Authentic Relating: Creating Equitable and Inclusive Social Gatherings
The Problem with Parties
Are you familiar with this scenario? You arrive at a party where you know almost no one. After putting your coat away and getting a drink, you stand around awkwardly for a minute while trying to figure out what to do next. Maybe you talk to someone who looks nice or happens to be standing nearby. You talk about the weather, the food, and what you each do for work. After a while you have to choose when and how to end the conversation. You make an excuse to get away, like getting more food. If the other person ends the conversation first, you are left standing awkwardly by yourself again until you find another person to talk to. Repeat this all night until you have had enough, then leave.
While some people find this process fun and effortless, many people, myself included, don’t. The same dynamics always play out: those who are comfortable commanding attention (usually male, white, and older) do so, while others (women, BIPOC, and minorities) listen, laugh at the jokes, but don’t get the same attention themselves. The outgoing people dominate the conversations; the less outgoing ones feel left out. Soon, the Black women are sitting together at the same table, the men are in a circle speaking over each other, the couples soothe each other, the quiet people leave early. The people who get the most out of these gatherings are usually the same people who have an advantage due to their gender, race, age, or other identity in the rest of society. Those of us who are frequently on the margins often don’t even try anymore, and opt out of attending social gatherings all together or attend only out of a see of obligation.
I am reminded of Thomas Hardin’s 1968 essay, The Tragedy of the Commons. Hardin explains that any commons, be it a grass pasture, a forest, or body of water, becomes exploited when there are no policies governing its use or no one to enforce policies. The people who are greedy take the resources, and those who don’t lose out, which leads to everyone trying to take as much as possible for themselves. The result is that resources are rapidly depleted until no more is left for anyone. Unless everyone knows not to take more than their fair share, laws and cultural customs are necessary to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
Typically used to explain the ecological crisis, Hardin’s theory applies to social resources as well. When we leave people to fend for themselves, it results in vastly unequal outcomes that mirror those of the wider society. The stronger and more aggressive take more, leaving the rest with less. In social settings this means some people’s ideas get heard more than others, or get connections that lead to career advancement, or simply more enjoyment from the experience.
Making sure everyone participates equitably isn’t just beneficical for its own sake. We know that the best ideas don’t always come from the people who are the fastest or the loudest, and if we don’t allow the quiet or more deliberate thinkers to be heard, then we are often missing out on the best ideas. People who are older, white or male tend to speak up and be heard more often than people who are younger, BIPOC, or female, yet those people offer unique and valuable perspectives. When we perpetually allow supremacy culture dynamics to play out in a typical fashion, people with marginalized identities don’t have a sense of belonging no matter how much you try to include them. Every interaction and gathering will be another experience in being marginalized and sidelined until they refuse to participate and drop out of your group. That’s why so many DEI initiatives fail. People of color get invited to the party/meeting/organization, but nothing is done to help them engage equitably once they are there.
Equity and Inclusion Require Intention
In order to equalize opportunities for engagement and enjoyment at a gathering, we have to intentionally disrupt the supremacy culture dynamics that drive all our social interactions. Who gets to speak? For how long? About what topics? Unless we intentionally direct these things, allowing social interactions to unfold naturally in a mixed group will most likely default to inequality and exclusion. Diversity may be achieved by putting people with different backgrounds and skin tones in the same room, but equity and inclusion will not result if they are left to their own devises. The practice of intentionally using structure to facilitate equity, inclusion, and belonging in groups is what I call authentic relating.
Let’s look at some of the elements of a gathering where inequity may arise and ways to correct it:
Who is in the room? The identities of people in a group powerfully influence how we feel in the group. Usually we are more comfortable with people who are similar to us. Young people like to be with other young people, women speak more freely when they are in a room with only women. Most of us are uncomfortable being “the only one” of a kind in the room: the only woman in a group of men, the only person of color in a group of white people, the only young person in an older crowd, or the only person who has not graduated from the same college as everyone else. We can create belonging by curating spaces exclusively for one type of identity, or we can have a mixed group but avoid putting people in a position of being “the only one” in a group. It is actually easier to feel comfortable in a group where everyone is different than being the only one who is different.
