(This is the third of three articles on the topic which explores practical applications of this perspective. See earlier September/ October issues for elaboration of underlying concepts)

In the earlier articles in this series we explored Processwork concepts that help us understand how groups function and conflict can be understood. What must be clear by now is that the concepts are complex, counterintuitive at times and, as will be seen, require awareness, meta-skills and skills to implement them effectively. The methods seem simple and straight forward but enacting them when one is sitting in the fire of conflict is quite complex and requires considerable innerwork - work on oneself as well as training in the method. In this final article in the series I will highlight the need for meta-skills, give an overview of the method, and outline some core processes and their application.

Applying Processwork in groups may entail working at intra-personal, interpersonal/ relationship, group and environment/world levels, all of which are seen as interconnected and interdependent. Which level the work proceeds on is guided by what emerges during the work and what the group agree to work on. It is common to switch between levels. This is some times intentional and sometimes not but switching without awareness or permission of the group may cause confusion. This may require a meta-communicator or facilitator who tracks and raises awareness of the process and levels. Working with a group conflict has several identifiable steps as outlined below but these do not necessarily follow the sequence in which they are presented.

Mindell suggests that meta-skills are more important than skills when it comes to dealing with conflict. Examples of such meta-skills are beginner’s mind – the ability to follow group/communication signals without preconception or prejudice; non-attachment/ fluidity – to be able to identify with all positions in the field and not be stuck in any, to be able to switch roles with ease; eldership – love and compassion for all sides, empathy - recognising the self as other and vice versa. These and other meta-skills significantly enhance our ability to deal with conflict constructively whether as participants or facilitators. These attitudes and values are conveyed in our presence, the manner, sensitivity and timing of our communications as much as in its content.

The need to work with conflict in a group arises when its primary purpose and identity is disturbed by unwanted events or behaviour, tensions or intrusions that interfere with the implementation of its stated task or mission. These disturbances may come from inside or outside the group and result in some kind of stuckness or rigidity that undermine group atmosphere and functioning and which the group may or may not be able to manage or free up using its current resources. This stagnation may be temporary or may be recurring and may take the form of slow disintegration or volatile destructive blow-ups.

Group Processwork often starts with a sorting process where group members are invited to identify the issues they think the group ought to be addressing. At this stage the issues are clarified so speakers feel heard and others understand what the issues are. They are noted but not explored at this point. The sorting process also helps the group to prioritise the issues to be explored. This is partly a rational process of choosing but is often guided by the energetic responses of the group to the various issues raised. Issues that raise the most heated response by the largest number of group members are often an indicator of the direction the group wants to follow. It is not uncommon to find that several of the issues raised at this stage later appear more clearly connected than was first thought.

Having identified an issue the next task of the group is mapping the process structure based on members’ stories and descriptions of what has happened. This is important as it gives us an idea of where we might want to go or what is trying to happen or getting blocked. Mapping entails making approximation/ estimation of what is happening and adapting/ refining it as more information emerges. Mapping includes identifying primary and secondary processes, edges and edge figures, channels, and levels of group experience as described in earlier articles in this series.

Initially mapping focuses on clarifying the primary process - the groups primary purpose and identity – who are we and what the group is there to achieve, what is agreed, familiar and how we do things round here. This may be long or short term. It may also identify what part of the primary identity or purpose has been disturbed or disrupted. Awareness of the channels reflected in the descriptions and story telling is helpful at this point as these usually reflect those channels individuals and the group feel comfortable with and where secondary processes may appear.

Next the group begins to pay more attention to secondary process. A secondary process is outside the agreed identity of the group. Clues to the secondary process may be apparent in unintended signals, reactions and incongruence that may have appeared while focusing on the primary identity and purpose but which are not brought to the fore at that point. At this stage the members/ group look at what sort of things are disturbing their primary process – secondary processes often appear as “what happens or is done to them” that may not be deemed noteworthy, as well as disturbers that they can directly identify. These disturbances tend to appear in channels which the individual or group feel less comfortable or in control of e.g. proprioceptive/ emotional or relationship channels, making it a challenging task to be approached with respect, sensitivity and support.

When faced with secondary process, edges or disturbance at the boundaries of identities begin to appear. Edges / boundaries tend to remain passive or hidden until the boundary is threatened or the individual/ group is pressured to experience the projected or marginalized aspect. Under such pressure or challenge these edges may appear in the form of pauses, silence, discomfort, feeling stuck or frozen, blanking out, incomplete messages, projections, and so on. The beliefs, feelings, attitudes, principles or values that prevent the group identifying with those people or new experiences that challenge the groups identity are brought to awareness unfolded and amplified so they can be better understood and integrated. In so doing the group is helped to understand its edge – the belief systems and assumptions and sanctions that both bind and restrict the group are open to examination.

Whether from internal pressure, external threat or the force of the evolving field, polarities form in the group. Self-other, us - them experiences at individual, interpersonal, group and inter-group levels thus begin to surface, often appearing in the form of hotspots or recurring edges, which need to be mapped, brought to awareness and worked with before they escalate. Polarisation into sub-groups, minorities of one and more, majorities, insiders, outsiders and so on represent roles and ghost roles that need to be acknowledged, represented and unfolded so the group can get to know itself and resolve its differences. The focus on processing tensions may switch from individual to interpersonal or group as needed and will continually switch between consensus, non-consensus, and sentient levels of experience to support the process. The guidelines below highlight some common steps to enable the processing of edges, interactions between primary and secondary processes and roles.

At the risk of great oversimplification, a Processwork approach to conflict entails taking sides - your own side, the other side and a neutral position, though this taking sides may extend to several additional positions where multiple parties or roles are involved. Fully and awarely occupying each side or various roles is key to parties and the group understanding themselves and each other. Mapping the process will help surface the roles and identify the ghost roles so applying the process might progress as follows emphasising awareness and unfolding it through the various channels.

A mapping process which began with a group member outlining the context, who they are, what is bothering them and what has been disrupted then evolves into deepening aspects of the story by asking them to take their own side and share sensory-grounded information about what disturbs them (visual, auditory, feeling channels - what it feels, looks, sounds like and so on). The process may now take a number of different directions that may be framed by the facilitator and the group needs to choose. For example it may (a) stay focused on the work of the individual (b) open up to focus on the relationship with another member of the group with whom the story teller is in conflict (c) expand the process by identifying and filling out emerging roles in the field and involving more members of the group. Here I focus on (b) a relationship conflict in the group but these generic skills for working through the stages of a conflict process are similar from a personal perspective regardless of which level the group chooses. The following guidelines* give a flavour of what a conflict process might entail and, as can be seen, momentary awareness – tracking your internal process and making it transparent, and noticing your impact on the other play a central role in the process.

When conflict does not get resolved at the interpersonal level e.g. individuals are at an edge they do not go over, the group tends jump in and conflict escalates. So it is important that edges are processed or the conflict recycles or escalates. Where conflict continues in the community despite resolution at an interpersonal level, there arises a need to process the conflict at the group level through identifying and inviting members to fill the roles operating in the field.

Working individually: When there is a sense that working on the issue as a large group is not appropriate, further preparation is needed before attempting to do so or resolution between opposing parties in the large group does not create resolution – the problem can be approached privately through individual work by framing the conflicting parties or roles as possible inner aspects of ourselves that are in need of reconciliation and integration. In effect this is a further switch in levels inviting individuals to explore their personal answers to collective issues.

Adopting an inner work approach assumes, from the outset, that only one person is interested in the resolution of the conflict. Requesting that both people or the group be willing to work on the conflict may place an unnecessary restriction or even a barrier on the work and that may prevent it from proceeding any further. In later stages and as a result of the work you do, your conflict partner or the group may welcome the opportunity to find out more about you and work on the conflict either jointly or separately.

When working at the group level, filling out roles and switching between roles can raise awareness and create helpful insights into the dynamic that is disturbing the group. The ability or difficulty in identifying with particular role raises awareness of edges and blocks. The process of playing or even observing the playing out of different roles in the field can deepen empathy and compassion and help members understand the group dynamic - even those roles they have a personal edge against identifying with. In a similar way the group can become aware of and identify with the secondary process – that which they repress or marginalize.

Processing group conflict and going over edges in this way can have a variety of positive outcomes including a sense of relief and completion, greater fluidity and freedom of expression, deepening of awareness and understanding, expanded identity and improvement in relationship. There may also be a temporary or more lasting resolution or transformation of the conflict though raising the groups awareness, learning about itself and recovery of its ability to pursue its primary goals.

It is difficult to portray the complexities and subtleties of Processwork in action in a few short articles so this is but an introduction to what may be possible. The methods outlined in these three articles hopefully give readers some sense of the key methods of working with conflict or at least whetted your appetite to read and experience more of the undoubted insights and benefits of this approach to conflict.

Other processes have not been addressed here such as helping individuals, antagonists, groups and organisations reconnect with the energies and qualities of their essence or their founding myth which can be a potent catalyst in helping individuals and groups free themselves from stuck positions, go over edges, become more fluid in the way they deal with conflict and help them along the road to eldership and Deep Democracy. Deep Democracy is core to the “high dream” of Processwork in so far as it aspires to a greater inclusivity than the majority rule of conventional democracy, to hearing all voices whether dominant or minority, that allows space for competing views and diverse communication styles and values multiple levels of reality. Coupled with awareness it may be the group’s strongest antidote to destructive conflict.