21st Annual Conference of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies
“Search for Dignity”
in Cape Town, South Africa, April 2013
If you wish to participate, email us!
• April 2013: Three-day Conference (please register, no registration fee, sharing minimal cost according to ability at the end)
• April 2013: Public Event (open entrance, free)
Venue:
Cape Town
Host, Organiser, and Convener:
Hélène Lewis
Hosting OrganisationsSouth Africa
• How to get to the conference venue
Please fly to Cape Town
• Please kindly note that...
• All our programs are by invitation only; however, we invite everyone to our Public Events.
• The Closed Parts of our programs have limited enrollment.
• We like to get to know participants prior to all of our conferences and workshops, and prior to issuing an invitation.
• During our conferences, we always ask all participants for their permission to have their pictures or videos posted on our website, however, if you change your mind later, either in total or for specific pictures/videos, please let us know! Thank you!
• Participants are kindly asked to find their own sources of funding or economic support to participate in our conferences, see, among others, www.supportcenter.org and www.foundationscenter.org.
• Participants are kindly asked to handle all of their travel arrangements and required documentation, including requests for visas, on their side. HumanDHS does not have the staff or resources to assist with visa requests.
• Frame
• List of Conveners
• Programme
• List of Participants
• Papers
• What happened in our previous meetings? Please see Newsletters!
Frame
by Linda Hartling, 2004
In our meetings we aim at creating a humiliation-free, collaborative learning environment characterised by mutual respect, mutual empathy, and openness to difference. The perspective of "appreciative enquiry" is a useful frame of our work. Our HumanDHS efforts are not just about the work we do together, but also about HOW WE WORK TOGETHER. At appropriate points during our meetings, for example at the end of each day, we take a moment to reflect on the practices observed that contributed to an appreciative/humiliation-free learning experience.
It is important to emphasise that an appreciative approach is not about expecting people to agree. In fact, differences of opinion enrich the conversation and deepen people's understanding of ideas. Perhaps, this could be conceptualised as "waging good conflict" (Jean Baker Miller), which means practicing radical respect for differences and being open to a variety of perspectives and engaging others without contempt or rankism. As we have seen in many fields, contempt and rankism drain energy away from the important work that needs to be done. Most people only know "conflict" as a form of war within a win/lose frame. "Waging good conflict," on the other side, is about being empathic and respectful, making room for authenticity, creating clarity, and growth.
Please read An Appreciative Frame: Beginning a Dialogue on Human Dignity and Humiliation, that Linda has written for us in 2005.
Please see also Appreciative Facilitation: Hints for Round Table Moderators, kindly written in February 2006 by Judith Thompson to support the moderators of our workshops.
Please see furthermore Buddhist Teachings on Right Speech, which relate to our quest for appreciative enquiry, caring and being.
List of Conveners
Hélène Lewis, Host, Organiser, and Convener
Helene is born in Namibia, currently living in Cape Town, South Africa. She holds a MSc in Clinical Psychology and is a psychologist in private practice. She has a keen interest in Psycho-history, particularly in generational re-enactment within and between groups in South Africa. She has contributed towards the Rhodes Review, writing on racism, and is currently researching a book on the woundedness caused by humiliation and consequent revenge in SA – over the past 350 years.
Linda Hartling, Ph.D., Supporting the Convener
Dr. Linda M. Hartling is the Director of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (HumanDHS). She is also a Member of the HumanDHS Global Advisory Board, HumanDHS Global Core Team, HumanDHS Global Coordinating Team, HumanDHS Research Team, and HumanDHS Education Team. She is the Editor of the Journal of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (JHDHS).
Hartling is affiliated with the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute (JBMTI) at the Stone Center, which is part of the Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College in Massachusetts.
Until November 2008, she was its Associate Director. Hartling is a member of the JBMTI theory-building group advancing the practice of the Relational-Cultural Theory, which is a new model of psychological development. In addition, Hartling coordinates and contributes to training programs, publications, and special projects for the JBMTI. She holds a doctoral degree in clinical/community psychology and has published papers on resilience, substance abuse prevention, shame and humiliation, relational practice in the workplace, and Relational-Cultural Theory. [read more]
Please see:
• Humiliation: Real Pain, A Pathway to Violence, the draft of Linda's paper for Round Table 2 of our 2005 Workshop on Humiliation and Violent Conflict, Columbia University, New York.
