scholar. In this way our intellect ualpursuits become an opportunity t o part icipate and cont ribute in ways thatembody the best of us. Can we also engage in academic dialogue in a waythat will bring out the best in all of us?

While we may sincerely be engaged in a quest for knowledge, perhaps withthe idea of making a worthwhile contribut ion to humanity, we should, I think,also become aware of how we can accumulate knowledge t o create“positions,” posit ions built up to become f ort if ications for our egos, posit ionslike fort resses with which we defend ourselves f rom others, at tack the“positions” of the “opposit ion.” In the process we may perpet uate preciselywhat we may be t rying t o change, a world based on dominat ion, cont rol,imposition.

In the process of reducing academic inquiry to a st rict ly “mental” and objectiveprocess, we have lost so much. I’m not proposing f eel-good hand-holdingkumbaya. 30 years in California, I’ve seen and heard enough kumbaya t o lastme several lif et imes. What I’m suggest ing is a great er emphasis on

t ransparency in the process of idea-development, rather than presentingf ixed posit ions t o def end. It ’s clear that how we get to our ideas, theories, andso on, is a much messier and more complex process than presenting (anddef ending) the f inished product . As such, with a few notable except ions

7/23/2019 “Shut Up,” He Explained. Reflections on Generative and Not-so-generative Communication in Academia. Integral …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shut-up-he-explained-reflections-on-generative-and-not-so-generative 5/6

involving apples and light beams, how we get to our ideas is hardly ever addressed in the scient if ic literature. It ’s lef t to biographies andautobiographies (or pat hographies and auto-pat hographies, these days)where we begin to get a sense of the messy, serendipitous nature of much of the creat ive process. We’re all about the context of justification, and leave t hecontext of discovery  behind, because it ’s all too subject ive and doesn’t f it intoany neat formula. Let ’s explore inquiry in a wider perspect ive, acknowledging

the process t hat is usually behind t he scenes, and support ing mutualexplorat ions as well as t he individual creat ive process. Science is increasinglybecoming a collaborat ive process. We owe it to ourselves to learn tocommunicate in a more generat ive way. In the process, we may have t o revealthe many aspects of the creative daimon. We should also engage in someserious self-inquiry, recognizing that inquiry itself should become an importantavenue f or our own personal and collective development.

 A creat ive encounter involves openness t o quest ioning, ref lect ing on our own

assumpt ions, our own ways of construct ing our understanding of the t opic athand, and more generally our world, through encounter. The sociology of knowledge has alerted us to t he situated nature of knowledge. It ’s shown ushow culture, race, class, and gender play a role in the way we const ructknowledge. The psychology of knowledge has received less at tention. Abraham Maslow wrote a short lit t le book about it , The Psychology of Science,that even some Maslow scholars barely seem t o be aware of . The larger quest ion stems f rom looking at the role of the inquirer in the inquiry, andseeing t he inquirer as a whole person, a real person with passions, values,

concerns, blind spots, idées fixes… How and where do our research interestsf it into—or bet ter, emerge f rom, and then inform– our lives? What drives us topursue a part icular research agenda? What mot ivates our passions, interest s,curiosit ies, methodological choices? How do our choices ref lect and thenshape who we are? And how do our exchanges with others ref lect and shapewho we are? What authors and perspect ives and t raditions are we drawn to,and why? Who irritat es us, who do we choose to ignore, who bores us, andwhy? As academics we of ten feel we have t o give “reasonable,” rat ionalreasons for our choices, our topics, our methods, our favorites. We might also

explore what dynamics of project ion, int roject ion, what shadow play we aredealing with.

If we engage in dialogue solely to assert our view then our aim is really to shutdown the dialogue. If we see dialogue as a creat ive process our purpose inpart icipat ing is to enrich the encounter and keep it going, we’re creat ing adifferent world—perhaps embodying dif ferent ways of being, knowing, andrelat ing. It ’s not about assert ing the answer, but fostering t he opportunit y andpot ential of ongoing collaborat ive creat ive inquiry. That doesn’t mean we’reengaged in endless divergence, unable t o come t o any conclusions, but rather surfing t he waves of divergence and convergence, relinquishing our dreams of omniscience and the f inal answer in favor of ongoing inquiry. If we seeknowledge not as an edif ice built brick by brick, but rather as an ever evolvingnetwork, we can also hold our knowledge more light ly, all answers leading

7/23/2019 “Shut Up,” He Explained. Reflections on Generative and Not-so-generative Communication in Academia. Integral …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shut-up-he-explained-reflections-on-generative-and-not-so-generative 6/6

inevitably to more questions, and that our goal is to create an ever morefert ile ground for f urther inquiry.

About the Author 

Alfonso Montuori, PhD, is Professor at California Inst itute of IntegralStudies, where he designed and t eaches in the T ransformat ive LeadershipM.A. and the Transformat ive Studies Ph.D. He was Dist inguished Professor inthe School of Fine Arts at Miami University, in Oxford Ohio and in 1985-1986 hetaught at the Central South University in Hunan, China. An act ive musician andproducer, in a f ormer lif e Alfonso worked in London England as a professionalmusician. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on creativityand innovat ion, the f uture, complexit y t heory, and leadership. Alfonso is also aconsultant in the areas of creat ivity, innovat ion and leadership developmentwhose clients have included Net App, T raining Vision (Singapore), Omintel-Olivet t i (Italy) and Procter and Gamble.

TweetFacebookLinkedIn