Azerbaijan
Summary of First Training Session for Civil Society
Baku, Azerbaijan August 29 - September 6, 2004
by Craig Barnes, J.D.
We have been aware, as we planned this meeting, that studies show that it is often very difficult to heal a single individual if the environment in which he or she lives is not also changed. The cultures which surround us have a powerful effect on how we live and how we see ourselves. Sometimes, with the best of programs, the most solid financing and expert assistance, when we try, for example, to reduce smoking or heart disease we have found that if we only address the single individual when that person goes back out into the environment which created the problem, the overall situation may overwhelm the healing and re-stimulate the old conduct.
So we planned this training to try to bridge between the personal work and the work of social change. Every participant took part every day in small group work through which we hoped to create the conditions for personal growth and psychological development. These groups met in small, confidential circles which could address issues of personal pain, failure, success, image and identity all of which might be barriers to wholeness and health. Scholarship indicates that group therapy may sometimes be even more effective than individual therapy and that men and women often heal more effectively in the culture of a group than when working alone, or even with a single therapist.
Each day, in addition, we also met in circles which discussed the national cultures in which we live, the communities of social and political opinion which support us and those which defeat us, in the United States, in Azerbaijan, in Tajikistan, in our progress toward a civil society. We discussed the mechanics by which ideas move through society, moving from innovators, through opinion leaders to early adapters. We discussed the paralyzing effects of corruption, the dimensions of the problem in educational institutions, in medicine, in business, in the progress of democracy. Such payments are bribes to some but insure a living wage to others and as a result divide the population among themselves, destroy confidence in each other and in political and economic institutions, destroying the conditions necessary for civil society or for a free market economy. These small groups also discussed the difficulties inherent in moving beyond the narrower social or professional groups in which we currently work and the need to make bridges outside our professional connections thus to spread a way of thinking throughout a whole culture.
Each day of our sessions included a substantial presentation of information relating to personal or social healing and so we heard in detail facts about PTSD, its devastating effects on those who fight wars or are damaged by natural disasters, on both men and women, and on generations through time. We heard about how the stories which we use to organize our intentions and resources ha ve their deep roots in history, how we have individual stories and national stories and how while we are on the one hand working in small personal groups to heal our personal stories we are also working in the public arena to heal and change our national stories. We traced our fascination with heroism and war back to Homeric times and came to the grips with the fact that these stories are a choice that we make and that we still are making these choices today. One presentation discussed movements of the peoples all over the world over the last 100 years which have brought about shifts in national thinking, cases where the seemingly powerless have become powerful enough to dissolve empires of the United Kingdom and Russia, brought change to South Africa and Eastern Europe, to consciousness and intention in the American South and on issues like children’s labor, women’s rights and the Vietnam war. Another presentation included detailed discussion of Virginia Satir’s styles of communication, working with models for placating, blaming, distracting and being super reasonable, illustrating the fluid nature of these strategies and their widespread use by nearly all of us. A final presentation featured an interactive program relating to vulnerable groups in which participants sculptured models, framing the dynamics of these relationships by using other participants and shaping them to create the picture. The modeling was followed by full discussion in small groups of what works and what does not work to move such groups out of their extreme vulnerability toward integration into the society as a whole.
These special presentations each day gave to our training a kind of intellectual super structure and exposure to new areas of research. These presentations also provided a framework for understanding the personal work which was being done in small group therapy sessions and the small groups on social change. The presentations therefore provided facts and details which might be useful to the participants as they themselves teach and work in the communities from which they have come and to which they will return. Participants were provided book lists for useful reading.
Because, however, we are all different and learn in different ways, some of us through facts and details, some of us through pictures and emotions, touch and feel, the training each day also included a block of meetings under the title of the Theater of the Oppressed. Some of those who may have been less comfortable in the purely mental or abstract presentations led the way by acting out images of corruption and, contrarily, images of community. Movement and silent personal contact became means to unlock truths of our condition, not by speaking, but by showing. We laughed and cried at the vivid portrayals and discovered that it is more difficult to portray community than to portray corruption. Community seems to be a thing of the heart and the mind, less specific than guns and money and therefore more difficult to capture in images. The difficulty itself became a teaching. Groups pointed out that community building must be a work of years and not simply of the moment and that corruption is quicker and easier. Still, the progress on community building was apparent in the process.