• Humiliation: Assessing the Impact of Derision, Degradation, and Debasement, first published in The Journal of Primary Prevention, 19(4): 259-278, co-authored with T. Luchetta, 1999.
• Shame and Humiliation: From Isolation to Relational Transformation, the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute (JBMIT), Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College No. 88, Wellesley, MA 02481, co-authored with Wendy Rosen, Maureen Walker, Judith V. Jordan, 2000.
• Humiliation and Assistance: Telling the Truth About Power, Telling a New Story, paper prepared for the 5th Annual Conference of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies 'Beyond Humiliation: Encouraging Human Dignity in the Lives and Work of All People', in Berlin, 15th -17th September, 2005.
Evelin Gerda Lindner, M.D., Ph.D. (Dr. med.), Ph.D. (Dr. psychol.), Supporting the Convener
Evelin Gerda Lindner is the Founding President of the Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (HumanDHS) network and initiator of the World Dignity University initiative. She is a transdisciplinary social scientist and humanist who holds two Ph.D.s, one in medicine and one in psychology. In 1996, she designed a research project on the concept of humiliation and its role in genocide and war. German history served as starting point. She is the recipient of the 2006 SBAP Award and 2009 "Prisoner’s Testament" Peace Award. She is affiliated with the University of Oslo, Norway, with its Centre for Gender Research, and with its Department of Psychology (folk.uio.no/evelinl/), furthermore, with the Columbia University Conflict Resolution Network (CU-CRN), which was superseded, in 2009, by the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity (AC4) at Columbia University, New York. She is also affiliated with the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme in Paris. Lindner is teaching globally, including in South East Asia, the Middle East, Australia, Africa, and other places globally. [read more]
August 2011: Program - Closed Part of the Conference (still evolving!)
Day One, April 2013 (still evolving!)
8.00-9.00 Registration
9.00-9.40 Hélène Lewis and Linda Hartling welcome everybody to the non-public part of our conference and explain our appreciative frame
Linda M. Hartling usually welcomes everyody and sets the frame of our conferences within "Appreciative Enquiry" (until his sad passing in 2007, she did this together with Donald Klein). Please read An Appreciative Frame: Beginning a Dialogue on Human Dignity and Humiliation, that Linda has written for us in 2005.
Linda keeps our workshops together with her continuous caring interventions and her wisdom carries our conferences through crucial moments.
9.40-10.30 Participants present themselves
• Musical presentation
10.45-12.00 Introductory presentation: How We Are and Our Latest News
Linda M. Hartling, Ph.D., is the HumanDHS Director. She is also a Member of the HumanDHS Global Advisory Board, HumanDHS Global Core Team, HumanDHS Global Coordinating Team, HumanDHS Research Team, and HumanDHS Education Team. She is the Editor of the Journal of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (JHDHS).
Linda is affiliated with the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute (JBMTI) at the Stone Center, which is part of the Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Until 2008, she was its the Associate Director.
See here the latest news of our HumanDHS network!
Evelin G. Lindner, Founding Director and President of HumanDHS
This talk highlights how globalisation is interlinked with new and unprecedented psychological dynamics that call for novel solutions at all levels - macro, meso and micro levels, and in all fields of public policy.
Please see background material: In Times of Globalization and Human Rights: Does Humiliation Become the Most Disruptive Force? In: Journal of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, March 2007.
Please see an earlier version here or at http://ssrn.com/abstract=668742 (this paper's SSRN ID is 668742)
See also The World on a Trajectory from Humiliation to Dignity: A List of “Factoids,” paper prepared for this conference.
See, furthermore, Dignity or Humiliation in Economic and Monetary Systems: Can We “Occupy Wall Street” and Transcend the Old Cs (Communism and Capitalism) through Economic Systems of True Inclusion? What about Inclusionism? Or Dignism?
12.00-13.30 Lunch
13.30 Launch of Open Space Sessions
Our Open Space is facilitated by Linda M. Hartling. Please read here more about the Open Space and what it entails.
Open Space means developing the programme of the conference on the first day. Here is a list of topics that have been already proposed prior to the conference:
End of Day One
Day Two, April 2013 (still evolving!)
