I arrived in Russia soon after the school hostage crisis in Beslan, one of the 2004 terror attacks connected with the Chechen struggle for independence. People were haunted with the televised images of broken bodies, mostly of children. Many were crying for revenge, while others were asking for consideration of the grievances and the possibilities of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. A televised marathon raised an outpouring of gifts for the victimized families. The government was caught in lies, and proposing to amend the constitution to take away popular election of provincial governors.

It was an intense historical moment to come to work with the Youth Human Rights Movement and with Inter-Training, an international network of non-governmental trainers and consultants in the former Soviet Union. Noting that on earlier Russian trips I arrived shortly after a KGB-attempted coup d'etat against President Mikhail Gorbachev and then again just in time for President Boris Yeltsin's shelling Parliament with his tanks, a trainer friend teased that he is still hoping the timing of my visits is only a coincidence.

HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER PRESSURE

The Youth Human Rights Movement was reeling under the reaction to the recent series of terrorist attacks. Many people are crying for revenge, while others ask for calm reconsideration of behaviors that drive Chechens to desperation. (The Russian peace group Mothers of Soldiers announced that a woman who carried a bomb that blew up in a Russian subway, killing herself and a number of others, had back home in Chechenya been forced to watch while Russian soldiers lined up her six children and killed them all.)

The Youth Movement's headquarters is in the Central Russian city of Voronezh, where a series of killings of foreign university students of color has taken place. The leading trainers in the group had already learned a variety of team-building tools from my previous trips and from Golubka, the Moscow-based training collective I began mentoring in 1991.

For four long days the twenty-seven young people pursued their ambitious goals: team-building, diversity work, leadership development, inter-group conflict resolution, nonviolent strategizing, and tips for trainers. The only way to do all that was to focus on two riveting, here-and-now issues in the group and then extrapolate from the learned skills and attitudes and apply them to other situations. The two issues most alive in the group turned out to be: (1) the mainstream of the group in relation to those who were marginal, and (2) conflict between women and men. The latter was especially emotional, both in the painful struggle and in the peace that came with transformation.

We tackled the mainstream/margin issue immediately, even before a welcome or introductions or agenda review! I challenged the mainstream to form a fishbowl in the center and create an activity which would strengthen their relationship with the margin. The next 90 minutes of struggle created a new bond between the two groups, which they capped by a ceremony in which all participated.

Because the mainstream/margin theme is critical to today's Russia (and the U.S., for that matter), and also critical for the solidarity the young people need to survive the next period, I wove the theme through the following days through various activities. We did TeamTypes, a way of understanding how people operate in groups, because some groups marginalize some types.

We played a Mainstream/Margin Tape Game invented by Dan Buttry, in which the mainstream took action that influenced the entire rest of the training: integrating the margins into itself even against the will of some margins. (Chechnya again!) The debrief of the game focussed on this point and realized that some margins might choose incorporation, others might choose separation, and some groups might choose an alternative to either. The group immediately brainstormed nine respectful interventions which could support margins to make their own choice in relating to the mainstream.

We did a mirroring exercise in buddy pairs, to recognize parts usually marginalized in support relationships. We did a closed eye process remembering a time in their lives when participants had been marginal, and then connected to their previous work by considering which of the nine interventions would have been most desirable for them at that time. In the debrief we also compared and contrasted their experience with the dynamics of racism.

Later we created topic groups on mainstream/margin issues in today's Russia, and applied the list of nine alternatives in each of the topic groups. (For an elicitive trainer this was a high point: they used their wisdom – the nine interventions – to apply to topics of their choice, using their knowledge of their country.) Presentations followed.

Still later we identified the characteristics of mainstream and margins in their group. They pondered how their movement could be strengthened by bringing some of the marginalized characteristics into the life of the group. We went on to do a mingle in which participants made one-on-one statements to each other: "A hidden power I see in you is . . . ."

The mainstream/margin activities I've described were interspersed with other activities, especially drawn from Adventure Based Learning and the field of nonviolent action.

By the evening before the last day, the group container was quite strong, so I invited a conflict of their choice. It turned out to be women/men relations. We used a four-step conflict method. We began with the fishbowl technique: first the women, then the men. We followed with gender caucuses to digest what they'd learned from the fishbowls; both caucuses were unusually intense and emotional. Time prevented going on to step three that evening, so we did a closing circle "If I were growing like a plant or a tree, what would it be?"

Next morning was step three, dialogue of all together. They prepared themselves by buddy work: "What have I learned so far?" "What are the puzzles I still have?" After the dialogue, in step four participants were invited to make requests to the another gender, to which the others could, inside themselves, respond "Yes," "No," or "I'll consider that."

