Why I Follow Somerset Maugham’s Three Storytelling Rules

to tell a story.010It’s no secret that I’m leery (and weary) of posts entitled The Six Secrets to Storytelling Success, The Seven Rules, The Three Best Practices, The Twenty Must-Dos… or that I’m dismayed by folks trade-marking storytelling processes and terms that are, actually, just plain old common sense and age-old practices. When people ask me for rules, for best ways, for the one true answer, I quote Somerset Maugham: “There are three rules for writing the novel.  Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.”

Indeed, the twenty some years I spent as a classroom teacher and the many more than that as a writer have taught me that no one-size-fits-all in storytelling, no set of rules guarantees success, no short cut is worth taking in story-work-for-change.  Each story, each storytelling has its own set of rules–to get it right, listen hard enough to the variables: the storytelling moment and audience and context and need and elements of story, and what they do to one another.  And that takes practice, the building of skills and the exercise of patience and effort. Each time you tell a story is the first time.

And here’s another thought some folks won’t like: I think nonprofits should almost always do their own storytelling, not hire out, at least not during the first, formative steps of the telling. It is through the very act of sharing and listening to story that we learn deep truths about our work and ourselves and the people/places we are trying to help. When we are engaged in authentic, ethical story sharing and story listening together, we make ourselves vulnerable, build trust, open to empathy and understanding. The more skilled we all get at listening to story and to telling authentic stories ethically, the better work we’ll do in our change efforts. to tell a story.012

That’s why I’m grateful for the forward-looking Vermont Community Foundation and Ben and Jerry’s Foundation who sponsored the latest series of  ten storytelling workshops I’ve put together for Vermont nonprofits. My hat is off to them for helping their grantees (and applicants) with far more than grants–i.e. some theory, tools, skills and a bit of practice with storytelling through exercises designed to illuminate the power of stories to teach us and connect us and inspire us and lead to action.  And the half-day workshops are free.  Imagine that.

As a result, we’ve reached scores of tiny volunteer-based groups as well as branches of national organizations and taken the first steps to building a storytelling network among Vermont nonprofits. There’s no parachuting in to give a snappy presentation of the five steps to a perfect story then leaving these folks to sort it all out on their own (which in many cases would lead to abandoning storytelling altogether or settling for some slick version of a sort-of story). Instead we’ve designed a slate of workshops that build one to the next, aimed to provide a thorough grounding and practice in the art of storytelling and the many ways nonprofits can use story to serve their cause and community. And there’s follow-up support. It’s about these folks teaching and inspiring each other and putting together sound storytelling strategies they can actually follow. Daring to slow it down, go deep to achieve lasting results. Thank you, VCF & B &J, for getting it about story and the rules of storytelling.

So next time someone asks you what you know about storytelling?  I hope you’ll give them Maugham’s most excellent set of rules and then share a story and ask for one.

 

 

Community & Network Mapping

gift

“First, we see what we have — individually, as neighbors and in this place
of ours. Second, we know that the power of what we have grows from creating new
connections and relationships among and between what we have.
Third, we know that these connections happen when we individually or
collectively act to make the connections — they don’t just happen by themselves.”
~John McKnight “Community Capacities and Community Necessities”

“Community building strategies should respond to important features of the local context, not just generic principles about being inclusive or building productive relationships… Because meaningful change requires leverage that “multiplies” the force of your strategy, a savvy scan of the local context is vital as an input. Relationships are time consuming to build and sustain, some are more important than others for accomplishing particular objectives, and strategies grounded in a realistic assessment of organized interests and patterns of influence are more likely to pay off. Beyond generic trend spotting, a variety of tools for mapping the local civic structure are available—but not yet widely or systematically used to build better civic strategies in community development.”
~ Xavier de Souza Briggs “Networks, Power, and a Dual Agenda: New Lessons and Strategies for Old Community Building Dilemmas”

“Maps are more than pieces of paper. They are the stories, conversations, lives and songs lived out in a place and are inseparable from the political and cultural contexts in which they are used”
~ Warren, 2004 qtd. in http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/how/guides/participatory-mapping

leaf map

mapped

Last week I wrote about the need for deep listening in community-building work and how storytelling-as-process is all about listening.  In this post I explore another critical lesson: the more we do in our communities to understand who we are and how we connect with one another, the more effective our actions to build capacity, foster participation, and affect change from within. Common sense, yes? But in our excitement to bring about positive, urgently needed change, we often leap into dialogue or action and overlook the crucial ongoing foundational work that is, after all, also action. And then things can stall.  Or break down. Or leave some folks behind or out.  Or we burn out. Or we waste community potential and squander promise.

