What’s the role of emotions in nominations?

(Welsh word of the post: teimladau, feelings.)

Recently I’ve been discussing our Quaker nominations processes in several different contexts – looking at what works and what doesn’t for finding the right names, thinking about what I personally might or might not accept in the future, and reflecting on past experiences. I caught myself thinking something like this: “If X happened, I would feel Y, but I would also feel ashamed about that, because feeling Y isn’t really allowed under those circumstances.”

What a thing to think! Are there really genuinely-felt emotions which are ‘not allowed’ in Quaker discipline? That doesn’t seem to have the emphasis on honesty which is a common feature of our processes. At first I wondered whether I was wrong – maybe it is allowed and I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, for example – but I found I was just coming up with more and more cases where people either suppressed their feelings about the nominations process, or expressed them, but only in private and along with an acknowledgement that somehow they thought they shouldn’t feel those feelings.

Here are some feelings I think we sometimes ‘don’t allow’ even when we are feeling them.

  • Active desire to serve in a particular role. People are allowed to express willingness, especially when asked directly, and to indicate interest through code-questions like, “what does that role actually involve?”, but to want to serve in a role is usually not acceptable. (The expression of interest form for the Book of Discipline revision committee is an exception – although note the carefully mild phrasing.) If overdone, it can be met with suspicion and even specific attempts to prevent the person from serving in that way. (So if you really want it, it may be that the last thing you should do is say so – especially if the role you want could be seen as a position of power.)
  • The flip side of desire: disappointment about not being asked. If a nominations committee approaches someone, they say they are willing, and then the committee doesn’t take that nomination forward, the rejected nominee is usually allowed to be a bit sad about that – and if there was confusion or miscommunication and they had thought the nomination was confirmed, appointing bodies sometimes try and include them anyway. If you’re not asked, though, you are supposed to pretend never to have considered the role – although if you were a very obvious name, you would be allowed to express a small amount of relief at having ‘escaped’.
  • Enjoying the role you’re in – too much. This is about quantity, not the specific emotion. It seems to be okay to like some things about your role, so long as you are also able to join in the ritual moaning about how hard it is and you wish there were more people to help. (I suspect this is part of the group bonding process in many meetings – if everyone was having fun in their roles, the whole thing might collapse. I’m only partially joking!) When someone really gets into a role and loves it, though, there can be worries about them being ‘overenthusiastic’ and ‘controlling’ – both genuine problems in some cases, but used at other times to squash people’s joy. In a system where everyone is renominated regularly, say every three years, this becomes part of the first point: if you actually like your role, you might want to stay in it and express a positive desire to be renominated. Dodgy!
  • Despair. I worry that the ritual moaning not only hides some joy, but also disguises cases where someone is really struggling. Can we always tell the difference between “well, there are a lot of meetings involved (but I enjoy going and find it nourishing)” and “oh, there are so many meetings involved (and I can’t really cope but feel obliged to keep going)”? Even when it’s clearly the latter, it can be tempting to ignore this if there’s nobody else to take on the work.

I do think Quaker discipline calls on everyone who participates in it to manage their own emotions in various ways. To participate in an item of business about which I feel strongly, I often need to either work through that emotion beforehand – a form of threshing – or decide not to speak because my feeling is personal and not for the meeting. Sometimes it really benefits a meeting for worship for business to hear from someone who feels passionately, though. It can balance a group who would otherwise be over-cautious, or show the urgency of action to a group who might otherwise not get involved, or restore a spiritual dimension to a group who might otherwise make a decision which was purely rational and had nothing to do with God’s will.

How could emotions be better handled in our nominations process? Can we better balance the need to share out roles and distribute power with letting people participate in ways which are attractive to them? Can we find ways to talk about the joy of service which also help people to embrace the right time to lay work down? For example, I wonder whether identification with a role (“I’m a clerk at the moment”) makes it harder to pick up and let go, compared with a verb form (“I’m clerking at the moment”). We might need new verbs for talking about some roles (among others, “eldering” has taken on other connotations and “nominating” is a more specific act), but if you compare possible expressions of enjoyment it I think there are benefits: “I like being a clerk” has different implications to “I like clerking”.

How do you really feel about nominations? Anonymous comments accepted!


7 responses to “What’s the role of emotions in nominations?

  1. Oh, I thought this was a bit sad. Difficulty filling roles? Hardly surprising then. Doesn’t sound like the enthusiasm of early Friends.
    Reminds me of the time I applied to be a RF at Woodbrooke and was rejected – one of my referees must have been less than flattering (faint praise?). Now I feel I’m too old and feeble – and it’s a personal rule NEVER to volunteer a second time for something I’ve been turned down for once.
    This is perhaps one example of Friends peculiar ways where we might learn from others. Encouragement and joyful welcoming and thanks might serve better. Just perhaps we could even reverse declining membership? This old(ish) Friend would be interested to hear what other younger Friends think.

    • Thanks for sharing, Trevor. I think feeling welcomed and appreciated is important to people’s sense of belonging to a community, whatever their age or abilities.

  2. Thanks for writing about this. I say freely “I love clerking meetings”, partly because I want people who are intimidated by the idea to realise that it can be loved (rather than done just because one has been asked to do it).

  3. Sue Glover Frykman

    In my Yearly Meeting Nominations Committee actively asks people which committees they would be interested in serving with and what they think their gifts and skills are. This is a refreshing approach.

  4. Thanks for raising this, I’m a bit late to the party but I’ve only recently discovered your blog.

    I’ve had a positive experience recently at my meeting (Westminster) with setting up a Becoming Friends group. I’d felt for some time that this or something like it was needed, but hadn’t possessed the spare energy to get it off the ground while I was on various other committees – the dominant feel in all of them being that ‘we have enough to do already’.

    Moving away from London and then returning a year later gave me some space, because I no longer had a role. After my return I caught myself reflecting in MfW one day that it probably wouldn’t be long before someone approached me to ask about a job I didn’t want to do. I felt guilty about that feeling, but reflected later that it might be better to understand it as a leading to some form of service I *did* want to do, so after some more reflection I proposed the BF group to LM, having first consulted elders and some others to make sure I wasn’t upsetting anyone along the way. It was like pushing on an open door: the response all round was positive, I quickly found someone else to run it with me, and we found a group of committed participants almost as soon as we had advertised it. We’ve now just finished running it for the first time.

    I don’t think this suggests that the nominations process should consist of people taking on whatever they fancy, but I do think there’s a place for initiative and allowing people fallow periods from which might emerge new things. I don’t think I’d have felt able to take on the BF group had I been serving on another committee at the time; nor do I want to become the person who does it for the rest of time, so we’ve documented our planning and running of the sessions in the hope that we can hand them on to someone else in future. But as you suggest, the emotions involved (in my case, guilt in that MfW, and frustration that committee service was blocking me from doing something I thought was important) were important, and eventually pointed me to the way forward. I think it’s really important that we are attuned to how we feel about nominations, particularly when those relate to how we feel about a given job.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s