As one of the goals of the meeting was to talk about building a civil society with conditions of mutual respect and openness between leaders and the community, these meetings began each day with a temperature reading in which leaders and participants expressed appreciations, problems, puzzles and solutions, new information and wishes. It was a way of putting into practical application the conditions for a healthily functioning community. Distances between trainers or alienations because of misunderstandings or changes in schedules or overall intentions for our work could be shared in this way and each afternoon we closed the day with comments and dialogue about how the day’s work had gone, summing up, making sure that the community was working together.
In combining these methods, leading from temperature readings to presentations of new facts and theories to group therapy, to developing new understanding of social change, there was a pioneering element. Few, if any, programs, bridge directly from group therapy, actually experienced in the sessions, to social organization and action, actually planned and discussed in corresponding sessions, to movement and interactive theater designed to illustrate the meaning and feeling of these ideas. Doing all these things at once was intended to create a sort of synthesis, some greater resonance than might be possible than if we worked in only one discipline at a time, and it was clear after eight days of continuously working together that the combination was working. Participants said that they were experiencing a sense of greater personal power and hope. The joining of personal work and social or community action, the intention to change our national as well as our personal stories, was creating a new sense of realistic possibility. Whereas a the beginning of the week participants had expressed doubt that corruption or democracy or civil society would be at any time within their reach, by the end of the week many were saying that they could see a way change might happen.
Hope may also have come from the intention to continue this program over the long term, over four years, to not simply have a good seminar and go home, but rather to build community over the time it takes to have real meaning. This too, therefore, was a factor in the planning: that the program would not simply end; that these participants would not simply be replaced with new participants next March, or next June, but that they would be able to return, to continue to work with these trainers, adding new ones as possible; that they would continue to work with each other, that they could build continuously upon this foundation.
The participants were in ages from their early twenties through their fifties but the largest number were between their late twenties to early forties; they were mostly professionals, doctors, social workers, teachers, psychiatrists and psychologists, some who have worked with refugees or displaced persons or with the disabled or with the mentally ill. The group was therefore unusually skilled and experienced, sophisticated and thoughtful, with considerable life experience but not so far up the professional ladder as to be uninterested in change, either in themselves or in their society. They were from Azerbaijan and Tajikistan and the trainers were from Azerbaijan, Croatia and the United States.
As the session ended, participants were asked to close with a word or a sentence that expressed something of their experience. Reports were rather remarkable. Some said that they had found a new hope. Some said that they had not before experienced a meeting which so matched their expectations, not disappointing them. Some said that they were eager to meet again, or to work in the interim on continuing programs, in Azerbaijan or Tajikistan, or to organize their own materials for presentation and discussion at the next meeting, to develop media contacts, to write articles. Some expressed gratitude for the democratic nature of the sessions, the absence of dogmatic teaching, the sense of inclusion, the opportunity to be heard in many different ways. Many said that they had been changed, personally, by the experience.
After eight days, the meeting closed on the note that each small new community that is created in this way is like lighting a campfire in the wilderness and as the years go by and more such communities are created and come in contact with each other in Azerbaijan, in Tajikistan and in the United States the effect will be to bring a glow, to spread a light through the whole forest of our lives and it will be the glow of a new civil society.
Program Report
International Conference on Social Change
Khazar University, Baku,Azerbaijan, May 25-28, 2007
Introduction
The Azerbaijan Psychological Association (APA) is a non-governmental organization established to develop psychological science, advance psychological education and to provide psychosocial services to organizations and individuals, with special attention to refugees, women and other vulnerable social groups. APA was established in 1997 and registered in 1999. Since then, the organization developed and organized many international and national training programs, conferences and professional development programs in psychology, conflict resolution, leadership, education and adjacent areas.
