Greeting Note
We are pleased to present this volume as a further contribution to the concept of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI). It is our hope that it will serve to enrich the present discussions concerning teaching and learning in the university setting.
Theme-Centered Interaction does not offer swift and easy responses to the pressing present and future tasks faced in the working world or matters concerning holistic approaches to education. Rather, it challenges teachers and managers to direct their attention towards dealing with matters of attitudes, conceptions of human life, human visions and values. In an ever-changing world, we need people who have learned to be their own leaders, who can successfully forge new processes. At the university level of teaching, TCI is capable of supporting the desire to acquire selfreliance, to unfold potentials and to initiate living learning. Some find it irritating to imagine that all teachers are likewise learners, that learners are also managers. But with this volume, it is our hope that the idea of a sustainable, living, inspirational didactic will become firmly planted on its reader’s horizon.
Theme-Centered Interaction according to Ruth C. Cohn arose in a context of psychotherapeutic and educational thought. It was based on a multitude of experiences both with individuals and in groups. Reflection on those experiences enabled TCI to become an educational concept of its own accord. Whether working with individuals or groups, whether as part of counselling, in an educational or a teaching venue, TCI addresses how group processes function and how they are controlled, how disturbances are dealt with and how living learning processes are initiated – all based on a unique vision of human life and the development of moral responsibility. To do so, it is necessary to keep the four factors (I, We, It and Globe) in mind as much as it is to respect and balance the needs and skills of the involved individuals, the tasks at hand and the context of the organisation and its environment.
Today, TCI is employed in schools, at universities, in socially oriented fields, in pastoral work as well as in counselling and organisational development. TCI was first launched in the United States and came of age in Germany and Switzerland. It has since grown such that, under the auspices of the Ruth Cohn Institute for TCIinternational, there are now branches in Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary and India. An important part is played by the
four international expert groups (supervision, management, school, theology) and the support programme for young adults. Numerous TCI trainings and seminars are offered in association with various collaborators, based on the quality standards set by the Ruth Cohn Institute for TCI-international. There are also special educational and training formats for coaching and supervision according to TCI as well as intercultural and interdisciplinary learning formats.
The Ruth Cohn Institute for TCI-international thanks the Ruth Cohn Foundation for the Support of Young Adults, which supported besides others the publication of this volume. And we thank each and every contributor to this book for their important contributions to the further development of the theory of TCI. May the lecturer in academia benefit from the ideas and understanding TCI is offering them for their work in seminars and beyond. It is our hope that the Ruth Cohn Institute, in particular, and scientific research in this field, in general, will be the benefactors of a fruitful discussion and thus will provide an impetus for furthering work with TCI.
President of the Ruth Cohn Institute for TCI-international Andrea Schmid Berlin, Germany January 30, 2018
Preface
Which learning experiences are you thinking back to as the most positive? If I were asked to put my finger on it, I first would name situations where I was able to feel enriched on the humane level by the person who taught me something. Second, I would point out situations in which I could try and experience and achieve something by myself. Third, I would remember being creative in a unique way or discovering something utterly unexpected – what a joy! When one or more of these criteria meet, the accompanying feelings I would call curiosity, feeling energised, touched, happy, content and satisfied. In conclusion, it is mainly three things leading to great learning experiences: positive humane encounter with others, productivity by doing things by oneself, and productivity of one’s mind. Ideally, all three aspects come together.
Institutions of higher education – be it a university, a polytechnic, a college, etc. – are places of learning by definition. But what is learning? I would say, it is a process of and between human beings, never only cognitively but also emotionally and interactively. Learning in groups always includes certain dynamics – within each person and within the group. Of course, as a lecturer, one could try to suppress group effects and stoically emphasise on a given topic. We have all experienced such situations sometimes as pupils or teachers, right? And I guess (if the reader nods, thinking of themselves as the participant or the speaker) such situations do not stir the happiest of memories or feelings! Something was amiss. Shared experiences in groups are not something that can be avoided or should be suppressed while learning. On the contrary, they are part of the living organism of sociality and, in this capacity, part of the human life – more precisely: of humane life! Therefore, university (etc.) lessons should, from my point of view, offer not mere content but ‘lessons of life’ in light of a content, providing adequate models of how an expert in a specific field can act as a ‘good, humane person’ and how learning situations can create vivid, enlightening, satisfying experiences.
“I listen and forget. I see and remember. I do and understand”, Cicero is believed to have stated. I quote this phrase at the beginning of my university seminars in order to explain to students not used to interactive didactic why it is imperative to me as their lecturer to involve them during the term in discussion, problem-solving
in small groups, self-reflection and other forms of encounter for a more-thancognitive and only thereby memorable learning experience. Students cannot lean back in such lessons; they must ‘do’ things all the time – being involved personally, with other group members and with the subject matter at hand – in order to ‘understand’. Participants are challenged to open up, to become visible as a person, to act successfully or to err, which is at first demanding and then becomes a deliberating joy. For the lecturer, this means to withdraw from the role of a person who mainly explains things. Instead, they must create tasks which invite students to explore aspects of a topic by themselves. A university lecturer who thus opens up his/her content to students, letting them make it their own, finding importance in it, letting them question it? Yes. Late Ruth C. Cohn, founder of the Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI) approach for ‘living learning’ experiences in groups, would hopefully agree and probably then involve all parties in the idea of ‘be you own chairperson’1! For a scholar in higher education, it might be difficult to refrain from sticking mainly to topic-related facts and instead ask themselves how their students can be involved in finding out personally what one could tell them in a fraction of the time – but without sustainable learning effects, referring to the above quote! The what is clear to the academic expert, but too often, the how remains a mystery.
The authors of this book agree in their view of learning/lecturing in academia; it should allow for unlocking potentials slumbering in groups of students and their lecturers. This goal leads to specific demands for the teaching situation. A conscious and empathic group leading by reflected attitude and process design does not necessarily remain a black box to colleagues outside of pedagogy and psychology. Knowledge from these fields can be transferred into all contexts.
TCI is the ‘art of leading oneself and others’ in a humane and fruitful way in all work groups. While group dynamic in all its colours is a given (one cannot avoid or suppress but steer it), the ability of a group leader in recognising, addressing and positively shaping this sort of underlying group process will broadly differ. Some lecturers in higher education might be experts in the field of group dynamic (like some psychologists or pedagogues) and therefore have more ideas and less insecurity of how to create a vivid and beneficial learning atmosphere. Some might have good contact within their groups due to their natural social skills – not being sure why their approach works and in search for a clue if it does not. However, others though lack these kind of skills, knowledge and training, shying away from everything beside their content while teaching, feeling insecure and anxious of students expressing themselves. Especially if emotions come into play, insecurity rises for many lecturers. They might think: “Who knows what then happens? The group might escalate or take over, making it impossible for me to continue with my
1 Theme-Centered Interaction as an approach of working in/as/with a group will be introduced in the first chapters of the book and referred to in all further chapters. A glossary at the end of the volume supports a reader new to TCI further in their grasp of main ideas and concepts of and around the approach. Please note that the spelling as Theme-Centered Interaction is used as a standardised term throughout the book, while some of the text use British English and others American English (due to the options of writer and copy editor at hand).
content!” Where does this peculiar fear (loss of control, a group that is disruptive or turned against their leader) come from? Own thoughts and feelings are part of any learning process, but how to include them constructively? Psychology understands human beings as deeply interdependent, as aiming for both autonomy and acknowledgement. Each individual has to handle this dichotomy, trying as a person and in a given role and situation to balance out these equally important human needs. If a scholar in academia wishes to empathise the humane side within their teachinglearning-setting, fundamental truths of humanity become apparent. Ruth C. Cohn as the inventor or discoverer of TCI expresses this accordingly for the attitude towards groups she works with in the first of three axioms as one of the baselines of her approach:
Human beings are psychobiological entities and a part of the universe. They are equally autonomous and interdependent. The autonomy of individuals is all the much larger; the greater they are aware of their interdependence with all and everything. (Farau and Cohn 1984, p. 357)
This is a book for scholars lecturing in the field of higher education; be it at a university, a polytechnic, a college or similar, according to their country and the educational system they are located in. The international authors of this book invite their readers to think from the standpoint: “What do my students need in order to learn the best they could?” instead of “How do I explain my content the best I could?” Learning in the best possible way addresses more than a subject matter alone, as mentioned before. It acknowledges the need for human encounter as part of the learning process, not only with the lecturer or facilitator but also between fellow students. If structures do not serve the social situation, trust between even the most willing people will decrease – “an experience also true in higher education and therefore reason for further consideration and didactical advancement”, as Arndt (2013, p. 61) puts it. Since not everyone teaching in academia received a didactical training, this book provides scientifically based answers by introducing the reader to the attitude, theory and methods of TCI by Ruth C. Cohn and its uses for academia lectur(er) s. It is an approach based in humanism, group theory, psychoanalysis, pedagogy and other areas of knowledge about the psychological needs of human beings learning in groups. Overall, it maps out a holistic way of lecturing and learning. Different readers are addressed by this book:
Some might already be experts in TCI themselves. Such colleagues probably received training at a Ruth Cohn Institute (RCI2), mainly in Europe or India. Probably they are already applying their knowledge to their lectures and might find new ideas in this book of doing just that.
– Others already possess certain knowledge in the field of group dynamic and group facilitation from other backgrounds. They might use these insights in their teaching already but find it somewhat limited and unstructured. With TCI, they ought to find an integrating, systematic approach and fresh ideas, broadening their repertoire.
2 See www.ruth-cohn-institute.org
–
Some will know about TCI foremost from books. Perhaps they already put to good practice what they understood so far and are supported by the content of this book to deepen their approach. Or the interested TCI reader might not yet explicitly apply their3 group understanding. They are encouraged by examples and theoretical background to transfer new-found ideas into their lectures.
– And others still might be entirely new to TCI and the idea of thinking in terms of human needs, group dynamic and group facilitation while having their upcoming seminars in mind. They are also encouraged to broaden their ability of leading oneself and others fruitfully in a group process by first steps with TCI.
As editors and authors, we offer something to all these addressees and are sure they benefit from TCI in whatever field of study they may teach. We think of the book as a fruit basket with offerings for different interests, TCI knowledge levels and tastes. Consequently, our ‘basket’ contains texts from authors who are either TCI-trained and TCI-licensed, very TCI-affine, or positvely TCI-interested. Most of them write from their soul experiences with TCI in higher education, some compare ideas offered by TCI to other approaches, some transfer experiences from other educational contexts to the context of academia or discuss its merits from a more theoretical perspective. Accordingly, this is not one consistent textbook but a reader, a compendium of offers from different angles on TCI in higher education.
In part I, the reader finds in-depth introductions into TCI from theoretical, practical, and methodical angles. Adding to each other, these texts offer an understanding of where the approach comes from and why it is of the utmost interest for postmodern higher education. Here, also first examples of how TCI can be used in support of academic seminars are given, as well as some insights on the effects for lecturers and students.
