Articles from Integral Leadership Review

8/15 Reflections on Generative and Not-SoGenerative Communication in Academia.

2014- 08- 15 17:08:23 Alfonso Montuori

Shut up, he explained.

Ref lections on generative and not-so-generative communication in
academia.
Alf onso Montuori

Alf onso Mont uori

When I f irst came t o t he US t o go t o graduat e school, I spent hours and hours
in heat ed, cof f ee f ueled discussions in t he pat io of t he universit y caf et eria
wit h just about anybody I could f ind and of t en cont inue lat e int o t he night .
T hese conversat ions were cent ral t o my decision t o st ick wit h t his academic
st uf f and f orget about my previous lif e in music f or a while. Some people were
clearly more f un t o t alk wit h t han ot hers, t o be sure. But t he best
conversat ions would be open and f lowing and moving int o all sort s of new
direct ions. Id get home and immediat ely head f or my desk t o writ ein long
hand. T his convivial play of ideas was one of t he reasons why I ended up in
academia.
Sadly, t hose of us who have spent some t ime in academia prof essionally
know t hat many if not most academic exchanges, part icularly in t he f ormal
set t ing of conf erences and seminars, are rarely as excit ing. And if t here is
excit ement , it s of t en because of int ellect ual joust ing, which, as members of
t he int egral communit y known, can be quit e nast y even among t he most
enlight ened f olks. It s an open secret t hat we can get very at t ached t o our
own ideas, t o being right . Academic discourse ref lect s t his at t achment , and
t he joust ing can go sout h f ast . Already in t he language we of t en use we can
see where t his is going. I def ended my dissert at ion. He at t acked my
posit ion. She demolished his argument . If argument is war, t hen academia is
t he bat t lef ield. It s as if being a good scholar involves, perhaps above all, t he
abilit y t o rip apart somebody elses argument .

If academia has creat ed an adequat e and somet imes exaggerat ed t urf f or

int ellect ual skirmishes, we have surely not done as good a job of f ost ering
cont ext s t hat st imulat e excit ing, provocat ive, creat ive int eract ion. At a recent
invit at ional conf erence, a colleague came up t o me and whispered t hat she
didnt really f eel safe in t his environment . She didnt f eel people were working
together, even t hough t he ent ire conf erence was allegedly about collaborat ive
work. I had heard t hat t here had been some rat her rude int errupt ions and put downs, even during t he lunch breaks, and was a lit t le t aken aback. Most of t he
people at t he conf erence were decent sort s, af t er all, generally f riendly, and
ready t o hang out in t he evening over a drink or t wo. My colleague remarked
t hat every t ime she opened her mout h t o say somet hing, somebody, usually
an older male part icipant , had shut her down wit h comment s like, you havent
read XYZ, or t he problem wit h t his sort of t hinking is or just regular old
mansplaining. I was t empt ed t o give her welcome t o t he f arm t alk about
academic discourse, male egos, seniorit y, t he t endency in our hallowed halls
t o worship t he crit ical view, t hat some academics like t o show of f by proving
someone else wrong, how all t oo of t en a crit ic will f ocus on one small aspect
of what were saying and drone on about how t his view has been discredit ed,
and so on. T hen I realized t hat t his would simply be perpet uat ing a kind of
academic environment and dialogue t hat I also det est . Ironically, t he whole
purpose of t he conf erence was t o generat e scenarios f or t he f ut ure. It soon
degenerat ed int o my cat ast rophic scenario is bigger t han yours, and how
could you not account f or t his or t hat reason why t he world will end. Anybody
who at t empt ed t o f ocus on what could be was shot down wit h yet anot her
dose of cat ast rophe t heory.
I lat er went f or a long st roll wit h my colleague. We had a most memorable
conversat ion, and occasionally got lost because we were so engrossed in
conversat ion we had st opped paying at t ent ion t o where we were going. By
t he t ime we f ound our way back t o t he conf erence, we had covered any
number of t opics of mut ual int erest and were planning any number of project s.
So what was t he dif f erence t hat made t he dif f erence? Well, a key dif f erence
was t hat we were act ually list ening t o each ot her, and t he conversat ion
opened up possibilit ies, shed new light on shared quest ions, provided insight s
int o t opics we were bot h exploring. Our at t it ude was dif f erent , it seemed. We
were not t rying t o prove each ot her wrong, imposing our view, poking holes,
t earing each ot hers views apart . Arguably, we want ed t o bring out t he best in
each ot herand in ourselves. Our met aphor was not war, but more like what
William Irwin T hompson called mind-jazz.
In ot her words, in creat ivit y-speak, our f ocus in academia seems t o be most ly
on convergence, not divergence. Were good at shut t ing discussion down, or
at least shut t ing ot her people down. And while t here are obviously not able
except ions, more generally were not so good at creat ing an open
environment f or divergence, f or real open dialogue, wit h convivialit y and
playf ulness and risk-t aking, st epping int o t he unknown. We dont explore
t oget her very much any more, and we cert ainly dont encourage st udent s t o
do so. But what if we did in f act support much more explorat ion, playing wit h

