Bcc: contributors and recent correspondents Friends, In recent postings we've been engaging in dialog with other online communities, or at least with their moderators. Folks like Tom Atlee, Dave Paulsen, John Bunzl, Arthur Topham, and Jay Fenello. Sometimes email lists feel like isolated islands, and it's good to get messages-in-a-bottle once in while from other shores. To a certain extent, we moderators are crusaders for a certain point of view. Therefore it is not surprising that our exchanges and debates do not lead to any of us switching our point of view. In some sense, we end up where we started, and sometimes that can feel like a waste of time. But the exchanges aren't a waste of time. For one thing, if we share the exchanges with our lists, you folks get to see some ideas outside the normal fare on your list. Also, even though we don't switch our point of view, each of us moderators does learn and evolve their ideas over time. We may not even be aware of a shift, but might find ourselves taking a broader view in our later material. In particular, as these recent exchanges have slowed down, I find myself inspired to do some thinking from a somewhat new focus... Faith, Humanity, and Power ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We humans seem to have an innate need for a faith. Even the earliest societies had myths to explain where the world came from, what humanity's role in that world is, how the particular tribe came to be, and how people are supposed to behave in that tribe. Perhaps this 'need to understand the world and our place in it' is what most distinguishes us from our fellow mammals. We can conceive of the questions, and once that happens we worry until we have answers we can have faith in. From what I've read, it seems that these early myths were accepted by most tribal members as being Absolute Truth. On the other hand, at the level of Shaman or Medicine Man/Woman, there seems to have been more understanding that myths were not always literally true -- but that they served an important function in society nonetheless. A placebo brew could cure someone's headache because the person believed it would, if the Shaman didn't have the genuine ingredients on hand that day. From the earliest days, there appears to have been some element of "Don't tell the kids there's no Santa Clause" involved with popular faiths. Nonetheless, these early mythologies were important for the livelihood of the tribe, even essential to their very survival. With a common understanding of the world and how to behave, it was possible for people to collaborate effectively in their hunting, food sharing, child raising, etc. Even if we dismiss their beliefs as primitive superstition, we can recognize that the mythologies were an invaluable collective asset. Faith delivered collective empowerment. And it is probably fair to say that each individual tribal member benefited more or less equally from the existence of these shared beliefs. There might have been gender injustices in some cases, but at least there weren't class injustices. The societies weren't big enough or wealthy enough to afford class distinctions. We can say that the benefits of faith were for the most part egalitarian. After agriculture, with more complex societies, myths and personalized nature gods evolved into more formal religions. When writing came along, it became possible to elaborate these religions still further, accreting detailed history into them over time, as in the Old Testament. Religions co-evolved with their societies, imposing an evolving belief system that served the stability of the evolving society. As a result of this process, the benefits of faith grew away from egalitarianism. We can see from preserved ancient texts that editing and deleting occurred in these religions over time, showing that the evolution of religion was sometimes a conscious, intentional process -- a process that served the interests of elites more than it did the interests of common people. The element of "Don't tell the kids there's no Santa Claus" was becoming sinister, whereas in the beginning it had been only a benign exaggeration. The development of civilization has been facilitated by the evolution of power hierarchies. Religions evolved so as to support these hierarchies, and to justify the power of the ruling elites. To the extent religion stabilized society, we can say everyone received a benefit. To the extent religion gave some people power over others, we can say the religion gave elites a tool of mass subjugation. To that extent, faith delivered enslavement rather than empowerment. We date our Western calendar from the beginning of the Christian religion. The first version of this calendar was adopted soon after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its State Religion. Christianity -- with its arrogance, its monotheism, and its promise of the afterlife -- was a perfect tool in the hands of ruling elites. Faith in Christianity led to acceptance of hierarchical authority, and it focused hope on the afterlife. Elites had the authority to impose unjust systems, while the socially privileged priests counselled their flocks to seek their relief in the afterlife. The arrogant intolerance of Christianity toward other faiths (and sects) served the interests of elites who wanted to expand their realms through conquest. Islam when it came along later had these same characteristics. The word 'flock' is significant. To a certain extent, these