In May of 2007 in Baku, APA co-sponsored the International Conference on Social Change. The conference was organized in partnership with the Institute for International Connections (USA), Khazar University and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
The Institute for International Connections (IIC) is a Denver-based 501c3 founded in 1990. IIC’s mission is to train human service providers in the former Soviet Union in order to illuminate their practice, improve and validate their fields, and prepare these individuals to be effective change agents at all levels of society. Human service providers are uniquely positioned, not only to help large number of individuals, but also to impact the larger societal context.
Information about the event was disseminated through e-lists (such as US-educated Azerbaijani Alumni Association’ newsletter and e-list of the NGOs’ Network), online web pages such as the websites of the Khazar University and Azerbaijan-UK Alumni Association. Conference announcements were posted on bulletin boards at all major universities, in particular in the departments of international relations, political science, American studies and others.
The conference attracted over 80 applications from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Kirgizstan and Russia. Due to financial constraints, participants from countries other than Azerbaijan and Georgia were unable to attend. A total number of 60 participants took part in the event. They represented various NGOs, civil society groups and universities from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Canada and the United States.
We encouraged the people who are the cornerstones of civil society: therapists, educators, researchers, students and representatives of non-profit organizations – to participate in this conference. We believe that these people are leaders in the systems in which they work.
The Background
Many countries of the former Soviet Union now face massive corruption, entrenched oligarchies, weak civil society, economic upheaval, and destabilizing ethnic conflict. Azerbaijan is no exception. Azerbaijan declared its independence in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union after 70 years of Soviet rule. Since then, citizens of Azerbaijan have weathered a constant barrage of destabilizing events. In addition, totalitarian regimes leave a legacy in their wake. That legacy includes a devastated sense of community, lack of trust among and between citizens, hopelessness that anything can improve, and citizens pitted against one another in a resource competition that is often fatal. Azerbaijan has not escaped this legacy. Many citizens see themselves as victims of the social changes and economic conditions in their community; they do not see that they can shape their own reaction to those changes and impact the conditions in their communities.
Successful democracy requires an active and engaged citizenry. Such a civil society requires not only citizens that comprehend democratic processes, but also communities of citizens who have the skills necessary to engage in those processes, skills such as collaboration, civility, honesty, tolerance, compassion, patriotism, respect for the worth and dignity of each person, concern for the common good, and trust. Changing laws, courts or constitutions are of no use if the consciousness of the people is not prepared for the responsibility of citizenship. Individuals cannot simply transform themselves into democratic citizens.
IIC and APA believe that the antidote to the post-totalitarian situation is to build community from the bottom up, starting with the individual. The road toward civil society begins with the development of individual citizens who then can construct and nurture healthy ties between formerly divergent groups. Groups acting together learn to share and collaborate by living the experience of sharing resources. This new cooperation leads to the creation of new community and trust. Strong community ties and trust reduce barriers to and the risks associated with speaking out, exercising rights and taking part in policy-making processes.
IIC and APA believe that the individual is the key to social change and that there is a clear connection between personal change and social change. IIC and APA believe that as individuals change and grow so too does society, and society cannot change without individual change. As a result, building a fertile environment for peace and social change must first focus on the individual, then on building relationships between individuals, and finally on establishing connections among communities.
IIC has been working in the former Soviet Union since 1990. IIC, with its colleagues in the countries it has worked, has developed a powerful training methodology. IIC applies the same healing principles used for personal transformation to the process of leadership development and building civil society. This methodology is based upon three premises that have consistently proven to be true in IIC’s collaborative work over the years:
1. There is a clear connection between civic dysfunction and personal attitudes and beliefs. It is essential to work with family systems in order to transform attitudes and beliefs. Behaviors that perpetuate low self-esteem, guilt, shame, rage, and revenge are passed on in families from one generation to the next. For individuals to begin to create new community systems, behaviors transmitted over generations must be altered.
2. People learn how to create communities that contribute to a civil society by doing it. IIC models democratic process and collegial decision-making versus hierarchical, top-down decision-making. IIC does not just “teach” democratic process and cooperation as concepts; IIC seeks to embed them as an integral part of all interactions in all phases of all its projects.