For storytelling projects to build lasting trust, to reveal community values and to help move it to action, we need to understand as much about our community as possible. For community building to be truly inclusive, truly participatory, we work together to identify the inhabitants/members/constituents, not merely by name and address, but also by affiliation and connection to others through  formal and informal groups and associations, neighborhoods and workplace.  We take another step by getting to know our connections through identity as revealed by expertise, experience and  interest.  We explore where people gather, why and when.  We discover such things as who loves to fish.  Who collects mementos of the region.  Who grew up here, left and then returned.  Who gathers at the local barber shop. Who likes to take photos. Knits. Cares about the old stone buildings in town. Caretakes the wisdom from past generations. We come to understand the vital links, both strong and weak, that tie us to one another and to this place.  And in so doing, we make it possible to work together to build a strong, healthy future for our community.

And so to do storytelling well in community-change work, we do more than share our stories, more than capture and archive them. A crucial piece of the storytelling-for-change puzzle doesn’t, at first glance, have anything to do with storytelling.  It has to do, rather, with visuals more than words, with drawing and arranging and then naming.  It has to do with maps and mapping.

PhilaPlace.org Map Stories of Philadelphia

The participatory community mapping movement grasps the power of community members making their own maps of place and space.  We’re naturally eager to place our stories within the context of geography: and digital tools make it easy to embed our stories into maps of place and maps into our stories (such as in Cleveland Historical-one of many examples of historical narrative & mapping using tours and mobile apps– Biddeford Maine’s Heartspots or MapSkip or the Center for Digital Storytelling’s Placemeant Project in Ukiah, California)–examples of stories incorporated into digital maps abound).  Or we can sit together and make maps with pen and paper, as Crayon your Community does. Indeed, I use geographic maps in many of my storytelling exercises– participants draw maps, or locate story hotspots on maps, or create future-vision maps.

Map of Online Communities

D’Arcy Norman’s Map of His Online Communties

But there’s another sort of mapping essential to community-building. With sticky notes on walls, and with computers, we map relationships, identities, networks, capacity, assets, third places and sacred spaces: what people care about in the community and how they interact in it and with each other.  We use simple maps community members draw and assemble by hand–of the ways they use local resources, say, and their  connections–both formal and informal–within the community and to resources beyond the community.  We use digital mapping and social network analysis tools to help uncover patterns, connections, dislocations, opportunities and challenges we had not noticed or clearly understood.

This sort of mapping is being used to study almost every aspect of the world. What’s fairly unusual is participatory mapping of these relationships– mapping our community connections together as part of the participatory change process.

Group Community Connections Mapping Exercise

The group process of relationship mapping helps us to build trust and a shared understanding of one another–sitting next to one another, comparing maps or our perception and experience of those maps and what they represent and reveal– can shake us from our ruts of thinking.  Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, in his new book, Thinking, Fast & Slow (Slate has a fine review) reminds us of the near impossibility of escaping our own biases by ourselves: “It’s easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than our own.”  We fall victim to “our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainly of the world we live in.”  We rely far too much on first impressions and “place too much faith in [our] intuitions,” Kahneman writes.   With these human tendencies in mind, we can embark on collaborative processes across a community that reveal a variety of viewpoints, experiences, and perceptions, and yes, biases. Weaving mapping into the connective tissue of storytelling, dialogue and art-centered approaches grounds the conversation, the vision, the planning in the complex reality of what actually exists in our community and who we are.

Mapping does even more–

Mapping builds enthusiasm for a project  as it provides almost immediately a powerful view of a community.  Early project mapping and analysis reveal gaps in a community’s knowledge of the pressing issues or of an organizing committee’s understanding of the full community as well as groups and individuals underrepresented in the project formation.

