Friends,
Here is a 20 minute talk I'm planning to use
during my tour, at bookstores and other public
gatherings.
It's quite a challenge trying to get the main
ideas of the book into such a short form.
As usual, feedback invited.
cheers,
richard
____________________
(CRISIS)
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
Imagine a wide river, flowing swiftly toward a precipitous waterfall.
Our civilization is a ship on that river,
steaming full-speed ahead downstream, heading
right for the falls, and the rocks below.
The only way we can avoid that catastrophe is to
turn the ship around and steam the other way.
Slowing down the ship is no real help, that only
postpones disaster for a little while. Protest
movements, political reforms, and personal
life-style choices are only capable of slowing
down the ship a bit. And if we look at our global
track record, despite all our brave activism, we
aren't even succeeding in slowing the ship down.
Who is at the helm of our ships of state? We all
know the answer to that: it's people like Bush &
Cheney & Blair -- and the folks behind them,
people like Rockefeller, the DuPonts, and
Kissinger --the elites of business, oil, and
finance. These folks are totally committed to
continuing on our current path, what they call
'economic growth'. As long as they're in control,
they don't care if there are famines and economic
collapses. For example, the Great Depression was
very beneficial to such people -- they foreclosed
on thousands of farms and launched the modern
agribusiness industry when the Depression was
over. They used the depression increase their
ownership share of everything, at bargain prices.
Ladies and gentlemen, the only way we can save
humanity is by gaining control of the helms of
our societies. That is the only way the ship can
be turned around. Impossible as it may seem, we
need to create real democracy. We need to learn
how to govern our own societies -- to govern
ourselves. For 4,000 years, ever since
civilization began, we've been controlled by one
elite or another. We have finally reached the
point where we cannot afford to put up with it
any longer. Either we learn how to govern
ourselves or we perish. I'd like to share with
you a quote that I use at the beginning of my
book:
(HIERARCHY)
"We've lived so long under the spell of hierarchy-from
god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses-that only recently
have we awakened to see not only that "regular" citizens
have the capacity for self-governance, but that without
their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed.
The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let
alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move
toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel
meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement.
Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to
yield to directives from on high."
-Frances Moore Lappé, "Time for Progressives to Grow Up"
What I'd like to talk about today is how we can
begin this kind of 'direct engagement'... What
is real democracy? What does it look like? How
can we achieve it? I'll be talking about these
things for a while, putting some ideas before
you. Then I'd like to open it up for questions
and discussion.
(DEMOCRACY)
The word 'democracy' is rather abstract. I think
a better term is 'self-governance'. Democracy is
about governing ourselves, as a society. This
isn't something we have any experience at. It's
something we need to learn how to do.
Everywhere in our society, when we want to get
something done, we seek solutions in terms of
hierarchies. When we engage in political
lobbying, we are asking our hierarchical
governments to solve our problems. When we join a
political party, or an environmental
organization, we are expecting a centralized
leadership to fight for our causes. If we get
involved in a local citizen's group, we usually
end up delegating to some committee, to actually
'get things done'. Our model is always to
delegate actual decision making to some central
organization, some hierarchy. That's how we 'get
things done' in our society.
And hierarchies do work, they do get things done,
but they aren't necessarily the things we want
done. In the long-run we pay a high price for
this delegation of power, as we can see from the
course civilization has taken, where it has
brought us to. Hierarchies, particularly on a
large scale, always end up being controlled by
elite cliques and wealthy interests. It's always
been this way all through history, right up until
today, with Bush and the neocons. And these
elites think of humanity as something to be
exploited, just like resources are exploited,
just like cattle are exploited. 'civilized man'
is really 'domesticated man'. The words of our
politicians are simply soothing melodies in the
barnyard, played so that the cattle will remain
calm.
Governing ourselves is about learning how to make
decisions without delegating. It really comes
down to learning how to work together, and dialog
together. We don't really have good models of how
to work together and make decisions on a group
basis. We are taught to be competitive and we are
taught to always defend our own self interest. So
when we try to work together, we end up arguing
-- 'my' solution against 'your' solution.
Sometimes we vote, and one side wins and the
other side loses. Or, as I've been saying, we
usually end up delegating the problem to others.
(FACILITATION)
Now it turns out that there are other ways to
engage in dialog. Ways that are not about
arguing, but about taking everyone's concerns
into account. This kind of dialog isn't about
choosing among alternative, but about working
together to find creative solutions that everyone
can be excited about.
For most of my life I didn't know these kinds of
dialogs were even possible. I'm basically an
argumentative fellow, and I don't get along very
well in groups. But I had an experience a few
years back, in an activist gathering in Berkeley,
that kind of blew my mind, and woke me up to new
possibilities.
We were arguing, tempers were flaring, and a
woman spoke up and asked if she could try
facilitating. I didn't even know what
facilitation was, but we all decided to give it a
try. The results were really amazing, and what
she did turned out to be very simple. She was
basically helping us to hear one another, instead
of talking across one another. She started by
simply asking the upset people why they had come
to the meeting, and what they hoped to get out of
it. Pretty soon, the 'space' in the room opened
up, everyone was sharing stories and experiences,
and we found ourselves on the 'same wavelength'.
Not only did the discussion become more
productive, but there was an emotional dimension:
a relaxing of tension, almost a euphoric feeling
-- along with a strong sense of bonding, and of
'being in this together'.
After this experience, I spent the next year
learning about facilitation, and group processes.
I visited some of the leading-edge people in this
field, and spent many hours -- sometimes days --
talking with them. I discovered that there is a
whole rich world of facilitation, and a whole
range of methods that have proven effective in
various group situations.
It turns out, and this has been proven in
repeated real-world cases, that almost any group
of people, no matter how far apart they may be in
terms of their beliefs and their perceived
interests, can be enabled to have the same kind
of breakthrough we experienced in Berkeley. By
engaging in dialog in the right ways, they can
almost always 'break on through to the other
side', and begin working together creatively and
effectively. It's hard to believe, I know, but
the hard evidence is there. It's been proven over
and over again, with ordinary people, in
real-world situations. I can give you some
examples in the discussion period later if you
like.
As I continued my research, I learned that early
societies, indigenous societies, all tend to use
these same kind of processes when they make
important decisions. In the Hawaiian culture, for
example, they have something called 'h'o pono
pono', where an elder simply listens, to each
person in turn, with everyone else 'overhearing'.
Eventually the 'right answer' emerges, and it is
obvious to everyone. In Native American cultures,
they had the peace pipe, and pow wows, and again
they used these kinds of processes to make tribal
decisions and decisions among tribes. Contrary to
what we see in Hollywood Westerns, there was not
a Chief who gave everyone else orders.
(HARMONIZATION)
This special kind of dialog -- which turns out to
be part of our primordial heritage -- is the
special ingredient that can enable us to learn
how to work together -- to learn how to
understand one another, make wise decisions
together, and govern our own communities and
societies -- without delegating authority to
anyone. I use the term 'harmonization' to
describe how these dialog processes work. People
come in with competing interests, and conflicting
ideas, and through dialog these differences can
be 'harmonized' into creative solutions that take
everyone's concerns into account.
Of course there's a big jump from harmonization
in a small group, to the governance of whole
societies. That's really what the book is about:
thinking through the implications of
harmonization, and working out how these kinds of
processes can be used to transform our societies.
We know harmonization works with small groups,
that much is proven. Now let's take this one step
further, and consider harmonization within a
local community.
(WISDOW COUNCIL)
Two years ago, in Ashland Oregon, a group of
local citizens were invited to participate in a
'Wisdom Council'. A Wisdom Council is a
particular kind of harmonization process,
developed by Jim Rough, of Port Townsend
Washington. The citizens were selected randomly,
and they spent two full days in dialog, using
Jim's method, called 'Dynamic Facilitation'.
Following the second day's session, in the
evening, a public meeting was held, where the
Wisdom Council participants reported back to the
community on their experience. This was all
captured on video, and a documentary was
produced, by Joseph McCormick and Pat Spino.
I watched this video, in the company of Joseph
and Pat, and I could see for myself that the
results were truly amazing. At the beginning of
the first day's session, the participants seemed
rather shy, didn't have much to say, didn't show
a lot of energy -- they were just going along for
the ride to see what might happen. There was no
specified agenda or topic, and Jim simply
encouraged people to start talking about whatever
concerned them in their community.
What a difference there was at the end of the
second day! They seemed like a different group of
people. They were full of energy, and when they
gave their reports to the public gathering, you
would have thought they were seasoned public
speakers. They had decided in their session to
talk about funding for education, and they had
come up with some creative proposals. But the big
thing they talked about was their experience of
empowerment, what they described as a spirit of
'We the People'. They had seen how they -- an
ordinary group of people -- were capable of
finding their common ground, and capable of
working creatively together to solve problems.
They could sense in their bones that a new kind
of democracy was possible.
Their phrase, 'We the People', expressed not just
their own group experience, but a broader sense
that We the People -- generally -- have both the
capacity, and the wisdom, to govern our own
affairs. As the participants gave their reports,
the local citizens in the audience were
captivated by what they heard. The energy of the
participants was infectious, and the audience
were 'getting it' about the We the People spirit.
The audience broke into small groups, with one
session participant at each table, and each table
engaged in its own little dialog process. By the
time the evening was over, the whole room was
buzzing with energy, and everyone was excited
about the possibility of greater participation by
ordinary citizens in the decisions that affect
their community.