3. IIC seeks to honor cultural roots and views them as the archetypal core for healing in all societies. IIC seeks to make the uniqueness of each person into “capital”. The highest functioning of each person in his or her specific place is the best strategy to achieve positive change in systems.
Information about the speakers
The speakers included:
• Craig Barnes (USA), lawyer, negotiator, facilitator, author, playwright, essayist and radio commentator. He has extensive negotiation experience in Europe, Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus and has led numerous groups in these countries on issues relating to nuclear weapons, ethnic cleansing and civil society. His books include: In Search of the Lost Feminine; Decoding the Myths that Radically Reshaped Civilization, and Growing Up True. His performed plays include Queen Elizabeth I, King's Yellow, and A Nation Deceived. In progress: Democracy At The Crossroads, a comparison of personality-based government and the rule of law in western democracies.
• Laura Dodson, (USA), MSW, Ph.D. Jungian Analyst, psychotherapist, President of the Institute for International Connections, teaches individual to societal change at University of Denver and other academic settings and in psychotherapeutic centers around the world. She specializes in individual, family and group work. Dr. Dodson has published three books, including: Psyche and Family and Family Counseling: A Systems Approach. She has also authored several articles and portions of books.
• Richard Hoffman, M.D., group facilitator, Compassionate Listening project held in USA, Germany and Israel.
• Miriam Freeman, Ph.D., Professor of Social Work, University of South Carolina, author of numerous articles in professional journals.
• Janet Christie-Seely, MD, MSc, FCFP, Director of the Satir Centre, Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Ottawa, author of Working with the Family in Primary Care.
The summary of activities
The conference in May was held in highly interactive and multidisciplinary format. List of activities included:
During the conference:
• Presentations by Craig Barnes, Laura Dodson, Miriam Freeman, Richard Hoffman.
• Small group discussions on role of the person in civil society, democratization and process of social change, experience of NGOs in Georgia, Azerbaijan, United States, Canada and other countries, and other topics. Small groups were co-facilitated by Azerbaijani and American facilitators.
• Large group discussions and exercises.
Additional activities included:
• Presentation by Craig Barnes for the US-Educated Azerbaijan Alumni association: "Role of a person in the society and social change"
• Visits to Khazar University and meetings with the University’s president, Dr. Hamlet Isakhanli.
• Meetings with faculty and students at Khazar University.
• Meeting with the dean and faculty members of the Social Work department at Baku State University.
In the beginning of the conference, Richard Hoffman presented the tool of Active Listening and discussed the guidelines which helped the participants to express and respect different points of view, listen to each other with curiosity and desire to understand, without blaming and judging.
Craig Barnes and Laura Dodson spoke about the impact of individuals on history and culture. It is apparent, that distrust, lack of cooperation, black/white thinking, and a tendency to have only one “right” interpretation of events do not allow people to see events in the society the way they are and diminish the possibility to influence the process of change in a conscious way. Such thinking leads to a society where people have respect and tolerance only for people who have the same views and tell the same stories. Those who think differently may become our enemies. To quote Dr. Barnes, “we live by the stories we tell our children.” These stories are interpretations of the events that happened to us and our society and may be significantly different from the events themselves. If we guide our lives by the stories we learn and tell others, there is a risk that the same stories will continue to be told hundreds years from now. If we want to improve our society, we need to become aware of these stories and ask ourselves: do these stories create a possibility for the desired change? Do these stories make us hopeful and encourage us to contribute to the development of the civil society?
The participants were asked to think about the historical events in the past and events in their own lives that influenced their current attitudes and behaviors related to their role in the society. They were asked to write those events on stickers and share how those events impacted them. Participants created a chart with all the events that were important to them. Then the chart was studied and discussed.
One of the discoveries was that the same event had many interpretations. For example, for some people the collapse of Soviet Union was a positive event because their country became independent and provided new opportunities. For some others, the same event meant a loss of connections with friends and other people, the beginning of social insecurity and chaos.
