I finished M. Scott Peck's The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace.
My
latest reading had a few paradoxes, even if Peck may not classify them
as such. He wants for groups to be inclusive, even politically, for he
states that a Democrat seeking to form a group should include
Republicans. Yet, Peck wants for churches to take a bold stand against
the arms race, which would probably alienate Republicans. Peck is
insistent that one should not leave a group, claiming that community is
fostered when people stick with each other and work out their
differences. Yet, Peck earlier in the book tells the story about how he
disappointed his parents by deciding not to continue his enrollment at
an exclusive private school, choosing to go instead to another school,
where he found genuine acceptance. This brought out the best in him.
I
sympathize with Peck's emphasis on the importance of community, for I
believe that, when people know each other, empathize with each other,
value each other, and are open to learning from each other, things can
be better than they would be otherwise. But I myself would have
difficulty participating in a number of communities, to tell you the
truth. Working through my differences with other human beings is
sometimes easy for me, and sometimes it's not. In my younger years, I
one time wrote a letter to a leader of a group I was in detailing my
problems with him, and he reprimanded me for not telling him about this
stuff before----for not telling him at the time of his offensive
behavior that he was acting inappropriately. But it's not easy for me
to process on the spot what my problem is with a person or a situation,
and then to come up with the words to express my concern. Moreover,
unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a "don't rock the boat" sort of person,
so I have an approach that Peck calls "pseudocommunity", which is
different from open, honest community. One reason is that I want for
people to like me. Another is that I fear starting an argument that I
won't be able to win, for I want to save face in as many social
situations as I can. Plus, I feel awkward being confrontational. These
are characteristics that I have that are barriers to me achieving real
community with others.
I think that leadership in a group is
important. Peck said that he was accused of being a weak leader, and
sometimes in the book he seems to indicate that he believes leaders
should step back, keep a low profile, and allow group members to
resolve their differences openly and honestly. But, in my opinion,
group leaders are needed to keep the more articulate, glib, and
narcissistic members from dominating the discussion and to give everyone
a chance to talk. I get so annoyed when group leaders don't do their
job (as I understand it, of course!). Peck appears to have some
sensitivity to this concern, though, for at one point he mentions
inviting quieter members into the discussion. I think that the best way
to do group is to do what twelve-step groups do, and what one
Asperger's Syndrome support group that I attended did: to allow people
to share without interruption, one at a time, within a reasonable time
limit. There are weaknesses to this approach: for example, it's
parallel sharing, as opposed to dialogue. But perhaps we can permit
people in their own shares to respond to what other people said, or we
can create a situation in which a person shares a problem that he has,
then people in the group would share, one at a time, their thoughts on
the person's problem.