Tom Atlee just sent around an email with some plugs for the power of silence and some links to online sources that have to do with intentional silences, structuring moments or periods of silence deliberately into processes of communication. James and I are suggesting problematic moments as unintended silences, those which befall a group, not those instigated consciously by a group or any of its members. Still, some of the points have carryover.
For instance, this short page on the Co-Intelligence Institute's website on group silence: "Whenever we are uncomfortable with silence -- by ourselves or as a group -- that is a sign that something needs to come forth. Silence can begin a process of healing; and sometimes that is difficult. But an individual or a group that has the courage to work through what comes up will be deeper and richer for it."
Getting closer to our conception, The Manchester Gestalt Center opens an article on On The Use and Power of Silence in Groups with the statement that references in the literature on group therapy mention it "only in the context of silence as a problem for group leaders and members, rather than a resource."
The author, John Bernard Harris, quotes from a text, Feminist Groupwork, what he says was the only reference he could find to silence as a group phenomenon: ""Group identity is manifested through the distinct energetic qualities of groupÝ interaction, emotionally and physically charged. We have already conveyed the warmth ofÝ co-operation, but the cold of silence and indifference, of absenteeism can precipitateÝ strong reactions from members...The weight of silence in the group may be oppressive,Ý embarrassing, uncomfortable." [ibid. p. 87-88]
Harris' whole article is rich. Talking about individual silence: "If, with McCluhan, we believe that the medium is sometimes the message, my non-verbal communications may be more truthful than my verbal ones, often precisely because they are non-intentional." (Underlining mine for emphasis.)
He continues, "Group silences occur when everyone in the group is silent for a period of time. In a typical group silence, the silence, no-one saying anything, becomes foreground and is recognised by the group members as such; it becomes a Silence. It then becomes something other than a period in which no-one happens to be talking. In many group circumstances, the longer the silence is, the more 'loaded' and significant it seems. From the outset we should note that a group silence is a 'whole group' phenomenon par excellence. You cannot have a group silence unless everyone joins in. Creating a silence is therefore essentially a co-operative activity, and a complex form of group behaviour."
The concept of valence is here (although not named) and the group-as-a-whole: "Silences in groups are generally thought of as having a tone or atmosphere. We say 'the group feels tense today'; and this means not that 'the group' is literally tense (only people get tense), but that there are enough tense group members for it to make sense to say that this feeling belongs to the group as a whole. Group moods can be expressed in all sorts of ways - by what is said, and by what is not said. Thus facial expressions and body postures, and actions all contribute to a group atmosphere."
Right in sync with us, and providing a reference: "In groups we can distinguish processes operating at three 'levels': individual, interpersonal and whole group. [Philippson & Harris 1992, Chapter 4]. I wonder if they cite Fairclough? Their text has also been recently updated (2003).
Harris suggests Force-Field Analysis, citing Whitaker, op. cit. , and Lewin 1947. "In this kind of tense situation, there are opposing intra- and inter-personal forces which create 'silence as tension'. Kurt Lewin's contributions in change theory, action research, and action learning earn him the title of the "father of organization development."