The gender work was felt by the group to be so successful that the rest of the day flew by with activities focussed on application of the learning back home. We concluded with a celebratory dinner with much toasting and appreciation.

THE JOY (AND PAIN) OF COOKING

Thirty-seven participants gathered on the Gulf of Finland, just north of St. Petersburg, for a four-day advanced training of trainers. They came from expanse of Russia (eleven time zones) plus Kyrgistan, Tajikistan, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Most didn't expect the workshop to be so much like the prolonged cooking of a complex stew.

Inter-Training, a network of consultants and trainers, sponsored the workshop. For me it was a special pleasure to be working again with Golubka, the Moscow-based training team with whom I've worked since 1991. Golubka was instrumental in forming Inter-Training six years ago, and the workshop was interpreted by Golubka trainers Igor Ovchinnikov and Ivan Timofeev.

The stew took so long to cook because the group's challenges are huge. The major issues facing the group are, indeed, challenges facing Russian and U.S. societies:

• Leadership confusion, with dependency on a strong leader alternating with unconfident outbreaks of counter-dependence,
• Self-absorption of the mainstream with little awareness of the margins,
• Lack of concern for creating safety for the most vulnerable.

  From the first day the group acted out these societal patterns, understandably. I scheduled a free-wheeling discussion the first evening to explore how these professionals are managing in the midst of turbulence and rapid change. They see themselves as an endangered species, because the previously burgeoning civil society is under threat. Also noticeable was the impact of terrorist attacks (two planes have gone down recently, for example, and many participants arrived by air). With survival a worry, I needed to re-design my workshop to maximize safety and to support empowerment. (Later I learned another reason for changing course: at least some participants saw me as a U.S. army general standing in front of them – understandable in light of the horror most Russians feel when they see the U.S. waging an unprovoked war on Iraq.)

  For guidance I turned to the Empowerment Triangle, a model I've been using in recent years: trust in self, trust in others, clarity of intention. I designed the activities of our second and third day to buttress these dimensions, and we worked almost exclusively on the individual and small group level. Even so, progress was very slow. The dependency on the leader continued ("When is George going to work his miracles?"), the cluelessness of the mainstream persisted ("We're setting the tone, why should we address the interests of others?"), and there was still no interest I could see in making things safe for the least vulnerable in the group.

  We did, however, reach a high point when those who wanted to do personal/ professional growth work in the whole group gathered in a fishbowl to talk about their needs. The fishbowl group rapidly became self-absorbed and avoided entering negotiations with the outer circle. When I excused the first group and invited the outer circle into the fishbowl, the new fishbowlers (those presumably not interested in personal growth work) began actually to do the work the first group only talked about. Indeed, the new fishbowlers did personal growth work so effectively that the atmosphere for everyone became safer. It was a teachable moment: mainstreams need their margins even to accomplish fully their own goals!

  Sensing the possibility of breakthrough, I decided to open the last day with a tool I've never used in four decades of training. I asked the participants to choose, as individuals, whether to stay or use the morning for free time. They could first work with their learning partners (their "buddies") to discern whether it was right to stay and surrender to what I promised would be an uncomfortable process. The point of this was of course to clarify intention, the leg of the Empowerment Triangle where we might look for a decisive shift.

  After the discernment work in buddy pairs, I set up a graceful opportunity for participants to exit. Only a couple did. The stew moved to the front of the stove. We had a day with people working hard, being vulnerable, and taking responsibility for their learning.

  Step by step, participants owned up to the societal patterns they'd been acting out in the workshop: dependency on the leader, mainstream cluelessness, and unconcern for safety of the most vulnerable. We meditated together and went to the deep place from which we could create vision. (Without a vision, the people -- both Russians and Americans -- perish.) In three groups the participants began to generate vision. Their challenges: what would life/society be like if we didn't give our power to leaders, if we didn't restrict our awareness to people like ourselves, if we didn't turn away from the most vulnerable?

  The final afternoon was the first session in which the entire group functioned as one. Insights tumbled over each other in their last chance to share the new clarity. Professional armor discarded, the participants relaxed into their first taste of community in the workshop.

  We gratefully acknowledge the gifts from donors and all those in the faithful community of support for Training for Change. Reports from the trainings during ten previous Russian visits are available for $1 each plus postage. .TrainingforChange, 3241 Columbus Avenue, S., Minneapolis, MN 55407 612-827-7323. email: peacelearn@igc.org