Mapping saves time by locating stories, storytellers and story catchers, and story-sharing opportunities. By identifying and synthesizing the interests and allegiances within the community, mapping points to story themes located in place or micro-community or issue. Mapping informal groups by interest, such as knitters or gardeners or hunters, can bring people into the project who might not otherwise participate.

Mapping provides a nuanced, deep view into a community by revealing interactions within and between formal and informal groups, associations and institutions.  It locates leaders, both those known and those unrecognized, and the people who connect groups, who have a long reach into the community.  Anthropologist Karen Stephenson defines the roles of crucial people identified through network mapping:

Hubs are the people who know the most people. They facilitate expansion of the network, trading (for example, the exchange of favors), and the rapid dissemination of information. Gatekeepers occupy a critical path. They are often the only bridge between an important part of the network and everyone else. They make a network stronger, in part by helping people focus and move things along. Pulse-takers are called on by other significant connectors, often for their judgment or insight, and they help the group maintain its integrity and perspective. They are invaluable in times of turmoil.”

Simple relationship map shows where connections could be woven

The Pathways through Participation report from Involve.org identifies five crucial community roles revealed by mapping:  Leaders, Catalysts, Initiators, Consolidators, Helpers, Organizers as well as the role of gathering spaces:

“The maps themselves and what the participants said about the maps proved to be particularly rich, complementing significantly the information gathered during the area profiling stage. The sites of participation identified helped the researchers to find some key places and spaces where participation happens locally, which helped them target certain sites and organizations to recruit interviewees.”

Maps can reveal gaps between groups and individuals that can be addressed as pointed out by Network Weaving.

The maps, if updated  and analyzed continuously and in relation to one another, continue to highlight the reach of the project, the authentic engagement of the full community’s participation, as we build an effective evolving portrait of the project as it proceeds.

So why not dispense with storytelling altogether and just do extensive mapping and network analysis?  We need maps, yes, but alone they provide an incomplete picture, for as Herman Melville wrote, “It is not down in any map; true places never are.” Stories fill in the gaps, provide the detailed images, the narrative, the full, nuanced picture. Storytelling can do its magic when it stands on the foundation of  deep knowledge of the many ways a community is itself.  Together, mapping and storytelling can weave a complex but clear picture of a community while forging new connections and building trust.

Community Map in Davis, California

Useful Resources in Participatory Community Mapping

UMap: ” a clearinghouse of information on how to conduct community mapping with and for children and youth growing up in urban areas to promote social action and neighborhood change. Maps tell stories about places and people’s connections to those places. uMAP is a unique civic engagement model that allows communities to use maps to share what they know about where they live. uMAP brings youth and adults together in partnership to give voice to youth perceptions and improve the quality of life for all citizens.”

Ushahidi: ” We are a non-profit tech company that develops free and open source software for information collection, visualization and interactive mapping. “

Global Giving:  Stories plus maps (Using Ushahidi)

Natural Borders: James Kent Associates use human geographic mapping in their Discovery Process.

M.I.T.’s Timenesia : “Many communities suffer from “timenesia”: a lack of awareness-of and interest-in their own past, present and future. They don’t showcase their rich past, aren’t aware of their neighbors different takes on their present, nor their hopes for their shared future. Timenesia.org’s goal is to overcome this problem by enabling communities to awareness, engagement and excitement via hyper-local guided tours featuring residents’ voices, pictures, and text about the past, present and future. ”

More and more studies examine the impact of network mapping and social network analysis on communities and networks.  Here’s an example:   LLC Social Network Analysis Project Final Report Microsoft Word file

“LLC, through its Community Seed Fund, recently supported four members of the Community (Bruce Hoppe, Meredith Emmett, Dianne Russell, and Odin Zackman) to test the usefulness of this methodology in different network contexts. The team produced a very informative summary about the outcomes of this project. One of the more interesting findings was that network maps can be a valuable tool for generating group reflection about itself. The study raised the question about which networks would find this a valuable tool and which might not. There is some indication that those networks that have a clear purpose, are more bounded and formalized, and that have outside funding, may be more motivated and interested in using network maps to deepen thttps://communityexpressions.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=366&action=editheir understanding of themselves as a network. Another interesting lesson learned is that the interpretation of network maps is full of complexities. There is no single interpretation of what the maps mean. This means that the maps can lead to many interesting conversations. The summary does a nice job of specifying and evaluating the outcomes of the three projects that were part of the study. It provides valuable guidance to others who may consider undertaking an SNA of their leadership networks. In addition, the report analyzes the three networks along 11 dimensions. These will be helpful to you if you are looking to better understand the networks you are part of regardless of whether you use SNA or not. While our understanding of networks is still very much evolving, SNA is a promising tool to help us “see” leadership networks.”

