The first thing that I got was that, in one particular way, he was right. I didn't begin the blog to exercise my personal demons or to disparage others. Rather, I began it to provide a space for my own thoughts. I intended it to be a constructive outlet to channel all that was coursing through me. In fact, it almost doesn't matter if people read this or not. This is my process. As I move forward, I will refrain from cheap shots or reference to others that are not positive and uplifting. I have no desire to reinvent myself as a bitter person. And those who know me, know that this is the furthest thing from the truth of me. I am appreciative of this feedback and can be in action around that immediately.
But as I set with the assault against my character, I couldn't find agreement. Trust me, I wanted to. I have not been much concerned about how people perceive me. Honestly, it never occurred to me worry about the perceptions of others. No, really. I'm a pain in the ass. I know this about me. My friend Bill used to call me a boy scout. He would chide me for being too idealistic. He said that I fixated on the details. He was right. But I don't think this to be a bad thing. Back in the day when I was learning program development, we referred to this as maintaining fidelity to the model. As I read the words about my lack of collaboration or failure to appreciate group consensus, I found a bit of understanding in his perspective. I don't agree with it, but I understand it and respect it as his experience. First and foremost, my allegiance has been to a very particular point of view.
Over the past three years, I have engaged in hundreds of one-on-one conversations with gay men in Denver. This was a result of my first contract to continue the community dialogue about re-engaging gay men in HIV prevention. These conversations were informed by surveys submitted at the Out for Denver event in 2007, the 2004 and 2006 HIV Prevention Needs Assessments, an exhaustive literature review, and CDC promulgated approaches. At every step along the way, I communicated these findings to the state health department and recommended a series of approaches to address the findings. This is what informed program design and the implementation strategy.
I guess it is fair to say that what we constructed was a specific point of view. Also, the program, while possessing a very 'wide net' approach, was actually tailored to reach a very specific type of participant. While most programs focus on segmentation by race, risk behavior, etc., that was not what we were up to. (This is not the fault of any program, it's just the way the system is designed) Intergenerational and multiethnic, we were stoking the fires of possibility for men who have not found resonance in other parts of our community. I understand how some men think that what we were doing didn't resonate with them. But these same men can walk into dozens of existing spaces and find a sense of belonging. For the men that we served, this was not the case. For these guys, we were a breath of fresh air and created a space where they belonged. "You are welcome here" was not a slogan. It was a promise. And agree with the point of view or not, for these guys we achieved our purpose. We did exactly what we said we'd do. I'm rightfully proud of that.
I think it is an error to simply encapsulate this as my point of view or to make it too much about me. As much as possible, I stayed in the background and worked to create conditions for the program to thrive. I trusted others to be in the foreground. And for the most part, this was a successful approach. But the guts of the program, that which was non-negotiable, didn't come from me. It came from the community...it was what men told me directly. That is why the program was successful; because it addressed the areas that men, time and time again, have said were important to them. And it worked!
No comments:
Post a Comment