Alternative?
Click this link to read the PDF VERSION of
this article
Click this link to SEND FEEDBACK on the article
Click this link to VIEW FEEDBACK on the author's articles
In response to Subud Vision’s recent ‘Question of the
Moment’ [What would Subud be like if we abolished the Helper system? (Subud
Vision, June ’08)], I proposed a mentoring scheme as a possible replacement and
a more egalitarian approach to supporting new members, with the idea of making
the system more accessible and clearer in its remit. As a consequence it was
suggested I might like to expand on the mentoring idea.
After a number of false starts I realised this
off-the-cuff idea was tinkering around the edges rather than addressing what I
perceive to be some of the difficulties I have with the organisation. I say
‘the difficulties I have’ rather than suggesting the problems all lie with the
organisation, but I have no doubt my comments may well fit with concerns
expressed elsewhere.
The latihan remains a powerful force in my life. I am
not sure what it is, where it comes from, or how it works — if it works.
Sometimes I think I may just be conning myself or it is no more than a case of
self-delusion. Yet despite that, I know I am being blessed, guided, sheltered,
challenged, and taught. Why? — absolutely no idea. I cannot begin to make sense
of it, but I don’t doubt the shape and purpose it has brought to my life even
though I might struggle to explain it.
But the organisation of Subud leaves with me with a
deep sense of dissatisfaction. It may be that I don’t understand or appreciate
its ways of working, but to me frustration is the order of the day. The
structure and its various elements — helpers, committees, wings, plus all
levels of functioning — ideally should foster integration and co-ordination
with a true sense of harmony; but do they? The complexity of the system may be
considered a necessity in supporting Subud world-wide, but it feels somehow
remote from the ordinary member. At group and possibly regional level I feel
sure we could adopt a simpler framework which would promote a more inclusive
and accepting approach, devoid of status, and a greater willingness to listen
to and learn from each other irrespective of how long we have been in Subud and
following the latihan. For helpers there is the danger of imposing their own
understanding on others or getting too caught up in the role that testing has
assigned them, to the detriment of fulfilling the actual tasks of providing
support, encouragement and guidance. Hence the notion of mentoring, where any
member may be willing to provide support to newcomers and older members too.
However after checking the dictionary definition of ‘mentor’, which emphasises
experience and expertise, I had second thoughts. ‘Buddy system’ might be a more
appropriate term.
It is the ‘expertise’ bit which, for me, gets in the
way. If my memory serves correctly, Bapak emphasised the role of helper as just that — a Subud member ready to
offer assistance, but not necessarily spiritually advanced, not particularly
expert, assigned to open new members, to share their own experience while also
emphasising the individuality of the latihan experience: a necessary
arrangement to promote the latihan and support the membership. So where am I
going with this? What I think has crept in over the years is a sense that being
tested in as a helper comes with some status and authority, with an expectation
of a progression through the hierarchy — group to region to national to
international. Implicit in the process is the assumption that the new helper is
ready and fit for the job of attending to the spiritual needs of the membership
and only needs time to meet the demands of the role. Perhaps the emphasis
should be less on the role and more on the tasks of the helper, even on some
training in carrying them out effectively to ensure consistency of approach,
along with a list of dos and don’ts.
Consistency — or lack of it — is an issue. Too often with newly appointed
helpers at whatever level come new ideas or different approaches with little or
no explanation other than ‘this is the way we do it now’. I hear you argue that
testing is enough and the recipient will grow into and be somehow supported and
guided in the helper role. That assumes a capacity to receive well and clearly
at all times. Mmm… the sceptic in me wonders.
Meantime as the helper is ‘growing into the role’ and attempting to
divine how best to serve the spiritual needs of the ‘flock’, what about the
members? — new ones in particular who may well be utterly confused as to the
role and hold unrealistic expectations of helpers, not to mention older members
who may be at odds with the style of helper delivery yet feel unable to
question or comment.
A simplified buddy system, at group level at least,
would offer a clearer remit, limit confusion and be more readily understood and
also more immediate in providing support and encouragement. It would also
emphasise the non-expert responsibility bit, encouraging (hopefully) a more
open dialogue about the best kind of support or help. All regular members could take this on (optional of course); it
would not be dependent on just one or two who are specially appointed. Ah, but
what about testing in, isn’t that important? Is it? Is testing somehow securing
God’s approval? And how do we ensure ‘buddies’ are not passing on erroneous
ideas? Probably a lot easier to do than trying to rein in a helper, who can too
readily point to being tested in (end of argument). But what is erroneous and
who decides? What we need is fitness
for the job (as agreed by the membership), as well as a real willingness to
carry out the responsibilities, along with an element of training to ensure
clarity of role and task.
To be fair, most helpers do carry out their
responsibilities with a degree of sensitivity, but sometimes there is a failure
to appreciate and respond to the concerns of members. A member in real
difficulty, spiritually or otherwise, may need more than testing out of a
crisis. A more equal set-up like a buddy system could be more responsive, with
members themselves deciding who best to approach, who they feel most
comfortable opening up to, or who they judge are in the best position to
assist. This approach would also allow
for a more equitable sharing of the responsibility for looking after members,
which would then not be solely reliant on one or two appointees in the group.
The helper system suggests exclusivity in supporting new or inexperienced
members and consequently may be less responsive.
A further frustration with the organisation is the
promotion of the idea that somehow we in Subud are extra special, more
spiritually aware, above ordinary mortals even. How arrogant of us. ‘You will
recognise them by their fruits’ (Matthew 7.16). Well our results (fruits) are
not good enough. More and more I see ‘ordinary mortals’ achieving great things
for the benefit of humanity, and with that awareness comes a sense of shame as
well as frustration. Our record is not so hot — and I am a part of that
failing.
My focus has been on helpers rather than committee,
mainly because of the lack of clarity over role and remit, but also because
central to Subud is the latihan — which we understand as a spiritual pathway to
the inner development of our human soul and its outward expression. Given the
helpers’ concern with the spiritual aspects of the organisation, this is an
area which requires a lot of care and a fundamental acknowledgement of our
limited understanding of the nature of spirit. What’s needed is, if not a
radical change in approach, then at the very least a serious look at the helper
system to identify what promotes, what impedes and what needs to be put in
place to ensure true spiritual development, allowing Subud to go forward in the
world. This will require significant dialogue, not just testing.