Media Engage’s Mapping Tools:” Mapping is a great way to identify local assets, networks and opportunities in your community. Using data and some free tools available on the internet, you can create a visual display of key community organizations, partners, and even related issues. For a taste of what mapping can do, check out our new tools created for The Takeaway radio stations.”

NetMap: “an interview-based mapping tool that helps people understand, visualize, discuss, and improve situations in which many different actors influence outcomes . By creating Influence Network Maps, individuals and groups can clarify their own view of a situation, foster discussion, and develop a strategic approach to their networking activities. More specifically, Net-Map helps players to determine what actors are involved in a given network, how they are linked, how influential they are, and what their goals are.”

Beth Kanter’s Description of Network Mapping for Nonprofits

Good Practices in Participatory Community Mapping (.pfd)  Geographic mapping

Connections

Overview of Rural Participatory Appraisal–List of Tools, including network analysis and mapping tools

Mailana’s network mapping tool tool is super easy if you have excel or Google spreadsheets.

Many Eyes  has an easy-to-use network mapping tool

https://crowdmap.com/mhi  Easy, free

https://bubbl.us/  Mind-mapping tool that can be used for simple network maps.

Gliffy for drawing simple network maps

Tutorial on geographic mapping of assets using Google Earth:  http://www.mediaengage.org/execute/mapping/index.cfm

Mapping Examples

Location-based:

Video of a Project in Venezuela to have the community members map their ancestral lands

Mapping As Political Practice for Argentinian Youth

Photographer Erik Fischer Uses Geotags to create Maps that Reveal Sites on Interest in Cities

HistoryPin: “Historypin local projects aim to start something that local people and partners continue for many years to come, building the record of local history on Historypin.com and bringng people together to enjoy it.”

PhilaPlace: “Explore the City of Neighborhoods through maps, stories, photographs, and documents, and share the story of your PhilaPlace.”

Mapping Memories: Experiences of Refugee Youth in Montreal

It is more difficult to find good examples of participatory community network mapping outside of academic papers as often the information is sensitive.  Here are a couple:

Asset Mapping through a Participatory Rural Appraisal: “The DCS (Design for Community) Lab at Srishti, put together a team of designers from different fields, to work with a community of potters in the south of India in order to help the indigenous artisans learn how to plan their production and business needs more efficiently.”

Nancy White’s  Network Mapping Exercise

A simple, introductory mapping exercise I have done with community groups, and Orton Family Foundation’s Community Network Analysis chapter (.pdf)

Lessons in Listening

in a window, montreal

Watching, Listening

When I left high ed, I knew that my own learning had, in a very real sense, just begun–I had finally graduated, left home, dared to break out of my comfort zone.  But I had no idea that such a short time later I would be saying that I’ve learned more these past three years outside of formal education than in the previous thirty spent in classrooms. About all kinds of things we assume are to be learned primarily in formal academic settings.  Above all, I’ve learned all over again and newly  about the impact of community on learning and the impact of storytelling on community.

And here I had thought that my community-and-arts-centered approach to classroom learning had story figured out, had community figured out, at least in relation to learning.  I blogged about it and taught workshops on the critical opening weeks of a semester to the life of the classroom community.  I went on and on about Pierre Levy and reciprocal apprenticeships, about Maxine Greene and the need for the arts and imagination in learning communities. (If you’ve not read her 1995 article, “Art and Imagination, Reclaiming the Sense of Possibility,” do!  Right now!  You can download it from her foundation website here.)