ideas, t aking a what if approach, going out on t he edge, t aking risks?

T he t hing about t hese kinds of explorat ory, creat ive dialogues is t hat t hey
of t en involve a glimmer of an idea, somet hing inchoat e, ambiguous, ill-f ormed,
f ar f rom t hought out in f act , of t en barely t hought at all. T his inchoat e idea
can eit her be nurt ured, developed, and played wit h f or a while, or it can be cut
of f at t he root . T he same t hing happens inside us, as it were, when we dismiss
our own emerging inklings as nonsense, a wast e of t ime, st upid. Not hing cut s
us of f f rom t he creat ive f low bet t er t han premat ure classif icat ion. T heres a
t ime t o be crit ical, and t heres a t ime t o let an idea emerge, grow, and reveal
it self t o us. If we crit ique t oo soon, it s all over. Weve got t o give ideas t ime.
T his is why t olerance f or ambiguit y is associat ed wit h creat ivit y. Ive met t oo
many people who t ell me t hey have writ ers block only t o conf ess t hat t hey
have an idea, writ e a sent ence, look at it , and convince t hemselves t hat it s
awf ul. T hat may well be t he case, but t he point is t o keep writ ing and get in
t he f low, ot herwise we just shut down. T hen, lat er, we edit . And if we t hrow it
all out , we st art all over again.
If in a social set t ing we arent allowed t o present even our well t hought out
ideas wit hout immediat e at t ack, how can we, in dialogue, be willing t o t ake a
risk and go wit h an ill-f ormed idea, a hint of somet hing t hat weve just picked
up and would like t o run wit h f or a while? Somet hing wed like t o invit e ot hers
t o play wit h? Why should we be willing t o propose an ill-f ormed idea, a hint of
somet hing t hat we t hink might be wort h pursuing, if we know t hat it s going t o
get shot down right away? Clearly t his crit ical at t it ude is not appropriat e 24/7.
T heres a t ime t o apply it , of course, no quest ion about it . But you can have
t oo much of a good t hing.
T he creat ive process involves periods of divergence and periods of
convergence, idea-generat ion and idea-select ion. Are we good at f ost ering
climat es f or idea-generat ion in academia? If convergence is t he almost
inevit able approach, clearly not . Of course crit ical, convergent , idea-select ion
is necessary. T his bears repeat ing. But surely we should also be able t o
creat e climat es t hat are more playf ul and explorat ory, where we act ively
list en, support emerging ideas, go along wit h perspect ives t hat may seem
weird or unusual or even wrong.
A basic rule in improvisat ional t heat er as most people know, is t o go f or and,
avoiding but . In ot her words, t o cont inue wit h t he idea, add somet hing, and
go wit h t he f low. T his serves as a st art . I want be clear t hough t hat Im not
proposing we have t he occasional brainst orming session in class or at
conf erences. Not just because t he lit erat ure on brainst orming seems t o
suggest it does lit t le good, but also because brainst orming is essent ially an
art if icial process. It s part of t he approach t hat says creat ivit y is not cent ral t o
what we do. It s somet hing we have t o make a part icular space f or out side of
t he regular st ream of our act ivit ies. What Im t alking about is a broader
at t it ude t owards people and ideas, one t hat sees creat ivit y as cent ral, and
knows about t he need f or bot h divergence and convergence as part of t he