When do we speak? In an unstructured group interaction, the people who want to talk jump in, which usually results in a few people dominating the conversation and the rest falling silent or fighting to get a word in. Sometimes this is avoided when the dominant people are considerate enough to step back and invite others to participate, but if we cannot rely on them to do so, then that must be achieved with facilitation. For example, you can have a rule that everyone gets to speak once before anyone speaks twice. As a facilitator, you can require that people raise their hands to speak, and then call on people who haven’t spoken. Usually the people who raise their hands first will get called on first, but you can also wait a few minutes, then call on people who aren’t usually the first to speak to speak.
In situations that don’t require a lot of thinking, it usually works to go in the order in which people are seated. For example, people introducing themselves on a zoom call: rather than popcorn style (which results in people speaking at the same time or nobody speaking), I will put names in random order in the chat. This way people know exactly when it’s their turn, and it relieves the anxiety of deciding when to speak.
How long do we speak for? In an unfacilitated setting, the people who want to speak the most usually do, often leaving not enough time for others. This can be remedied by giving people instructions on what to say and how much time they are allowed. For example, asking them to take one minute to introduce themselves by sharing their name, prononouns, where they live, and why they are here today. There is not an open invitation to share their hobbies, what they ate for breakfast, or their life story, even though some will still try to share those things. In order to enforce the time limit, the facilitator can use a timer. When the alarm goes off, the speaker needs to wrap it up.
In addition to the extroverts speaking more often and longer, it is usually people who have dominant identities that take up more time. Women and people of color are often socialized to yield the floor to others. Even with a timer, they often finish before their time is up and want to give it to the next person. In this case, a facilitator can gently encourage them to take up all the time alloted to them, even if they have to take an uncomfortable pause. The practice of giving everyone equal time makes it safer for reluctant speakers to take up space.
What do we talk about? In an unstructured setting, the people who are the loudest and fastest tend to determine the topics of conversation. Not only does this result in inequality in terms of what gets talked about, but also boring conversations dominated by limited points of view. One way to equalize this is to come up with an agenda of topics ahead of time, and the facilitator can make sure that there is breadth and depth in the topics of conversation. Another way is to have the participants take turns suggesting topics of conversation. Both of these require the facilitator moderate the conversation so that everyone contributes questions and responses.
Using Authentic Relating to Create an Inclusive Social Gathering
I have facilitated gatherings in a variety of contexts for different goals. Some of these have been mixed groups where authentic relating practices enable everyone to connect with each other in an equitable and enjoyable way; some have been women’s circles to enable more vulnerablility and deeper connection, and sometimes in professional settings to encourage more inclusive decision making by a committee. For educational purposes, let’s use the example of a book club.
Book club discussions are a popular form of social gathering because it has more structure than an open party, and the intention is usually social connection and enjoyment. However, book club discussions often devolve into the same supremacy culture dynamics I have described, with the fastest and loudest speaking more, and the quieter slower thinkers speaking less, and everyone fighting to be heard. This may be tolerable in a small group, but is chaos in a large group. People end up in side conversations and the discussion fragments into chit chat unrelated to the topic at hand.
A book club discussion using authentic relating principles would go something like this:
The questions and topics of discussion are shared ahead of time, along with the book/overall topic. The questions can be generated by the facilitator or members, but someone reviews them to make sure that the discussion is well structured.
Once everyone has settled, we go around the circle and each person has the same amount of time (maybe 5 minutes) to introduce themselves, and share their overall impression of the book.
The facilitator poses the first question. Members can respond in turn by going around the circle, with each person sharing their response. If the first person in the circle doesn’t want to go first, the facilitator can invite the person who wants to go first to go, and then invite the person next to them, or call on someone else who has raised their hand. The goal is to allow every person a chance to respond to the question.
The facilitator or another member poses the next question, and the group follows the same guildelines for responses.
