Jay Fenello wrote to rkm: In order to fix our system, we'll need a new consciousness among the people -- one that can see through the illusion as presented by the corporate media. rkm responded: I suggest that the ~process~ by which such a consciousness propagates will be every bit as much part of the revolution as the ~content~ of the consciousness. And I don't mean Internet. Jay: Would you share your current thinking on this topic? For myself, here's a scenario I can envision ... At the edges of chaos, within the many groups who are under attack, an infectious idea is waiting to be born. It's an idea ("meme") that will change the world. The meme will explain the common problem we all face, and give us an empowering way of working together to address it. It's a meme that will resonate so profoundly, that all of the subjugated people of the world will cease hostilities, and unite to address the current Earth crisis. (while the Internet may not be required for any of this to happen, I do believe it will help speed up the process.) rkm: I have come to some conclusions on this topic. And where I ended up is not at all where I began. My best attempt to write about this can be found at: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/manifesto.shtml Basically, my conclusion is that the needed meme is not about content but about process. That is, it is about politics. How does society make decisions, and how does it run itself? For the past 10,000 years, political history has had one central theme - the evolution of hierarchical control systems. From chiefs, to kings, to national governments, and finally we've reached the ultimate centralized global regime. 'Representative democracy' is simply a refined method of centralized control. Not that refined, actually, since it hasn't changed in its essence since the Roman Republic. Our model of representation is to select people who are then empowered to make decisions on our behalf. It doesn't work. It is an abdication of responsibility. We need to first decide locally what we want, and it is our agenda that needs to be represented, by whom is important but only secondarily. The central problem, as I see it, is that of achieving consensus at the local level. How can a community pool its common sense and knowledge in a synergistic, collaborative way. This isn't easy, but there are methods that work. It's not rocket science. An interesting source: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html One of the myths that needs to be overcome is the myth that it takes experts to solve problems, or even that experts are capable of solving problems. The real problems of the world are common-sense problems. Must we be sustainable? Obviously we do. What's the issue? Can we do it under an economic growth imperative? Of course not, that's obvious as well. That's all very sketchy and incomplete, but it shows you the flavor of where I've come to. I think we need many memes, each of which dispels one of the myths that enslaves us. In addition to the myth about experts, there's the myth that people can never agree, that ideological differences prevent consensus, that wide-scale decisions need to be made centrally, that common people lack wisdom, and many others. The one big meme, the one that will actually begin the electrifying process of change, is one of action. It's when communities actually begin to come together and find a common voice, a voice that expresses their own collective wisdom. The actual words of that voice are secondary, the problem is not one of correct ideology. The world is wide and there will be many solutions to problems. Viva la cultural difference! This one big meme, as I see it, can only take the form of a movement. That's really what a movement is - a meme in action. Sometimes it can't be reduced to simple words, and in that sense isn't a meme in the sense you were using the term. The anti-globalization movement, for example, is a 'social meme' that is only cheapened by any small set of slogans. But the anti-globalization movement is far too inside-the-box. It lives within the paradigm of 'noisy activists can eventually influence decision makers by swaying public opinion'. Acceptance of 'decision makers' is a fatal flaw, and 'public' as ~separate~ from the movement is a fatal flaw. The movement must be the public. The activist role must be a community-building role, not an "I'll lead the way" role. The answers must come from the people, and most activists are quite aware that they don't have all the answers. I'm impressed by an initiative that recently crossed my path: http://www.earley.org/Transformation/conscious_action_proposal.htm best regards, rkm
Share: