Pulling
Together Or Pulling Apart?
A
report for WSC
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
Ipswich,
U.K. (5th May 2009)
For two years we have been asking searching questions.
This is a summary of the results. Many Subud people are speculating about
Subud’s future. From all around the world, we are hearing that Subud’s future
is entirely in the hands of God and that our best way to support is to deepen
our latihan, surrendering all of our worries and cares. Many who favour this
view are longstanding helpers. When a decision is needed these members are
inclined to ‘feel’ the best way forward with help from testing. Other members
propose that while the latihan evolves without our efforts, the ‘outer’ side of
Subud, our organisation, needs skilled management, including research and
strategic thinking. Those who take on voluntary roles in the committee
structure of Subud are more likely to be acting from this second viewpoint.
Typically they ‘come up against’ helpers who want to test about questions which
others consider to be practical or common sense decisions.
As for stewardship of our organisation, there is a
spectrum of approaches. WSC have been getting heartfelt messages from members
around the world, concerned that the ‘extremes’ seem to be pulling apart. To
describe the extremes I will need to generalise: I will call one end of the
spectrum ‘mountains’. A mountain stands tall and strong. It must weather the changing
seasons and the battering of storms to resist erosion.
Mountains
Subud ‘mountain types’ see Subud as a beacon of
spirituality which others may be drawn to. Their aim is to carry on Bapak’s
mission, ensuring the translation and dissemination of Bapak and Ibu Rahayu’s
talks, explanations and the spirit of their advice. Mountains typically
describe latihan in terms such as ‘submission’ or ‘Worship of the One Almighty
God’. They want to retain the current structure, such as a recommended three
month application period. They work for Subud to raise our standards, and to
remain cohesive. Many regret the growth of Subud discussions at congresses and
online, which they feel may dignify people’s egos and distract them from simply
surrendering, and from the many guidelines that have already been given by
Bapak. The overall concern is that if change is encouraged it may not improve
things, and there’s no telling where it will end.
-----------------
The other end of the spectrum I call ‘rivers’. A river
flows from a spring, bringing precious water out into the world. In order to
grow, a river will inevitably acquire silt, flotsam and jetsam, and the river’s
course and shape adapts over time to accommodate a changing environment.
Rivers
Subud ‘river types’ yearn for a flexible and
responsive organisation to let the latihan flow abundantly toward society. They
want to demonstrate the founder’s assurance that the latihan is simple and
needs no guru or teachings. They advocate a wide range of words and descriptions
to reflect the personal nature of the latihan experience, which accommodates
itself to people of all philosophies. Some rivers feel that we are damming our
organisation with rigid words and procedures instead of sharing the latihan
without preconditions. For this reason many are requesting a shorter applicant
period. They see the growth in frank discussions as a healthy sign of progress.
Their aim is to develop local flexibility so we will not suffocate and fade
away.
Mixed message?
One consequence of having these two approaches is that
people discovering Subud are getting a mixed message. Our ‘rivers’ claim to
have no guru, priests, rules or teachings, while our ‘mountains’ cherish and
honour the person and words of our founder. A newcomer to Subud might deduce
that the ‘no teachings, no trappings, open-to-all’ way we intend to be does not
tally with the way they find us to be in practice. Is this mismatch perhaps
putting people off? Helissa Penwell sums up the situation: ‘We do need to
decide what is our core value: today’s personal freedom or external guidelines
— and how to demonstrate that value in a congruent way.’
A healthy organisation needs people to play different
roles. Picture our organisation as a vehicle which needs both an accelerator
and a brake. At present the accelerator and brake are being applied
simultaneously. Rivers put their energy into proposing changes, while mountains
throw their weight into standing firm. Many of our discussions on specific
issues have the same dynamic. Endless time from local committees to WSC — is
spent in developing members’ initiatives which then get squashed. There’s
constant engine noise but no momentum. The result is frustration: a pulling
against rather than a pulling together. Many active members lament that their
hard work is not appreciated and goes to waste. Some withdraw from committee
work or even from Subud. Both ‘rivers’ and ‘mountains’ show admirable
dedication and sincerity as custodians of the latihan. Many have worked
valiantly for decades in various Subud committee and helper roles. And in broad
terms we are all cherishing the same dream: the continuation and success of
Subud. Our quest now is to find a synergy between these two differing
approaches.
Some questions following on from above:
Decisions
• How do we make decisions in Subud?
• Do you find us equal or hierarchical?
• How would you like us to do it in future?
Culture
Organisations have a characteristic style of
operating. They also accrue in-house words, anecdotes and assumptions. Taken
together this is known as an organisation’s ‘culture’.
What is our Subud culture like? For example, are we
transparent or secretive?
Flexible or rigid?
• How would you like our culture to be?
• How could we bring this about? Lilliana Gibbs and others have suggested
we watch out for the typical in-house attitudes (‘norms’), which ‘for an
enquirer’ may create conflicts with their other values. For example, ‘latihan
leads us to a belief in God’, ‘Subud is superior to other spiritual ways’ or
‘feeling is superior to thinking’. Do you encounter any such assumptions in
Subud? What would you say are our norms?
Image
Every organisation has a public image. This will not
necessarily reflect its aims. For example the international Scouts movement at
one time had a dismal image due to numerous incidents of inappropriate
behaviour from scoutsmasters. Unlike religious organisations that had this
embarrassing situation, the scouts made no attempt to cover up, tackling the
problem swiftly and head on. They emerged as an organisation held in high
public esteem for integrity.
• What is Subud’s public image?
• How would you like it to be?
• How could we bring about an improvement?
Issues
Last November while visiting Israel I had lunch with
young Sjarifin Dickie, former chair of Austria and now inactive and discouraged
with our organisation. He’s doing an MA in Conflict Resolution. He said he had
felt ‘paralysed by procedures, personalities and testing.The answer was always no even when I was national chair!’ After all the
effort, time and discomfort involved, many with imagination and initiative give
up.
• How can we actively support young members with skills and vitality who
want to be part of Subud’s evolution?
• How might we effectively process and learn from in-house conflicts which
testing has not resolved?
Good Practice
The Subud organisation exists to support members and
potential members. A successful service organisation learns from good practice
within and outside its membership.
• Let’s hear more about successful strategies in the various groups around
the world.
• What proven practices such as NVC might we adopt or adapt to enhance our
organisation’s service?
• How can committees better pass on what they have learned so that the
next volunteers will benefit?
• What will help ‘mountains’ and ‘rivers’ to work in tandem for the sake
of Subud’s future?
Your comments/feedback warmly welcomed: stefan@freedmans.fsbusiness.co.uk