At the end of the discussion, the facilitor invites a final round for each person to share a closing reflection or anything they want to say that they haven’t said.
This feels so controlled, you may be thinking. Yes, but it is more enjoyable than everyone fighting to be heard or never having a chance to speak because you are not one of the people dominating the entire conversation. This simple structure allows all members two protected turns to share, and plenty of time in the middle for a more free flowing discussion. Of course the amount of ridigity you want to apply to the structure can vary, but I have found that even in casual settings a tighter structure results in more enjoyment and diversity of ideas compared to a loose one.
A challenging situation that comes up often is “cross talk,” which is when after someone shares, another person asks a question or responds to the person who just shared instead of allowing the next person in line to share. In a one-on-one conversation, this creates more depth of engagement and is a good thing, but in a group (especially a large group) this creates imbalance. Now you have invited the person who has just shared to share more, and made the next person wonder when it is going to be their turn. I deal with this sometimes by announcing ahead of time that there will be no follow up questions or comments until everyone has shared. Other times I tell them that the person who just shared can take ONE follow up question. Without these boundaries, one person’s share can become the topic of conversation for the next 20 minutes, after which there is no equity for anyone else.
Sometimes the goal isn’t to have every conversation be a group discussion. People may want to pair up or be in small groups. The most inclusive way to do this is to have the facilitator create the groups rather than allowing people to choose their own partners. Choosing partners involves judgement (I want to talk to the person I’m most attracted to, or the person I’m most familiar with) which can lead to some people feeling rejected. Instead, have people count off and get into groups with those that have the same number, or get in groups based on similar characteristics, or pair with the person sitting opposite and then rotate so that in each round each person is sitting opposite someone new. In situations where the goal is maximizing mingling, letting the facilitor create the groups takes away the anxiety of having to make a choice or not being chosen.
Drawbacks and Benefits
The main criticism of this approach is that it does not allow for spontaneity and choice in interaction. In this structure, I may not get to go up to someone at the party and have an in-depth conversation about their views on a particular matter for as long as I would like. For the outgoing and curious, this may be a drawback. But even for the outgoing and curious, it can be tiring to always approach others and not have the same curiosity and initiative reciprocated. Authentic Relating forces people to take on different social roles, such as being the listener, questioner, speaker, or moderator, rather than always defaulting to the role they are most comfortable with.
At one gathering I attended, participants were given 10 minutes to have a conversation with another person, after which a bell was rung, and you had to find a new partner. The simple act of designating a set amount of time for the conversation helped to focuse the conversation and remove rejection from the act of ending a conversation in order to talk to another person.
Authentic Relating is most beneficial in social gatherings of mixed identity where people do not know each other. In smaller groups where people already know each other and have the same identity, belonging is more inherent and these interventions may not be needed. The larger and more mixed the group is, the more difficult it is to feel belonging, especially for those with marginalized identities or “the only one” of a kind. Authentic Relating helps to equalize the playing field even if it’s at the expense of those who would thrive without it.
Human beings are social animals who are very sensitive to exclusion. Our need for belonging is so strong that our bodies respond to rejection in the same way that we respond to physical pain. Yet the way we structure social gatherings often makes it easier for some people to feel belonging more than others. Usually we are not even aware of these supremacy culture dynamics because they are so pervasive. Those of us with marginalized identities may feel that we are awkward or unattractive, or deem parties to be stupid, rather than recognize that the structure or lack of structure in social settings inherently works against us. Most of us never consider that there is any other way. By intentionally structuring and facilitating with authentic relating, we can avoid the tragedy of the party and create social gatherings that are more welcoming, enjoyable, and meaningful for everyone.
Resources
I host events in the Washington DC area incorporating authentic relating. Please see my upcoming events for more information.
I also travel to help groups with equity and inclusion. If you’re interested in having me teach or facilitate Authentic Relating, please get in touch!
To learn more about Authentic Relating, see
Parker, P. 2018. The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why it Matters. Riverhead Books.