Communication

Sunday Feast - Sitapati style.

Props to Vrajadhama for mixing it up.

A comment from an Atma regular. Interesting food for thought.

Cheers Sita-pati,

Seeing that I can't find your direct email this will have to do. Please excuse the candour but that is how I operate:

Taking a strengths based approach of what little I know of the Hare Krishna movement the following seems apparent:

Hare Krishnas are known due to their distinctive dress, topknots and the practice of Harinam (?). In this sense their are instantly noticeable if they recieve press coverage. This distinctive appearance has both positive and negative aspects. The positive being the instant recognition or branding if you will, the negative being that Harinam would tend to bewilder the vast majority of the public or possibly annoy them (pop culture references i.e. flying high, GTA).

In many ways you are dealing with what might be defined as cultural gap – the distinctive and alien appearance may attract social fringe dwellers but it is unlikely to attract people in significant numbers, and may in fact scare them off. This is why Atma is such a positive step in offering the Gita to a greater number of people as ‘yoga’ and healthy eating (i.e. organic) are considered positive and worthwhile by a growing number of people (particularly when the food is so bloody delicious). Yoga has been mainstreamed and organic is well and truly on the way if not already there. Chanting the name of a culturally foreign God on the street is not. Even the Salvos stopped adhoc public street marches with accompanying brass bands some time ago. I imagine it was considered detrimental to their broader aims.

As stated previously if Vishnu/Krishna is a universal God is dressing like an Indian essential or is it posturing. It may prove appropriate for religious service (like a priest/pastor) but may be excessive otherwise. Toning this down to the Tulsi and Tilak may be effective. Both are viable and relatively unobtrusive symbols of your faith that are aesthetically appealing and not threatening to the man and women in the street. They are more likely to inspire curiosity than ridicule or confusion.

Even though I am philosophically a Polytheist (Yep! I am a Heathen) and Impersonalist and do not support the KC (Krishna Consciousness) position , I can see that as we discussed previously the most appropriate model for the KC is an appropriate remodelling of the Christian approach to outreach for the following reasons:

KC seems to have many similarities to certain Christian churches: monotheism, ecstatic dancing/singing, sexual abstinence or control, an emphasis on non-violence, a focus on the family unit, the divine coming to earth in human form, a focus on a single scripture, universalism and missionary drive.

Great points from Seth Godin, easy to apply to a Krishna Conscious outreach program - especially if you are free from the layers of constraints and expectations imposed by doing a traditional program in a temple. My comments, based on doing the Hare Krishna Sunday Feast in Brisbane's Govinda's restaurant for two years, inline:

Easily overlooked, but incredibly important: the way you arrange the room where people speak.

The venue owner (hotel/convention center) wants something easy. Your boss wants something cheap. You want something tried and true so you don't get blamed. The end result? Mediocrity. Boring sameness. What a wasted opportunity.

In the scheme of things, a great room at a conference is a bargain. Spending what it takes to make it work has a huge payoff. That said, here are some thoughts:

"What does this remind me of?"

That's the subliminal question that people ask themselves as soon as they walk into a room. If it reminds us of a high school cafeteria, we know how to act. If it's a bunch of round tables set for a chicken dinner, we know how to act. And if there are row upon row of hotel-type chairs in straight lines, we know how to sit and act glazed.

If it's a place where we're used to saying 'no', we're likely to say no. If it's a place where we're used to good news or important news or just paying attention, we'll do that.

You can use this Pavlovian reaction to your advantage, or you can be a victim of it. A non-traditional arrangement can make people sit up and take notice. A rock concert feel is going to raise the energy level of even the skeptics. A circle with no tables makes people feel naked. These are tools, and you get to choose.

If you have to serve lunch, serve lunch. Big round tables, lots of talking. Then have people stand up and go hear the speaker. In a different room, with a different setting, one that works. No one ever heard a speech that changed their lives when sitting around a round table having just eaten a lousy lunch. Mixing the settings serves no purpose, wastes time in the long run and saves very little money.

Do you see that this is just more marketing? You tell a story with where you put the chairs.

When we started doing the Sunday Feast everyone was sitting on the floor. There were some chairs along the back wall, and guests would grab these as quickly as possible, and leave the others to sit uncomfortably on the floor. The first thing we did was put out chairs for the guests to sit on. The whole goal of yoga asanas is to help the yogi to sit down comfortably - "asana". Once they can do this they move on to the more advanced stages of spiritual practice. If they can't sit comfortably they cannot do anything further. Asanas are useful for sitting comfortably. Giving people a chair does it too...

If you could do one thing, make one choice, it should be this: make the room too small. Standing room only. People hanging into the hall. Watch what happens to your energy level.

If you're speaking TO people as opposed to encouraging a wide ranging discourse, put the stage along the narrow wall of the room. (in a 30 by 80 room, that means the 30 side). Making the room narrow and long is far better than wide, because it puts the audience in the plane of the speaker.

