While for the most part it's still something rare, every once in
while
Werner's work
is offered for specific groups ie for people with some
common
culture / some
common
interest - for example:
Indian
Americans, People of African Descent, the group known by the
acronym LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Queer /
Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and the
+ sign which represents non-straight and non-cisgender
identities not covered by the other letters of the acronym), and
others. It may seem (at least
on the face of it)
that we're saying transformation is essentially different for
Indian
Americans, People of African Descent, and gay people - to mention a
few. Notably there are also offerings for young people and teens
from one, some, or none of the above groups, separate from adults.
And as far as I know, there've been no special offerings (at least
so far) of
Werner's work
for men separate from women. If there were, would we be saying that
transformation is essentially different for men than women?
I've inquired into this. Well? Are we? By offering
Werner's work
to all of these different groups, are we indeed not saying or
suggesting (or insinuating or implying) that transformation is
fundamentally different when experienced by
Indian
Americans, People of African descent, gay people, young people, old
people, males, females ... and I've concluded that we're not
insinuating that at all. What's more likely is accepting an
invitation from such groups to
discover
what may be possible for them and their lives out of participating
in
Werner's work,
is simply comfortable for people who are already a match for those
groups, while having no bearing whatsoever on their
experience of transformation. Said another way, transformation is
an experience
human
beings
have. As such, it's the same for everyone. There isn't a version of
transformation for
Indian
Americans and another for People of African Descent, one for
straight people and another for gays, one for old people and
another for young people, one for men and yet another for women.
That notion at worst conveys being unclear on the concept, and at
best, just being naïve.
Recently I participated in an online seminar for
Indian
Americans to
discover
what may be possible for them and their lives out of participating
in
Werner's work.
I wanted to see (my sub-text was) what a presentation to a specific
group would be like. In all likelihood, I was the only white
European version of
a human being
in that entire group. I expected the conversation would soon turn
to what it's like to be an
Indian
American, what prejudices they
face,
what unfairness they endure (and that would explain
why they had their own introduction) etc etc. But it never did. Not
once. Not ... one ...
single ... word ... was spoken about what
was possible for
Indian
Americans and their lives out of participating in
Werner's work.
Rather, the conversation pivoted entirely on what may be possible
for
human
beings
(who just so happened to be
Indian
American
human beings)
and their lives out of participating in
Werner's work.
|