larger creat ive process. Im also t alking about a dif f erent idea of what it
means t o be a scholar, or at least engaged wit h t he world of ideas. An image
of scholarship in which creat ivit y is not somet hing conf ined t o a specif ic t ime
and place, if at all, but a way of being in t he world t hat recognizes t he
import ance of generat ive dialogue, recognizes, in less social scient if ic t erms,
t hat when human beings get t oget her t o exchange ideas we can do so wit h
convivialit y, in a way t hat appreciat es a pluralit y of perspect ives. A way of
being and relat ing t hat it is not just about proving were right , showing of f our
encyclopedic knowledge and our abilit y t o t ake apart somebody elses
argument . Im also t alking about t aking a hard look at our academic egos,
where, when, and how t hey show up, and how t hey get in t he way of convivial
and creat ive exchanges and somet imes even basic manners.
T he academic world has suf f ered f rom depict ing it self as engaged in t he
rat ional, object ive pursuit of knowledge, a collect ion of abst ract minds
quest ing f or t rut h in a st rict ly ment al pursuit . T his is most ly nonsense, in t he
end. Im not making a philosophical st at ement about t he nat ure of t rut h here,
but rat her saying t hat academics are human beings. Quiet as it s kept , we
have f eelings t oo, and yes, we can become incredibly pet t y and small-minded
in our pursuit and def ense of our academic goals, enormously at t ached t o t he
import ance of our rat ional object ive cont ribut ions, and our ideas and
posit ions. And perhaps t his shows up in t he way we int eract rat her more of t en
t han wed like t o admit .
All t he more reason t o see our academic work as a locus f or self underst anding and self -improvement , f or ref lect ion not just on t he content of
our work, but on t he process of being a scholar. In t his way our int ellect ual
pursuit s become an opport unit y t o part icipat e and cont ribut e in ways t hat
embody t he best of us. Can we also engage in academic dialogue in a way
t hat will bring out t he best in all of us?
While we may sincerely be engaged in a quest f or knowledge, perhaps wit h
t he idea of making a wort hwhile cont ribut ion t o humanit y, we should, I t hink,
also become aware of how we can accumulat e knowledge t o creat e
posit ions, posit ions built up t o become f ort if icat ions f or our egos, posit ions
like f ort resses wit h which we def end ourselves f rom ot hers, at t ack t he
posit ions of t he opposit ion. In t he process we may perpet uat e precisely
what we may be t rying t o change, a world based on dominat ion, cont rol,
imposit ion.
In t he process of reducing academic inquiry t o a st rict ly ment al and object ive
process, we have lost so much. Im not proposing f eel-good hand-holding
kumbaya. 30 years in Calif ornia, Ive seen and heard enough kumbaya t o last
me several lif et imes. What Im suggest ing is a great er emphasis on
t ransparency in t he process of idea-development , rat her t han present ing
f ixed posit ions t o def end. It s clear t hat how we get t o our ideas, t heories, and
so on, is a much messier and more complex process t han present ing (and
def ending) t he f inished product . As such, wit h a f ew not able except ions