The first contribution on ‘Theme-Centered Interaction for Educating Future Leaders’ by Sylke Meyerhuber (Bremen, Germany) discusses the university as a venue for appropriating skills that enable students as leaders-to-be to act socially sustainably in organisations: The author introduces Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI) as an applied social psychology approach for university teachers. She argues that young academics are society’s leadership personnel of the future. In such roles, they will have a great impact on the wellbeing of others. How do they learn to act in a socially sustainable manner? University is not only a place for learning the contents of a chosen field of study. Additionally, the author points out an obligation to enable students to fulfil their future functions in areas of society with respect to social skills and consciousness. It is discussed in the text how resonant relationship experiences can be ensured during lectures. ‘Resonance in class’ as a concept by Sociologist H. Rosa is introduced, and its psychological implications are discussed in more detail with respect to specific approaches from therapy theory and industrial psychology. In more detail, cornerstones of the approach of TCI by Ruth C. Cohn
3 In modern English, language is to be gendered: where he/she could be set, a plural form (they) is used instead. The University of Bremen, where the author is working, encourages gender-equality language in academia by policy.
are then introduced with respect to practice examples from seminars of the author. Building on the method, qualitative empirical data from the student’s perspective on experienced impacts of teaching with the TCI attitude and methodology at the university are presented. Conclusions are drawn and an outlook is given.
In the second chapter, ‘Theme-Centered Interaction by Ruth C. Cohn: An Introduction’, renown TCI expert, communicative theologist and TCI trainer, Matthias Scharer (Innsbruck, Austria) offers the reader an introduction into the biography of Ruth C. Cohn, deriving from it the genesis of ideas and further developments of our shared frame of reference ‘Theme-Centered Interaction’. Scharer shares his intimate knowledge of the historical and philosophical background underlying the TCI approach. Being honoured with the custodianship of the Ruth C. Cohn archive in Berlin, Scharer’s introduction provides unusual insights into both the approach and its history, sharing his deep understanding of the biography of TCI’s founder. Due to the author’s profound knowledge and international experience with TCI, he explains with humane warmth the concept to the interested reader.
In chapter three, as an expert for psychoanalytic and systemic pedagogy and former RCI lecturer, Helmut Reiser (Hanover, Germany) introduces in his text, ‘Concrete Methods and Case Experiences with Theme-Centered Interaction’, insights into modifications of TCI methodology for a variety of teaching situations, together with Walter Lotz and Birgit Menzel (Frankfurt, Germany), Christoph Huber (Tübingen, Germany) and Hiltrud Loeken (Freiburg, Germany). Different formats of the work with TCI in lectures at the university are introduced, developed by Reiser and his co-authors. The different ways of using TCI didactically are described; their advantages and drawbacks discussed; and conclusions for the context of higher education are drawn. What is additionally characterised is where each approach might be fittingly applied. Completing, their relation to nowadays standards of TCI and its leading theorems are shown. While Reiser provides a framework in this chapter, each co-author with their unique university teaching experience introduces a special example. Some of them are not only teaching at the university but are also accredited RCI lecturers and therefore also familiar with newer developments within the ‘TCI world’. In light of their specific expertise, this contribution closes with an overall conclusion.
These three broader pieces are followed by distinct examples of teaching with TCI. In part II, case experiences with TCI in different fields of study and also in different cultures are presented. The authors here refer to aspects of TCI without explaining the approach all over again. They show how they find facets of TCI helpful in their work of academic lectures.
The fourth chapter gives a detailed insight into a strictly process-orientated TCI workshop setting of a seminar at the University of Hamburg (Germany), where the communication expert Friedemann Schulz von Thun and his colleague Roswitha Stratmann taught together. First, ‘On the Psychology of Civil Courage: A ThemeCentered Interactive Teaching Experiment’ describes the framework in which the fortnightly course, held 1994, took place. Second, the readers follow a first draft and guiding thoughts in the development of an appropriate setting for their target group. Third, the seven sessions of the course and how the lecturers perceived them are
described, giving insights into the ongoing creation of further steps based on the lecturers’ reflection of the group process, a most insightful description. Thereby, it can be closely observed how the lecturers perceived the group development and how they, guided by TCI principles and further communication methods by Schulz von Thun, shaped the process from session to session, observing closely the ongoing process and its results. Summarising in ten theses, also the knowledge on ‘civil courage’ gained throughout the course, and overall insights are discussed.
Stefan Padberg (University of Wuppertal, Germany) shows in ‘Big Themes for Little Kids? Living Learning in a Teacher Training Course Dealing with Flight and Migration’ how he teaches students in a course for the primary school subject ‘Natural and Social Sciences Education’ (in German, Sachunterricht). In school, the subject deals with issues of the real world, allowing pupils a more specialised learning of natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), on the one hand, and the social sciences (geography, political sciences, sociology, economics, history), on the other hand. A third issue is concerned with technical learning (as the architecture of a bridge). Lecturing students of these university teacher training courses incorporates the initialisation and fostering of the students’ learning process on didactical approaches to social sciences teaching as an overall part of the primary school subjects mentioned above. The author first describes the normal situation of learning in teacher training courses at university in Germany. Second, he introduces the TCI approach in light of his target group, particularly focusing on the path of TCI-based planning in order to engage the teachers-in-training in a ‘living learning’ process. Here, the structuring of the collaboration and communication is of utmost importance, supported by the ‘eternal search for dynamic balance’ of the four TCI factors. This is illustrated by a course that took place in summer 2016, based on a real-life situation, here: the public discourse on a recent immigration wave into Germany. In other words, while dealing with the content of escape and migration, the class of future teachers explored different approaches of teaching and learning.
Dora Pereira teaches clinical psychology at the University of Madeira (Funchal, Portugal). In the sixth chapter, ‘First Steps with TCI in a Class for Psychopathology: How Students, Topics and Lecturer Gain from the Approach’, the author describes her work as a teacher of psychology with undergraduate students after years as a practitioner of clinical psychology. As such, she sees her task at the university not only in providing knowledge. The task at hand is, according to her, to help students become future psychologists. In this light, teaching psychology must support personality development, the construction of a new identity as being a future psychologist. Therefore, classes planned should have this double aim in mind. But how? The TCI approach is known to Pereira only by literature and life examples gained while observing a German guest lecturer working with TCI in her class. These glimpses opened to her a meaningful and helpful way towards her goals, providing a humanistic framework and concrete ways of thinking about the process in the group she works with. Even with only cornerstone knowledge to date, TCI offers her ways to connect knowledge and personal growth convincingly. In her text, the author describes how she started applying aspects of TCI to her psychopathology class as an experiment. The text is organised along the four factors of the TCI model, reflect-
ing the author’s process as a university teacher: (1) Globe factors – some thoughts on features of the context the class takes place in. (2) Individual aspects – on how she encountered TCI as a method for her class and why it spontaneously made sense to her. (3) Group factors – how the group of students did react to her proposal of an unfamiliar didactical setting. And furthermore in retrospection: How did the social climate in class change during the term? Here, feedback of students is also addressed. (4) The ‘It’ or subject matter – reflection on how the content ‘psychopathology’ is developing during the group process, with respect to individuals, the overall group and to theme and context. Thus, different challenges Pereira encountered as a university teacher are reflected. In light of the four TCI factors, she asks: “How did the course go, were the TCI principles helpful, when did I reach the goal of balance, or when did the process waver, and why?” Implications of these reflections lead to thoughts about the future shaping of her teaching/learning processes, for sure supported by TCI again.
Then, the angle shifts to an even more intercultural perspective with contributions from three continents, starting with an experience of academic teaching with TCI in India.
The seventh chapter introduces the reader to Joby Cyriac and C. A. Lal (Kerala, India) and their experiences with ‘TCI Didactics in the Higher Education Context of Kerala/India: Experiences and Insights of Teaching English Language and Communication at the Tertiary Level’. Cyriac and Lal draw from their background as teachers of English at the tertiary level in India, where they are constantly confronted with the need for a contextually appropriate way to teach the language. Cyriac describes ‘finding TCI’ as a defining moment in his professional development; since it conforms to his notions of teaching/learning and offers him the freshness of an experiential learner-centred process with a philosophical underpinning, deeply humane and fine-tuned to the needs of his students. The authors discuss their classroom experience of offering a TCI-based language and communication course for postgraduate students in Kerala, in southern India. The nature and rationale of the course, its participants and the process are each delineated in the chapter. An emphasis lays on the attempts to translate the system of TCI into academic classroom practice – the TCI attitude ingrained in the axioms, the four factor dynamics, postulates in action, various tools and techniques of TCI, as session timing, rounds, group configuration, activities, energisers, and how these animate the classroom process of teaching and learning English language and communication. The involvement, responses and feedback of students are discussed by the authors along with observations and insights as group leaders. Ethical and political aspects are issued –by means of chairpersonship. For example encourages TCI participating women to voice their own thoughts, often a socially unfamiliar terrain for them. The authors also reflect on a personal level: As a teacher in the higher education field of India, how does TCI influence me? How did it influence/did not influence my students, looking back on the classroom climate and process? In closing, perspectives on TCI didactics in the higher education context of India are discussed, making also quite apparent the – by Ruth C. Cohn well intended and hoped for – societal-political dimensions of the approach.
The two following texts in part III are focused on interdisciplinary intersections: how does TCI fit in the landscape of approaches supporting interactive didactics in higher education, besides what already was said in this respect?
Starting with the eighth chapter, written by Mary E. Hess (Minnesota, USA), the author provides a methodology-comparative perspective, ‘Theme-Centered Interaction: Intersections with Reflective Practice in North American Religious Contexts’. For more than 20 years, Hess has worked to support reflective practices in theological and religious contexts. Using a spectrum of reflective practice highlights how this kind of learning is ongoing, never finished, and dynamic. This spectrum also helps the author to identify resonance and helpful patterns in a variety of disparate but nonetheless connected practices. The ‘Art of Hosting’, ‘Liberating Structures’, ‘Public Conversations’, ‘Circles of Trust’, ‘Civil Dialogue Project’ and ‘Common Ground Project’ – all of these grassroots efforts in North America include according to Hess frameworks for helping participants in learning events to listen more carefully, to speak more slowly and to participate overall more reflectively. This is an intersection in which the powerful work of Theme-Centered Interaction, Ruth C. Cohn’s psychologically grounded and astute theorising and practice, offers the author a substantial support as well as helpful critique to these forms of pragmatic engagement. Hess sees a clear resonance between strategies such as ‘being your own chairperson’ and ‘beginning in shared table fellowship’. Finally, from the author’s own specific theological context, she adds the socio-political angle of ‘Womanist Theology’, and further theologians, who are working in multi-faith contexts more generally, emphasise the importance of Kegan’s deconstructive propositions for characterising TCI and other similar practices of dialogical conversation both as aligned with each other and as truly transformative. Ultimately, it is shown that reflective practices support putting learning at the heart of higher education, rather than too narrowly falling into teaching-focused patterns.
