More than four months have passed since we gathered at the Hearth Summit Berlin to create a space for collective learning about fragmentation and connectedness. Around 150 people participated with great openness, courage, and presence – for which we are very grateful. We also want to thank all those who contributed to the success of this event!

With this reflection, we aim to share our perspective on the shared experience as well as voices of the facilitators. We highly recommend watching the videos linked here.

Our intention and approach
The summit was an experiment. We wanted to explore how it is possible not only to analyze and discuss fragmentation but also to face it – within ourselves, in relationships, and in the collective field. Our focus was on two core questions:

1. What contribution do we ourselves make to fragmentation, or how and why do we experience it within ourselves?
2. How can we stay connected despite differing positions (for example, on society, politics, or the environment)?

This endeavor was ambitious and a challenge for all of us.
We experienced how difficult it was at the HEARTH Summit to stay connected with clearly differing positions on key societal issues. We saw how these differences can narrow or even close spaces for encounter and connection. But we also experienced that shared experiences and openness can create spaces and new possibilities for connection.

Program and process design
In the Hearth Summit program, we tried to distinguish symptoms and causes of polarization and make this distinction tangible (see iceberg model). We asked what personal reasons might underlie fragmentation on certain topics and from which convictions and feelings these stem.

This approach was complemented by artistic interventions, such as music and poetry, which offered different access points and inner movements related to the summit’s theme. Additionally, in-depth workshops addressed societal oppression, letting go, bodily relatedness, speaking, and listening.

Safety and predictable framework
Throughout the Hearth Summit process, we aimed to give space to all voices. At the same time, we ensured that expressions aligned with certain values. At the beginning of the summit, we made visible and explained a set of values, commitments, which you can review here again (in German).

These commitments describe the HOW of the process. However, the framework was not transparent enough. Specifically, we did not explicitly communicate beforehand that we wanted to invite all perspectives and perceptions, which could include uncomfortable or even harmful worldviews. Not against others – the commitments did not allow that – but as expressions of individual perspectives.

The Hearth Summit Berlin showed us how important it is to clearly define the expected framework before the event. The distinction between a safe space and tension among people should be at the center. There is no such thing as a completely safe space for everyone. Participants should be made aware that encountering very different perspectives can create tension. Because we did not make this distinction at the start and did not obtain clear consent, the levels of tension and a supposedly safe space became entangled. The absence of this distinction led to confusion during the process, making it very challenging and threatening for some participants. We take responsibility for this.

Participants experienced tensions due to the visibility of widely divergent political positions and briefly aggressive communication (which was managed by the moderator team). This made it harder to distinguish personal processes from the overall collective process, and the space became too burdensome for some, leading them to leave. They no longer felt safe because their expectations of the framework differed, which we fully understand (support offers were provided afterward, and the registration fee was refunded).

We also regret that due to this lack of clarity in announcing the event, we could not integrate the emerging tensions into the process, and we apologize for any hurt caused.

Some (incomplete) practical takeaways from our experience:

1. Making expectations explicit: When announcing an event with a sensitive topic like fragmentation and a high demand for deep engagement, it is important to clearly communicate the intention and framework so that participants can make an informed decision about whether to participate in the process.
2. Naming who is (not) present: By identifying which social groups are present and represented, and which are not, awareness of the group's composition is fostered.
3. Methodical representation of differences and similarities: Through sociograms, group formations, or personal exchanges—such as sharing experiences of marginalization—differences and similarities can be made visible and felt on cognitive, emotional, and physical levels at the beginning. This can lead to unexpected, playful moments of connection and the formation of new bonds.
4. Level shifts and self-reference: When a process threatens to stagnate, it is helpful to shift to perception and experience levels. Exercises to regulate the nervous system and physical reflection exercises—such as recalling moments of marginalization from personal experience—can open up different perspectives and foster greater openness toward the unfamiliar.
5. Arrangement of the space: Dividing into smaller groups or arranging the space in a circle can create an atmosphere where people meet more on equal footing. Visibility and presence strengthen feelings of connection and belonging.
6. Responsibility: It is not only the facilitators' responsibility. We all share the responsibility for the space and for mindful togetherness. This also means contributing, setting boundaries, taking responsibility for oneself—and not shying away from uncomfortable conversations. Collective responsibility requires spaces for articulation, resonance, and integration. And genuine listening—especially (and precisely) when it becomes uncomfortable. This only works if we make expectations as explicit as possible (see first point).
7. Diversity of voices: We should advocate for amplifying voices that are often unheard elsewhere—and consciously seize every opportunity to do so!
8. Safety: We cannot guarantee safety, but we can set a transparent framework that encourages courage and encounters - and with less fear.
9. Humor: We can foster connection and trust through joy, laughter and warmth.

In conclusion:

This summit was not a perfect space. But it was rich and authentic—full of risk, friction and insight. Through art, encounter, courage, and community we faced the fundamental dynamics of our coexistence—with all their qualities and challenges. The summit showed us that tolerating ambiguity, uncertainty and imperfection is not only challenging but also necessary for genuine transformation.

We hope that the diverse experiences you had—whether powerful, confusing, painful, or connecting—will inspire and accompany you on your path and enrich you. And we thank you for trusting us to be part of this open process.

We remain with further questions—and with the deep conviction: Transformation begins where we are willing to have a deeper look together.

With gratitude,
Kerstin and Lukas