9:00 Welcome
Continuation of Open Space Sessions
End of Day Two
Day Three, April 2013 (still evolving!)
9:00 Welcome
Continuation of Open Space Sessions
End of Day Three
Public Event, April 2013 (still evolving!)
• Registration
• Musical presentation
• Welcoming everybody to the public event of our conference
• Hélène Lewis, host, convener, and organiser of this conference
• Linda Hartling, Director of the Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies network
• A Dignity Renaissance
Hélène Lewis, host, convener, and organiser of this conference
• Appreciative Enquiry and Humiliation
by Linda Hartling, Ph.D., Associate Director, Jean Baker Miller Training Institute, Wellesley College, Boston, USA
In our conferences we aim at creating a humiliation-free, collaborative learning environment characterised by mutual respect, mutual empathy, and openness to difference. The perspective of "appreciative enquiry" is a useful frame of our work. Our HumanDHS efforts are not just about the work we do together, but also about HOW WE WORK TOGETHER. At appropriate points during our conferences, for example at the end of each day, we take a moment to reflect on the practices observed that contributed to an appreciative/humiliation-free learning experience.
Please read An Appreciative Frame: Beginning a Dialogue on Human Dignity and Humiliation, that Linda has written for us in 2005.
• From Shock to Awe: From Humiliation to Dignity
Evelin Lindner, Founding Director and President of HumanDHS
If you wish to learn more about the overall aim of the HumanDHS work, please read a transcription of Evelin's explanations that were part of her introductory presentation this morning. If you wish to see a brief introduction to her theory of humiliation, please see the first issue of the Journal of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies, March 2007.
• Musical presentation
Closing of the event
Tentative List of Participants (in progress)
If you wish to participate, email us!
• Hélène Lewis, host, convener, and organiser of this conference
• Inga Bostad
Open Space and What It Entails
Donald Klein explained the Open Space design as follows (2006): It involves creating a kind of 'marketplace' of possibilities based on topics nominated by participants. The only requirement is that whoever nominates the topic, acts as the convener of the discussion of the topic and takes responsibility for having notes taken. A report is subsequently made about the essence of what was discussed, including any conclusions or recommendations, at a plenary session following the topic groups.
The Open Space design has the advantage of focussing on whatever is of greatest interest to participants at the moment. It allows for parallel discussion of multiple topics, followed by a period of sharing and general discussion.
Alan Klein kindly wrote (31/10/2005): One of the key elements in making an OS event successful is the focusing of the question that the participants respond to. Another is being clear about what will be done with the information presented and/or decisions made in the OS event itself.
I would like you all (and any others who should be involved in this as well) to begin thinking and dialoguing about what would be the most question that you would most like to see grappled with by the participants. This may or may not include a sense of the decision(s), or type of decision(s) that you want the participants to come to or you may decide that the OS event is just for gathering and focusing energy and not to some to any decisions.
Thanks,
~Alan
On 14th December, 2005, we had a Board Meeting in NY:
We discussed our Open Space Section. Don explained that we could have different levels, a more open and general level and a more focused level. At the more open level we would discuss what is on our minds, at the more focused level, we would form 'buzzgroups' on particular topics, such as business, research, education, fundraising, non-profit.
Don Klein kindly wrote (30/12/2005):
[...] The main point I recall dwelling on at some length had to do with deciding first on the content of a session and its purpose; then deciding what meeting technology to use. Open Space is often used when the purpose is to make it possible for individuals to focus on aspects of a general topic that are of special interest to them. The participants themselves choose what they want to discuss. No one knows in advance how many groups there will be and what they'll be discussing.
Buzz groups are used as a way to break a large meeting down into smaller sections (usually from six to twelve or so people). All the buzz groups can be assigned the same topic; or different buzz groups can be assigned different aspects of the same topic; or buzz groups may be divided among two or more different - usually related - topics.
The main point is to decide what is to be the topical focus and what outcomes are desired from a session. Then pick the technique that promises to help us achieve the purpose.