In the ninth contribution, the intercultural dimension in teaching and learning comes into focus even more pronounced. Svetlana Kurteš (Cambridge, UK) is an expert in applied linguistics and intercultural communication as well as vice-president of the European Network for Intercultural Education Activities (ENIEDA). Her contribution ‘Theme-Centered Interaction in the Context of Intercultural Education and the Constructivist-Inspired Pedagogy: Potentialities and Perspectives’ offers a concise reflection of the Theme-Centered Interaction approach observed specifically from the point of view of intercultural education and its requirements within the postmodern competency-based education. Having demoratic citizenship, global dexterity, cultural literacy and internationalisation among the core values on its agenda, intercultural education requires a crosscurricular presence and a joint effort across educational levels. Looking specifically at its applications in the higher education contexts (in Europe and beyond), TCI is linked by Kurteš to the above-mentioned core values of intercultural education and discussed in comparison to the author’s hitherto teaching approach ‘Linguistic and Intercultural Education’ (LIE), leading to ‘best practice reflections’ for the development of interculturality and diversity consciousness. These important skills for future roles in academia and leadership can find support by TCI in higher education,
providing immediate and ongoing training of social skills and attitude. The chapter ends with recommendations for the future development in these areas, looking into the potentiality and prospects of TCI in connection to LIE, not only in the context of intercultural education but – more widely – in the promotion of a tolerant and democratic society.
In part IV, contributions point into the future, considering aspects of what would or should be with respect to TCI in academia, technically as well as strategically. Chapter ten is concerned with the future of TCI in the technology epoch. Annelies van der Horst (University of Maastrich, Netherland) explores ideas for TCI in and outside of academia; in the shape of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), reflecting first on teaching TCI online and second on online-based teaching shaped by TCI principles. As many of the other contributions in this volume explain, TCI is (or can be) a valuable aspect in the curricula of university studies and practices, be it in a specific course for students, as a pedagogical guideline for the faculty, or as a learning concept. Concentrating on the skills that academic students should acquire in their education – their ability to communicate and interact socially – the TCIaccredited author considers a TCI course an invaluable asset to all academic curricula. As TCI is a (self-)leadership enhancing approach, it could prove to be a crucial plus in their academic education. However, since TCI professionalism is still not very common among university staff, the theoretical possibility of developing a MOOC on TCI is explored by the author. Such a MOOC would be accessible for all parties interested – students, staff and beyond – for everyone who wants to become acquainted with TCI. The overall idea of van der Horst’s research is based on Mick Cooper’s (2016) question on the conditionality of micro-level communication skills for a fully functioning society. Van der Horst transforms this question into a hypothesis, stating that individual interaction skills are preconditional for an inclusive society. In her chapter, the content and methodological conditions for developing a TCI-MOOC are investigated, a concept she is developing currently in her PhD research. This research is inspired by the societal ambition of Ruth C. Cohn as the inventor of TCI. Van der Horst refers to the idea that TCI could function as societal therapy. She attempts to translate the ideas of Ruth C. Cohn to the present, meaning society’s need for basic communication skills, which are often no longer validly taught in family, school and church. The author attempts to draw a connection between TCI and social media, such as animation, gaming and other media (like MOOCs) that were unthinkable in Ruth C. Cohn’s days, reflecting that the concepts of MOOC may change the future way of academic learning and teaching entirely. For this reason, she starts exploring its chances of transmitting the concept, the values and skills of TCI to an audience of academic students and staff. Ultimately, the TCI community could decide, in cooperation with one or more universities, to develop a MOOC on TCI. This chapter may function as a first step of investigating the modalities of such an initiative, also in light of bringing the approach into the globalised world.
In the eleventh chapter, Sandra Bischoff presents with ‘Theme-Centered University Didactics: An Answer to Bologna, a Summary of a Dissertation with the Same Title’, main results of her PhD paper. The author researched in theory and via
interviews with experienced practitioners of TCI in university didactic how the approach is fruitfully adapted into tertiary education. Bischoff’s theory as derived from this process deals with the convictions and attitudes of university teachers as well as didactic design principles. She emphasises the interlocking of the various dimensions of university teaching. Important results of her study are, for example, the outstanding importance of personality development also at the university teacher level, and that a comprehensive understanding of competences can serve as a connection between Humboldt’s traditional teaching ideal ‘education through science’ and the Bologna reform (unifying tertiary education in Europe). Accordingly, specifics of Bischoff’s Theme-Centered University Didactics approach can also lead to ‘living learning’ at universities, even in times of the Bologna reform.
In a finally assessing twelfth chapter, Sylke Meyerhuber discusses the possible merits of TCI as part of personnel development in academia. The author shifts the reader’s view away from the classroom’s ‘I’-‘We’-‘It’ focus over to the ‘Globe’ of it: the context, the environment in which the class takes place. She explores which role TCI can play from the angle of the university as an organisation – as a strategic means and in the systematic personnel development of universities. TCI seminars are suggested to be offered to academic staff members in support of their need for finding ways towards a good social climate and for social learning – in their seminars, teams and research groups alike. In this light, TCI could be promoted as a common didactical basis. Beside theory and its discussion, the author includes insights from talks with co-editor Matthias Scharer, as well as with Matthias Kroeger, a TCI’ler of the first hour in Germany and close friend to late Ruth C. Cohn, and with Gisela Liebens from RCI Niedersachsen e. V. (Germany). Their experiences and insights add to the author’s thoughts about TCI in academia from the ‘Globe’ perspective. Overall, the author promotes TCI as a socially sustainable group and leadership model with positive career effects inside and out of academia, equally for students and academic staff members. At the end of this contribution, a list of publications on TCI in higher education is offered.
Ending this anthology, some further information is offered to the reader:
In his closing commentary ‘About Evidence’, Reiser reflects about TCI-related research and introduces some interesting studies in this field. Since studies about complex social interaction settings are difficult to conduct, only some are available. Qualitative and quantitative studies concerned with TCI and its effects are shortly highlighted and a literature list is provided. With this orientation, readers interested in research on TCI will know where to look.
A glossary is offered at the end of the book. It introduces concisely some main terminology used in Theme-Centered Interaction, humanistic psychology and group dynamic. As editors, we hope this will be of assistance especially to readers/lecturers from faculties of natural and technical sciences, who might be less familiar with these concepts and language from the social sciences.
Finally, all contributors of the volume are briefly introduced at the end of the book. They come from four European countries, India and the United States. Consequently, the book mirrors that most of us use English as a lingua franca and access different points of reference in this respect – most articles are written in
American English and some in British English. Regarding gender equality, the contributors are quite well balanced. Even if most authors live in Germany, we are proud of the international and intercultural perspective achieved so far.
As main editor of this book, as a social psychologist and personally, I am convinced that true experiences of humane encounters are existential and essential for good learning and living. I am sure that not everything people can learn is valuable: some kinds of learning can be actually bad for the soul and the body, while others are beneficial, satisfying and healing. This conviction leads to a normative view on learning encounters for me as a psychologist in accordance with the rules for the profession of psychologists in Germany: “You shall do no harm – passively or actively!” Who does ask which kind of teaching setting is chosen, interaction offered, and if it might do actual harm to participants? Estrangement and selfestrangement as part of the role-taking process of students during their academic education should be avoided. Accelerated content bombardment and ‘bulimic learning’, as some call a purely test-oriented marathon of recording and reproducing of contents in exams, are not adequate in my estimation. As TCI expert Kroeger put it during our talk in December 2017:
It is not enough to nurture selectively the intellect, people are consisting of soul and spirit also. In all stories of seduction there is a core of truth, from this derives the ‘appearance of truth’. We come further without TCI is one kind of truth: you can do more with a dead body, an examination you conduct as half a person, showing what you memorised, but not how you actually processed it, what it means to you!
In light of a globalising world shaken by economic dominance, north-southinequality and other hardships, young academics as future leaders need education in humane values and enlightening encounters for a sustainable life and future for all of us. This is only possible if their lecturers nurture such a socially sustainable attitude by leading their seminars, viz. students and themselves, humanely. In this respect, a strictly humane way of working with groups in academia is also a political statement. Ruth C. Cohn intended TCI not only as a didactic tool for learning contents but as a psychologist definitely as a means of personal growth, supporting competencies as compassion, self-reflection, capacity of seeing the world from the perspective of others in social interaction, and civil courage (cf. Cohn 1989).
As far as I see, TCI can be described as an approach, an attitude, a method and a theory. Different TCI practitioners will stress different aspects of what the approach offers.4 This is fine with me, as long as the overall humane attitude supported by TCI remains a core value. Our book gives interested academic lecturers from all fields of study first insights into the application of TCI in higher education. As editors, we hope that more international books on the issue will follow! We share a conviction that scholars in the globalised world can learn from each other not only contentwise but also interaction-wise, beneficial to themselves, their students and their lec-
4 For a timely overview, cf. Schneider-Landolf et al. 2017. If you are interested in evidence of effects of TCI, cf. Reiser ‘About Evidence’ in this volume, where TCI-related research is introduced and a reference list is offered.
tures (I-We-It) and beyond (Globe). We want to encourage international colleagues in academia to learn from each other and to learn about and from TCI.
What could the sensitised reader do now? Read about TCI, start reflecting on your own attitude as a group leader, and try balancing the four factors (individual, group, subject matter and, if fitting, also environmental factors) for the theme of your academic seminar. Go on from there. Perhaps you can reflect on your steps with a colleague who is also interested, or even work in a co-teaching setting as a team. Would your university’s personnel development department organise TCI courses for lecturers if you suggest it? Or can you invite a guest lecturer working with the TCI workshop method and experience first-hand how the approach can be put to good use with a group of your own students? Alternatively, you could go abroad yourself as a guest lecturer to an institution of higher education where colleagues work with TCI in their teaching learning settings. By experiencing a TCI workshop first-hand, the approaches’ value becomes particularly evident. Of course the best would be to attend TCI workshops in a licensed RCI institute.5 However, we encourage you to try working with the ideas TCI offers you and the groups you already work with.
