Did a focus group last night with a group of seniors from two communities - one more African-American dominant rural and the other historically white and now integrating suburban community.

In both cases, the inquiry revealed the same pattern: those who knew their neighbors felt measurable more safe and secure in their neighborhoods than those whose social networks were more fragmented.

So if Maslow were around today, would he put robust social networks at the top or bottom of the heirarchy of needs. Or would they show up at all levels?!

This past weekend I connected people in a local organic community garden with a local compost worm program that was able, through its grant, to make a generous donation of goods and supplies to the garden. It was for me a matter of enough serendipitous listening and curiosity in unconnected conversations to make new connections that might not happen otherwise.

The potential for these kinds of connections are limited only by the freedom and quality of our connectivity.

I learned recently that a neighbor couple will soon be moving to a retirement community. They are great people, both retired execs, this year celebrating their 47th anniversary. They’ve been the most generous and kind neighbors.

We hear about brain drain in communities, which is in itself no small thing. We need to give at least equal attention to heart drain - when good people with passion and heart leave the community.

We wish Tom and Joe the best, looking forward to attracting new heart energy to fill the void.

Talking today with one of the teachers of one of the newest Cleveland public high schools in a system unfortunately accustomed to less than 50% graduation rates.

He reports that this year’s first class is on target to graduate over 80%. He attributes the trend to small class sizes, major classroom (computer) connectivity, and very high parental involvement at the over 80% level - compared to the usual 30 or so percent parent participation rates in the high schools that suffer 50% graduation rates.

Interestingly, he says that the kids in his school are not particularly different in native abilities or demographics. Must be that learning is something that happens in the context of relationships.

I’m reading Robert Thurman’s new work, “The Jewel Tree of Tibet” where he lists the worst possible crimes from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition: killing one’s father or mother, killing a saint, wounding a buddha, or creating division in the community.

…amazing

So this week I facilitated community meetings in my neighborhood aimed at authentic community engagement around a housing development proposal. The context: the most demographically diverse neighborhood in the region of 4 plus million where voices polarize between support for high and low income housing.

In spite of near violence, proposal sponsor near-hijacking of the process, and participants shouting objections to giving input (the stated event intention!), the 300 plus participants - in our meager 45 minutes of time - interacted on what matters to them relative to this actually very complex situation. (The more vocal) People were livid at being asked to talk as a community about their issues and ideas instead of enjoying the usual public fare of public hearing grandstanding that we offered later that produced zero actionable content.

In Open Space where I very simply introduced and invited and held the space, we had over a dozen topics drawing genuine contributions harvesting 8 printed pages of proceedings.

It was the usual and beautiful reminder of what happens when a community is invited into a premier launch from historic victimhood to authentic engagement. Their mythic proportion resistance to their own empowerment was based on a stated preference for positional grandstanding and verbal pie-throwing against perceived persecutors. I stopped counting the number of people who remarked at the amazing and palapable difference in the energy of the community during and after Open Space … the space where no one can control anything and everyone gains everything.

This was a sign on the side of a truck next to me this week. What I liked about it was the idea of creating a brand based on quantum possibilities.

There is a world of difference being ecocentric and egocentric. Egocentricity is focus on I; ecocentricity is focus on we.

The journey from I to we is a journey of discovery that shared power is a bigger game than isolated power. It is based on the idea that we’re smarter together.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of assisting international level social network experts June Holley and Valdis Krebs in a workshop on networking weaving to a diverse and eager group of 40 people. This is the role of connecting people in networks in new ways. People loved its freshness and depth.

One of the themes was about how the laws of growth in networks are the opposite of those in heirarchies. Growth in networks can be nurutured not controlled since there in networks, there is no center, no up, and no down. It was quite shocking to the institutionally weaned. When we get this as a community, amazing things will occur.

I’m in the thick of work on book 5 (DreamSpace) that’s become quite a complex cloth to weave. If anyone’s in the Cleveland area in the next month and wants to give me your thoughts on community dreaming, there’s a beverage of your choice in it for you. If you want to email me (jack@designinglife.com), call (216.373.7475) or skype me (216.220.0488) that’ll work too except instead of a beverage you get a copy of my first book (Collaborative Creativity).

The idea of community dreaming is how communities like organizations, markets, neighborhoods, and regions create connected and common futures.

One awareness emerging so far is the observation that, in spite of the archetypal instinct for dream hierarchies, there is no “one true” dream for everyone. More on all this in future posts.