involving apples and light beams, how we get t o our ideas is hardly ever
addressed in t he scient if ic lit erat ure. It s lef t t o biographies and
aut obiographies (or pat hographies and aut o-pat hographies, t hese days)
where we begin t o get a sense of t he messy, serendipit ous nat ure of much of
t he creat ive process. Were all about t he context of justification, and leave t he
context of discovery behind, because it s all t oo subject ive and doesnt f it int o
any neat f ormula. Let s explore inquiry in a wider perspect ive, acknowledging
t he process t hat is usually behind t he scenes, and support ing mut ual
explorat ions as well as t he individual creat ive process. Science is increasingly
becoming a collaborat ive process. We owe it t o ourselves t o learn t o
communicat e in a more generat ive way. In t he process, we may have t o reveal
t he many aspect s of t he creat ive daimon. We should also engage in some
serious self -inquiry, recognizing t hat inquiry it self should become an import ant
avenue f or our own personal and collect ive development .
A creat ive encount er involves openness t o quest ioning, ref lect ing on our own
assumpt ions, our own ways of const ruct ing our underst anding of t he t opic at
hand, and more generally our world, t hrough encount er. T he sociology of
knowledge has alert ed us t o t he sit uat ed nat ure of knowledge. It s shown us
how cult ure, race, class, and gender play a role in t he way we const ruct
knowledge. T he psychology of knowledge has received less at t ent ion.
Abraham Maslow wrot e a short lit t le book about it , The Psychology of Science,
t hat even some Maslow scholars barely seem t o be aware of . T he larger
quest ion st ems f rom looking at t he role of t he inquirer in t he inquiry, and
seeing t he inquirer as a whole person, a real person wit h passions, values,
concerns, blind spot s, ides f ixes How and where do our research int erest s
f it int oor bet t er, emerge f rom, and t hen inf orm our lives? What drives us t o
pursue a part icular research agenda? What mot ivat es our passions, int erest s,
curiosit ies, met hodological choices? How do our choices ref lect and t hen
shape who we are? And how do our exchanges wit h ot hers ref lect and shape
who we are? What aut hors and perspect ives and t radit ions are we drawn t o,
and why? Who irrit at es us, who do we choose t o ignore, who bores us, and
why? As academics we of t en f eel we have t o give reasonable, rat ional
reasons f or our choices, our t opics, our met hods, our f avorit es. We might also
explore what dynamics of project ion, int roject ion, what shadow play we are
dealing wit h.
If we engage in dialogue solely t o assert our view t hen our aim is really t o shut
down t he dialogue. If we see dialogue as a creat ive process our purpose in
part icipat ing is t o enrich t he encount er and keep it going, were creat ing a
dif f erent worldperhaps embodying dif f erent ways of being, knowing, and
relat ing. It s not about assert ing the answer, but f ost ering t he opport unit y and
pot ent ial of ongoing collaborat ive creat ive inquiry. T hat doesnt mean were
engaged in endless divergence, unable t o come t o any conclusions, but rat her
surf ing t he waves of divergence and convergence, relinquishing our dreams of
omniscience and t he f inal answer in f avor of ongoing inquiry. If we see
knowledge not as an edif ice built brick by brick, but rat her as an ever evolving
net work, we can also hold our knowledge more light ly, all answers leading

inevit ably t o more quest ions, and t hat our goal is t o creat e an ever more
f ert ile ground f or f urt her inquiry.

About the Author

Alf onso Montuori, PhD, is Prof essor at Calif ornia Inst it ut e of Int egral
St udies, where he designed and t eaches in t he T ransf ormat ive Leadership
M.A. and t he T ransf ormat ive St udies Ph.D. He was Dist inguished Prof essor in
t he School of Fine Art s at Miami Universit y, in Oxf ord Ohio and in 1985-1986 he
t aught at t he Cent ral Sout h Universit y in Hunan, China. An act ive musician and
producer, in a f ormer lif e Alf onso worked in London England as a prof essional
musician. He is t he aut hor of several books and numerous art icles on creat ivit y
and innovat ion, t he f ut ure, complexit y t heory, and leadership. Alf onso is also a
consult ant in t he areas of creat ivit y, innovat ion and leadership development
whose client s have included Net App, T raining Vision (Singapore), Omint elOlivet t i (It aly) and Proct er and Gamble.
T weet
Facebook
LinkedIn