Love, Don
Sophie Schaarschmidt kindly wrote (02/01/2006):
What I would suggest for a following workshop (and this is my very personal view) is to create discussion forums as open choices. The open space technology as I know it, and as it is used mainly in the field of training involves participants in a unique way. The first step is like an open brainstorm session involving all participants. In this session, participants can come up with a topic that they want to (present and) discuss. All topics are written down and similar topics might be combined into one topic. This process can happen either beforehand via email or a web-forum or at the workshop on a blackboard. Once the discussion topics are defined the person that proposed a certain topic would announce a time and a space when and where the topic will be discussed. In a full day of open-space, up to 50 topics could be discussed. People are free to join and leave a discussion. As a metaphor, people are like bees flying from one topic to another, participating in a discussion as long as it feeds their interest and taking the honey from it as well as contributing to it, and leaving the discussion when it takes a turn into a direction that they are less interested in or when they wish to participate in other discussions on other topics as well. Normally people take part in 3 to 10 discussions a day. Therefore, people are free to select the topics they are interested in and move to other discussions, as listener or both, listener and contributor. Each discussion group is also free in putting their time frame, and scheduling breaks. Of course, there should be a time frame for the open-space session, let's say it would take place from 1pm to 5pm in the afternoon. Yet, discussion groups can schedule their space (location), time frame (a discussion could last half an hour or three hours: as much as it takes to explore the issue) and breaks themselves. The only condition is that the discussion topic, its location and starting time will be announced (or written down on a public board) so that all participants know when which subject will be discussed where.
I participated twice in such an open-space session and I was very much impressed by its power and evolving possibilities. Not only were people more active, excited and engaged, taking little breaks, but also people felt they could gain and contribute most in this process. They felt they were free to choose which discussions to engage in, and it was an easy way to make contacts with those people interested and engaged in topics similar to one's own. By being able to set an own time frame discussions were deeper than usual, and by participants moving from one topic to another, joining (and making new contributions) or leaving a discussion the discussions stayed vivid and interesting, and many perspectives could be shared. At the end of a discussion each group filled in an A4 page which contained the title of the discussion group, a list of the names of the people who contributed in the discussion, and a summary of what was discussed (the main stances). All the discussion summaries can be combined to a book at the end of the conference providing people with a tremendous treasure of topics and insights.
Another advantage of the open-space technology (as I experienced it) is that people stay 'fresh' in the workshop. The discussion excites and revives people and forms a good basis for getting to know each other and going on with the discussions at a later time in the workshop (e.g. during lunch).
It might be worthy to try the open-space technology in a HumanDHS workshop meeting substituting the round table sessions, or in addition to them. The only difficulty I'm aware of might be that we would need many spaces (rooms) where the discussion groups could spread for their discussions.
[...]
Good luck for your work in 2006!
Yours warmly,
Sophie Schaarschmidt
Linda M. Hartling kindly wrote in response to a message from Carlos Sluzki (21/01/2006):
How do we maximize the quality of work together when we are a group of individuals with dramatically varying levels of experience? This is such an important topic I think we should discuss it at our next meeting in Costa Rica. Perhaps, we could use some of our Board meeting time to discuss this? In addition, perhaps we could use some of our 'open space' time to explore people's view of this dilemma? I suspect that all of us involved with the operations of this network share a desire to optimize our efforts, to move the work forward efficiently and effectively. When we use an all-inclusive format at our meetings, we risk back tracking and dealing with questions that have obvious answers (e.g., convincing some newer attendees of the significance humiliating behavior). (...) In the words of Peter Drucker, I would like to see our group create conditions that 'strengthen our effectiveness and make our weaknesses irrelevant'. But, how do we do this in a way that promotes the dignity of all the people who attend our meetings? I'm trying to think of some examples of organizations that do this... perhaps, Linda Stout's Piedmont Peace Project? Not too long ago I read a book entitled, 'The Wisdom of Crowds', which I think is relevant to our questions about inclusion/exclusion. It
describes the conditions for 'wise crowds'. (Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York: Doubleday.)
Don Klein kindly responded (28/01/2006):
I very much support the focus on where we want to go. Suggest working in interest groups part of the time: i.e., education, research, civic action, global community building. And include a way for groups to emerge around other areas of interest. for that matter, if only one person had an
interest and wanted to develop it further and then share his/her thoughts with us, that might also be possible.
Love, Don
Don Klein kindly wrote (28/01/2006):
I'd like to offer some experiences with the network originally known as National Training Laboratories. This network, begun around 1950, is sstill in existence today; it has changed, however, in ways that seem relevant to the issues raised.