religions succeed in reducing people to sheep at the mercy of their elite herders. Or when expansion through warfare is desired by elites, the flock of sheep can be converted to a pack of wolves, as their priests tell them that the faith must be defended and that God or Allah is on their side. Both of these religions were spread by the sword. The imposition of faith was as important to the expansion of empires as was the deployment of troops and ships. By forcing more 'primitive' societies to abandon their belief systems, those societies were destabilized and disempowered -- their collective survival asset was stolen from them. They became inter-dependent with the empire for their economic livelihood, reducing the scale of physical enforcement required to ensure compliance with the needs of empire. With the Protestant Revolution, we can see a religion being modified and adapted to suit realignments among elite power elements. In particular, we are seeing the power of kings being increased relative to the power of religious elites. Church was becoming more a tool of State and less an independent power in its own right. And Protestantism emphasized virtues (self-discipline, pride, hard work) which better suited national expansion than did those of the Roman Church. And for all this time people retained their innate need to have faith in something. Although the modern religions enslave, and are conscious tools in the hands of elites (consider GW Bush's religious posturing) -- they do nonetheless provide, for many, a necessary element of psychological nutrition. They give the faithful a feeling of security and a hope for the future. People have a need for faith, just as they may have a need for occasional relief from reality through intoxication. Religion dispenses its version of faith, just as a drug dealer dispenses his brand of intoxication. A metaphor from The Matrix comes to mind... "Even though they're enslaved, they'll fight to the death to defend the Matrix." In the Western world up until about 1750, these religions remained the dominant means of mass mind control used by ruling elites. And then once more, as in the Protestant Revolution, there began a process of power realignment among elites. And once more, this realignment was accompanied by the propagation of a new more fitting faith -- one that would support the new power structure while continuing to enslave the masses. The new power realignment was spurred by industrialization and growing trade with colonies. In an aristocratic society, wealth distribution is relatively static. Estates and titles are inherited, and patterns of wealth tend to persist from generation to generation. "Everyone has their own station in life" is a central part of the enslaving belief structure. Industrialization and growing trade changed this wealth-distribution system -- it enabled entrepreneurs to rapidly accumulate fortunes. In an aristocratic society wealth and power are aligned and stable. With industrialization and trade, wealth and power began to shift out of alignment. The nouveau riche had more money than power. This imbalance was unstable. Wealth always finds a way to power -- with the same inevitability as water seeking its own level. The leading industrialists and traders became a dynamic new elite in society, with ever-growing influence and wealth. But their influence and opportunities were being constrained by the existing power elites and their economic system. The American colonies were prohibited from industrializing and all of their trade with non-British ports was required to pass through a British port before returning home. Meanwhile protectionist laws in Britain inhibited maximum industrial growth there. The new commercial elite was everywhere rankling under such restrictions and constraints. They yearned for more freedom to pursue opportunities, for an economic and political system that wouldn't constrain their enterprises. The commercial elite was not alone in favoring the new economic dynamism. Many thinking people in the colonies and Britain envisioned a bright new future of progress and economic expansion -- enabled by the liberation of the entrepreneurial spirit. The old order was supported by faith in revealed religion, faith in the right of kings to rule, and faith in an orderly society with everyone in their place. These faiths favored stability over dynamism, and inherited power over power gained through successful enterprise. Thinkers who favored economic dynamism began questioning these faiths, and searching for a new basis of belief. Their thinking was radical. This new thinking -- Enlightenment thinking -- amounted to a direct assault on all the guiding faiths of the day. They argued for reason and against revealed dogma, for freedom and self-determination and against royal rule and entrenched aristocracies, for economic dynamism and against a constrained economic order. They were applying the notion of dynamism and freedom to to all aspects of life. They envisioned prosperous democratic republics, enjoying freedom and political equality, pursuing rational policies, not constrained by dogma. This vision was so appealing that it eventually became -- and remains today -- the dominant faith for most of us in the West. In their time, however, these ideas were very radical. They challenged the legitimacy of the existing order and they promised freedom to the masses. They were dangerous to ruling elites. But the ideas were appealing to