I participate in a number of listservers. In all of them the
phenomenon called "lurkers" in "internet language" plays a prominent
role. Many "lurkers" have contacted me through private email, some
informing me that they would like to contribute and sometimes get so
far that they only have to click the "send" button, but then they
abort their efforts because of fearing making a fool of themselves.
Is it not crazy? The puporse of any language is for souls (minds and
hearts) to interact. Yet when a language is used by some of a crowd,
the rest "lurk". Thus the purpose of a language seems to fail. The
purpose of internet is like that of a language -- for souls to
interact in what is called "cyberspace". But likewise the purpose of
internet seems to fail.
No, it is not crazy. I have been teaching (school, college,
university) the past 26 years. One of my greatest problems all those
years was to get students out of their "lurker" mode. Roughly 90% of
the students in science, engineering or medicine "lurk" while in the
humanity and economy faculties the figure hovers around 70%. How it
is in your country and region, I do not know.
This "lurker" phenomenon does not occur only on internet or in
education. It occurs in all walks of life -- business, societies and
even our churches. And wherever I tried to encourage "lurkers" to
participate in front of the crowd, I failed miserably. Only a few
discarded their "lurker" mode.
Is the "lurker" phenomenon a problem, or is it something like
gravitation, something we just have to accept? If it is not a
problem, then it cannot have a solution. Thus I have the problem in
making it a problem and thus my miserable failure is the solution. It
tells me that the "lurker" phenomenon is not really a problem. Well,
looking at the "lurker" phenomenon from a numerical perspective, it
does seem not to be a problem.
But looking at it from the perspective of a dialogue, it is an
extremely serious problem. I have succeeded in establishing a
dialogue with a small minority of these "lurkers" in all walks of
life. The far majority have told me that they desire intensely to
participate in front of the crowd, but that they fear even more the
hurting reaction of the crowd. Labels like fool, bigot, racist,
oppotunist and lier have driven them into the "lurker" mode.
To understand the complexity, we also have to look at the "lurker"
phenomenon from all other possible perspectives. One interesting
perpective is living nature. The "lurker" phenomenon does not occur in
nature, except when a predator is stalking its prey. But once the
predator has satisfied its hunger, it stops "lurking". Most
interesting is that the possible prey among the rest of the crowd
"know" when the predator does not "lurk" and thus do not fear it
then. Thus the frequent occurance of the "lurker" phenomenon
among humankind makes humankind a unique species.
But this latter perpective also forces us to question whether the word
"lurker" is the best one to decribe this phenomenon? Very few of these
human "lurkers" consider themselves as a predator. What about the word
"hider". The "hider" phenomenon is much more common in nature. Many
species hide in strongholds or by comouflaging themselves. Thus the
"hider" phenomenon makes humankind not such a unique species.
Consequently the desire of me and a few others to resolve the "hiding"
(lurking) mode is the odd thing causing the problem.
But in my dialogues with these "lurkers", many of them also felt very
lonely. Maybe the word "loner" is even a better description for the
phenomenon. Going back to nature, the "loner" phenomenon is more
common than the "hider" phenomenon. We may think, for example, of
leopards, male elephants, some bird species, many insects species and
even more plant species. The higher on the evolutionary scale the
species, the less the "loner" phenomenon occurs. Consequently the
desire of me and a few others to resolve the "hiding" (lurking) mode
is after all not the odd thing causing the problem.
Shall we thus call it the "loner" phenomenon? No. Each of us
sometimes have an intense desire for solitude! Many of us have
experienced the healing which solitude affords. It is something which
also happens frequently in the animal kingdom among the higher
species.
What will we then call it? I think we have to bear in mind the issue
of hurt. People lurk, hide or go into seclusion when they get hurt in
front of the crowd. But they may also retaliate with hurt in front of
that very crowd. Actually, we have a diversity of behaviours which
people revert to when getting hurt. What causes this diversity of
behaviours? The destructive creativity of fellow humans!