After all, a healthy community is a basic premise through which deep learning and meaningful work come to life.  And yet it has been the messiness, the shifting, emergent nature of geographic communities and online communities outside the structure of semesters, grades, classes, disciplines, departments and majors that has really brought home for me how and why we need story to make sense out of the maelstrom of sensation and information–to slow down the rush of impressions, to make us confront our biases and fears and habits, and how we need storytelling to connect us and to build trust and curiosity and to push us past the façade of what we think we know so we can immerse ourselves in meaningful, creative work to bring better worlds into being.  With lessons of storytelling in hand, I’ve started working again with academic institutions, to build strong community within while reaching far out into the networked world.  More lessons to come, I am certain.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll explore some of the particulars of what I’m learning. I’d love to hear what you think, and about your experiences with community and story.

Lesson One:  Listen. Listen actively. Listen deeply.

so cute but they eat my chard

Deep Listening

It’s so obvious.  Of course.  As Richard Kearney says, “It take two to story” –the listener being as important as the teller.  Students encounter this dance, this tension in their theory classes–the role of reader, audience, viewer.  But that’s once the “story” has been created.  There’s also the role of listening in story creation itself.   Listening before telling.  Listening and telling.  Telling then listening. Consultants advising nonprofits and entrepreneurs on ROI suggest listening in (via social media) before jumping in. When you click on the url for the Center for Digital Storytelling, you’re greeted with:

Listening wraps itself around the entire process of story-making and sharing. But deep listening?  Listening that has the power to transform us?  It isn’t as easy as we like to think.  It takes time (yes, I’m still advocating the slow-blogging sort of engagement), time and the willingness to recognize and confront our own biases and expectations about the teller, the tale, and ourselves.  We have to recognize the filters of culture, belief, experience, values. To learn to listen, we have to come into contact with stories far different from our own.  We have to practice to become listening literate– to understand the impact of tone, gesture, silence, audience, language (spoken and not), image, metaphor and other parts of the story moment.  We have to be self-aware but not self-consumed.

But there’s a lot getting in our way.

shoppinginnyI’ve been listening in and participating peripherally in online communities ranging  from Vermont farmers and orchardists to the remarkable learning experiment, #ds106.  Listening is problematic, challenging.  In many (most?) classrooms teachers only sort of listen to students, students kind of listen to teachers and to one another–everything is so tuned to a clock, to a schedule.  Listening of course demands much of us that we don’t seem to have the time or inclination to give.  And, I suspect, because we do not listen well, we contribute to the spinning around and around of the same conversations about education and communities, the same points being made, the same the same the same.  There’s the scrim of our own expectations to contend with, behind which we often hide without noticing the scrim at all.  We hear what we expect to hear, what we want to hear.   And then there’s the problem of interpretation. Look at mainstream media and Occupy Wall Street.  Did the media even begin to listen–to listen well– to what the protestors were actually saying? And how about retention?  How do we hold onto the things we hear?  Mostly we don’t. Researchers have found that our normal listening efficiency falls between an abysmal 11% and 15 % due to selective exposure (we only tune in to what we want to hear), selective retention and selective perception (Ayre, Clough & Norris  Facilitating Community Change).

So the first thing I do with communities is focus on listening and listeners through a series of creative exercises. We might bring objects that represent something we care deeply about in community and have everyone try to anticipate what those objects mean.  We might play with our associations with language and image.  We might record ourselves. We might play with Soundcloud and ambient sound stories. We might play pass-the-metaphor and try out a terrific co-drawing exercise Nancy White taught me, one she learned from Johnnie Moore.  And then we tell stories.  And we listen more deeply than we have listened in a long, long time.  The immediate impact is often astonishing.  When we feel listened to, heard, we feel valued and trusted and we begin to trust and feel a sense of belonging and are more apt to give in return, to participate, to work towards better worlds.  When we listen deeply, we feel empathy and in turn open our hearts and minds.

Here’s more of what I have learned about listening– an excerpt about listening and community storytelling from “Re-Weaving the Community, Creating the Future: Storytelling at the Heart and Soul of Healthy Communities”

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
–Winston Churchill
During a recent storytelling training, the story-sharer sat among a group of eager volunteers learning to conduct story interviews.[i] The older man tipped back in his chair and slowly moved into his story of coming to the valley as a boy, how those early years had shaped his love for the woods, the mountains, the wide wild spaces of the valley. His story was simple, straightforward. It was the telling that drew them in: his voice, his facial expressions and his body language radiated a deep affection for his town and its people; his sense of humor, that warmed up as he grew at ease, invited them into his story. The volunteers were riveted. And the more they leaned forward to listen, responsively, to the twists of his tale, the more he seemed to light up and remember. The trainees were so caught up with the story and the teller that they forgot they were there to practice interviewing techniques.