the masses and also to the up-and-coming commercial elite. Not only did the ideas favor economic freedom and growth, but their popular appeal presented a tremendous political opportunity to the new elite. If the masses could be roused to revolution carrying the Enlightenment banner of freedom, the ruling elites might be ousted from power. The problem for the commercial elite, in such an eventuality, would be to ensure that they emerged in power after the dust had settled. And in fact revolutionary fervor began to spread. Leadership and inspiration came from many camps. There were those like Tom Paine and Wolfe Tone -- genuine campaigners for popular sovereignty and genuine democracy -- whose ideas were pivotal in spreading Enlightenment thinking to the masses. And there were those who adopted the rhetoric but had other agendas. In the end, the leadership of the American Revolution came to be dominated by the colonial commercial elite. And it was they who ended up in a position to translate Enlightenment thinking into concrete systems of government. The rhetoric of the revolution had become a new faith, a faith that had sustained the masses in fighting the 'tyrant' in the hope of achieving freedom and democracy. The new leadership had every reason to encourage this new faith and to adopt its rhetoric. Indeed that was necessary in order hold the support of the people, a people who were still fired up about their right to change governments whenever they felt it necessary. But the new leadership also had every reason to interpret that rhetoric to their own benefit. And quite naturally, that is just what they did. Writers like Chomsky, Zinn, and Fresia have examined the Constitution and the attitudes of those who framed it. From reading their cogent and well-researched material, I think it is clear that the system of representative government established by the Constitution was designed specifically to promote economic freedom while at the same time enabling commercial elites to to guide government policy-- instead of being guided by what the framers referred to dismissively as 'the mob'. It is a document which claims to outline a democracy, but whose provisions actually imply a plutocracy. And in fact, if you look at American history, you see a story of continual economic expansion, elite-sponsored wars and government programs, massive accumulation of wealth and power by commercial elites, and the domination of government agencies by business interests. So once again, with our new Enlightenment faith, we find a decisive element of "Don't tell the children there's no Santa Claus." But it's the truth kids, there ain't no democracy and there never was any -- the idea of 'restoring democracy' makes no sense. Our faith once again enslaves us rather than empowers us. But most of us, for one reason or another, still cling to our faith in signing our power away to so-called representatives and experts. And most of the world still looks to American democracy as a model to emulate, even if particular American policies and leaders are looked on with disfavor. Nonetheless, we are seeing a flowering of radical thinking these days that reminds one of the time of the Enlightenment -- thinking that challenges many of the core faiths of our day. In Korten's writing about market economies we see a radical critique of capitalism, one such core faith. We also see with Korten a reprise of Adam Smith's Enlightenment thinking, along with an echo of Smith's effort to promulgate radical economic thinking at a politically critical moment in history. In the literature on sustainability, we find radical critiques of economic growth and of man's domination of nature -- both core Enlightenment faiths. We also find there radical new economic models, and suggestions for new faiths -- bordering on religions -- oriented around nature and its systems. People like Daniel Quinn and Riane Eisler dig back deep into our historically inherited beliefs, and come up with radical new perspectives on the world and our place in it. In the political arena we find radical critiques about how the system isn't working -- but we find very little that challenges the core faith in the basic system: power delegated to represenatives in hierarchical governments. People seem to hold onto that one with the same tenaciousness that Fundamentalists have for their literal interpretation of the Bible. I suppose the reason is that most people haven't thought to question this particular faith. The political system is so obviously corrupt that it is easy to think it is the corruption that needs to be addressed, not the underlying system. We continue to be so entranced by the flowery rhetoric of the Enlightenment that we imagine a paradise lost that needs only to be restored. Besides, what models do we have of governance that are better than what the Enlightenment came up with? In our hearts we believe that we live in a near-approximation to democracy and that throws us seriously off balance as we start thinking about how change can be brought about. In tracing through man's historical relationship with faith, I pointed out that shifts in faith have been accompanied by shifts in power relationships. Change was brought about partly by the promulgation of the new faith, and partly by the struggle for power by some social element. Without the new faith, the power seekers are unable to disturb the existing regime. Without the power seekers, the new faith has no hands to bring it into