Last but not least, some thanks are in order: Foremost to the assembled contributors and their efforts in sharing their interesting and engaging experiences and insights in texts or interviews – overall a statement about the value TCI can have for committed higher education. Second, our thanks go to all the students we have (or had) the privilege to lecture, learn with and learn from in our teaching that is supported by the spirit, attitude and methods of TCI. Third, thanks to our universities for the freedom of working in the way each of us does – individually and with TCI. Fourth, to Yoka Janssen, Natalie Rieborn and Astrid Noordermeer as our liaisons during the writing of the book with Springer as its publisher, thank you for your openness to the idea of the book, support in the process and the overall realisation. Additional thanks we owe to Vandenhoeck and Rupprecht for letting us include an English version of the text of Sandra Bischoff. Many thanks also to Dipl. Ing. Werner Wesling for proofreading, most of the figures and tables realised in this book, and also to several peer-review readers for their encouragement and really great advice in the process of writing. Representatives of the Ruth Cohn Institute for TCI-international saw the opportunity this book idea provides and aided with funding one translation, as well did the University of Bremen Personnel Development Department and the artec Research Centre for Sustainability Studies; thanks to all these supporters for their appreciation. Since not for all the authors of this volume English is their first language, copy editors or translators supported the issue of printable Academic English – American or British – due to expertise of author and copy editor or translator! Special thanks go to our copy editors, Dan Smith (Language Associates Bremen, Germany), Katrina Stollmann (Fremdsprachenzentrum Bremen, Germany) and Edir Borda D’Água (Nazaré, Portugal) as well as to the translators, Deborah Barrie (Carlsberg, Germany) and Joseph Smith (Satzspiegel Nörten-Hardenberg, Germany). Last but not least, we
5 Ruth Cohn Institute for TCI-international (RCI-international).
thank our beloved partners or spouses, families and friends who supported us authors patiently during the process of delivering our parts of this book into the world of Higher Education.
Bremen, Germany Sylke Meyerhuber 28 December 2018 As initiator of the book and on behalf of the editor team
References
Arndt, E. (2013). Wenn Struktur das Thema erschlägt. Erfahrungen und Reflexionen zu einer Hochschultagung. In: Themenzentrierte Interaktion. Begegnungen mit … 27.Jg, 2/2013, 52–61.
Cohn, R.C. (1989). Es geht ums Anteilnehmen. Perspektiven der Persönlichkeitsentfaltung in der Gesellschaft der Jahrtausendwende. Freiburg i. B.: Herder.
Farau, A., Cohn, R.C. (1984). Gelebte Geschichte der Psychotherapie. Zwei Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Mahr, A. (1979). Die Störungsprioritätsregel in TZI-Gruppen. Psychoanalytische und empirische Studien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ruth Cohn Institute for TCI-international, access 24 May 2018: https://www.ruth-cohn-institute. org/start.html.
Schneider-Landolf, M., Spielmann, J., Zitterbarth, W. (Eds.) (2017). Handbook of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Part I In-Depth Introductions to Theme-Centered Interaction in Theory and Practice
Theme-Centered Interaction for Educating Future Leaders. Applied Social Psychology for Teaching Academics to Act Socially Sustainably in Organisations 3 Sylke Meyerhuber
Theme-Centered Interaction by Ruth C. Cohn: An Introduction .
57 Matthias Scharer
Concrete Methods and Case Experiences with Theme-Centered Interaction
Helmut Reiser, Hiltrud Loeken, Walter Lotz, Birgit Menzel, and Christoph Huber
Part II Further Case Experiences in Different Fields of Study and Cultures
On the Psychology of Civil Courage. A Theme-Centered Interactive Teaching Experiment: Reflections on the Process and Insights into the Subject 131 Friedemann Schulz von Thun and Roswitha Stratmann
Big Themes for Little Kids? Living Learning in a Teacher-Training Course Dealing with Flight and Migration 157 Stefan Padberg
First Steps with TCI in a Class for Psychopathology: How Students, Topics and the Lecturer Gain from the Approach 177 Dora Pereira
TCI Didactics in the Higher Education Context of Kerala, India: Experiences and Insights of Teaching English Language and Communication at the Tertiary Level
Joby Cyriac and Christudas Amala Lal
Part III Interdisciplinary Intersections
Theme-Centered Interaction: Intersections with Reflective Practice in North American Religious Contexts
Mary E. Hess
Theme-Centered Interaction in the Context of Intercultural Education and the Constructivist-Inspired Pedagogy: Potentialities and Perspectives
Svetlana Kurteš
Part IV Reflections on the Future
Theme-Centered Interaction In- and Outside of Academia: MOOCifying TCI
Annelies van der Horst
Theme-Centered University Didactics: An Answer to Bologna
Sandra Bischoff
Theme-Centered Interaction in Personnel Development Schemes in Academia: Good Reasons and Practise Examples
Sylke Meyerhuber
About Evidence: A Commentary on Theme-Centered Interaction-Related Research from a Pedagogic Perspective
Helmut Reiser
Glossary: Terminology of Theme-Centered Interaction and Humanistic Psychology
Contributors
Theme-Centered Interaction for Educating Future Leaders. Applied Social Psychology for Teaching Academics to Act Socially Sustainably in Organisations
Sylke Meyerhuber
Abstract Young academics are the leadership personnel of the future. In such roles, they will have a great impact on the wellbeing of their staff members. How do they learn to act in a sustainably manner? Academia has an obligation to enable students to fulfil their future functions in areas of society with respect to social skills and ethical consciousness. How the task of supporting socially sustainable interaction could be met is a question answerable by social psychology. The text combines the concepts of deceleration and resonance by sociologist Rosa with knowledge from therapy theory and in-depth psychology of the workplace in order to argue the introductory assumption and presents Theme-Centered Interaction by Cohn as a suitable answer in theory and by praxis examples.
Keywords Didactics · Resonance · Humanistic values · Applied social psychology · Interactionism · Theme-Centered Interaction · Social sustainability · Future leaders · Participative leadership · Role of academia in society · Ethics
1 Young Academics in Need of Social Skills for Future Leadership Positions
The place of unconditional consideration of all problems, the rightful space for their elaboration and reworking, must principally be kept open in the university and par excellence in the humanities. (Jaques Derrida 2001, 11f.1)
Establishing and maintaining social sustainability in organisations is to be recognised as a complex and manifold task of executives on all levels of the postmodern workplace. In light of demographic changes, it becomes a necessity for all managerial employees to know how to shape the social fabric of the workplace to the
1 All translations from German into English are done by the author.
S. Meyerhuber (*)
Researcher at the artec Research Centre for Sustainability Studies, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
e-mail: meyerhuber@uni.bremen.de
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
S. Meyerhuber et al. (eds.), Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI) in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01048-5_1
benefit of all members of their body of staff. This means diversity management as an enormous package of tasks: having a good knowledge of and skills in communication, group dynamics, and gender- and age-differentiated (not discriminating2) leadership; taking into account factors of a given situation as well as the degree of maturity; and being able to allow for and shape processes of participation, including the expectation and productive handling of resistance. How can responsible leaders-to-be learn to take on such tasks?
Young academics have to be recognised as potential aspirants for future leadership positions. In this light, universities have the chance and the responsibility to provide future managerial staff not only with specialist and technical knowledge. Knowledge and skills concerned with the so-called ‘soft skills’, meaning social competencies, have to be enhanced as well. In order to gain practical knowledge, this calls for settings within university programmes which do not focus on content alone: Such competencies need to be gained by experience and reflection in real social situations. Especially critical social situations cannot be mastered based on theoretical knowledge alone – only through fitting and authentic reactions at the right moments will future managers be able to act successfully, meaning in a socially sustainable manner. I consider it therefore not appropriate to narrow the task of training soft skills only to the area of General Studies, particularly as they often turn out not to be trainings but mainly another content-focused seminar.
Besides content, the way in which learning processes are shaped and steered forms the basis for the training of social skills: Situations of social interaction and reflection in class must be allowed and supported by the lecturer. University teachers who do not feel particularly socially skilled themselves might avoid settings which are more prone to trigger social interaction. Which guidance can be given to them to take on the task of opening up for the chances and limitations of the social aspects in their teaching? Which ideas and design guidelines might support the development of their social skills as a prerogative of supporting them in students? Through change of perspective, for instance, lecturers might empathise with students and take into account their future roles.
Socially sustainable behaviour in organisations, in this light, is to be defined as a goal and a guideline on different levels within an organisation. Social sustainability needs to be substantiated on the different levels of actions occurring in the context of work, that is, in the structural rules and processes of work, its social proceedings and interactions, and also its individual considerations and actions. In conclusion, the following definition of ‘acting socially sustainably’ should support the reasoning in this article:
Socially sustainable actions in organisations are all actions on the levels of structure, interaction or individual behaviour that provide support, development of, or care for the sociality of a given organisation and all its members.
All actions or omissions which influence the social fabric are socially efficacious, but socially sustainable actions aim on influencing the social fabric and it’s individuals positively, in a sense of a normative goal and in favour of a humane working environment.
(Meyerhuber 2017, 139)
2 Cf. Schlick et al. 2013; Meyerhuber 2016
S. Meyerhuber
Following this definition, the education of future leaders for their fitness in ‘acting socially sustainably’ would be prudent to aim on all three levels:
• First, systemic thinking and an understanding of organisational structures and procedures, with consideration for their impact on the social fabric
• Second, psychological knowledge and skills of group dynamics and interaction
• Third, an in-depth understanding of psychological human needs and perceptions of the individual at the workplace
In this light, it becomes evident that a transdisciplinary and interactional approach to the issue at hand might be advisable. Such an approach should allow for firsthand experience and reflection as a goal of the teaching setting and in support of students understanding the interrelatedness in a systemic sense: their structural and interactional abilities and awareness, as well as a respectful and considerate attitude towards others and oneself, based on an understanding of the psychological basic human needs and their manifold ways of manifesting in everyday life. In conclusion, in order to support such skills, a lecturer will profit from a structural, interactional and psychological understanding in addition to the content of their teaching.
For socially valuable learning processes, students must feel involved and ‘touched’ by what happens in class. This would be the biggest difference to just reading a text or listening to something being explained – the humane encounter with others and the fulfilling richness through true exchange of thoughts. But as far as I am told, many students experience hour after hour of frontal and PowerPointsupported monologue with very little space for pertinent questions or further interaction. Sitting in rows, they do not see each other but the back of others, having contact at best with students on the chair right and left of them, sometimes not even asking their names, and being mostly with people they already know. As a consequence, students practise to ignore even people close by, focussing on content alone instead of on their social effects and personal perceptions. Socially speaking, by neglecting the social aspects of given classroom situations, they rehearse the wrong things.
2 Concept of ‘Resonance’ in the Classroom by Hartmut Rosa
Once again speaking of the luck of hoping for luck, that still some might ask: When was that, when will it come again? (Fried 1981, Before I Die, 3rd verse)
From a sociological perspective, Rosa (cf. Rosa and Endres 2016) recently bemoans a lack of didactics in teaching at universities and in schools which allows for a ‘crackling fascination’ in class. The author’s reasoning is based on his realisation that our dealings with time are getting more and more out of hand – postmodern
growth and acceleration lead often to estrangement (cf. Rosa 2005, 2016). This societal tendency reaches into postmodern universities as well – students feel under pressure to study from exam to exam by a tightly and externally set schedule. While the amount of the contents studied might not differ very much, instead of selfregulated learning and by setting personal goals, the structure of bachelor and master programmes dictates externally the student’s pace (cf. Ackermann and Schumann 2010; Bargel et al. 2012). Psychologically, this makes a huge difference; what a person can do happily and willingly if done by choice can turn into a stressful burden if forced upon them. University teachers might feel the same kind of pressure in their work – pressure to acquire funding, to publish, or to meet the tight time frame of research projects, etc. – and thereby unconsciously support this tendency in the classroom as well.
