Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> writes:
> In LO18919 the suggestion was made by At de Lange to say some more words
> about the learning organisations which originated already in the 4th or
> 5th century: Guilds. Furthermore it was suggested that they might also be
> compared with families where patrons (fathers/elders) raise and educate
> their children. It is indeed interesting to make this comparison. There
> are lessons to learn how the worked very well, and why the guilds finally
> lost their potential as a healthy LO.
>
> It is a complex story with lots of interplaying factors. A wealth of
> literature is available. I only used some references and I cannot and will
> not sketch a complete picture. Maybe some historians could add
> supplementary information.
Greetings Leo,
Thank you very much for the picture which you have sketched.
Teamwork in LO is very important. So, while you were browsing in your
Dutch libraries rich with books on topics which were important many
centuries and even millenia ago, I delved in our own libraries here
in Pretoria (typical of a developing country) to see what I could
come up with.
Although not by far as rich as your libraries, I did uncover enough
to realise that your sketch of the guilds is realistic. It is a very
useful guide for others who otherwise will have to go to great
lengths to get anything worthwhile on guilds.
Four years ago I got the insight, after reading a book on the early
Christian congregations of the first two centuries that most of them
were beautiful examples of LOs! This insight was somewhat confusing
because I had to question anew exactly what christianity is. Is a LO
a concept which will succeed mainly within christianity, or is it a
common grace like food, language or science which people of all
religions can make use of? I now believe it is a common grace.
Anyway, this insight opened my eyes to search for other examples of
LOs in ancient history. I studied books on the early cloisters of the
church, perceiving some of them to have operated like LOs. But
somehow I was unsatisfied with them being the only examples of LOs.
I also studied books on the general history of Northern Europe to
find examples, but somehow these books did not gave any account of
the guilds, except for mentioning them. Since guilds have played
almost no role in our own South African cultures, I knew too little
of them to make any fruitful connections. But with you mentioning
them with the right catalyst (context of rich parenthood), I ran to
the library and the effective connection followed easily.
I really had great fun while going through every piece of information
on guilds, trying to decide whether they were LOs, using the five
disciplines of Peter Senge to help me understand them. I can
recommend this excercise to anybody else. Allow me to summarise these
five disciplines for those who follow this list, but has not yet
studied Senge's books. The five disciplines are:
1 Personal Mastery
A learning commited for life of the things necessary to
experience the qualities of humaneness.
2 Mental Models
Studying our inner images which we use to understand the world
around us so that they cause less distortion.
3 Shared vision
Cultivating a common desire for a certain future among the
members of an organisation which will sustain their learning.
4 Team Learning
Harmonising the individual learning into a collective effort
which surpasses the sum of of the individual efforts.
5 Systems Thinking
Finding the common patterns among seemingly unrelated phenomena
(even mental models) by which their mutual interaction can be
traced.
When I use these five disciplines to work through your picture of
guilds, four of them operate easily and effectively. The odd one out
is the fifth discipline: systems thinking. Leo, other might say that
you did not do a good job. But let me assure you, the sources which I
studied also have very little on the system thinking in guilds. I am
beginning to suspect that the Middle Ages are also called the Dark
Ages because we know so little about the system thinking among all
its people except for a few philosophical clerics in the church.
The 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica 1876 contains an
article in depth on the guilds by an author known only as L.T.S.
(Tolmin Smith?) The article covers a period of 2000 years and the
whole of Europe.
In that article LTS wrote:
* The essential principle of the quild is the banding together for
* mutual help, mutual enjoyment and mutual encouragement in good
* endeavour.
Even in this simple description I read about
1 personal mastery (enjoyment, encouragement)
2 mental models (help)
3 team learning (banding, mutual)
4 shared vision (good endeavour)
Again the system thinking is tacit.
Compare this description of a guild given 120 years ago with Rick's
description of a LO made less than a decade ago:
* A "Learning Organization" is one in which people at all levels,
* individually and collectively, are continually increasing their
* capacity to produce results they really care about.
So different and yet so much the same!
Leo, you have conluded your sketch with the next wonderful
contemplation on the dynamics of the guilds.
> But this situation changed. A complex of factors plaid a role. The strong
> foundation of a uniform religion with one vision for the whole population
> became unstable after the reformation. At de Lange suggested in a private
> mail that Gutenberg and the bookprinting might also be of influence: no
> oral communication and transfer of information anymore; the role of the
> master was replaced by books. But also the masters became selfish and
> narrowhearted: gain and profit became new goals. Protectionism of the
> profession, sons and relatives became their successors, instead of the
> mates. Craftmanship and skills were not anymore the prime criteria. Within
> the guild new technological inventions were blocked, improvement was seen
> as an unwanted rivalry. The evolution of the society and the very
> professions gave rise to new professions, which were claimed by various
> guilds, so between guilds friction started and detailed regulations were
> introduced to define its professional boundaries. But also the political
> structure within the city changed. The autonomy, monopoly and privilages
> of the guilds were not anymore accepted by the city councal. And also
> friction started between masters and mates, since mates had not the
> security anymore to become master (the son of the master became his
> compatitor, and family life was destroyed).
I also became intensely aware of this dynamics during my studies of
the guilds. And as usual, I jumped the gun, thinking of the dynamics
of present day LOs. If they do not take care, they will experience
the same "rise and fall" dynamics as the guilds of the Middle Ages,
or the earlier "collegia" of the Roman empire, or the "eranoi" of the
Greek civilisation BC.
In my mind I see a great topic which we can discuss someday on the
LOlist "The rise and fall of LOs". But it will be senseless to
discuss such a topic if we do not have much more information on LOs
in the history of mankind. Your "Guilds as LO's of Middle Ages"
provided much needed information. I would like to see a dialogue
develop on this topic which you introduced so well. For example, were
the guilds, by providing a fertile environment, not the reason why
the Guthenberg invention of print became such an incredible success?
But I fear such a dialogue on the guilds will not happen, unless we
go to our libraries and do some research on the topic. Why? Once the
guilds were, then they were no more and now even we know no more
about their rise and fall.
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>