After a year we reoriented the room in this way, when we got a stage to allow people sitting in chairs to see devotees sitting on "the floor" doing kirtan. The stage fit nicely when the room was set up longways. We also found that it helped people to focus more. With the room set up wide way there are too many distracting things in people's field of view.

This also makes it far easier for the audience to see the speaker and the slides/screens at the same time. This is critical. I can't tell you how many times I've watched people stare at the screen and avoid the speaker, or find themselves bouncing back and forth.

iMag: That's the projection of the speaker on the screen. This is pretty expensive, but for groups over 500, it's almost mandatory in our 1984esque world. If you want to get far more bang for your buck, hire a second cameraman, with a hand held camera. When you switch from one view to the other, you add enormous action to the event.

We did this one evening when H.H. Ramai Swami gave class. It allows people further back to see him easily. We just plugged a video camera into the video projector that we used for visuals and words during bhajans. It has a great effect. I saw the two camera setup at Buckhead Church in Atlanta, and it is effective. It was like being in a rock video.

Screens: Big screens are a lot more reasonable than they used to be. Get the absolute biggest and brightest you can afford. Bigger! Big screens, near the speaker. Really close to the speaker. That's a big help for the audience and for your energy.

VGA cables: Have more than one. Switchers are cheap. Nothing worse than having speakers stumbling around swapping laptops. And put the cables and the laptops up front, not in back to be controlled by a tech guy who doesn't care quite as much as you (or the speaker) does.

Music: Every time you introduce a speaker, play loud and inspiring pop music. Not for long, but enough to cue people to remember the way they feel at the Oscars and stuff. After all, those memes are there waiting for you to leverage them.

We've used this, especially with our "Hare Krishna Network". With this format we do the program as a "live-to-air" talk show, complete with theme music, voice from the sky introduction for the host, and ad breaks. You will be amazed at how you can guide a group of people through an evening by using their existing cultural frameworks.

Marching bands: Yes, they're cheap. No, people don't like them particularly. I've seen this done a number of times, and people are more amazed and aghast than impressed.

Aisles: Watch a room fill up. People always sit on the aisle, don't they? Don't do rows of 40 or 50 chairs with no aisle. Have lots of aisles. Every ten chairs or so. Why not? Makes it faster to get in and to get out, and doesn't hurt your density so much.

We started putting aisles in between the chairs because of this reality of seating dynamics. No-one wants to sit in the middle, and when they do, it's hard to get in and out.

Lights: Make it dark in the audience. Make it light on stage. This works every time. Practice the lighting in advance, even for a smaller group.

Q&A: For large groups, don't do Q&A. It sucks all the energy out of the room and stilts the end, "Well, if there are no more questions..." Instead, solicit questions from key people in advance, write them on index cards and have someone raring and ready to go with a microphone and a finite list of questions, bang, bang, bang. It's not a press conference, it's a speech.

Sunday Feast questioning sessions can be more than a complete waste of time, they can be a massive let down and counterproductive. If you give a powerful, polished presentation, the last thing you want to do is give the last word to someone who is going to present something contrary to your point, confusing the audience and potentially overwriting your whole carefully prepared message in the mind of the audience. There are professional Sunday Feast questioners who come along every week just to do exactly this. Better to arrange the program overall so that people can ask questions of devotees personally afterwards. Those who sincerely want to ask, can, and those who want a platform to address the whole crowd can go do their own program.

Small groups: Even groups of two--don't go along with a lousy setting just because that's what is offered to you. Why would you pitch yourself or your project in a noisy restaurant, seated on a banquette, with one person on your left and two on your right? Don't do it.

If you are using a laptop for a small group, get one with a big screen. Get a simple USB remote. Don't use live web access if at all possible. And make sure that the right person sees the screen (and you) at the same time. If you can't do these things, don't use the laptop.

If you're willing to travel to meet with someone, put in the extra effort to do it in a setting that works. Befriend the admin, befriend the maitre d, even from 1,000 miles away. Both you and the person you're meeting with benefit when you create a room that works.

An interesting article from a recent edition of Leadership Wired, on the subject of Criticism. Here's an excerpt:

Americans have a warped view of criticism. Unfortunately, most of us see criticism almost exclusively in a negative light. We dish it out tactlessly, use it to tear down rivals, and attack others with it even when we have no authority to do so.

It certainly doesn't help that we are inundated with poor examples of criticism in the media. For starters, consider American Idol's British judge, Simon Cowell. It's not uncommon for Simon's scathing criticisms to elicit tears from contestants. His words are given sincerely, but heartlessly. Watching Simon, it's as if he relishes finding faults in another's imperfections.

Election season paints another ugly picture of criticism. Politicians wield it like an ax to cut down their opponents. Instead of debating ideas in a civil forum, too often politicians lower themselves into a mudslinging contest.

Another media avenue, the blogosphere, has become criticism central in America. Bloggers attack the character of leaders they don't know and rail against decisions made in circumstances they could never understand. Far too frequently, their inflammatory tone escalates conflict without adding any substantial value to the interplay of ideas.

Read the whole article here: Criticism that counts

I had a nice conversation with my god brother Tri-yuga this morning.

I filed the following quip in my "wisdom to live by" filing cabinet:

Standards are good and should be enforced

and..

Communication works best when people feel understood and cared for

"America's most media-savvy Hindu priest". Hindu priests listen up.

1. Define the agenda - make everyone else respond to it. Zed does not release press releases in response to other people's press releases. He's making the news. He looks for opportunities to create newsworthy events as a strategic platform.
2. Keep pushing your strategic agenda in every press release. In Zed's case he has three things that he is promoting, no matter what else is in his press release: that he is an acclaimed Hindu leader (promoting himself as an authoritative spokesman), that Hinduism has a billion followers and is the third most popular religion in the world (seeking respect for Hinduism and Hindus), and that Hinduism's goal is moksha (promoting a unifying element of an otherwise diverse phenomenon - one that potentially excludes/marginalizes ISKCON). In contrast, see if you can discern ISKCON's Hindu leadership strategy from our press releases. It's not so clear. I couldn't tell you what it is, and I'm a member of the organization.
3. Write your press release as a print-ready article. Zed writes his press release like a news article, and many news sources simply reprint it as is. Readers want to feel the people in the story. Even if you use "we" - have a person say it: "'We believe this,' says Joe Bloggs, senior leader of the organization." In contrast, the ISKCON NA press release has no person in it. You can't have a story without a person. This will reduce its spread.
4. Send it to everyone, personally. Zed sends his press releases to my email inbox. Beat that. No seriously, beat that.
5. Keep on keepin' on. Rajan Zed has a crystal clear strategy and he is working to it. He's not sitting around waiting to react - he's proactively seeking openings to promote his strategic agenda. Two points there - 1. Have a strategic agenda, 2. Pursue it, relentlessly.

Here is an example of applying some of the principles employed by Bill O'Reilly in his Sunsara Taylor / Ron Luce interview [link] to the recent "Hare Krishna Diary" incident. It would not placate the cries of the lynch mob for blood, but it wouldn't absorb the agenda of the complainants into the GBC response either; and it would focus on process, maintaining a metastructure that can accommodate diversity within it, and raising the tone of the debate.

At the root this is a discipline issue.

You might call this "how I would do it".

Here it is:
-----------
Hypothetical GBC Statement

We have received a number of complaints about a blog called "Hare Krishna Diary". The complainants objected to what they called "sexist" and "misogynistic" writing.

We reviewed this blog, which is written by an ISKCON member. The author is a new devotee, recently initiated, and is a brahmacari.

The subject matter of the blog deals extensively with women, their social role, and the application of Srila Prabhupada's statements on social organization.

We believe that devotees should spend a significant amount of time reading Srila Prabhupada's books, hearing from senior devotees, and performing active service in ISKCON under guidance, and that this should be a primary focus for new devotees. Analyzing the social structure and implementation of social policies in ISKCON is not the best use of their time, nor are new devotees particularly qualified to do this.

It is not appropriate for brahmacaris to comment extensively on the social role of women. The brahmacari phase of life is especially meant for withdrawal from social, especially male / female interaction, in both act and in meditation, and is instead for absorption in study of scripture and performance of sadhana. Brahmacaris should focus on developing good habits of sadhana, forming solid character, and gaining an in-depth understanding of scripture. ISKCON brahmacaris must at all times operate under an ISKCON authority and be conscious that they represent their ashram, their spiritual master, and the organization at all times. These are the austerities of brahmacari life.

Brahmacaris should not maintain a website without the permission of their spiritual master or his authorized representative. Brahmacaris in ISKCON must operate under the authority of an ISKCON authority, such as an initiating guru or ISKCON temple president.

We have contacted the spiritual master of this brahmacari and he has said "[insert statement from spiritual master here]".

We wish to reiterate that the GBC considers as inappropriate an ISKCON brahmacari maintaining a website without the permission of his authority, and that the views expressed on the website under discussion are not the official views of the society or the GBC. For the official policy of the GBC in this area please refer to our statement issued in 1998 affirming our support and respect for Vaisnavis.

Question: Do you agree that it is sexist and misogynistic?

Reply: We will not characterize or comment on the content of the website beyond saying that it is inappropriate for a brahmacari to write publicly on this subject. We have issued a comprehensive statement on the official GBC position in this area, and refer you to that for further information.

Question: But do you agree with what he says?