practical application. Furthermore, each new faith typically contained explicitly political ideas supportive of the new power regime. Enlightenment thinking directly challenged the power of church and royalty, and asserted a natural right of popular self determination. The earlier Protestant thinking challenged the authority of the established Catholic Church, which had the direct political consequence of bolstering the relative power of kings. If we want to be realistic about changing our diabolical system, I suggest that we need to think in terms of a shift in power relationships as much as we need to think about a change in our faiths and world views. And our faith, our vision, needs to include explicit political elements appropriate to the kind of world we want to see. If we don't think through our politics with as much care as we devote to sustainability and our other visions then we are ignoring the elephant in the kitchen. We must understand that SOME societal element will always end up running society. Nature abhors a power vacuum as much as it does any other kind of vacuum. It is naive utopianism to think that wonderful visions and ideas can so magically change the world that power no longer matters. People, like other mammals, are opportunistic creatures and always will be. If we begin thinking in terms of a change in power relationships, then I suggest that certain questions assume a central importance in that thinking: Who is it that is seeking power? What social element is prepared to assert itself as a replacement for the current elite regime? What social element would we find acceptable to play that role? Who do we trust to remain true to the principles of our new faith, of our new world view, our vision of peace, justice, and sustainability? I personally believe that those questions were adequately answered by the more idealistic of the Enlightenment thinkers (eg. Paine), and were well expressed in the rhetoric of the American Declaration of Independence. That vision -- sovereignty firmly rooted in We The People -- was betrayed later by those who claimed to be implementing the vision. But the vision itself I believe remains untarnished. If We The People are to assert our sovereignty, our power over our own destiny, then we need to think about what kind of politics could enable us to realize that power, maintain it, and use it to fulfill our visions. The Founding Fathers told us they had found that politics, and we believed them. Events have proven that to be a mistake. I suggest that we visit the question anew. Let us look at the question from a clean slate. In the same way we have looked at economics from a clean slate. In the past I have argued against hierarchical political structures, and claimed that they inevitably lead to usurpation of power by elites. In this current discussion, I would put my critique more softly, in the form of a few questions: Is hierarchy the best way to achieve popular sovereignty? Is it supportive of people controlling their own lives down at the grass-roots level of We The People? Is there any reason why hierarchy has to be the basis of our political thinking? Korten and Ray, with their Cultural Creatives, are envisioning a shift in power relationships -- but they are assuming that can occur within the existing political structures. Not only does this underestimate the ability of elites to trump the political process by manipulating events (as with 9-11 and its aftermath), but it presumes without examination that the paradigm of power delegated to representative hierarchies is a sound basis for genuine democracy. There are other thinkers in this modern wave who have a more radical political perspective, who appreciate that power and politics need equal attention to the rest of the radical vision. But many of these, including some in these recent exchanges, end up envisioning hierarchical structures. From what I've been able to gather, the preference for hierarchical structures seems to be rooted in a lack of trust in We The People. Such a lack of trust was natural to the commercial elites who took over the our previous revolution, but I suggest we need not follow their precedent, I suggest that we must make a leap of faith and trust. And I suggest that leap of faith need not be a blind leap -- there is good reason to believe that We The People can indeed be trusted to run our own affairs wisely. The final part of this posting -- soon to come I promise -- was recently sent in to me by Rosa Zubizarreta. She is responding to someone who questioned the legitimacy of the consensus processes, and in her response managed to create one of the most persuasive and accessible presentations of the power and meaning of consensus that I have seen. She explains how ordinary people can not only reach agreement, but can also reach surprisingly wise decisions about how to deal with problems that face them. More about such processes can be found on Tom Atlee's website (http://www.democracyinnovations.org). I suggest that those of you who are working on this vision thing -- this shift in faith that our world sorely needs -- look seriously at what Rosa has to say. Consider her vision as the core paradigm of a new political order -- an order firmly rooted directly in We The People. Think about how different scales of problems could be addressed by such processes, without introducing hierarchical power structures and authorities who exercise (and might abuse) discretionary power. Imagine with as much radical courage as you are willing to bring to the rest of your vision. Consider making a leap of faith -- faith in humanity. Most of you already express a faith in natural systems, and the inherent wisdom embodied in biological co-evolution. Why not have faith that nature's most highly evolved creature -- ourselves -- also embodies the wisdom of evolution? But before we get to Rosa's inspiring piece, there are two questions that I believe need to be brought out and briefly examined. For one: Who are We The People? Is it it just us self-appointed cultural creatives and progressives? Are we in our wisdom to guide the less enlightened, and make sure our own visions are implemented? I suggest that our leap of faith needs to go beyond that. We The People is all of humanity, including those who will stick stubbornly to Fundamentalist beliefs and those who harbor racist or sexist attitudes. They too are part of the human family. Rosa's consensus vision also offers us courage to make this further leap of faith, to trust all of We and not just the PC-correct We. In the processes she describes, these ideological difference that seem so important to us now turn out to be irrelevant abstract distractions. Processes such as Rosa describes get beyond those differences, and enable people to learn respect for one others values and to work collaboratively and creatively together. Racism and sexism are naturally undermined by these processes, through gradually greater understanding -- but there is no need for people to be 'purified in thought' before they can participate as equals in the processes. The second question turns out to be closely related to the first, but is a distinct question and is also of central importance in our understanding of how we should be proceeding to help bring about change: Is it necessary for us to achieve comprehensive agreement on a policy manifesto, as a precondition to pursuing a course of revolutionary action? I've taken the position, in agreement with others, that a change of faith and vision will indeed be an important part of social transformation, as it has been in the past. But that is quite different from insisting on a specific manifesto, and quite different from saying that the new faith must be adopted by everyone before real change can begin. Most of those I've been dialoging with have reached the conclusion that a new world view must be adopted by people generally as a pre-condition to change. Many of them insist that the new faith must be penned down in a manifesto that will ensure one or another pet principle, such as sustainability, bioregionalism, a new basis for the monetary system, a stakeholder model for corporation management, an end to fossil fuel use, an end to racism, etc. In response to this attitude I'd like to point out that in the revolutionary transitions we have examined, the process of promulgating and defining the new faith was tied up with the revolutionary process itself. The mass shift in vision occurred as much from the action of bringing about change, as it did from the new thinking and ideas that prepared the way in the preceding years. My own conclusion is that there is absolutely nothing else we need to do before turning our attention the actual business of pursuing revolutionary transformation. We don't need to elaborate our understanding of sustainability beyond the remarkable work that has already been done and published. We don't need to spread an awareness of ecology beyond the millions who already know about global warming, ozone depletion, species extinction, industrial pollution and rain-forest devastation. We don't need to get everyone to sign up in advance to give up their non-PC prejudices. We don't need to reach consensus among our progressive selves on an enlightened agenda for humanity. And most certainly we do not need to wait for the next election to find a way to start making waves. The new Enlightenment vision, the new faith, is already out there in the public consciousness. It's already been defined to the extent it needs to be defined. Its further promulgation and refinement can only happen as part of a process of revolutionary change. There is only one thing that needs to happen to empower us to begin taking action. That one thing is to make a single leap of faith, to a faith in humanity, a faith in We The People -- All of We The People, in all of our colors, with all of our personality faults, and with all of our degrees of understanding and non-understanding. If we can make that leap of faith ourselves, then I suggest we are in a position to begin making revolutionary waves of a new and different kind. Having made that leap myself -- and it is partly faith, not conclusively provable by reason -- I have subsequently come to see that this faith in humanity is actually the most fundamental principle in what I perceive to be our emerging new faith. It comes prior to sustainability, world peace, or any of the other obviously desirable qualities in our new world visions. These other things are after all common sense. With all the awareness and knowledge that is out there in the culture, and with our own participation -- assuming we are in fact the most enlightened ones -- why should we fear that the agenda will go astray if We The People find a way to take control over own own affairs? And if we have faith in We The People then isn't it appropriate that our manifestos and agendas be developed as part of We The People finding our identity and learning to work together? I hope that Rosa's words can help give us courage to make this leap of faith, by showing us how wisdom can be found in ordinary people, and how that wisdom arises naturally when the right kind of listening is encouraged. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:34:09 -0700 To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> From: Rosa Zubizarreta <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: the Reaction to consensus Dear Richard, good to hear from you. here is a response... you are free to forward it. ......... Ah, words can get so confusing! I am still often surprised and saddened to realize how few people have ever had the opportunity to experience a situation where, as a result of everyone being deeply heard, their differences naturally became part of a larger, synergistic, shared understanding, the kind that emerges spontaneously whenever space is created for our inherent human creativity to manifest.... If you have ever had this experience, you know that what I am talking about is completely possible. At the same time, since it is not a common experience in our culture, you might think that it is inherently rare. Yet some of us have had this experience on a fairly frequent basis. As a result, we know that there are simple and reliable paths we can use to get from "here" to "there" on a fairly regular basis... Most people have NOT had this experience, as the way that most "meetings" are currently run does not make this kind of outcome very likely. Instead, most of us have had a taste of "facipulation", or facilitator as manipulator, which very understandably can turn us off to the whole idea. Even more common are experiences of "negotiated agreement", which tend to lead us to settle for a very limited view of consensus as "an agreement that everyone can 'live with, even if they are not thrilled about it..." Because of this, many of us who practice a different way, do not like to speak of "consensus"... the word means something very different to most people, than what we seek to evoke and elicit. "Something everyone can 'live with'" does not even remotely come close to the joy, the magic, and the power of something that everyone is truly EXCITED ABOUT... For the sake of clarity, many of us are choosing to use the word "co-sensing", to differentiate what we do from the regular "consensus" model. What we do has nothing to do with negotiation or manipulation. Instead, our role is to allow a "shared understanding" to emerge naturally, of its own accord and in its own surprising ways... Of course, to those who have not had this experience, this will seem like madness, or like 'pie in the sky'... and, I have not been able to figure out a way around this. After all, why _should_ anyone who has not experienced it, believe that anything else is possible? I can see however how the language Richard used might be confusing... when people read, "shape the situation so that each comment contributes to the group", it can easily arouse people's fears of 'facilitator as manipulator'... which, as i've said before, is an all too common experience... Instead, the truth of the matter is so simple that it could easily be dismissed as absurd... the only way in which someone practicing an emergent or transformational approach to facilitation would "shape the situation" is by 1) serving as a "designated listener", making sure that every single person is fully and deeply heard; 2) "creating space" for different perspectives to co-exist, by simply acknowledging and honoring each one; 3) holding the space open for creative possibility, by REFRAINING from leading, shaping, nudging, the group in ANY particular direction. If you have not experienced this process, I do not expect you to understand HOW and WHY it works. Yet it allows for a very different kind of experience... one i prefer to call "a meeting of the minds and hearts". The process is similar, in some ways, to Bush and Folger's model of Transformational Mediation. They, too, have created a system that REFRAINS FROM "leading" the parties involved in any particular direction, and limits itself quite consciously to SUPPORTING each of the participants. Since this process has such enormous potential to make a difference (and Jim Rough is quite an idealist!) he has not chosen to trademark the name "Dynamic Facilitation". However, the downside of that, is that there are a lot of folks running around now using those words, and meaning VERY different things by it! For anyone who is interested, there are a number of articles about the process on Jim's website, at http://www.tobe.net. Some of them are more explicit than others. One caveat... I do not believe that it is possible to practice Dynamic Facilitation as long as we are making ANYONE out to be "the bad guy"... we have to truly live from the perspective that EVERYONE has a "piece of the puzzle", that everyone comes "bearing a gift", however hard that gift may be to discern at first.... and that it is not until each persons' concerns are deeply heard, that we will be able to create a world that works for all... -- ============================================================ There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in humanity, not gods or ideologies. cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog 'Truthout' excellent news source: http://www.truthout.org subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================
Share: