“First we win power and then we shall create a society worthy of humanity!” That is the realism of power and can do no more than reproduce power.
Changing the world without taking power
Domination and violence are two very different things. Domination is power over other people. It can be achieved via violence (hard domination) or by more subtle, non-violent methods. The concern of this blog is not violence per se. Domination, in my view, is at the root of the problems of our unraveling human societies, both the civilized ones, and the few others civilization is in the process of destroying. If someone asked me if violence can legitimately be used in the transformation of a domination-based society to an autonomous, power-sharing society, I would say that I see violence as a weapon of last resort, but never excluded on principle. So hang onto your vintage Hebrew slingshots, Ewok bamboo spears, halberds and scimitars, and your great granddad’s inlaid kris. They may be needed yet. But while blood baths regularly attend dominator struggles, I predict they will play only a minor role in creating the world of power-with.
Egalitarian tribes are known to have used a variety of graduated strategies against the occasional human who got out of hand. If all else failed, expulsion from the tribe or assassination were the options that remained. A powerful disruptor cannot be allowed to permanently damage the life of the tribe or imperil its viability. In a tribe where power-sharing and the cultural and personal habits and customs that go along with it – in other words, the cultural traditions of egalitarian sharing going back centuries or more – are strong, when the war chief turns despot in full view of everyone and is eliminated, things can go back to normal… with the tribe wiser for the experience.
We do not live in that kind of culture, nor do we have the habits of power-sharing deeply ingrained in our being. We are the captives of another system. Hard domination dates back to late Neolithic and beginning of the Bronze Age, about 6,000 years ago in the Near East; soft domination likely existed long before that. All we know now is domination. All of us civilized have lived lives of being dominated and dominating others. And that is the main reason why eliminating a passel of especially egregious dominators almost never works. It simply substitutes one set of dominators for another.
A thousand years ago, when the robber baron on the hill took half of the villagers’ chickens and winter food for himself and raped one girl too many, a few strong young men gathered in the woods to plot a rebellion and train in combat. One dark night, they marched up the hill to the castle, spiked the baron’s goons with pitchforks and tossed him and his family over the ramparts. The villagers cheered – until they realized that the boys up on the hill raided the baron’s wine cellars, stole the rest of villagers’ chickens and not a few pigs, and were living it up in style, attended by the remaining servants. When approached, they refused to leave the castle. Dominators who out-dominate the current dominators become the new dominators.
Fast forward to the twentieth century, that recent hotbed of revolutionary movements. To explain the trap of the ages-long and tragic efforts of trying to eliminate the dominators only to install new ones, I cannot possibly do better than quoting liberally from a small book by John Holloway called Change the world without taking power. Holloway is a (post?) Marxist concerned with capitalism as well as domination, and – a rare thinker, fully having absorbed the failures of revolutionary days gone by – clearly sees the futility of taking the power road. When he speaks of power, he means power-over (aka domination). When he mentions the state, he means the modern locus of domination. In a few instances, I have substituted the word “domination” for his “capitalism.” My concern is not with a 200 hundred year old economic system but rather with the pervasive millennia old system of domination within which all human relations have become embedded. (The book’s original text can be read here. And an expanded edition is about to be published next month.)
What can we do to make the world a better, more humane place? What can we do to put an end to all the misery and exploitation? There is an answer ready at hand. Do it through the state. Join a political party, help it to win governmental power, change the country in that way. Or, if you are more impatient, more angry, more doubtful about what can be achieved through parliamentary means, join a revolutionary organisation, help it to conquer state power, by violent or non-violent means, and then use the revolutionary state to change society. Change the world through the state: this is the paradigm that has dominated revolutionary thought for more than a century.
The state paradigm, that is, the assumption that the winning of state power is central to radical change, dominated not just theory but also the revolutionary experience throughout most of the twentieth century: not only the experience of the Soviet Union and China, but also the numerous national liberation and guerrilla movements of the 1960s and the 1970s. If the state paradigm was the vehicle of hope for much of the century, it became more and more the assassin of hope as the century progressed. The apparent impossibility of revolution at the beginning of the twenty-first century reflects in reality the historical failure of a particular concept of revolution, the concept that identified revolution with control of the state.
For over a hundred years, the revolutionary enthusiasm of young people has been channelled into building the party or into learning to shoot guns, for over a hundred years the dreams of those who have wanted a world fit for humanity have been bureaucratised and militarised, all for the winning of state power by a government that could then be accused of “betraying” the movement that put it there. “Betrayal” has been a key word for the left over the last century as one government after another has been accused of “betraying” the ideals of its supporters, until now the notion of betrayal itself has become so tired that there is nothing left but a shrug of “of course”. Rather than look to so many betrayals for an explanation, perhaps we need to look at the very notion that society can be changed through the winning of state power.
‘First build the army, first build the party, that is how to get rid of the power that oppresses us’. The party-building (or army-building) comes to eclipse all else. What was initially negative (the rejection of domination) is converted into something positive (institution-building, power-building). The induction into the conquest of power inevitably becomes an induction into power itself. The initiates learn the language, logic and calculations of power; they learn to wield the categories of a social science which has been entirely shaped by its obsession with power. Differences within the organisation become struggles for power. Manipulation and manoeuvering for power become a way of life.
