Belonging and Gathering
Who's in, who's out, and the art of creating something to belong to.
Good morning, readers. I hope you all had a great first bit of July!
We now find ourselves here in the early stages of “midsummer” (I mark it by when email response times start climbing towards weeks instead of days, or hours in the darkest parts of winter), and things seem to slow down.
Given the season we find ourselves in, I think for the next bit, we might examine some more “practical” things. You could make an argument that everything we’ve talked about is practical, but for these next few weeks (or however long it feels like the right direction), I’m going to aim to touch on subjects that may be a bit more relevant to everyday life. Or maybe not; I don’t know your life. 😉
So today, we kick off thinking about gathering & belonging.
With the work I do with Taylors TownSquare, I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means for people to “belong” lately. We recently re-articulated Taylors TownSquare’s mission in terms of belonging: Taylors TownSquare makes Taylors a place to belong through awareness, advocacy, and action. As a way of continuing to explore how this practically shapes out in the world, I've found myself doing a lot more reading on the subjects of belonging, gathering, and how to create environments where people can get pulled in.
In the introduction of The Art of Gathering, Priya Parker starts off speaking my language:
In my work, I strive to help people experience a sense of belonging.1
The first chapter lays out the notion that to have a successful gathering, you must “Decide Why You’re Really Gathering.” In it, she lays out the notion of choosing a “bold, sharp purpose”2 to help ensure people know why they are coming together.
As we move into Chapter 2, things take a turn. Parker spends a lot of time devoted to the need to “Close Doors.”3
Parker explains:
“The more the merrier,” we are told from childhood. “The more souls, the more joy,” the Dutch say. “The more fools there are, the more we laugh,” the French declare.4
However, as we read on, Parker makes a great case for a point that I’ve often misunderstood in my life:
For there to be a purpose to a gathering, that gathering needs boundaries.
There has to be something to belong to.
In Parker’s first chapter, she makes a case for having gatherings that have clearly defined purposes. Parker continues in chapter two, noting:
…I don’t recommend backing into purpose through the question of whom to invite. But the link between the two issues illustrates that the purpose of a gathering can remain somewhat vague and abstract until it is clarified by defining the boundary between who is in and out….
To put it another way, thoughtful exclusion, in addition to being generous, can be defining. It can help with the important task of communicating to guests what a gathering is.5
As the years go by, I’ve found myself analyzing situation after situation, remarking how people are trying to “have their cake and eat it (too).” This is one of those phrases that I had heard for a long time and never really understood. Then, at some point several years back, I finally got it, and then as I looked around, I realized how much of life it applied to.
Reading Parker’s narrative here, I realize that I’ve been guilty of trying to have my cake and eat it for years in terms of having purposes in the things I’m involved in while still trying to be completely open in all situations.
Taylors TownSquare’s first mission was articulated: Taylors TownSquare works to better the Taylors community by facilitating connections and enabling responses to those connections. There’s nothing wrong with that, but ask yourself, what action would be excluded from being completed by that mission?
Not much, and that’s the problem. By leaving the door wide open through not defining the purpose as anything more than a vague statement about “making Taylors better,” we have made it easy to “join in,” but to join into what? What is Taylors TownSquare doing? Can you tell from that mission statement?
Parker’s point is that making the hard choice to decide on a purpose that includes and excludes creates boundaries, and those boundaries should be enforced. To put it in Context&Content language, we are creating a separation between content and context. Inside and outside. Us and not-Us. While on the one hand, these differences are somewhat fluid and arbitrary, on the other hand, they are real and meaningful for the purpose of what we are doing: creating a mission and working to make things happen in the world.
With Taylors TownSquare, that means moving away from a mission that lets me take any position I want as a situation arises to a mission that has an opinion: belonging is best. There will be people that come along that may think there is a higher value than belonging, and that’s fine. This might not be the best context for them.
We’ve used the mission to create a boundary. And that boundary creates a people to belong to. This is not to say there are not “onramps” to move people from being an outsider to an insider, but by definition, if you want to create spaces where people can belong, you have to create spaces that have an opinion.
So today, I encourage you to consider:
Where are areas that you have let a purpose remain vague so you don’t have to do the hard work of figuring out who should really be at the table?
How can you sharpen existing gatherings you are a part of by critically thinking about who the right people are that should be a part?
Who are people you need to give a second chance at connecting with in a better context that’s more designed to allow for connection in the way you are desiring?
I’ve really enjoyed The Art of Gathering, so pick it up if you have a chance. And on that note, see you next week.
The Art of Gathering, 35-36