The participants were surprised by the diversity of the chosen events and interpretations. In the small groups, they examined how these interpretations can become a source of hope or hopelessness and can either encourage or discourage them from active engagement in the civil society.
During another presentation, Dr. Dodson presented various points of view of the culture. Each person belongs to many different cultures at the same time. We may belong to the culture of our ethnic group and, at the same time, to the culture of our profession (e.g. medical doctor or farmer), status, gender, interests and hobbies, socio-political and personal values and beliefs, and so on. Each of us may share some cultural values and views with other people and at the same time have different attitudes and views about other aspects of our culture. Exploring the system of cultural beliefs and values of our own and of others is important in order to be aware of the relationships we want to build with other people. Combination of these values, attitudes and behaviors creates the culture. So each of us participates in creating the culture we live in and this is essential to the understanding the way the society functions as a whole.
We spent one day exploring the process of change and the attitudes toward change. Based on the theory developed by internationally renowned expert in social work Virginia Satir, there are two models of perceiving the process of change: Hierarchical Model and Growth Model. In Hierarchical Model, people view change as a threatening, undesirable experience and try to avoid it to keep status quo. The attitude toward people is that they have unequal value and those who have higher status know better what to do in various situations. The belief is that people are potential evils and should be controlled, especially to avoid chaos.
In the Growth Model people are perceived as having equal value, even though they perform different roles in the society. People learn to trust their own experience, value their own opinion and have respect for alternative points of view. Dialogue among people helps them to build a trusting and supporting community. Change is viewed as an inevitable part of life and a source of learning and improvement. Therefore, change is embraced with excitement rather than fear or avoidance. People understand that they constantly change and that their society is in a state of ongoing transformation and they partner with each other in bringing about the positive/desirable change. Those two models represent different ways of perceiving persons, society, and the world.
The participants explored in depth both of these models and the ways each of these two mindsets impacts people’s behaviors and the processes of social development.
The speakers also presented a detailed analysis of the change process and the cycle any system goes through in the process of transformation. Participants were invited to apply these models to the processes in their organizations and communities. Using the change cycle makes it easier to analyze the current and prospective steps people can undertake in order to facilitate desirable systemic transformation in their organization or the society.
One of the most powerful tools that Laura Dodson and Craig Barnes introduced was Interest-Based Problem Solving (IBPS). Interest-Based Problem Solving (IBPS) is an issue-resolution process that addresses individual and group differences in a problem-solving environment. Participants work together to solve a problem through the sharing of information, creativity, flexibility and open communication rather than taking adversarial positions.
Benefits of Interest-Based Problem Solving include:
• Issues are resolved quickly and closest to the Stakeholders.
• Relationships are enhanced.
• Trust is built.
• Conflict, grievances, and patient/member complaints are reduced.
• Meaningful and effective solutions are fostered through collaboration.
• A more constructive work environment results naturally.
Common barriers to Interest-Based Problem Solving include:
• lack of trust
• lack of information/training
• lack of support
• fear of something new
• underdeveloped work relationships
Participants practiced the Interest-Based Problem Solving approach through case-studies and small group discussions
A number of interactive exercises and discussions were held in order to build partnership and dialogue among the participants so they could learn though experience learn how a person can actively facilitate the process of change in an organizational and socio-cultural context.
Information on the Achievement of the Objectives
Participants were afforded a broad overview of the relationship between individual change and social change and a number of working exercises through which to personalize the connection. For example, in order to better understand the cultural bases of decision making, four participants were asked to determine to whom should be given a donor’s heart in a hospital transplant setting. The choices of potential donees were described with a cross section of characteristics designed to elucidate prejudices on the basis of gender, ethnicity, wealth, education and etc. Knowing that all of us bring such predispositions to our conflicts was thereby personalized as the whole audience listened to the debate among the decision makers about the question of who should receive the heart.
Other exercises demonstrated the role of history and myth in the formation of present-day goals, not only national goals, but also personal ones.
