Martín Glozman

So, Martín, please tell us your name and where you come from.

I'm Martín Glozman, and I come from Argentina — I was born in Argentina.

Great. Thank you for the interview.

The first question is: what has struck you most during these days here in Reykjavik?

On a... on a surface level, what I like is that there is a very big resonance, an affective one, that includes complexity and allows us to go deeper into a process that involves harmony and that, in the end, brings us together in a way that is plural, polyphonic, absolutely real, in which we are all present, with all voices active — and also with the awareness that we must improve and include those who still cannot be here.

And we are thinking about how to do it, because that activity is at the root, and it is what will make us last over time and respond to today's cultural challenges, in every area.

Is there a word, a phrase, an idea you'll take into your work from here?

Any word you've heard, that someone said to you — something that resonates?

I'm not one for many words, like phrases... Sometimes they appear. Now, if you ask me as a writer, sometimes things emerge. I don't always keep the first thing that emerges: sometimes I try to keep searching. But with a camera and a live interview I'm not sure I have time to keep searching. I know Kari Valtanen told me... we agreed and shared that the meeting, the workshop we had around "Power and openness" was really lovely — people spoke seriously; we were seven people and we could truly talk about core issues of this network, but also of the networks we weave within other networks that don't share the dialogical principle, and that restrict us or create limitations that are challenges — in a hospital, in the organization of conventional society, of ordinary society, let's say, outside the dialogical model.

And we shared that we had perspectives that could be different with Kari, between us, but it was also something common: different perspectives, different positions — and sometimes there is hierarchy in those positions, even when there is horizontality in the conversation.

And that we spoke little — we didn't say much, but everyone could say something. And what we said was very much cared for.

So maybe it's not about saying everything, but about saying little, so it can be heard; being able to hear what the other says, with care — and, through what you hear, to take the measure of everything they are still telling us, which I am already perceiving: in the way they say it, in the presence with which they say it, in how they interact — and in the little they say, it's how they say it. And that phrase is: less is more.

Good. And the last question is: where will Open Dialogue be in 2030?

If we work hard... And that doesn't just mean office hours, or only working outward: we work with ourselves and among ourselves. And we learn more from dialogues with people who think differently, so that this proposal can be accepted without challenging or dismissing them. We may well be one of the answers to the international, intercontinental crisis that human society is living through.

And, practically speaking: where will we be, across the various countries?

I think dialogical practice has something of the diplomat's work, so to speak, right?

Someone who, in order to do their work, has to offer it with humility and as a service — an honest service.

I serve the community. What do I get in return?

What allows me to serve. I have to travel, I have to pay for a ticket: I need that in order to serve. I must receive something honest for my work, which I do with humility and honestly. But it is serving. If, when I work, I am seeking a position of power, I will enter into something that is not what will allow us to work well.

Positions of power can belong to others — countries, governments —, but we can facilitate processes of dialogue, with tools and processes we have been developing, with many examples to teach: practical examples of how we intervene in culture, of how we develop these organizations — like CSAC, in Vermont, running for 30 years: it works very well, and it's little known — people don't know this kind of organization. I think the network, with Dialogical Practices and Open Dialogue, is an organization.

It is a network, but it is also an organization. An unconventional, organic organization — but an organization. And we need to study that organization in order to teach it, so that other people know it as an organization and understand the processes we live: to be able to quantify, document, objectify them, and teach them as an example of a different organization, one that grew from within.

Great, thank you for the interview. Is there anything else you'd like to say?

Yes: thank you all — Cristiana, thank you, Lupo. Basically I want to say thanks: to Tony, who was important for my decision to come; to the organization; to Jaakko, Sofi, Elisa — I want to thank many people, all of them.

I want to thank you so much, because I love you dearly — and also because, speaking of processes, you are accompanying me through a process in my life that is allowing me to change, with great effort — we are winning it. And also the General Issues group. Thank you.