Hegelian
Dialectic... 'Problem - Reaction - Solution' Understanding the Use of Delphi
Technique to Achieve Consensus
Lynn Stuter
http://www.knowthelies.com/node/6849
Click to go to our Home Page
|
How it
is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen
participation... The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded
in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis.
The
goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means
solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic
society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and
antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and
opposing views.
In
synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All
participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and
support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a
continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly
occur.
In
group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving
consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals,
known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who
deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against
another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while
making opposing views appear ridiculous.
In her
book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in
power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in
decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed
out."
The setting
or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is
that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base,
they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics,
which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.
The
facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express
concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen
attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces,"
urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to
identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak
or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently
during an argument.
Suddenly,
the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's
advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they
manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or
dogmatic."
They
attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The
facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to
predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to
the desired policy or program will be shut out.
The
Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school
children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever,
realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening,
they do not know how to end the process.
The
facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member
of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table
and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the
divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were
their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.
How
the Delphi Technique Works
Consistent
use of this technique to control public participation in our political system
is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by
our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the
emerging picture into focus.
In the
not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state,
hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city
government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population.
The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in
education reform.
A
newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were
brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at
the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those
"discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.
That
sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in
communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the
process that occurs in these meetings.
First,
a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental,
the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting
to a preset conclusion.
The
facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy
scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the
bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy.
To
accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them
look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of
the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet.
When
the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the
good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are
established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.
Next,
the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each
group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to
discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.
Participants
are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results
to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you
typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results."
Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your
sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical
answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't
seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."
That
is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually,
to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has
written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at
all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator
records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of
meetings usually don't question the process.
Why
hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer
is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or
the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume
ownership of the preset outcomes.
If
people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea
is being forced on them, they'll resist.
The
Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a
representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a
"participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are
facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes.
These
citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the
reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to
the participants.
How to
Diffuse the Delphi Technique
Three
steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a
meeting in a specific direction.
1. Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile.
Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
2. Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or
questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer,
they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the
questioner on the defensive.
Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the
facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it
becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is
not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.
3. Be persistent. If putting you
on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues
that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets
the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish.
Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My
question was . . ." and repeat your question.
Never
become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will
immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal
of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to
alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda.
People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to
stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses
face and favor with the crowd.
This
is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections
are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public
discussion and debate. It's called crowd control.
At a
meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed
through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they
can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that
lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group
members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making
accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the
crowd to figure out what's going on.
Establish
a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part.
Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen
the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.
A
popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to
call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who
observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who
congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance.
If the
resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and
join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the
meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not
congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay
away from your team members.
This
strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained
to use the Delphi Technique.
Lynn Stuter