re12: Returning to the Garden, hierarchies, reform, etc.

2001-04-30

Richard Moore

Bcc: contributors.
Website: http://cyberjournal.org

============================================================================
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:52:32 -0700
From: Suzanne Taylor <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Guidebook synopsis

    rkm> As a brief break from our dialog, let me share the
    synopsis sent in with my book proposal...

Hmmmm.  A book?  They take so long and this seems timelier
than how long that would take.  And I wonder what you can
know, for a book, about how to change the world.  My process
is more about being in an emergence, and looking to how to
bring about the energies that could foster same,  than
arranging for how it will be.  Does that make sense?

============

Dear Suzanne,

Thanks for joining in, and of course it makes sense.

No I'm not going to disappear into an isolation booth for a
year to write a book, or anything like that.  In fact, I
could find no better description for how I spend my time
than to say "My process is about being in an emergence, and
looking to how to bring about the energies that could foster
same".  That's what this dialog thread, and the cj & rn list
have been about for years.  Lots of people on the list can
be described as being 'in emergence', and together we've
been prodding each other along to think more deeply, or
widely, about our ideas and our pre-conceptions.

    > I wonder what you can know, for a book, about how to
    change the world

I think there are a variety of books out there which have
had an extremely important effect on the movement, and have
helped bring it into existence.  People like Rachel Carson,
Noam Chomsky, David Korten, Naomi Klein, and countless
others have through the years helped spread essential
information and ideas.  For every person who reads such
books, many more are effected indirectly, in the course of
informal discussions, etc.

My own 'book' is the name I give to my efforts to collect
what I've learned, both here and elsewhere, into a readable
form.  I think some of the insights and perspectives are
missing from the so-far 'public debate' and could be of
benefit. So far it exists only on the web & scattered in
various magazine articles.  I think a printed-book version
might be able to reach general audiences, and could be a
good thing. Perhaps I'll sign up with one of those
'self-publishing on demand' services and try to sell copies
via Amazon & the web in general.

stay in touch,
rkm

============================================================================
From: mango <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: WATER --  A TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR PRIVATIZATION GRAB
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:08:35 +0100

    rkm posted> The World Bank "Sourcebook on Community Driven
    Development in the Africa Region" argues that "work is still
    needed with political leaders in some national governments
    to move away from the concept of free water for all."

Sounds almost straight out of The Lugano Report.

Thanks for these Richard - another classic example of our
collective insanity revealed.

Oh yes, I'm struggling with your concept of non-hierarchy in
relation to our biological make-up. First we must remove the
reptilian brain stem, methinks ;-)

mango
http://www.environment.org.uk/activist/

================

Dear mango,

I'm not familiar with the Lugano Report, though I've come
across the name before.  What is it?

Why do you refer to the actions of the World Bank as being
an example of 'our collective insanity'?  Is it not the
collective insanity of a particular ~clique~ of people, who
have usurped control of our societies?  'They', I suggest,
are not 'us'.  They, by their actions, isolate themselves from
the rest of humanity.  Our own responsibility, as I see it, is to 
remove them from power and restore sanity to society. 

As for our 'biological makeup', let me once again recommend
to everyone "The Story of B".  One of the main points Quinn
emphasizes is that "This is not how we are."  That is, the
dominator paradigm is not characteristic of human nature in
general, but only of a particular cultural branch.  The
Garden of Eden story tells us that the first humans emerged out
of nowhere, already imbued with the 'subdue and conquer'
imperative.  This is a lie.  Adam's expulsion from the
Garden is something that happened very recently, only 10,000
years ago, when some tribe in the Fertile Crescent adopted
the dominator world view.

As I see it, the belief that 'this is how we are'  is both
incorrect and disempowering.  It is ~not~ biologically
impossible for us to create societies which are in harmony
with the world, with each other, and with the spiritual!

yours,
rkm

============================================================================
Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:06:10 -0600
From: Paul Riesz <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
CC: Fair Trade <•••@••.•••>, WSN <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Can capitalism be reformed?

Dear Richard:

The fact that your views are shared by others and can be
found in books does not constitute logical proof. On the
other hand my views have proved their validity during the
very long time in which Capitalism has existed WITHOUT
reaching the harmful extremes, that can be observed at
present.

After World War II, the principles of Lord Keynes were
applied in most Western societies with excellent results,
softening the business cycle and resulting in vastly
improved living standards for their people. It was not
paradise on earth, but the regulatory intervention of
governments in the economy prevented excesses and promised a
better future for everybody.

Even great corporations benefited from such policies and
produced quite satisfactory profits for their shareholders
without interruptions.

