[Back to the Trainer Resource Index Page]
In these antiglobalization actions, we're not just playing to the same old crowd. We get people coming to the trainings that range from college professors steeped in the theory of nonviolence to teenagers clutching skateboards who don't really want to hear about it, and everything in between. Especially in traiings right before the action, that's what people are focused on. They're hungry for some sort of high-energy experience that will match the level of their excitement and anxiety.
In Seattle (WTO protests 2000), we were often doing two or more trainings in corners of the same warehouse. It was really hard to hold people's attention when a role play or hassle line was going on in the other corner. They wanted to be where the energy was.
And, for many people, one of the most unsafe, disempowering experiences of their lives was school. When you start with a role play or hassle line or something active, it immediately removes you from that classroom aura.
The learning model I and a lot of the old Bay Area Preparer's collective use is something we call "empowered learning'--which means that you encourage people to bring their own experiences into the prep and reflect on them and learn from them, and that you teach by creating experiences and then reflecting and debriefing, so that the conclusions are ones people arrive at themselves and 'own', rather than the ones you tell them they should get. Instead of lecturing a lot, I keep in mind the points I'd want to make--or write them up on a wall chart--but I let them emerge out of the discussion and make them myself only if someone else doesn't--and nine times out of ten they do if there are experienced people in the group. And if I end up making the points myself, the role play has often created the receptivity, the felt sense of need, for the information or ideas that might not have been there otherwise.
A lot of people in the antiglobalization movement are not particularly enthralled by the ideals of nonviolence per se. In Europe, we were dealing with groups for which the whole idea of training was often something quite new, and with people coming from widely different political backgrounds and histories, not to mention languages.
People are coming to these actions take action against what they perceive as an unjust system. They're angry and they are looking to express that anger, not repress it. They may be willing to accept guidelines as a tactical necessity but the idea of sitting quietly while the police beat you really seems insane and masochistic to many of them. A lot of the youth are tired of hearing about King and Gandhi and they often perceive nonviolence trainers as moralizing middle-aged old Sunday School teachers.
And then, in the very same training, you'll have others deeply committed to nonviolence as a way of life, and still others with thoughtful positions everywhere on the spectrum. How do you create safety in that situation--especially if you've got eighty or a hundred people crammed into a concrete room in a warehouse and only four hours--you can't even spare the time to hear everyone's name? What if half the group will wince and gag if you hit them with a 'light and lively' or something they perceive as touchy-feely New Age stuff? (And the other half would love it!)
I think their are two main ways we as trainers gain the trust of a group. The first is by sharing just enough of our own experiences so that people know we have also faced difficult and dangerous situations--but not so much that we're one-upping people or bragging. But the main way is by the attitude we model of openness to other people's ideas, and respect for their opinions even when they differ from our own. for me, this sometimes involves literally biting my tongue to avoid stomping on someone's perspective that I feel is clearly wrongheaded. But I don't believe in using my power position as trainer to tell people what they should think. And again, if I shut up, someone else in the group will express my opinion. If I tell people what the right opinion is, they'll often simply resist it. (I have been known to say, "Those of us who are doing this training do have strong feelings about this and we're deliberately not expressing them in order to create a neutral ground where all of your opinions can be heard.)
I think this kind of modelling affects not only the actual training, but the whole tone of the action. I saw in Washington, where the organizers had a deep commitment to dialogue, that in spite of deep disagreements about tactics and tone of the action, we were all able to work together. And when issues arose, again and again I saw them dealt with through discussion and negotiation--even on the street.
Starhawk