The Women's Institute 2001

By Judy Kirmmse and Jo Vanderkloot

This Year's Process

This year, approximately 70 members of the Women's Institute met together to dialogue about the heritage of our female ancestors. As it has in the last few years, the institute began its session with a ritual. This year, a large flower arrangement was created in the center of the room, after each flower had been imbued with thought images of the women who had nurtured and cared for each of the participants. Following the ritual, small groups convened. Jo Vanderkloot and Judy Kirmmse, the Institute's facilitators, provided a process which the small groups could use or not, as they saw fit. The process included a set of questions with which pairs could interview each other before introducing their partners to the rest of the small group. Small-group dialogue could then take place around the suggested topic: issues women confront around the world, with a focus on similarities and differences based on culture and milieu. Finally, there was time for the groups to report out, and the evening closed with a ritual in which the flower arrangement was completed with the addition of ferns symbolizing the important men in the participants' lives.

Predictably, the small-group dialogues went in different directions, which are captured by these quotes from the reporting-out session: "transitions in our lives;" "our sense of place and of continuity through change;" "reconstructing our lives in an intentional way after loss;" "the dilemmas our mothers confronted—hiding their lights under a bushel for men," "competition with women;" "respecting each other's cultures while acknowledging patriarchy in these cultures;" "what in different cultures makes it possible for flexibility;" "values that came down through generations and the ways our lives either lived out or rebelled against those values;" "the many ways we are connected;" "being confused about boundaries, but getting grounded and being connected to age and life experiences;" and "resonating with each other's experiences."

Some groups commented about the Women's Institute itself, since the facilitators had announced that there is talk about ending it in its current configuration. One group commented on the Institute's long history; for the last few years it has been a source of support, and they would hate to see the chance for women talking to women to end.

Questions About the Future of the Women's Institute

Although in the past few years our articles on the Women's Institute for the AFTA newsletter have typically been simple reports of the process and content of the meeting, this year we are adding some comments about its past and future and its relationship to AFTA. We were asked to facilitate the Institute three years ago. During the prior year's meeting, tensions had surfaced that appeared to be rooted in racial and perhaps class differences.

At the time, we were three partners: Jo Vanderkloot and Myrtle Parnell had become well known for their commitment to their partnership and their ability to transcend and work through their racial and class differences. Judy Kirmmse had recently begun working with them. Since then, Myrtle Parnell has been unable to work because of illness.

We had worked on problems in larger systems together, and had learned that often, when difficulties arise in a diverse group, it will split along those lines of difference. However, the problems are rarely caused by the differences; they are typically systemic—often caused by pressures from the external environment or from a larger system of which the group is a part. Usually, the group is aware of those pressures but is unable to see how they are related to the difficulties being experienced. Instead, each subgroup within the system typically believes that the problems are being caused by members of a subgroup that is different—of a different race, gender, rank, position, etc. In a predominantly white group, people of color are usually seen to be the source of the difficulty. The people of color in the group, on the other hand, typically feel unwelcome, misunderstood, invalidated, undervalued, and unappreciated. It is our experience that as long as the attention of the problem-solvers remains narrowly focused on differences, the problems will seem to abate for a while and will then reappear.

We have found success in using the tools of family therapy in larger systems by helping groups turn their attention to the way their system functions—to basic processes. We have often found that the problems in the group are structurally similar to problems in the external environment or a larger system of which the group is a part, but they occur a smaller scale. They are fractals. In mathematics, a fractal is an intricate design that appears when a series of nonlinear equations are solved by a computer and the results are repeatedly fed back into the equations. The design that results from this iterative process is composed of parts that are self-similar on different scales. In some fractals, you will see the same pattern when looking at the initial design as you will when you magnify a portion of it 200 times, or a million times, or a billion times. It is an expression of self-similarity across scales. Fractals are one way in which nature organizes itself, and, therefore, it is not surprising that human problems can also express this type of self-similarity across scales.

When we look at the relationship between the Women's Institute and its larger system, AFTA, our focus moves from the narrow viewpoint of racial and class differences in the Institute to a broader spectrum.  At the time AFTA was formed, professional organizations were typically individualistic, hierarchical and highly competitive. AFTA was no different, and, to some degree, this is still true. We believe that the Women's Institute's problems a few years ago were related to these characteristics of its larger system. The problems appeared to be racial because those traits are found more often in the cultures of White people with northern European ancestry than in those of people with African, Hispanic, or Asian ancestry. There are gender overtones as well. Women are typically more comfortable in a flatter relationship structure than in a hierarchy, while the opposite is typically true of men. When the problems occurred in the Women's Institute, its meetings had for several years been programs that were similar in structure to those taking place in other parts of AFTA and in other professional organizations. There were engaging topics and novel approaches, but something was clearly not working well.

For the last three years, the structure of the Women's Institute has been small group dialogue with time to report out. Themes have been suggested, but groups have been invited to create their own process if they prefer. This process is clearly non-hierarchical; it is collegial rather than individualistic; and there is no place for competition. Evaluations have indicated that the participants deeply enjoy this process. Why, then, is there a growing consensus that it may be time for the Women's Institute to change its configuration or come to an end?

We have pondered this question and offer the following thoughts about both the Women's Institute and AFTA. One comment made during the Institute especially caught our attention. Someone said, "It's interesting. Now that everybody likes what's going on in the Institute they want to end it." We wonder if it might be the case that something as ordinary and unspectacular as a couple of hours of simple conversation—meeting new people and getting to know them on a level of meaning deeper than the exchange of pleasantries—is too much of a contrast to the underlying and unspoken values of AFTA. Is it possible that AFTA members feel pulled in opposite directions: on the one side, the struggle for recognition which is sometimes rewarded by leadership responsibilities, and on the other, the desire to step out of that competitive model and simply enjoy the company of colleagues? That might be part of it. People may also feel that these conversations are so simple that they are a "waste of time," because they don't further the "professional agenda" of theory and research. Some people who have been going to the Women's Institute for years now feel it is boring. It would be interesting to know more about that. Another tug away from the Women's Institute is that many AFTA "regulars" want time to socialize with their friends, whom they only see once a year or so. The Women's Institute has recently been designed so that everyone sits with people they don't know—it is a chance for guests or new members to get to know those who have been coming for years and learn from them and to meet other new people. The intense schedule of the conference doesn't allow space for both new relationships and old. Additionally, there is the cost of the dinner. Perhaps there is no longer a need for a formal, intellectually oriented Women's Institute with an expensive dinner; but at least some people are expressing a need for a venue for building and deepening relationships with their peers at some time during the conference. How could this be accommodated?

One thing is certain. If the process employed by the Women's Institute in some way runs counter to underlying AFTA values, no matter how much people enjoy it, it will end. The forces in the larger system will bring about conformity to its values. We suggest, therefore, that there be an opportunity for AFTA to engage in a larger conversation about itself, surfacing the unspoken assumptions and values, looking specifically at the value placed on performance and whether that is congruent with valuing relationships. That might lead into an exploration of the structure of AFTA. Could there be room next year for a general dialogue about whether the meetings are making the most of their potential? Could part of the conversation focus on cultural differences—both ethnic and gender cultural differences—and the different ways people from those cultures like to be with others? Or how time operates in those cultures? And how the meetings might address these differences? We hope that there might be the possibility for such dialogue.