Large group presentations were followed each day by small working groups, composed of approximately ten local participants and one or two trainers. In one such session, participants discussed candidly their highest personal allegiances and fears and explored the question of potential meetings among citizens of warring countries in the Caucasus. One participant from Georgia offered to host a session of informal representatives from Armenia and Azerbaijan.
In all these ways, new doors of dialogue were opened and new concepts of social change were introduced while at the same time maintaining a high degree of personal integrity. This representeda substantial achievement of the objective of the conference.
Problems and successes
The project was successful in addressing critical issues of social change and the relation between social change and personal psychological development. It was also successful in engaging participants in the depth and complexity of the connection between their personal stories and their national or cultural stories.
The conference suffered from being too short. There was not enough time explore in depth such issues as corruption, the role of integrity in social and cultural change, or techniques for addressing conflict resolution. Twice as many days (eight instead of four) afforded a much better period of time to discuss these issues in a previous conference (2004) and a period of that length would be most useful again.
More exercises in motion and movement would have been good. Enactment of conflict and its resolution through movement or the Theater of the Oppressed would have been worthwhile, but was missing in this conference simply because of a lack of time.
The participants were actively engaged in the activities during the conference. Many expressed the opinion that the presence of representatives from various organizations, professions and countries allowed them a deeper understanding of the concepts and tools presented and enriched the learning and exchange.
Each small group was co-facilitated by a foreign and an Azerbaijani leader. This helped the local facilitators improve their facilitation and leadership skills and gain partnership experience with an international colleague. At the same time, it created an atmosphere of trust and cultural sensitivity in the small groups and allowed the groups to build openness and trust.
Throughout the conference, the participants were asked questions about what kind of society they would like to live in, what kind of society they would like their children and grandchildren to live in, and what they can start doing differently today to make that desired social transformation possible.
The quality of the participation also reflected the success of the conference. participants were coming up with ideas for further cooperation and were forming committees and working groups to work on their ideas. . Every day participants were volunteering to help by accompanying foreign guests and assisting the organizers, Participant volunteers arranged the closing ceremony and the farewell party. They shared the responsibility for the quality and content of the event.
The conference coincided with Independence Day in Georgia and in Azerbaijan. Participants from each country initiated special ceremonies and introduced the whole conference community to their cultures.
The participants emphasized the importance of building personal and professional connections with each other. Representatives from Azerbaijan and Georgia mentioned the desire to continue working together and proposed to organize several workshops and conferences on civil society and social change in Baku and Tbilisi. By the end of the conference, a working group was formed to develop further plans.
The participants from all countries expressed their gratitude for organizing and supporting this event to the Azerbaijan Psychological Association, the Institute for International Connections, Khazar University and OSCE.
Continuity in the future would increase the effectiveness of these programs. There is no lack of interest by participants or by trainers, but lack of sufficient funding to keep the programs building steadily and regularly upon one another is a major problem.
The Impact Expected
Participants will carry away an indelible impression of demeanors and skills for discussing difficult cultural and social problems and running meetings in a democratic manner in which the view of every participant counts.
They observed and, in some cases, began to replicate ways of involving each of the participants as if they mattered and speaking to them as people of dignity and high value. They thus began to develop leadership skills of their own and techniques for developing investment by participants in the subject and outcomes.
This conference had a good impact, but it is just a beginning. More conferences like this are needed in the future to continue and deepen the learning.
As we mentioned above, the participants came up with many specific ideas and wishes for the future. Some of the future plans included:
• Organizing joint training sessions and workshops in Georgia, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan in 2007 – 2008.
• Organizing an international summer camp on social and cultural change in Azerbaijan in 2008 and inviting more professionals and students from various countries and disciplines.
• Organizing an international conference on social change in Georgia in 2009.
We hope that the working groups formed around each of these ideas will produce efficient proposal plans. We also hope that the continuation of these initiatives will receive adequate financial and organizational support from donors, international and national organizations and professional communities.
June, 2007
Prepared by:
Alexander Cheryomukin, M.A.
President, APA
IIC Board of Directors, and Project co-chair
Nizami St. 93/18, Baku AZ1000
T.: 050 3717711
E-mail: alexcherpsy@yahoo.com