After the story-sharer left, one of the volunteers exclaimed that she had a confession. She had always dismissed the man as someone with hardened, inflexible views at the opposite side of the political spectrum, but now, after sitting with him and hearing his story unfurl, she would never shut him out again. He loved this valley and cared for its future as much as she did. She still disagreed with him, but now she could talk with him across that gap and withhold judgment. Furthermore, she would listen more carefully in general. Here, in his presence, sitting in a circle of fellow listeners, she learned two of in-person storytelling’s greatest lessons: how it leads to both self-understanding and to empathy.

Somewhere along the way one discovers that what one has to tell is not nearly so important as the telling itself. –Henry Miller

She learned that we listen through the scrim of our own experience. The Center for Narrative Studies calls listening “a dynamic of expectancy”;[ii] old stories we’ve heard and our own stories become a filter through which we hear the new. Maxine Greene says that in our dealings with one another we must remember “that each of us achieved contact with the world from a particular vantage point, in terms of a particular biography. All this underlies our present perspective and affects the way we look at things and talk about things and structure our realities.”[iii] If we listen with our own subjectivity acknowledged—something that becomes particularly possible when we are in each other’s presencewe will break through to a ‘receptive listening space’ where we come face to face with our own patterns of thinking and believing and communicating.[iv] We will then accept what we have heard; we will feel how others’ stories brushing up against our own build bridges that will move us past prior assumptions, past fear and distrust.

That training group learned that listening, really listening, builds empathy and a movement toward trust,[v] but it can also bring surprise. Once we open ourselves to another’s story, we allow for the possibility that “however certain our expectation, the moment foreseen may be unexpected when it arrives.”[vi] Even if we’ve heard the story, know the teller or the place, hearing it within an intentional gathering brings things into new focus, deepening our understanding. There’s something about being out of the comfort of our own surroundings or in the presence of people with whom we do not ordinarily tell stories, of hearing our own voice and experiencing our stories being received. We never know when we might just save a bus route. We never know when we might discover common ground or be confronted by our own assumptions. We never know when we’ll learn a new truth. By pulling a single experience from the stream of life, storytelling gives us a chance to turn it over and over in our hands, and have it teach us again and differently.

“We don’t need more public hearings. We need much more public listening, in processes where we come together and commit to staying together long enough to discover those ideas and issues that are significant to each of us.” –Margaret Wheatley[vii]

During a story-circle in Maine a new resident of the small, seacoast town told a story about how his neighbor, without being asked, kept a close watch on his house when the newcomer was away. The telling of the story—and the naming of his wonder and delight in the presence of this neighborliness, so palpable during the sharing—brought home to the longtime residents sitting in that circle a local trait they had taken for granted. Then something else happened; they spent the next several minutes marveling over other instances of neighborliness that each had experienced. In so doing, they connected with each other and named what they valued while inviting the newcomer deeper into the community. Instead of checking off “neighborliness” on a values survey and moving on, in an interactive story circle the storyteller receives immediate feedback from his listeners’ body language, facial expressions and verbal response. He may be asked to explain, provide additional clarifying detail to the story—“what exactly makes this a neighborly community in your experience.”

More than a general concept, neighborliness was named by the Maine storyteller and his listeners as a particular kind of interaction, something to be fostered in the future by efforts to encourage everyday neighbor-to-neighbor caring, such as block parties, clean-up days and online community gathering spots like Front Porch Forum.[viii] Specifying in detail a universal value as it is actually experienced by residents will help a town to recognize and tend the value. Doing so in a group setting builds the good will and spirit necessary for people to invest the time and effort into future participation; to nurturing or protecting that value.

Having a place named and described through someone’s experience in it secures the name for us and connects us to that place. As Terry Tempest Williams tells us, “If we don’t know the names of things, if we don’t know bighorn antelope, if we don’t know blacktail jackrabbit, if we don’t know sage, pinyon, juniper, then …we are living a life without specificity, and then our lives become abstractions. Then we enter a place of true desolation.”[ix] Naming ensures our sense of belonging to the place, and prepares us to shoulder responsibility for its safe-keeping. Good storytelling is a process of naming that moves us past generalities, past the first thing we think of, the dull “malling” of language and image and insight.

The Maine story circle also illustrates how stories beget stories—when we hear someone’s tale, we are reminded of our own, and we in turn offer our story. The newcomer’s tale of neighborliness prompted stories from his listeners and theirs led him to discover a new story—someone remarking that the town clock winder showed real community spirit led the newcomer the next week to collect the story of that clock tender, a digital story shared several weeks later at a community wide story sharing event. The new resident’s sense of belonging increased, as did the scope of his participation. The viral impact of group storytelling—story leading to story—pieces together a mosaic of specific community assets as well as areas under threat or needing developing—as actually experienced. Being in that slow, relaxed, congenial space of group storytelling gives townspeople the time to reflect rather than to react, to reacquaint themselves with each other and what matters, and begin to look to the future with shared anticipation.

We must come into contact with views other than our own or we become petrified, both fearful and fossilized. As we lean in to listen, we extend our capacity to encounter difference without being threatened by it. We begin to recognize others as not all that different from ourselves. We do not remain indifferent to those who share their story with us[x]—empathy is possible, so we are willing to risk the vulnerability of telling our own stories. We move past simple platitudes of position into the deeper complexities of context, cause, and connection. We learn to enjoy one another. We begin the journey to where we welcome what Vera John-Steiner calls “a shared language, the pleasures and risks of honest dialogue, and the search for a common ground.”[xi]

The challenge is increasing and deepening trust by engaging directly with others to create culture that works for all of us.[xii]
–Frances Moore Lappé

In listening to and telling stories, we are learning to understand the grammar of connection. When we sit together, we have the story, the teller and the telling to learn from. We respond as much to the language, the tone and rise and fall of the voice, the body language as to the words and details chosen, the scenes narrated, the arc of the story. When we listen intently, with humor and empathy, our focus shifts from what separates us to what unites us. We begin to understand why things are the way they are, and grow able to thrive on what a recent study found necessary to a healthy rural community: “both consent and dissent, and both trust and distrust.”[xiii] Community storytelling, focused as much on listening as on telling, gives us unparalleled views into our own hearts and bridges to the hearts of others. Only then will we break through our own walls. Only then will we trust. Only then will we engage with potentially contentious issues.

A great story is never told once; it is shared again and again. If your community members share great stories about their involvement in the community, the stories will travel far and wide and encourage new and unknown people to dip their feet into your waters. –Jono Bacon[xiv]

[i] See Appendix for summary of story interviews.

[ii] The Center for Narrative Studies, “Story as the Shape of Our Listening” Key Writings: http://www.storywise.com/Key_Writings/Key_Writings-Listening.htm.

[iii] Greene, Landscapes of Learning, 2.

[iv] The Center for Narrative Studies, “Story as the Shape of Our Listening” Key Writings: http://www.storywise.com/Key_Writings/Key_Writings-Listening.htm.

[v] Kearney, On Stories, 62-63.

[vi] T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral (New York: Harvest Books, 1964)

[vii] Wheatley, Finding Our Way, 53.

[viii] From Front Porch Forum’s website: http://www.frontporchforum.com/ “Our mission is to help neighbors connect and foster community within the neighborhood. Common sense and a growing body of research tell us that well-connected neighborhoods are friendlier places to live, with less crime, healthier residents, higher property values, and better service from local government and public utilities.”

[ix] Qtd in Beatley Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age,11.

[x] John Doe, Speak into the Mirror, A Story of Linguistic Anthropology, Chapter 13 (U of America P, 1998) http://www.uwm.edu/~wash/mirror13.htm

[xi] Vera John-Steiner, Creative Collaborations (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000), 204.

[xii] Frances Moore Lappe, Getting a Grip: Creativity and Courage In a World Gone Mad, (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2008) 87.

[xiii] Marquart-Pyatt and Petrzelka, “Trust, the Democratic Process, and Involvement in a Rural Community” 271.

[xiv] Jono Bacon, The Art of Community (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, 2009) 172.