Rosa comes to the realisation that “if our time relations are not alright, then our relations to the world might not be alright” (Rosa et al. 2016, 12). Therefore, in his book researching “world relations in the era of acceleration” (cf. Rosa 2012), the author explores this idea further, concluding that “for our relations to the world, experiences of resonance and alienation are of the utmost importance, and they are influenced by acceleration” (Rosa et al. 2016, 13). What the author aims for here is how a true experience of connectedness to something or someone is achieved; this he calls ‘resonance’. He summarises: “To enter into a relationship with the world means to transform and adopt the world” in order to become confidential and familiar with it (ibid. 15). His idea of resonance as a main indicator of quality in class includes ‘being on fire’ for something. But that needs a spark.
How can university scholars kindle such sparks in their students, and why should they bother? “If my efforts are without resonance, without reverberation, if nothing comes back, if I get the feeling of speaking into an emptiness, if there is no answer, the interaction stays mute”, Rosa (ibid., 16) observes. And I would like to add: If students during their studies at universities have mainly experiences like that, they rehearse and practise the wrong things! What by experience gets imprinted into a person, the person will express later on – this is a basic rule in all understanding of psychotherapy (cf. Rahm et al. 1993). And not only that, the relationship to oneself is shaped by such experiences as well: “I do speak to myself as you spoke to me”, philosopher Buber (1979) calls this dialogue-based principle of being a human in interdependency on one’s social environment. So, what is it that university lecturers want to get across, which kind of learning experience, of hierarchic experience, of interaction experience with superiors and in-group situations are to be cultivated? From my point of view, this needs serious consideration. Studying three–five years of professional content, competitively and cognitively, in disconnection to their lecturers and most of their fellow students, anonymously in big rooms … all this nurtures a disconnectedness as part of an incorporated expertise and role as an academic. Thus socialised students enter the labour market or an organisation as high potentials being put to work with others and (over time) in superior positions – how will they cope, how can they act humanely? Serious doubts might be in order.
Rosa, a university professor himself, states: “In the hollow space of disinterest I am cold” (Rosa et al. 2016, 16). Resonance in the sense of sociologist Rosa means
S. Meyerhuber
Theme-Centered
to get close to someone or something, to be touched by an idea or experience, and being perhaps also changed by it. The author muses, “It is not enough to own, to command or to handle things. Not until I make them speak to me I begin to truly connect, to transmute and to turn them into my own” (ibid., 17). Here, Rosa refers to two aspects of the teaching situation: the topic of (dis-)interest and the quality of contact between lecturer and student(s). First, in order to actually familiarise oneself and to connect with a topic, to really acquire it, people have to make a topic their own, turn it around a bit, perhaps change it by letting it in, or being changed by the process of letting it in. For this, engagement in the sense of intensive personal dealings with the topic is necessary. Second, this will mainly be based on some sort of co-respondency between people (lecturer-student, student-student) because learning mostly happens in social relations. Hence, the connections between learning, humane contact and content are to be examined further.
2.1 Psychological Excursion 1: Contact-Encounter-Relationship-Bonding
Psychology examines the occurrence and impact of different qualities of relationships, originally as a basis for the therapeutic process. But such knowledge is very helpful indeed for other areas of sociality and can in some aspects as well be applied to the topic of interaction in class.
From the viewpoint of therapy theory, one might imagine a continuum of how relationships can be described and differentiated due to their quality. Rahm et al. (1993, 157) describe such an understanding for integrative therapy and speak about principles of ‘co-respondence’ as a practical form of intersubjectivity in everyday life. Particularly, they analyse how successful interactions differ from failed interactions in order to understand the aspect of interaction within the field of corespondency as social acts between the individual and others.
The medium of a person’s contact with the surrounding world is always their body. Therefore, co-respondence is always based on sensual corporeal experience: “All our relationships and contacts are ultimately corporeal” (Rahm et al. ibid., 1033). This might be, in context of the university, an unpopular realisation – part of the academic culture is to emphasise on the cognitive mainly while often dismissing the rest of the body as a mere functioning unit. But the individual’s body remains the basis of and model for all experiences of borders: “Here I end, here ends my space, here begins yours” (ibid.). For example, through eye contact, people do connect or delimit, by gazes of rejection, by meeting through glances, etc. (ibid.). As Rosa said, “In the hollow space of disinterest I am cold”; bodily functions express disturbances in a relationship, even if sometimes people ‘unlearn’ to realise this
3 Rahm et al. (1993) refer for these aspects to Mead 1968; Watzlawick et al. 1969; Garfinkel et al. 1977; Habermas 1981; Goffman 1985; etc.
S. Meyerhuber
consciously. By allowing university scholars as well as students to realise and positively integrate such signals of the body as significant in classroom situations, they support a holistic and healthy attitude of social interaction while working on a knowledge base.
In light of therapy theory, any individual has to be understood as an entity reaching over several social areas as well as over areas of time (past, future) while being in a present situation. Rahm et al. (ibid., 118) explain: “This becoming one with context and continuum creates the process of personality building, the inner dynamic of a person.” In this respect, experiences of positive and touching contacts to scholars and their topics can add to the fruitful building of a student’s personality as well as their professional role identity, while denial and reduction of these aspects of the social situation might inhibit personality building in a healthy, humane sense. Social reality as a shared reality is always a product of acts of co-respondency and of communication and negotiation, even if often not consciously. Conducted autocratically or with disinterest for the social aspects of one’s university teaching, interactions will show symptoms of dependency and powerlessness, and students act not as participants but become passive and receptive or get themselves sidetracked as a form of resistance. Such a dynamic can be described as co-respondent between lecturer and student, with the message: “I neglect you as irrelevant as you neglect me.” By focussing on a topic while avoiding the embedded social aspects of a teaching situation, the expertise is emptied of its social side. Philosopher Foucault (1998, 22f.) writes:
Every pedagogical system is a political means of maintaining or modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and power it carries with it, supporting it or changing it. What then is an educational system if not the ritualisation of the word, if not the qualification of some fixing of roles for speakers, if not the constitution of a (diffuse) doctrinal group, if not the distribution and appropriation of discourse, with all its learning and its powers?
In realising and accepting the political dimension of one’s university teaching, a scholar faces responsibility for the process. Being a psychologist as well as a researcher in social sustainability matters, the author’s choice is clear and somewhat normative: in favour of the humane and the social, in order to support personal growth and wellbeing of the human being. From this perspective, I ask how a university teacher can understand and create lectures in a socially sustainable way, holistic and humane.
With therapy theory, the social contact between people can be understood as the basis of all co-respondence. If not in contact with someone or something, no exchange is possible (ibid., 164). Rahm et al. (ibid., 157ff) differentiate a continuum of being with others as follows: contact–encounter–relationship–bonding. This differentiation might be of interest as a background for ‘resonant’ lectures.
Contact in this sense means to be attentive to each other and to establish dialogue: “Contact is a functional connection, less intense than encounter, less continuing than relationship, or bounding. Contact happens in the present and builds on immediateness and proximity” (ibid., 167). In contact, distance and nearness are regulated continuously and sensitively through sensual perception of the individual,
based on personality, situation, interaction, and topic. Courses at the university are spaces of contact and should be therefore shaped by the lecturer to allow for experiences of connection through humane attentiveness and dialogue.
Building on contact, the term encounter describes a short but intensive deepening of contact, an ‘existential’ (Buber 1979) moment of connectedness and intersubjectivity: Through intensity of contact, encounter reaches beyond the participants into the space enclosing the relationship to all humanity and to the world. The experience of encounter changes a person. By density of understanding and being understood, in moments of encounter, the parties meet as equals (even though not as the same). To allow in university teaching for such humane and touching moments, a lecturer must be able and willing to open up to such an understanding and interaction. Through the chance of encounter, students learn as part of their professional mindset that it is not weakness but strength to interact humanely. “What is imprinted in you, you will express” is a main rule for human life, according to therapy theory. Therefore, young academics who experienced for themselves the benefits of encounter in the hierarchy of the university (being dependent on their lecturers) might more likely allow for encounter with subordinates or students in their later career.
Moreover, a relationship in this continuum is characterised by a further and deeper recognition and indicates more shared time together, allowing for a transformative basis of trust through meaningful and shared experiences. Therefore, in a single short seminar, the building of relationships becomes less likely than in a teaching project or other formats reaching over several terms of the study. Nevertheless, only based on the experience of the unique quality of relationship can a person(ality) develop the ability to form relationships. “Basis of the ability to form relationships – and therefore the feeling of stability and security in the social world –is to contain the ‘inner picture of the other in oneself’ including its emotional aspects” so Rahm et al. (ibid., 171). This might be possibly provided (with respect to a group but also for single individuals) to some degree in any class: relationship is rooted in an aspect of continuance. As such, it can only develop and remain if individuals are able to differentiate and to touch, to deal with conflicts and to negotiate compromise, based on reciprocal understanding and on a shared reference of reality (ibid.). These aspects can occur and be nurtured in short-term classes as well. Lecturers, though, have to be able to offer continuance, to differentiate and to touch, to deal with conflicts and to negotiate compromise, based on reciprocal understanding – they have to set an example. If afraid of such nearness, the attempt will most likely fall flat.
Finally, bonding expresses an explicit and fundamental connectedness, mostly by deepening of a relationship and over time (ibid., 173). Often based on an ethical element of decision for the other, the quality of a relationship is enriched through deeper knowledge about the other and by caring for them. In light of a ‘carry-over effect’ through which an individual generalises early experiences of bonding,4 a
4 Cf. Bowlby and Ainsworth here referred to with Dornes 1993, 205.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
covered in 1898. Therefore it is indispensable that M. Ravary be heard, and I shall have the honor to make a motion to that effect.”
The Judge.—“I have received a letter from General Mercier, in which he says that the prosecution of M. Zola deals only with the Esterhazy verdict, with which he had nothing do. He says that he has received from General Billot an authorization not to appear.”
M. Labori.—“I am greatly surprised that General Mercier, like so many others, should constitute himself judge of the question whether it is incumbent upon him to appear before the court. The minister of war may confine his complaint within limits, but he has no right as complainant to pursue the shocking and monstrous course of interposing an obstacle, not juridical, but material to the facts that we wish to establish. General Mercier is a witness of the first importance. Perhaps he will read tomorrow in the newspapers what has occurred at this first hearing, which is given in the presence, not of fifteen hundred persons simply, but of all France. M. Zola declares that in 1894 General Mercier, then minister of war, constituting himself judge in a council of war, did, after the hearing was over, outside of the discussion, without the knowledge of the accused, without examination of the accused upon the matter, and without even submitting it to his counsel, communicate to the council of war a secret document, and a document, for that matter, of no significance. If that is not true, let General Mercier come here tomorrow and say so. If it is true, I have no further use for him.”
The judge then announced that Major Rivals and the court clerk, Vallecalle, had notified him that they would not appear.
M. Labori.—“The complainant is represented here by the attorneygeneral. We should like him to inform us whether the minister of war has given to all these witnesses, as to General Mercier, an authorization which to them would have been more than an authorization,—that is, an order. If the attorney-general does not know, I would like him to put the question to the minister of war between now and tomorrow, in order to give us an answer.”
M. Zola.—“In short, we should like to know whether these persons have received orders from Billot, or are acting on their own initiative.”
M. Labori.—“Have they been ordered not to come? If so, let it be stated frankly, and the court tomorrow will pass upon our motion, which possibly will ask for a postponement of the case, in order that it may be judged when we are in full possession of the facts.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“The president of the republic refused to sign the decree of the minister of justice summoning M. Billot; then M. Billot authorized General Mercier not to appear in the assize court. Knowing the beginning of the story, we are interested in knowing the sequel, and I ask the attorney-general to inform us at the next hearing if the other officers, of a lower grade than that of General Mercier, have likewise been authorized by their superiors not to appear in court. If so, I may be permitted to express my astonishment that there has not been found a person in all this hierarchy to understand that there is one thing which is above the minister of war,—namely, justice. We thought so until today.”
The court then presented the refusals of Colonel Maurel, president of the council of war of 1894, M. Autant, architect, and M. Eichmann, who sat in the first council of war; and the defence, as in the previous cases, insisted upon their appearance.
The Judge.—“A letter from General de Boisdeffre reads as follows: ‘I do not need to tell you that, out of respect to the jury and deference to the court, I would willingly appear, but I have been in no way connected with the Esterhazy case, which was conducted entirely by the military government of Paris. Outside of professional secrecy, therefore, I could furnish no useful information.’”
M. Labori.—“All these witnesses seem to imagine that they constitute a caste apart and independent, and that it is permissible to them to rise above the law, above justice itself, and personally constitute themselves judges of the question whether they are useful or not as witnesses in a trial. Consequently in the case of General de Boisdeffre, as in the other cases, we insist and we protest.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“We are a little at sea. In the letters read, some witnesses declare that they will not come because they know certain facts, while others, like M. de Boisdeffre, declare that they will not come because they do not know any facts in this case. We do
not know which of these two observations is sound, but it is impossible for both of them to be. It is interesting also to the jurors to know that former cabinet ministers, who are by no means the first comers, MM. Guérin and Trarieux, former keepers of the seals, and M. Raymond Poincaré, former minister of finance, have responded to the summons. It is certain that they would have had nothing to fear, if they had written to the court that they could not come. These former cabinet ministers come; yet among the military officers we cannot get a single witness. I believe it is well for the jurors to remember that.”
The court announcing that ex-President Casimir-Perier would appear, the defence withdrew its motion for his further summons. But M. Labori then offered a formal motion that MM. d’Ormescheville, Ravary, General Mercier, Patron, Vallecalle, Maurel, Autant, Eichmann, de Boisdeffre, and Captain de Comminges be forcibly constrained to appear. And he submitted a further motion that Mlle. Blanche de Comminges be constrained to appear, unless it should be found that her illness was genuine, and that, in the latter case, a commission should be appointed to visit her and ask her the following questions:
(1) Is she aware that her name has been used in writing to Colonel Picquart?
(2) How did she become aware of it?
(3) Did she not give the nickname “demigod” to Captain Lallement?
(4) Does she know whether this name was used in a telegram which is said to have been a forgery?
(5) Had Colonel du Paty de Clam any reason for entertaining a revengeful feeling toward her and her family?
(6) Is it not within her knowledge that he resorted in 1892 to very serious manœuvres, notably the employment of anonymous letters?
(7) Was not this matter put in the hands of M. Lozé, prefect of police, and did not General D—— have to intervene?
(8) Did not Colonel du Paty de Clam arrange, for the restitution of a letter, a scene that took place at cours la Reine, in which a veiled lady appeared?
After hearing these motions, the court adjourned for the day.
S D —F 8.
The second day’s hearing began at half past twelve with the announcement of the court that, before proceeding to the hearing of the witnesses, there were new excuses to be read. The first was from Major Esterhazy, who wrote as follows:
I have been accused by M. Mathieu Dreyfus of the crime of high treason, and my judges have acquitted me by a unanimous decree of the council of war. Today I receive, at the instance of a simple individual, M. Emile Zola, a summons to appear as a witness in his trial in the assize court. It is plain, on the other hand, that in this trial the object of M. Zola is at the same time to revise by a revolutionary method the decree of acquittal rendered in my favor, and to sully, by representing them as criminals, the judges whom I respect. Such is the work in which M. Emile Zola invites me to participate. Under such circumstances I consider that I am not obliged to respond to M. Zola’s summons.
M. Labori.—“Major Esterhazy was present yesterday. It does not become me to inquire what suggestions he obeys today. I have not consulted M. Emile Zola, but I can say this for myself: it was a feeling of high discretion that led us to summon Major Esterhazy. He will not be here as an accused person, since he has been acquitted, and we consider his case a thing judged. But we have a right to the testimony of Major Esterhazy for the purpose of proving M. Zola’s good faith. Major Esterhazy refuses. So be it. I do not insist. We will discuss his rôle without him.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“Pardon me. For my part, I do not give up his testimony. I have some questions to put to Major Esterhazy in the name of the gérant of ‘L’Aurore.’ I demand that he be summoned again, and, if need be, forced to come.”
The next letter was from a widow Chapelon, who declared herself afflicted with influenza.
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“Mme. Chapelon appeared at the office of ‘L’Aurore’ a week ago; it was after she had been notified. She asked that her name be struck from the list of witnesses. She was asked why. She replied that she was soliciting for her son a scholarship at Chaptal, and that, if she were to testify, they would not give it to her. M. Perrenx informed her that this was not a good reason, and that she was required to come to the assize court and tell the truth. She went away, slamming the doors, and saying: ‘If you force me to come, I will tell the opposite of the truth.’ I insist that this witness shall come, and I demand that, as in the case of Major Esterhazy, she be brought to court after a second summons.”
The Judge.—“There is a doctor’s certificate.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask that an expert physician be sent to her. The one who is to see Mme. de Boulancy can see her too.”
The court then rendered its decision on the motions of the day before, ordering that Dr. Socquet be sent to examine Mme. de Boulancy, Mlle. Blanche de Comminges, M. Autant, and the widow Chapelon, and that a second summons be served upon Captain Lebrun-Renault, Lieutenant-Colonel du Paty de Clam, Major d’Ormescheville, Major Ravary, General Mercier, MM. Patron, Vallecalle, Maurel, Eichmann, General de Boisdeffre, and Major Esterhazy, directing them to appear on February 9.
Testimony of Mme. Dreyfus.
The calling of the witnesses was then begun, the first to take the stand being Mme. Lucie Dreyfus, wife of ex-Captain Dreyfus.
M. Labori.—“I would like Mme. Dreyfus to have the goodness to tell us what she thinks of M. Zola’s good faith, and in this connection to make known to us under what circumstances in 1894 she learned of her husband’s arrest, and what was the attitude at that time of Colonel du Paty de Clam, who was then only a major.”
The Judge.—“What has that to do with the case?”
M. Labori.—“It concerns M. Zola’s good faith.”
M. Zola.—“I ask to be allowed here the liberty that is accorded thieves and murderers. They can defend themselves, summon witnesses, and ask them questions; but every day I am insulted in the street; they break my carriage windows, they roll me in the mud, and an unclean press treats me as a bandit. I have the right to prove my good faith, my probity, my honor.”
The Judge.—“Do you know Article 52, of the law of 1881?”
M. Zola.—“I do not know the law, and at the present moment I do not want to know it. I appeal to the probity of the jurors. I make them judges of the situation in which I am placed, and I entrust myself to them.”
The Judge.—“I remind you of the terms of the decree rendered yesterday by the court, the provisions of Article 52 of the law of 1881, and the terms of your summons. Let us not depart therefrom. Any question outside of these limits will not be put by me. Let that be well understood. It is useless to recur to the matter.”
M. Zola.—“I ask to be treated here as well as thieves and murderers. All accused persons are entitled to prove their probity, their good faith, and their honor.”
M. Labori.—“Will you permit me to point out the bearing of my questions? M. Zola has made two assertions. He has asserted that the council of war of 1894 convicted, in the person of ex-Captain Dreyfus, an innocent man by illegal methods.”
The Judge.—“He is not prosecuted for that.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, he is prosecuted for having said that the second council of war knowingly acquitted a guilty man by covering, in obedience to orders, the illegality committed by the first.”
M. Zola.—“It is in the summons.”
M. Labori.—“M. Zola asks to prove this illegality, and the elements out of which it grew, from the standpoint of his good faith. This
illegality is not confined to the moment of the verdict of the council of war, but extends over the very period of inquiry in which occurred facts of the highest gravity which M. Zola asks to produce. If the court considers that Mme. Dreyfus can not be heard on this point, I shall be obliged to offer a motion.”
The Judge.—“Offer your motion. The question will not be put by me.”
M. Clemenceau.—“I ask to make a simple observation, addressed especially to the jurors. I am of the opinion that the law must be complied with, whatever it may be. But I beg you to remember, gentlemen of the jury, that M. Zola has written an article which fills sixteen pages of the pamphlet in my hands. Out of these sixteen pages the public prosecutor, at the order of the minister of war, complains of only fifteen lines, and, when we come to court, it transpires that, in spite of a judicious selection of fifteen lines from sixteen pages, the prosecution is still embarrassed by one of these fifteen lines. They tell us in these fifteen lines there are still six which must be put aside, because, were we to leave them there, embarrassing evidence would be put in.”
The Judge.—“I repeat that no question will be put which would be a means of arriving at the revision of a case sovereignly judged.”
M. Clemenceau.—“Then the court will put no question concerning good faith?”
The Judge.—“Concerning anything that relates to the Dreyfus case. No. Offer your motions. I repeat that I will not put the question.”
M. Labori.—“Will you permit me, Monsieur le Président, in our common interest, to ask you, then, what practical means you see by which we may ascertain the truth?”
The Judge.—“That does not concern me.”
M. Labori then made a formal motion that, whereas the matters upon which the testimony of Mme. Dreyfus was required bore directly upon the matters expressly set out in the complaint, and especially upon the illegality charged, and whereas the defendants maintained, in spite of the court’s decree, the right to prove their good faith, and whereas the refusal to hear the witnesses summoned would
constitute the highest violation of the defendants’ rights, the court order the following questions to be put to Mme. Dreyfus:
(1) What do you think of M. Zola’s good faith?
(2) What are the reasons that have led you to believe in his good faith?
(3) Do you consider from what you know that the measures taken against your husband were legal or illegal?
(4) Will you describe the first visit of Major du Paty de Clam at your house? Who were present?
(5) Did not M. du Paty de Clam utter the grossest insults against your husband?
(6) Did he not pretend to demonstrate his guilt geometrically and by drawing concentric circles?
(7) Did he not speak of the Iron Mask?
(8) Did he not expressly forbid you to speak of the arrest to anyone whomsoever, even to his family?
(9) After how long a time were you allowed the right to write to your husband?
(10) After how long a time did you again see your husband?
(11) Did not M. du Paty de Clam say to you: “He denies, but I shall succeed in making him spit out all that he has in his body”?
(12) Did not M. du Paty de Clam nevertheless lead you to hope that perhaps there had been an error, and that up to November?
(13) Did not M. du Paty de Clam try, by the most irregular means, and even by insidious means, to tear confessions from you throughout the trial and after the verdict?
(14) What do you think of your husband’s character and morals? What was the nature of your life with him after your marriage?
(15) Did not your husband steadily declare, during the trial and after, that this whole matter was incomprehensible, and that he
was the victim of a conspiracy?
The reading of these questions being received with a hostile manifestation from those present in the court-room, M. Labori turned to the audience, and shouted: “If you think you can prevent me from doing my duty, you are mistaken. I am embarrassed only when I am applauded. Let them howl! It is all one to me.”
The Attorney-General.—“I simply call attention to this,—that these incidents are rehearsed before the audience, but they are always the same, and that the jurors whom you have just addressed will remember that you have for the thing judged yesterday the same respect that you have for the thing judged on a previous occasion. I said at the beginning that a plan had been fixed upon; it is being carried out, and you have just given us the formula: ‘I do not know the law, and I do not want to know it.’ Well, we know it, and we will see that it is respected, with the aid of the jurors, in whom I have absolute confidence.”
M. Labori.—“M. Zola will answer in a moment, and it is to assure him the means of doing so that I take the floor.”
The Judge.—“Take it once for all, and do not renew this scene with each witness.”
M. Labori.—“Pardon me, I am much grieved if the line of conduct which I follow is in any way inconvenient or disagreeable to anyone whomsoever. But I know very well that it is dictated to me by a conviction so profound and a resolution so fixed that nothing, nothing, shall force me to deviate from it by a line. That said, I answer the attorney-general in a word. The attorney-general, who, after a firm and energetic beginning, preserved a profound silence throughout the last part of yesterday’s hearing” ...
The Attorney-General.—“To the point of self-denial.”
M. Labori.—“To the point of self-denial, ... rises today to tell us that we are confronted with a fixed plan, and that the same incidents, starting from the same preconceived idea, are being rehearsed. Very well, but the plan that we have fixed is the plan that leads to the light. There is another plan which is being rehearsed at the other side of
the bar,—the plan which leads to obscurity and darkness. Reference has been made to the thing judged. We respect it. We respect the thing judged yesterday, but between that and the other the difference is that the thing judged yesterday was legally judged, and that the other was judged illegally.”
M. Zola.—“Gentlemen of the jury, to you will I address myself. I am not an orator, I am a writer; but unfortunately” ...
The Judge.—“You should address the court.”
M. Zola.—“I ask your pardon. I thought that I had permission to address the jurors. But I will address myself to you. What I have to say will be as well said. I am a writer; I am not accustomed to public speaking; moreover, I am an extremely nervous being, and am liable to use words that ill express my thought. Undoubtedly I have expressed it ill, since I have been misunderstood. I am quoted as saying that I have placed myself above the law. Did I say that?”
M. Labori.—“You said: ‘I have not to know the law at this moment.’”
M. Zola.—“I meant to say, at any rate, that I do not revolt against this grand idea of the law. I submit to it completely, and from it I expect justice. I meant to say that my revolt was against the processes that find expression in all these quibbles raised against me, against the way in which I am prosecuted, against the limitation of the complaint to fifteen lines from my long letter of accusation; and these things I declare unworthy of justice. I say that these few lines are not to be taken and passed upon without regard to all that I have said. A writing is consecutive; phrases lead to phrases, ideas lead to ideas; and to fix upon a single thing therein because it brings me under the law is, I say, unworthy. That is what I say, and that is what I meant. I do not place myself above the law, but I am above hypocritical methods.”
M. Labori.—“Bravo!”
The Attorney-General.—“So, M. Labori, you give the signal for these bravos?”
M. Labori.—“It is true, I said ‘Bravo;’ but frankly, it was the cry of my conscience.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“There is one point beyond dispute,—that we are authorized to prove that M. Zola has accused the council of war of having committed an illegality. Well, I ask you how it is possible for us to prove this, if we do not begin by establishing that an illegality has been committed.”
The court denied the motion of M. Labori, and the second witness was called,—M. Leblois, a lawyer of the appellate court.
Testimony of M. Leblois.
The Judge.—“M. Labori, what question do you desire me to put to the witness?”
M. Labori.—“Will you ask M. Leblois at what date and under what circumstances he came into possession of the facts now within his knowledge concerning the Esterhazy case?”
The court interposing no objection, M. Leblois made the following statement:
“I have been for many years the friend of Colonel Picquart. We made all our studies together, and we have remained faithful to this friendship. In 1890 Colonel Picquart was made professor in the School of War, and since then I have seen him more or less frequently. Then he entered the war department, to which he had already been attached for several years, and finally, about the middle of 1895, if I am not mistaken, he was appointed chief of the bureau of information. It would have been natural at that time for him to consult me occasionally upon the legal difficulties that he met, since I was his intimate friend and had belonged to the magistracy for ten years. Nevertheless he spoke to me of only two cases,—a case of criminal procedure that was under way at Nancy, and a batch of documents relating to carrier pigeons, which was nothing but a collection of ministerial decrees upon that question. When, on November 16, 1896, Colonel Picquart was suddenly obliged to quit the war department, he had never said a word to me, either of the Dreyfus case or of the Esterhazy case, and I was absolutely
unaware that he was concerning himself with either of them. All who know Colonel Picquart will not be astonished at this reserve.
“In June, 1897, I received a visit from Colonel Picquart, who had come to pass a fortnight’s leave of absence in Paris. On June 3, he had received at Sousse a threatening letter, which had been written to him by one of his former subordinates, and thus he found himself under the necessity of consulting a lawyer. For purposes of his defence he made known to me some of the facts in the cases of Dreyfus and Esterhazy. I say, gentlemen, some of the facts, for Colonel Picquart never revealed to me any military secret, in that sense of the term secret in which it is employed in military language. Colonel Picquart had become convinced of the innocence of Captain Dreyfus, and he explained to me the facts upon which his conviction rested. I had too much confidence in his intelligence and honesty not to admit the materiality of the facts that he made known to me, and from them I came to the same conclusion that he had arrived at. I was profoundly disturbed by what I had just learned, for I not only deplored the possibility of so grave an error, and the submission to undeserved torture of a man who seemed to be innocent, but I was anxious lest such revelations might agitate the country; and so I determined to exercise the greatest prudence.
“First, I collected all the information that I could procure. I consulted certain persons who had been familiar with other facts, making my study more precise by reading documents published in 1896. I gathered information as to the Dreyfus family, and as to Captain Dreyfus, whom I did not know, and finally I studied the various questions of law to which the case might give rise. In the course of these inquiries I learned that M. Scheurer-Kestner had been concerning himself with the Dreyfus case for a year, and had collected facts of some interest. About the same time I met M. Scheurer-Kestner at a dinner, and an interview was arranged between us for a subsequent day. When he found that I was in possession of important information, he urged me strongly to tell him more. He was so insistent, and showed so keen anxiety, that I could not refrain from enlightening him more completely. My original plan, the only one that seemed possible to me, was to promptly put the
government in possession of the facts that I had learned through Colonel Picquart. M. Scheurer-Kestner, vice-president of the senate, seemed to me the best person that I could find through whom to approach the government. For these reasons I thought it my duty to yield to M. Scheurer-Kestner’s solicitations, and I gave him the desired enlightenment. Especially I spoke to him of letters that General Gonse had written to Colonel Picquart. M. Scheurer-Kestner begged me to show him these letters immediately, and he accompanied me to my house to get them. From that moment he was convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus, and his conviction has never since been shaken. He will never abandon the cause that he has undertaken.
“Meanwhile, the vacation season was approaching, and it seemed very difficult to institute proceedings at that time. It seemed to me that an affair of this sort should not be entered upon, unless there was a possibility of pursuing it to the end. Furthermore, M. ScheurerKestner deemed it necessary to have in his hands certain material proofs which both he and I lacked,—proofs in the shape of examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, which was supposed to be identical with that of the bordereau. Nevertheless, I thought it my duty to submit to M. Scheurer-Kestner at that moment the idea of presenting to the keeper of the seals a petition for the cancellation of the verdict of 1894, because it seemed to me a settled fact that a secret document had been communicated to the judges, and that consequently the judgment was void. M. Scheurer-Kestner thought that it was too early to take such a step in the absence of material proofs. He made arrangements to get examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting as soon as possible, and toward the end of July started on his vacation. In the course of the following months he succeeded in procuring examples of Major Esterhazy’s handwriting, and, on returning to Paris, he entered into communication with the government. Concerning that, he will testify himself. For my part, I have nothing more to say upon this point. Nevertheless I add that, when M. Scheurer-Kestner made his interpellation in the senate on November 7, 1897, it seemed to him that this should be the end of his personal participation in the matter. In fact, the declarations of the government pointed to an honest and full investigation, and it did not
seem to M. Scheurer-Kestner that there was any occasion for him to interfere in the working-up of a criminal case. So about Christmas time he thought himself entitled to take a few days’ rest, of which he was in great need.
“At that moment I had been informed by Colonel Picquart of the conspiracies against him,—conspiracies of extreme gravity, the most serious and important point of which is found in two telegrams addressed to him from Paris on November 10, 1897, and reaching him at Sousse, the first on November 11, the second on November 12 in the morning. These telegrams were forgeries. It seemed plain that they could not have been drawn up, except upon information emanating from the bureau of information, and this it would be easy to demonstrate; but Colonel Picquart will demonstrate it better than I. As the jury and the court will see, this was a new incident in an extremely serious matter, since these telegrams were dated November 10, 1897. Nevertheless it was a conspiracy which had long been in preparation, for in December, 1896, false letters had been addressed to the minister of war signed with the same name, ‘Speranza,’ that appeared at the foot of the two telegrams of November 10, 1897. It seemed to me it was my first duty to inform the government of this situation. But, having with the government no easy and direct means of communication, I asked M. Trarieux, senator and former keeper of the seals, whom I had met several times at the house of a friend, and who, moreover, had taken part in the senate discussion of M. Scheurer-Kestner’s interpellation, to give me the benefit of his sanction by acting as an intermediary between myself and the government. He will tell you what steps he took. For my part I could do but one thing,—lodge, on behalf of my client, a complaint with the government attorney, which complaint is under examination by M. Bertulus, who has already taken the deposition of Mlle. Blanche de Comminges.
“I said just now that Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart suddenly left the war department on November 16, 1896, on the eve of the Castelin interpellation in the chamber of deputies. His friends were unaware of his departure, and I in particular went several times, and during several weeks, to see him, and failed to find him. One of his friends
wrote to the minister of war a letter which should be among the documents in the hands of M. Bertulus, and which, at any rate, constitutes one of the papers in the investigations made by General de Pellieux and Major Ravary. This letter was insignificant, but in it there was a brief allusion to a personage who, in the salon of Mlle. de Comminges, had been nicknamed the ‘demigod.’ The letter contained this sentence: ‘Every day the demigod asks Mme. the Countess [that is Mlle. de Comminges] when he will be able to see the good God.’ In this circle, where Colonel Picquart was very popular, he was known as ‘the good God,’ and the name ‘demigod’ had been given to a certain Captain Lallement, who was the orderly of General des Garet, commanding the sixteenth army corps at Montpellier. This letter was intended for Colonel Picquart, but reached him only after it had been secretly opened and copied at the war department. The following month there came to the bureau of information a letter which was intercepted entirely, and of which no knowledge came to Colonel Picquart. This letter is surely the work of a forger. It is signed ‘Speranza.’ That was the beginning, in December, 1896, of the attempt to compromise Lieutenant-Colonel Picquart. The existence of the second letter was concealed for more than a year, and he learned of it for the first time in the course of General de Pellieux’s investigation. But it was made the basis of all the conspiracies for the ruin of this officer. Be not astonished, then, that last November, when this matter came to public attention and enlisted the interest of parliament, new conspiracies came to light. In the evening of November 10, 1897, two telegrams started from Paris together. The first read thus: ‘Stop, demigod. Affair very serious. Speranza.’ From this telegram it seemed that the demigod must be a very important personage, probably a political personality, perhaps M. Scheurer-Kestner. The second telegram read: ‘We have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche.’ This second telegram, which was evidently a part of the same conspiracy to which the first belonged, tended to destroy the authenticity, and consequently the force as evidence, of a certain dispatch on which rested the investigation opened by Colonel Picquart in the spring of 1896 concerning Major Esterhazy. Thus they endeavored to represent Colonel Picquart as the tool of a politician and the author
of a forgery. I should add that it is certain that Colonel Picquart was not acquainted with M. Scheurer-Kestner, and that he had no communication with him, direct or indirect. As for the charge of forgery brought against Colonel Picquart, it has been completely abandoned, for, although there were some insinuations to that effect in Major Ravary’s report, Colonel Picquart recently appeared before a council of inquiry, and among the things with which he was reproached there was not the slightest allusion to the possibility of a forgery in the case of the document in question.”
The Judge.—“What do you know about it?”
M. Leblois.—“Monsieur le Président, I know it in the most certain and natural way, because I was myself a witness before the council of inquiry.”
The Judge.—“Were you there throughout the hearing?”
M. Leblois.—“No, but I have knowledge of the facts with which the colonel was reproached.”
The Judge.—“You say that you have knowledge of them, but you do not know them of your own knowledge, since you were not there.”
M. Labori.—“Permit me to observe, Monsieur le Président, that the witnesses should have the advantage of the right to give their testimony without being interrupted, according to the terms of Article 315 of the code of criminal examination. I claim this right for M. Leblois. As to the fact which he affirms, the question is not how he knows it, but whether it is true.”
The Judge.—“Permit me, Maître Labori; I suppose that the court is entitled to question witnesses.”
M. Labori.—“It is not entitled to interrupt them.”
The Judge.—“I did not interrupt M. Leblois. I asked him for indications on a point which it is necessary to throw light upon. I will continue to do so, rest assured.”
M. Labori.—“I do not pretend to discuss with you the duties of the judge of the assize court. You know them better than I do. I add that I am ready to render homage to the great impartiality with which you
endeavor to direct the debate. But, on the other hand, this is a matter in which it is impossible for us to part with the smallest particle of our rights. They deprive us here of all the faculties that they can deprive us of. We are here face to face with testimony which is entitled to be heard; we ask that it shall be heard freely and independently. Now, Article 315 of the code of criminal examination authorizes witnesses to give their testimony without interruption, without prejudice to the right of the court to ask them, after their deposition, whatsoever questions it sees fit.”
The Judge.—“That is what I have just done.”
M. Labori.—“The deposition of M. Leblois is not finished. He was in the course of it when you interrupted him.”
The Judge.—“Pardon, M. Leblois had finished. I asked him a question to throw light upon his deposition.”
M. Leblois.—“I will answer you in the clearest fashion. In the first place, I declare that I know that Colonel Picquart was asked but four questions. As to the source of this knowledge, I do not think that I am bound to give it, and for a good reason; I am Colonel Picquart’s lawyer.”
The Judge.—“You should have said so at the beginning.”
M. Leblois.—“I did say so.”
The Judge.—“I did not hear it.”
M. Leblois.—“I said just now that I was first introduced to this affair in June, 1897, when Colonel Picquart came to ask my aid and protection against written threats that he had received on June 3 from one of his former subordinates. It was for purposes of his defence that Colonel Picquart related to me a portion of the facts, but not those concerning military secrets, and it was for purposes of his defence that he gave me General Gonse’s letters. I consider that you are now reassured as to the source of my information.
“I add that nothing is easier than to establish materially the proof of what I have just said, for information telegraphed by a provincial agency on February 2, and not contradicted since by any newspaper
or otherwise, specifies the points raised in the debate before the council of inquiry. Furthermore, Colonel Picquart has received, in conformity with military regulations, a clear notification of the questions concerning which he was examined. In fact, if a single question is to be put in a council of inquiry, the law requires that the person to be questioned shall receive a notice of the points on which the discussion will turn. Then Colonel Picquart, being in possession of such notice, emanating from the reporter in the case, is clearly in a position to prove what I have just said.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“Permit me to ask a question. Just now the witness said this second letter, which was a forgery, was so drawn up as to prove that it emanated from a personage familiar with the documents of the war offices. But the witness did not explain this declaration. I should like to ask him what there was in this letter that enables him to make this declaration, and to say that it came from the war offices.”
M. Leblois.—“I prefer not to give any explanations in regard to this letter, for I should run a risk of altering the version that you will soon hear from Colonel Picquart. [Laughter.] I think there is some misunderstanding. I said that the text of the two telegrams was a certain proof that they emanated from a man familiar with all the secrets of the war department, but I can say that only of the telegrams, because I have seen them and am in possession of their text. I cannot speak so certainly of a letter which I have not seen, and concerning which I have only information.”
M. Labori.—“From the standpoint of the conspiracies to which M. Leblois has referred, what was the bearing of the false letter intercepted in the war offices?”
M. Leblois.—“I said just now that I considered this false letter signed ‘Speranza’ another stone on which to erect, little by little, the edifice of the conspiracies against Colonel Picquart. Regarding the two telegrams, must I give details?”
The Judge [hastily].—“No.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, we are very desirous that he should.”
The Judge [sadly].—“Since the defence demands it, speak.”
M. Leblois.—“The following telegram: ‘We have proofs that the dispatch was manufactured by Georges. Blanche,’ suggests to me this reflection: Who, outside of the war department, could then know that an inquiry was in progress concerning Major Esterhazy, and especially that the basis of this inquiry was a dispatch? That was an absolute secret. The two telegrams of which I have spoken were not the only elements of this complicated plot against Colonel Picquart. There were many other telegrams sent by third parties. For instance, an individual sent from Paris a telegram signed ‘Baron Keller’ and addressed to a pretended Baroness Keller at Sousse. All these telegrams were intended to compromise Colonel Picquart. The two which I have cited are the only ones that reached him, but they are only the centre of a very complicated network. He referred to all of this in an article in ‘La Libre Parole’ of November 16, 1897.”
M. Labori.—“M. Leblois has told us that Colonel Picquart left the war department November 16, 1896. Could he tell us what was the attitude of his superiors, and especially of General Gonse, toward him at that time? Did Colonel Picquart go in disgrace, and how has he been treated since, up to the time of his recall to Paris, under circumstances with which the jurors must be familiar, at the beginning of the Esterhazy inquiry?”
M. Leblois.—“Colonel Picquart’s superiors behaved toward him in the most kindly manner throughout his inquiry concerning Major Esterhazy,—an inquiry which began toward the end of spring and continued until September. According to Colonel Picquart, it was not until the moment had come for a decision in this matter that a difference of opinion was revealed between his superiors and himself. This difference did not assume an acute form at first. In the beginning it was simply an exchange of opposite views, such as often takes place between inferiors and superiors. The solution of the matter, clearly stated in a letter from Colonel Picquart bearing date of September 5, 1896, remained in suspense until November,
1896. At that moment things were growing worse under influences which I do not exactly know myself. Perhaps the government, upon the question being laid before it, decided that there was no occasion to review the Dreyfus case. I know nothing about it; I can only form hypotheses. Answering M. Labori’s question, I will say this: when Colonel Picquart left the war department, they gave him not the slightest hint that he was sent away in disgrace. On the contrary, they represented to him as a favor the rather vague mission with which he was entrusted. They said to him: ‘You are to go away for a few days. You will go to Nancy, to do certain things.’ When once he was at Nancy, they said to him: ‘Go elsewhere.’ Thus from day to day they gave him new orders, continually prolonging his mission; and the colonel, who had left Paris without extra clothing, was told, when he asked permission to return to get his linen, that his mission was too important to warrant a diversion of even a few hours; and they sent him to Besançon. Thus, without suspecting the fate that was in store for him, he was sent along the frontier, and then to Algeria and Tunis, where, in March, 1897, he was made lieutenantcolonel of the Fourth Sharpshooters. They pretended that he was given this appointment as a favor. General Gonse told him positively, in a letter, that the regiment was a very select one, and that he should consider himself fortunate in belonging to it. The general’s letters are full of expressions of sympathy.”
M. Labori.—“M. Leblois referred just now to a threatening letter which intervened at a certain moment, and which apparently modified the state of mind prevailing in the office of the minister of war. Could he tell us when this letter was addressed to Colonel Picquart, from whom it came, and in what spirit it was conceived?”
M. Leblois.—“I have already said that this letter was dated June 3, 1897. It came from Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, who had been Colonel Picquart’s subordinate, and it was couched in terms almost insulting.”
M. Albert Clemenceau.—“The witness has said that at the same time when Colonel Picquart’s letters were being seized in the war department he was suffered to receive forged telegrams, and that at the same time also General Gonse, sub-chief of the general staff,