The network originally was a group of 'originators' of theory and practice in the area of group dynamics. Most of them had participated in the discovery of 'sensitivity groups' or the t=group method. After almost a decade, the more experienced people in the network became Fellows, as distinct from ordinary Members of the network. To admit someone to their membership, all the Fellows had to agree that the applicant's credentials merited inclusion in the Fellows. During t his initial period, which lasted about ten years, selected members of the network participated as staff members of two and three-week training programs for the general public, using the t-group method. An enormous amount of theory building took place as faculty spent three or four days preparing each of the training labs. It should be noted that most of the network were academics engaged in one or another of the social sciences, in areas related to democratic participation in social change. They were all motivated by their common passion and some of them felt that the two or three weeks they spent with their colleagues from around the country were the most meaningful and exciting of the entire year.
In the 1960s, questions arose about the suitability of having a 'class' system in the network. The Fellows were seen as an anti-democratic perversion of the ideals and purposes of NTL. And so the Fellows class was discontinued.
At about the same time, financial difficulties led to a reorganization of NTL, which included dissolution of the existing netework and inviting a more diverse group (sex, race, and ethnically) to form a new network. The theory and practice of Organization Development, meanwhile, had emerged and more and more of NTLs network members became engaged in OD practice, while fewer and fewer network members were engaged in academic pursuits.
In my view the social impact and creativity of the current network have been reduced by NTL's growing emphasis on operating profitably as a 'business'.
There is currently an upsurge (how strong we don't know) of those wishing to advocate working on participative ways to democratize our institutions and our society. Some of the network members are placing an increased emphasis on creating an international network and of promoting global community.
A major point in all of this history for me is that there is no 'ideal' and certainly no 'absolute' way of resolving questions having to do with competency, interest, and inclusion. Based on the above history, my inclination is to favor the 'class' system; i.s., creating a group of qualified researchers, practitioners, and policy shapers to work together to shape, participate in, and contribute knowledge and skills to the work of HDHS network, including those activities that enable it to raise money by grants, contracts, income from training programs, and contributions.
These comments are lengthy. I hope they're helpful.
Love,
Don
Linda M. Hartling kindly wrote (27/04/2006):
In terms of Open Space...I think we should have some of the same groups we had in Berlin, with room for a couple of new groups. For example, we could have an education group, a research group, a business group, etc. It would be helpful to have these key groups continue their discussions, rather than creating all new groups. Didn't we talk about having 'buzz groups', meaning groups addressing topics that people want to continue to move forward? The education, research, and business groups could be buzz groups.
The following Open Space groups were proposed but the facilitators are unable to come. If you are interested in the topics, please contact them.
• Peace: A World History, facilitated by Antony Adolf
• Native Hawaiian and Polynesian Communities, faciliated by Dharm P. S. Bhawuk and Neil Ryan Walsh (Neil is unfortunately hindered to join us)
• Familiarization and Its Ways: Is Ragging/Bullying an Archaic Method of Interaction, facilitated by Harsh Agarwal
• Giving Voices to the Environmentally Humiliated and Misrecognized: Nature and Women by Keitaro Morita (adapted from a similar presentation at the 9th Annual Conference of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies in Hangzhou, China, 13th-16th April 2007)
• Humiliation and Dreams, a talk/session by Dakshinamoorthi Raja Ganesan
• Asian Religious Worldviews and Alienation, and/or Alienation and Dreams, a talk/session by Dakshinamoorthi Raja Ganesan
• Video Series of the Causes and Patterns of Humiliating Experiences Through Role Play by Dakshinamoorthi Raja Ganesan
D. Raja Ganesan kindly wrote on January 15, 2009: "I take this opportunity to suggest that a video series of the causes and patterns of humiliating experiences through role play of well established principles of social psychology--both culture free and culture fair--through role play and simulation be taken under the auspices of our group."
• Intercultural Research, faciliated by International Academy of Intercultural Research (IAIR) researchers
• The Role of Dignity and Humiliation for How We Relate to Other Animals by Michael W. Fox
Papers
All participants are warmly invited to send in papers.
Please notify us, if you wish to submit any of your papers also as a book chapter or as a journal article.
Please see earlier submitted papers here:
• List of All Publications