(EXTRAPOLATING)
Now let us consider what might happen if a whole
series of Wisdom Councils were to be held in the
same community, say over a period of six months.
Each time a new cross-section of citizens would
participate, and each time there would be a
public gathering to talk about what came out of
the sessions. Let us also suppose that an article
would be published in the local paper after each
event, reporting on the Wisdom Council and the
public meeting that followed.
This is an experiment that has not been carried
out yet, so I'm extrapolating here, going out on
a limb. But based on what happened in Ashland, I
am convinced that we could expect some very
exciting outcomes from such a series of
harmonization events. Each successive session
would expose new people to the dialog experience,
and I imagine the public meetings would become
larger and larger as more people learned about
the excitement and energy of the events. Before
long, the whole community would be aware of what
was going on, and the newspaper articles would
keep everyone informed of what kind of ideas and
proposals were coming out of the sessions. I
believe that these ideas and proposals would
begin to converge -- that a community wide sense
would emerge around 'these are the main issues',
and 'this is what we want to do about them'. Let
me explain why I feel optimistic about this
'convergence' process.
If the people that participate in a session
represent a rough cross-section of the community,
then we can think of them as a 'microcosm' of the
community. If there are about 12 people, selected
randomly, then most of the viewpoints, and
interest groups, in the community are likely to
'find voice' in the dialog. When this 'microcosm'
succeeds in harmonizing its concerns, then the
ideas they come up with are likely to find
resonance in the community generally -- because
most people will see that their own concerns
'found voice' in the dialog. If some sectors of
the community happens to be left out in one
session, they would be likely to 'find voice' in
subsequent sessions. As the sessions continue,
with reporting in the local paper, you can see
why the ideas and dialog would be likely to
converge.
(WE THE PEOPLE)
I believe that such a series of harmonization
events would be likely to lead to a general sense
of We the People -- of democratic empowerment --
in the community. The convergence process would
be likely to evolve into a 'consensus community
agenda', that everyone would feel a part of. Even
though some people never got to participate
personally in a session, they would have friends
and neighbors that did participate, and everyone
would feel that their own concerns had been taken
into account in the process.
Imagine what a powerful thing this would be -- a
whole community united behind a common agenda,
and empowered by a dialog process that is
effective, creative, and that brings in
everyone's concerns. This is what democracy would
look like, this is what self-governance would
feel like. There is no delegation of authority
here, no central committee, no hierarchy. Just
the people working together and making decisions
together. Democracy is not an institution, it's a
way of working together. It's not a form of
government, it's self-governance. A government
makes decisions for you, self-governance is about
you making your own decisions, in collaboration
with your friends and neighbors. Harmonization
dialog is the key to making all this possible.
In such a community, the mayor and city council
would not set policy, they would be carrying out
the policies that the people themselves come up
with. These city officials would not be
politicians, but simply public-spirited citizens
who are willing to take on the burden of
administrative and management tasks on behalf of
their friends and neighbors. Nowhere in such a
community is there any delegation of
policy-making authority to anyone or to any
institution. This would well and truly be a
self-governing community, an island of real
democracy in the larger hierarchical society.
(IS YOUR COMMUNITY READY?)
Such an experiment has not been carried out yet.
One of my goals during this tour will be to look
for communities that might be interested in
trying such an experiment. The investment
required would be very small: a bit of funding to
bring in skilled facilitators, a place to meet,
and the time invested by the participants. Local
people could learn how to facilitate themselves,
public buildings could be used for meetings, and
the whole process could be locally
self-sustaining and virtually cost free. My
message to this community, and to all
communities, is this: Why not give it a try? You
have nothing to lose -- and your own liberation
to gain.
I'd like to close with just a few brief comments,
and then open up the floor to your comments and
questions. I'm very interested in your ideas and
what you have to say.
What I've talked about so far is a summary of the
first five chapters of the book. The rest of the
book goes on to explore how a few self-governing
communities would be likely to be infectious:
other communities would see the results and want
to try it for themselves. It could become a
movement, but it would be a cultural movement
more than a political movement. There would be no
leaders in this movement, and it would have no
'political platform'. It would simply be more and
more communities waking up and learning how to
govern themselves.
The rest of the book explores how this process
could be expected to lead to a self-governing
society, a truly democratic society, based on
local autonomy and voluntary collaboration among
communities. Rather than governments to deal with
large-scale issues, we would have councils of
delegations that would meet and engage in
harmonization dialog, just as the Native
Americans had pow wows among tribes. All
proposals would go back to individual communities
for ratification. Miraculous as it may seem, it
would be possible for every one of us to
participate directly in making the big important
global decisions.
Thank you very much for your patience and
attention. Now its your turn to say something.
Who wants to go first?
____________________
Share: