Meeting by conversation

One form of meeting for the Ethical Society of Austin is called a Colloquy.  This is an old Middle English word, more used in the 19th century than the current one.  It comes, of course, from a Latin word, colloquium.  In my mind, colloquium has a more academic feel; colloquy, apparently, has a more religious connotation.  Both words mean "conversation" (of the more formal sort), but each seems to have found its more favored niche of use.

In ESOA, the Colloquy is actually a formal conversation.  The format is deceptively relaxed, given the very defined structure under which the conversation occurs.  The moderator (these days that would be Adam Gravois) introduces the topic and lays down the ground rules.  This conversation involves, he always reminds us, our listening skills.  We are not to interrupt or respond to what is being said, although we may respond at the end of the session during the discussion period.  One person, any person who wants to volunteer, begins.  Then the person to his/her right speaks, following counterclockwise around the circle until everyone who wants to speak has had a turn.  At that point we take a moment to think about what has been said.  If there is time, we can all then discuss one point or another that has been raised in the circle, validating, expanding, countering.

In the loosest sense Colloquy might be considered, as it is in religious circles, to be a conversation regarding theological questions or to resolve religious doctrinal differences, but only in the sense that the concepts and ideals under consideration deal with some of our deepest values and are approached by each of us from a different perspective. Colloquy functions to direct our thinking on fundamental concepts--love, tolerance, success, family, etc.--so that we define, as we may not have before, the concept in our own lives at the same time we are allowed to hear how others define and experience the concept.  In the welcoming fellowship of ESOA, deep emotions and intimate secrets are sometimes shared, adding to the sense of community--even family--that the society provides for its members. While not the purpose of Colloquy, this latter function might be considered a benefit.

I do not know the history of Colloquy in ethical culture.  Felix Adler proposed that society meetings consist primarily of lecture.  This is in keeping, I think, with the times.  Pre-electronic, certainly.  But also toward the end of the lyceum movement, which, for a while, provided venues for adult education from various public speakers.  Rhetoric and oratory provided intellectual entertainment as well as education in nineteenth-century America, and "conversation" would likely have been less valued as a means to consider the High Ideas that Adler intended to be the focus of ethical culture.  The concept of colloquy was certainly available, but its then context--religious discussion, especially for resolution of doctrinal differences--may have made it seem inappropriate for someone who asserted the importance of "Deed before creed."

However formal conversation might have crept into the repertoire of meeting types for ESOA, it does seem an appropriate tool for getting to the core of our values and ideals.  In the days and sometimes weeks before a Colloquy, knowing the topic, the audience/participant is already thinking about the concept. Knowing that he/she will be called upon to speak--preferably briefly--in real terms as the topic relates to one's own experience--the audience/participant is already thinking of what to say.  That entails reexamination of the concept as an abstraction:  What does this word really mean?  Then one begins to recall, to think about, to experience once more the events and people who have been a part of one's life.  This can be painful.  My own comments in Colloquy are often prefaced by "I didn't want to come today," "I really hate this topic," "This is hard."  The abstraction of "family" may present itself as a Norman Rockwell painting in our minds, but the reality of our own lives may include death, divorce, anger, abdication of roles, neglect, abuse, money issues, distance (emotional and physical)--and on through the seemingly endless list of how birth families can become weapons of mental destruction.  Or, if we are lucky, we do find love, closeness, marriage (or remarriage), children (grands and greats as well), comfort, joy--and on through the happily endless list of how birth--and chosen--families can become treasures of great worth.  In this effort, we re-examine our lives through the lens of the Colloquy's topic to get at its meaning in  the reality that we live.

Once Colloquy begins, we listen carefully as our fellows talk.  We talk about tolerance (and intolerance) in terms of limits and focus, revealing to ourselves those points of friction in society that demand boundaries or deserve our forbearance or which are mere historical artifacts that need to pass away quickly. We talk about love in terms of its sources, its types, its quantity, its presence or absence and find for ourselves new understanding of the value of this emotion in our own lives.  We talk about success and find that common definitions may not suit us, may indeed harm us, and learn of more ethical ways to define success in our lives and our world.  In the Colloquy format, the audience/participant becomes the speaker, and it is the thinking of the audience/participant that is reflected in the conversation.  The group produces the outline (albeit unstructured) of talking points and draws its conclusions about the meanings presented.

The first ESOA meeting that I attended was a Colloquy on cycles.  I had never seen this type of meeting before, not as a means to enlightenment, but I do love to talk.  Listening was harder in that meeting, because I had to think of what I might say to all these strangers, right?  As the conversation moved around the circle, I learned a little bit about these very human humanists and saw that--just maybe--I might fit in.  I have great fondness for these Colloquies now.  Yes, they have made me feel closer to the others in the Society, something I cherish.  They also made me think about some really hard issues in a more thoughtful and systematic way.  And they still do.  Long after the initial conversation is over, I am more aware of these concepts, looking at them with new eyes, thanks in part to the perspectives gained from other participants in the conversation.