Reply: We agree with what Srila Prabhupada says. However, how that is understood and interpreted is open to discussion. It is inappropriate for a brahmacari, and especially a new devotee, to give extensive analysis of its meaning and application publicly. For the official view of the GBC on this matter please refer to our 1998 statement.

One of my all time favorites. It's not Dawkins, but Sunsara Taylor, the head of "World Can't Wait" [Sunsara's blog].

I award this one squarely to Bill O'Reilly [wikipedia entry].

O'Reilly actually has two guests on, Taylor and Ron Luce [wikipedia entry], the head of "Battlecry USA". O'Reilly ostensibly acts as the moderator between the two. However, he expertly uses his position to slant the debate to Ron Luce, whom he obviously favors.

There is a saying: "If you want to make money from gambling, own the table." In the same way, the way to significantly influence public opinion is not to get on TV, but to own the TV station. Since O'Reilly is able to determine the terms of debate, he is able to make it a walk home for Luce.

His Holiness Kavicandra Swami wrote recently about Battlecry and their agenda. In this clip we get to hear what Battlecry are all about, and Luce even manages to get his website into the conversation.

Luce is clearly an expert in dealing with the media. He remains smiling and positive throughout the exchange. People will remember this. They may not remember what he said, but they will be left with a favorable impression of a smiling, upbeat, and positive person. For the same reason it is important for devotees to always smile on harinam. People may not understand what the heck is going on, "but it sure looks like they're having fun, so it can't be bad".

Luce also continually restates his position. He has a number of points that he wants to get across, and he just keeps making them. O'Reilly is easy on him and doesn't really ask him any hard questions. Taylor, on the other hand, gets the "slanted table" treatment from O'Reilly.

Rather than allowing her to speak on the basis of her platform, O'Reilly puts her on the defensive by questioning the tone of her dialog: "Why the name calling?"

Taylor has allowed herself to be put into a corner. At a strategic level, unfortunately, her position is defined as being "anti-Battlecry". This immediately adds more authority and weight to Battlecry's message. It got her onto television, but not on her terms. O'Reilly then turns the focus of the debate to the form of her dialog, rather than the substance.

In this way he appears to be neutral, but by defining the terms of the debate he is able to "put Gajendra in the water" (a reference to this pastime in the Srimad Bhagavatam that means put her onto an unfavorable battlefield).

Taylor could have escaped from this killing zone by simply saying: "Yes, I admit that we lowered the tone of the debate, and I apologize for that..." and then gone on to continually restate her points. She could have said that "people used those words because they are very upset, for the following reasons..."

This would have had the effect of neutralizing O'Reilly's positioning, which he uses throughout the debate to corner Taylor. Of course, Taylor might lose some of her internal support by doing this. The troops who used those slogans, perhaps even contributed to by Taylor, would feel that they had been betrayed.

She might have tried the weaker option of: "I acknowledge that...", and then gone on to state her position.

Instead, Taylor is made out to be a petulant, childish personality unable to come to an adult level of dialog. O'Reilly frames her message as naive, emotive, and irrational.

This is an important point for moderators and maintainers of meta-frameworks. You can cut people down without disagreeing with their message, by attacking the appropriateness of their dialog. As an example, the GBC could have undercut Caitanya das' blog by pointing out that a 20-something year old brahmacari has no credibility to speak about women's issues, and that such speech is inappropriate for that ashram.

They could have hammered on this point to the extent that it isolated him, without having to "take a side" in the issues that are under discussion.

This would have had the flow-on effect of deprecating his arguments, just as O'Reilly puts Taylor's position down the gurgler, but it would have been done in an overtly "clean-handed" way. It's overtly about "raising the tone of the dialog", and enforcing proper behaviour in ashrams. You can't demand proper behaviour in the grhasta ashram (which women belong to in all phases of life, according to Srila Prabhupada) while simultaneously displaying improper behaviour in the brahmacari ashram. Pointing out this inherent contradiction should have been enough. Reward rational presentation, punish bad behaviour.

O'Reilly maintains a metaframework that accommodates diversity of opinion and the right to expression. At the same time he clearly takes Taylor out and promotes Luce. There is a valuable lesson for moderators everywhere in this exchange.

Key Points:

• Keep smiling - no matter what
• Know what your main points are, continually restate them
• Do not define your position in opposition to the other guy's, but have a coherent platform that you promote
• Cast a positive vision and a positive spin
• If the moderator corners you, slip out. Acknowledge his point (you don't have to agree with it), then restate your position yet again
• If you get inextricably caught in the kill zone make like Gajendra and remember the lotus feet of the Lord
• If you are moderating, slant the table without getting involved in either side - "put Gajendra in the water" and then let them have a "fair fight"
• If you are moderating, keep the tone of the conversation high - it's actually a valid aspect of the role, and one that O'Reilly discharges well