In the event an Interdemocracy facilitator interprets their role as “formal,” as was observed during a session within the Interdemocracy pilot (see: blog post seventy-three), all elements that make up the format of Interdemocracy seem to become a performative obligation, a procedure that needs to be implemented for the sake of getting the implementation done.
Effects of a formal approach
When a teacher plays their part of facilitator formally, students seem to experience the elements that make up Interdemocracy as meaningless tasks; hardly any sense of purpose emerges. No “ma” (see: blog post fourty-three) seems to be brought about, just a dull emptiness. While “ma” is a space that holds the potential to embed content, in this case the space between students, elements, and statements is a mere empty interval between tasks, a boring non-event. This emptiness is reflected in student statements; many proclaim to have no opinion, to see no sense, or worse, they simply agree with whatever is happening to get it over with.
Restraint, not withdrawal
Yes, a facilitator needs to be procedural, and refrain from helping or offering their opinions, evaluations, or frames, this does not mean that their role is purely formal. The procedural character of the role does not exclude facilitator engagement, passion, enthusiasm, joy, empathy, care, and commitment. On the contrary, these elements of ethical care are needed to transform nothingness into “ma”, into an invitation to be present.