These principles have not lost their efficiency, but could
again be used to REFORM our society, if we succeed in
guiding the energy of the millions of protesters and
unsatisfied citizens into a more positive attitude of
fighting not only AGAINST corporate domination but FOR a
better alternative.

  Regards               Paul

================

Dear Paul,

Yes, after World War II, the principles of Lord Keynes 'were
applied' with temporary beneficial result for Northern
(Western) populations.  You might think about who it was who
decided to apply them, who it is who decided later to stop
applying them, and why they did so.

In this regard, it is important to understand that there was
a growth plan in operation.  That plan was based on
extensive development of the South (third world), and the
plan worked very well, from the perspective of capitalist
elites.  Huge profits were generated, enough to share with
Northern workers and middle classes, while still permitting
acceptable corporate profits and capital growth.  This gave
us an era in the North not only of prosperity, but also of
general popular support for the regime.

But then around 1972 or so the growth began to decline. 
Growth ~always~ must decline, eventually, in any particular
market situation.  This has happened repeatedly throughout
the history of capitalism. In this case, world markets were
becoming saturated, and prices were being driven down on
world markets by Japanese competition.  Recessions and
'stagflation' were plaguing Northern economies, and new
avenues for growth needed to be found.  Such avenues ~were~
found, and they are called 'neoliberalism' (ie, Reganaism,
Thatcherism, globalization, etc.)

Part of neoliberalism is a reduction in corporate taxes,
leading to under-funded governments and reduced public
services.  Also part of neoliberalism is an attack on
unions, reductions in real wages and benefits, and the
flight of investment to the lower-waged South.  Thus, one of
the ways neoliberalism provides new growth to capital is by
grabbing part of 'our piece' of the economic pie.

What I'm trying to say is that this is not an easily
reversed process.  It is not 'increased greed' that led to
neoliberalism, but simply a continuation of the standard
level of greed - the need to keep growing.  Your Keynesian
example does not prove that growth is not required by
capitalism.  Instead the Keynsian episode serves as an
excellent example of how capitalist elites manage to create
growth opportunities by regularly re-engineering society.

Yes we can reform society in just the way you suggest - 
but the result would not be capitalism.  Why can't you 'get it'?

rkm

============================================================================
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Guidebook synopsis
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 01 15:37:55 -0700
From: Bruce Elkin <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
cc: "Sam Lightman" <•••@••.•••>

Richard,

Here's the pertinent passages from Eisler's book re:
hierarchies.  The context is that she is searching for a
better term than 'patriarchy' to describe the differences
between what she calls dominator and partnership societies,
without invoking terms that set one half of society against
the other.

'At best, she say, 'we have words like matriarchy to
describe the opposite of patriarchy.  But these words only
reinforce the prevailing view of reality (and human nature)
by describing two sides of the same coin.  Moreover, by
bringing to mind emotion-laden and conflicting images of
tyrannical fathers and wise old men, patriarchy does not
even accurately describe our present system.'

***

For a more precise term than patriarchy to describe a social
system ruled through force or the threat of force by men, I
propose the term androcracy.  Already in some use, this term
derives from the Greek root words andros, or 'man' and
kratos (as in democratic), or ruled.

To describe the real alternative to a system based on the
ranking of half of humanity over the other, I propose the
new term gylany.  Gy derives from the Greek root word gyne,
or 'woman'.  An derives from andros, or 'man'.  The letter l
between the two has a double meaning.  In English, it stands
for the linking of both halves of humanity, rather than, as
in adrocrcracy, their ranking.  In Greek, it derives from
the verb lyein or lyo, which in turn has a double meaning:
to solve or resolve (as in analysis) and to dissolve or set
free (as in catalysis).  In this sense, the letter l stands
for the resolution of our problems through the freeing of
both halves of humanity from the stultifying and distorting
rigidity of roles imposed by the domination hierarchies
inherent in androcratic systems.

This leads to a critical distinction between two very
different kinds of hierarchies that is not made in
conventional usage.  As used here, the term hierarchy refers
to systems of human rankings based on force or the threat of
force.  The domination hierarchies are very different from a
second type of hierarchy, which I propose be called
actualization hierarchies.  These are the familiar
hierarchies of systems within systems, for example, of
molecules, cells, and organs of the body: a progression
toward a higher, more evolved, and more complex level of
function.  By contrast, as we may see all around us,
domination hierarchies characteristically inhibit the
actualization of higher functions, not only in the overall
social system but also in the individual human.  This is a
major reason that a gylanic model of social organization
opens up far greater evolutionary possibilities for our
future than an androcratic one.'  [End of Reisler quote.]

The trouble with folks who use the term hierarchy only to
refer to dominator (or worse dominating androcracies) is
that they tend to reject all forms of hierarchy.  But how
can we reject the structural basis of our own bodies? 
Social groupings?  We do so only at great peril.

Throughout nature, systems are nested in higher order
systems.  As one moves from system to system, there is a
natural progression toward a higher, more evolved, and more
complex level of function.  To reject hierarchy out of hand,
which many in feminist, deep ecology, and eco-feminist
groups do, is to reject an important natural phenomena.  And
prevent further progression to higher, more evolved, and
more complex levels of function.  It kind of calls a halt to
history and development.

Of course the systems themselves don't recognize this
rejection and keep on self-organizing themselves in nested
systems of hierarchies.

I'll stop there for now.  HOpe this helps.  Cheers!
Bruce

=========

Dear Bruce,

Thanks for your very well articulated summary of Eisler's
views on hierarchies.  I find the term 'gylany' to be very
un-useful, but that's a secondary issue.

    > But how can we reject the structural basis of our own
    bodies?  Social groupings?...
    
    > Throughout nature, systems are nested in higher order
    systems.  As one moves from system to system, there is a
    natural progression toward a higher, more evolved, and more
    complex level of function.  To reject hierarchy out of hand,
    which many in feminist, deep ecology, and eco-feminist
    groups do, is to reject an important natural phenomena.  And
    prevent further progression to higher, more evolved, and
    more complex levels of function.  It kind of calls a halt to
    history and development.

There are some very important distinctions that are being
glossed over in the above ideas.  Whether that is due to
your summary or to Eisler's work I cannot be sure.

The following, I suggest, are all ~very~ different kings of things:
    (1) the hierarchy of cells etc. in the body
    (2) the functioning of an ecosystem
    (3) the structure of social groupings

The body is ~indeed~ organized hierarchically.  The brain
controls volitional activity, and hormones (etc.) regulate
various bodily functions.  'Decisions' are made at central
points, and then various parts of the body are 'instructed'
to comply.  A cell's way of responding to its environment is
qualitatively altered by these 'outside instructions'.

An ecosystem is ~not~ a hierarchy - it is totally
anarchic, with each plant and animal acting autonomously.
One can describe a 'higher level' of functioning, but that
is a conceptual ~invention~ on the part of the observer. 
What we actually observe is a 'pattern of autonomous
interactions and relationships' that has evolved over time,
and which have reached a dynamic balance.  These patterns
'arise autonomously from below', they are not 'enforced from
above by some central regulating agency'. The 'regulating
agencies' are the forces of nature (rainfall etc) and the
behavior characteristics of the individual organisms in
response to nature and to other organisms in their vicinity.

To put hierarchical 'social groupings' into a discussion of
'important natural phenomena' totally confuses the issues. 
The fact is that up until the agricultural revolution, the
evidence indicates that all social groupings were
non-hierarchical.  If one is to speak at all of 'natural'
human societies, I suggest that it is these pre-agricultural
forms that we must look at.  Hierarchical social groupings
arose after the agricultural revolution, which happened
~very~ recently.  They are recent inventions, just like ploughs
and stirrups.

This particular recent ~invention~ - hierarchical societies - is, I
suggest, THE PROBLEM.

The solution to the problem, according to my investigations,
is to organize societies more along the lines of ecosystems
than along the lines of the body.

---

 > And prevent further progression to higher, more evolved, and
    more complex levels of function.  It kind of calls a halt to
    history and development.

This conclusion was reached only because of the confused 
reasoning I've been critiquing above.  

In fact, a decentralized society - along with modern
communications technologies - would be ~better~ suited to
the further evolution of ideas, and art, and even
technologies.  Many centers of creativity, and
experimentation, and autonomy, are much more creatively
productive than a smaller number of centers.  Certainly, in
a livable society, we would pursue ~different~ technologies,
and for different purposes.  We wouldn't continue to develop
nuclear weapons, for example.  There are some technologies
we are better off not knowing about, such as nuclear,
genetic engineering, and techniques of genocide.  There are some
pandora's boxes that are better left closed.

As for 'development', there are also some developments which
are better left un-pursued.  These are also such pandora's
boxes.  What we need is for technology and development to
become ~tools~ to be used in pursuit of sensible societal
objectives.  What we have now is technology and development
running amok, "progressing" like a sorcerer's apprentice
robot, and having long-since become a danger to we who
set them in motion.

---

As for patriarchy, I consider that a symptom, not the
disease.  Once hierarchy and coercion become the mode of
societal organization, it is rather predictable that the
physically stronger sex would come to monopolize the
stations of power.  Take away the stations of power, and you
disempower the tyrants, whether you characterize them as
male, white, wealthy, alpha, or whatever.

bye for now,
rkm

============================================================================

Share: