Death threats, explosive media coverage, threats of lawsuits. The generational conflict had escalated again—this time to unprecedented levels. Communities were polarized. On one side was the agricultural community and on the other, lakeshore residents. The issue? Water quality in Lake Huron. Accusations had always been that farmers, with their manure spreading, polluted the waterways feeding into the lake, causing high levels of bacteria leading to increased beach closures. Farmers blamed lakeshore residents for faulty septic systems and towns for installing sewage bypasses. Individuals on both sides were indignant and irate. There seemed no hope of resolving a conflict so entrenched. But what if it was possible to change the conversation?
A colleague and I took a risk. As planners and action researchers, we believed in building the capacity of communities to manage their own conflicts. Garnering buy in, tentative as it was, from community leaders—municipal councillors, the cottage association, and the Federation of Agriculture—we introduced the idea of Circle.
What is Circle?
Circle is a process for dialogue that intentionally creates space for multiple diverse voices and perspectives to be heard. Structurally it involves sitting in a circle, ideally without any tables but with a centre that provides focus much like when sitting around a campfire. Circle space is framed by an opening and closing. It is undergirded by a set of shared values and agreements consensually determined by the group, with contributions from each member. This sets an intention for the quality of space to be collectively held. Values such as honesty, respect, trust, and patience are often named. These reflect and call each to their ‘best self’. They also combine to create a strong container that can hold difficult conversations and many strong emotions.
Into this container, people speak using a talking piece, an object with meaning for the group (like a stone or piece of driftwood.) The talking piece is passed consecutively around the Circle. The person holding it speaks or may choose not to speak, and then passes it on. This happens in rounds in response to questions initially prepared by the ‘keeper(s)’ or facilitator(s) but which later may evolve from the group’s discussion. This format inherently slows down the conversation, allows time for reflection and deep listening, and invites stories and insights from lived experience. It is this way of using the talking piece that holds the potential for transforming conversations.
But Circle is more than a process or technique; it reflects a particular way of being in the world. Circle is the embodiment of an indigenous worldview that understands everything to be profoundly interconnected, incapable of disconnection. This is in contrast to our predominant reductionist worldview that purports the possibility of disconnection, of the reduction of anything to its component parts, of being an objective observer without having impact. From a place of holism, we are all connected to the problems around us. “Bringing everyone together to address the problem, as Circles do, only makes sense. How else could we gain a whole picture of what happened and a whole solution that works for everyone?” 1
With this in mind, to address the escalating water quality conflict, we organized Circle training for community members willing to work with us. Together we co-kept a series of Talking Circles—two in the agricultural community and two with lakeshore residents, exploring similarities and differences of perceptions of the issues. These culminated in a larger combined Circle, following a shared dinner. Fear and trepidation were palpable as people entered. Three hours later, seemingly impossible shifts had taken place—one farmer spontaneously sharing her business card along with an invitation to visit her farm or call to ask questions, a cottage association member expressing intent to invite farmers to speak to their group. Leaving that evening, there was a sense of possibility, that things could be different. And they have been. The conflict was by no means resolved conclusively but it has never escalated to this level since; along with perceptions, the whole conversation had been changed. 2
Over 10 years ago now, this was the first time I had put my passion for Circle to the test in community. It has been rippling through my work ever since.
Circle inspires my teaching. In 2008, as a sessional instructor of the PACS course, Doing Development: Issues of Justice and Peace, I took a risk, but nevertheless received positive feedback and have continued to integrate Circle pedagogy in many undergraduate and graduate classes. Why? What does Circle offer teaching and learning?
Using the framework of Circle creates a qualitatively different learning environment —one that evolves out of connection, to oneself, to each other, and through these to the course material. Taking time for fuller introductions in the first class and then snippets of personal stories shared in weekly check-ins creates points of connection that, over time, result in a tangible sense of community. As one student reflected, “Circle has taken a generation growing dangerously antisocial and created genuine connections and community. It has encouraged a student body to shed their competitive coldness and disengagement from others and instead become interested in learning about one another and caring about one another. It is for certain that development is not only in the global south, development can exist exactly where we are and it begins within ourselves.” 3
With core values intentionally integrated into the process and kept visible—written out in the centre—Circle offers a safe space in which to practice thinking and interacting in a values-informed way. This is active peacebuilding. Through practice, students learn deep listening, reflection, and speaking from a place of greater head-heart integration—skills valuable in all professions. For some, Circle has been transformative - feeling heard for the first time, experiencing that their voice and perspective has value, being personally connected to peers and their professor in the classroom, and even awakening to a new sense of calling.
For any instructor, Circle asks much. It requires a willingness to share power with students, engaging them in the teaching and, as such, to have less airtime in deference to their leadership and participation. Viewing myself as a co-teacher and co-learner, I must be prepared to model what I expect as a Circle way of being, which means a certain vulnerability in my own sharing. Flexibility is needed to plan well and then be prepared to change mid-stream in response to what is emerging from their ideas and discussions. Inevitably, I find myself surprised by synchronicities!
Grebel is graduating students equipped with more than theoretical knowledge. Circle complements the holistic learning experience that Grebel values with its smaller class sizes, offering greater interaction with peers and instructors, internship opportunities with practical experience, and courses that make meaningful connections to the larger world and students’ lived realities.
How is Circle rippling out beyond Grebel?
Every five weeks, a group of community members, known as the Waterloo Region Restorative Justice Circle, meets at Grebel. We hold a vision of Waterloo Region as a restorative region and grapple with the questions of what does this look like, and what could it mean for the larger community. With no predetermined mandate, we meet in Circle with the intent to build relationships, further our skills, establish space to creatively imagine a different way of being in community, and lead toward action. Through rounds of discussions, it’s become clear that Waterloo Region is already a restorative region and so, how do we amplify and leverage existing initiatives to build this restorative consciousness? The invitation is open. Attendance ebbs and flows with participants from all sectors of society. As host, Grebel provides a service to the larger community, increases exposure to its facilities, personnel, and programming, and is represented by both staff and faculty.
Another key ripple is through the annual ‘Peacemaking Circles’ training workshop that I co-facilitate through the Conflict Management Certificate Program offered at Grebel. This workshop evolved six years ago through collaboration with other international trainers. Since then, Circle connections have emerged in Australia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Japan, and the U.S.. Participants take their learning back into diverse contexts—corporate, NGO, government, community —experimenting and using Circle for difficult conversations and conflicts. As a local trainer, I’m often called on to follow up with mentoring and coaching.
In an unexpected ripple, after the Director of Human Resources (HR) for the Great Lakes Division of the Salvation Army took the Circle training last year, she was inspired to imagine a series of Circle trainings to build capacity in her organization. Her vision is to empower employees to be able to manage conflict locally, thereby decreasing demands for HR interventions. So, in partnership with Grebel, this year I will co-lead four 3-day Circle trainings for 60 Salvation Army administrators and officers (pastors), with the possibility of more in future. The potential for organizational change through such leadership development is exciting.
From Huron County to the classroom, from supporting a restorative vision for the broader community to annual trainings and networking internationally, the ripples of Circle are ever widening out from Grebel.
Jennifer Ball is Assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies. Her research interests include women’s community based peacebuilding, Circle as pedagogy and community engagement process, community resilience, rural planning and community development, and narrative methodologies.
1 Ball, J., W. Caldwell, K. Pranis. (2010). Doing Democracy with Circles: Engaging Communities in Public Planning (p.33). St. Paul, MN: Living Justice Press.
2 Story adapted from the above (pp. 82-87)
3 Dena Badawi, Nov. 20, 2015.