Shall we call it the "destroyer" phenomenon? No. Another thing which
came to light in the dialogues with "lurkers", is that the far
majority of them try to avoid causing destructions in the lives of the
rest of the crowd. They do not only fear of getting hurt themselves,
but they fear even more hurting others. Whether this is the case for
the rest of the "lurkers", I do not know. But what I did learn from
the dialogues with "lurkers", is that the majority of them have
"deemed" themselves in advance as probable hurters. The hubris with
which the majority of paticipators (nonlurkers) "deem" others, they
have made their own by deeming themselves with hubris. They damage
themselves because of their awareness of the damage which the
partcipators caused others. I myself have fallen into this very trap
and it took me many years to become aware of it and free myself from
it.
So what will we call this "lurker" phenomenon? I think that we must
call it the "deemster" problem. It occurs among the majority of
participators, causing them to hurt others. I suspect that it also
occurs among the majority of "lurkers", causing them to hurt
themselves.
The word "deem" comes from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word
"deman". This word means "de"=of and "man"=human, ie
"deman"=of-human. (My surname De Lange means "of length".) The word
"deman" has been used orginally to refer to all possible intellectual
activities of humankind such as to judge, to perceive, to consider, to
comprehend, to analyse, to synthesize, to evaluate, to calculate, to
assume, to think, to learn, to believe and to love. But when "deman"
became "deem", it lost its incredible richness to become mostly "to
judge".
The solution to the "deemster" problem is to realise that we cannot
have certainty in both "dialogue" and "judgement" simultaneously.
What? Yes, they are "complementary" activities. This is exactly like
Heisenberg's uncertainty priciple which operates on the microscopic
level of the material world between complementary quantities such as
displacement and momentum. But now something like it operates in the
abstract world of mind! We cannot have certainty in both "dialogue"
and "judgement" when they concern the microscopic issues of mind.
This is the solution to the "deemster" problem.
OK, so now we have solved the "deemster" problem. But how can we avoid
becoming involved with the "deemster" problem? Again, Heisenberg's
uncertainty priciple for the material world gives us the answer. This
principle operates in the microscopic world. It becomes less
perceptible as the microscopic world complexifies quantitatively and
qualitatively into the macroscopic world. In fact, it becomes so
insignificant with complexification that it cannot even be observed
in the macroscopic world. Thus, in Newtonian mechanics which
describes the marcroscopic world very good, scientists have been
measuring both position and momentum simultaneously to a high degree
of accuracy. In fact, scientists were completely surpised when
quantum mechanics brought Heisenberg;s principle to light. Their mind
sets did not even provide for such a possibility.
Now, thinking of "dialogue" and "judgement", which one should we
favour when the "deman" (issues of mind) are still microscopic of
nature? The answer is so simple: "dialogue"! We need "dialogue" to
make the mental picture richer and complexer, to evolve from the
microscopic to the macroscopic, to proceed from issues or topics to
system thinking. There is no way how "judgement" can ever do the same.
When the "deman" are still microscopic, any certain "judgement" will
destroy the certainty which we might gain through "dialogue". Since we
do not know how "complex" the "deman" of newcomers to the dialogue
are, it is best to keep our "judgements" for ourselves.
Although "dialogue" will increase the complexity of the "deman" from
the microscopic to macroscopic level and thus make the "dialogue" less
sensitive to "judgement", we must always question ourselves: How much
do I know of the other members of the "dialogue". Well, again the
answer is simple. Without extensive "dialogue" with a person, the
chances are very small that both of us will know much of each other.
In other words, even when we get the gut feeling that we are very sure
of the macroscopic (complex) nature of the "deman" of the other
person, let us still avoid "judgement" and rather promote the
"dialogue".
The quantum physicist David Bohm, senstive to wholeness and what it
entails, encouraged "dialogue" without "judgement" very much. Some
even begin to refer to it as "Bohmian dialogue". I hope I have
succeeded in giving you a new perpective on David Bohm's dialogues in
terms of the "deemster" problem.
As for myself, I try to avoid the "deemster" problem as much as I
can. But often I discover in the way in which I respond in dialogue
to others that there is still the possibility of perceiving judgement
in my responses. But I openly pledge that I will keep on trying to
avoid hurting others with all my might. The way which I see to do it,
is to promote constructive creativity with learning as its emergent
while also promoting authetic learning with faith as its emergent.
Maybe this way of thinking inflicts hurt, but how will I know it
without any dialogue?
Rick, if each of us on this list pledge to upheld the "dialogue" and
refrain from "judgement", will your task not become very light?
List member, do we not experience bliss in painting the rich picture
of the Learning Organisation through dialogue?
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>