The struggle is lost from the beginning, long before the victorious party or army conquers state power and ‘betrays’ its promises. It is lost once power itself seeps into the struggle, once the logic of power becomes the logic of the revolutionary process, once the negative of refusal is converted into the positive of power-building. And usually those involved do not see it: the initiates in power do not even see how far they have been drawn into the reasoning and habits of power. They do not see that if we revolt against domination, it is not because we want a different system of power, it is because we want a society in which power relations are dissolved. You cannot build a society of non-power relations by conquering power. Once the logic of power is adopted, the struggle against power is already lost.
The idea of changing society through the conquest of power thus ends up achieving the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. Instead of the conquest of power being a step towards the abolition of power relations, the attempt to conquer power involves the extension of the field of power relations into the struggle against power. What starts as a scream of protest against power, against the dehumanisation of people, against the treatment of humans as means rather than ends, becomes converted into its opposite, into the assumption of the logic, habits and discourse of power into the very heart of the struggle against power. For what is at issue in the revolutionary transformation of the world is not whose power but the very existence of power. What is at issue is not who exercises power, but how to create a world based on the mutual recognition of human dignity, on the formation of social relations which are not power relations.
The only way in which the idea of revolution can be maintained is by raising the stakes. The problem of the traditional concept of revolution is perhaps not that it aimed too high, but that it aimed too low. The notion of capturing positions of power, whether it be governmental power or more dispersed positions of power in society, misses the point that the aim of the revolution is to dissolve relations of power, to create a society based on the mutual recognition of people’s dignity. What has failed is the notion that revolution means capturing power in order to abolish power. This, then, is the revolutionary challenge at the beginning of the twenty-first century: to change the world without taking power.
But how can we change the world without taking power? Merely to pose the question is to invite a snort of ridicule, a raised eyebrow, a shrug of condescension.
Reality and power are so mutually incrusted that even to raise the question of dissolving power is to step off the edge of reality. All our categories of thought, all our assumptions about what is reality, or what is politics or economics or even where we live, are so permeated by power that just to say ‘no!’ to power precipitates us into a vertiginous world in which there are no fixed reference points to hold on to other than the force of our own ‘no!’. Power and social theory exist in such symbiosis that power is the lens through which theory sees the world, the headphone through which it hears the world: to ask for a theory of anti-power is to try to see the invisible, to hear the inaudible. To try to theorise anti-power is to wander in a largely unexplored world.
I invite you to visit with me this unexplored world in the next installment.
October 11, 2010 at 11:51 am
Your posts just get better and better. Good one. It has got me thinking about the non-organized non-religion of AA. No leaders, no money, autonomous small groups, no central authority, (almost) no rules. Hard for anyone to seize power when it has been so systematically diluted, dispersed, and cautioned against. The (true) democratic nature of AA has lasted for decades now, and continues to grow.
We need a new (non)religion that supercedes the old religious, political, or ecological structures which are all riddled with power based conflicts. The real base for the new human is in small groups, reminiscent of the tribal units of the past, not in larger gatherings that invite the leader/follower dynamic and all the other opportunities for power-over types to rule.
Inventing the (minimal) structures and underlying principles for such a development is the way forward to a better world of better people. Within these small groups the healing from dominator tendencies and learning the ways of true cooperation will take place. Like AA, the concerns of the rest of the world are best ignored in favor of building the new one. Early on AA made it clear that they were not in a fight with alcohol or drugs. By facilitating the inner growth of individuals, AA reduced the number of addicts without fighting anyone.
The sickness of domination consciousness needs a name. This would help those who are victims and carriers of it to wake up from it. This unspoken problem is more pervasive than alcoholism by far. We need to call it out, give it a name, and come up with a plan to heal it.
October 11, 2010 at 12:20 pm
leavergirl, To tell the truth, I was about to throw in the towel on the whole change the world project (not for the first time in all these years of dreaming of it) until your post came up with that faint little quantum of hope for all of us. Thanks for the lift. I’m back in the game, give me some chips! (Long ago, I played poker in Vegas for a year.) Just proves again why we need each other on this crazy trip….
October 11, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Mike, your words have made my day. Thank you! 🙂
(Poker player in Vegas? And successful? Boggles the mind!)
October 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Nice…and nice use of suspense. Looking forward to seeing where you, and he, and we, (my perpetual caveat: whoever “we” turn out to be) take this into the “how”!
October 11, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Mike, i’d be interested in what was behind your almost throwing in the magic towel. How bout we throw it around in here instead?! No doubt your account, which sounds like it would seem out of character from your posts, would provide some useful and interesting insight into what we’re all facing. Basic burnout, and/or something more?
I keep wondering why those of us so, well, almost desperate to make a difference while we can, and to co-create a fulfilling ending “act” to the Great Play of our lives, and the Play of our species on this earth, show up in these forums with this seeming dis-connect. All of us feeling the need to come together around a relatively aligned approach, and here we have a place supposedly about exactly that, yet so far we stop short of conspiring on the sort of life-changing practical plans which would bring about what we are almost desperate for. It’s almost like we don’t really want what we really want, no? (This is pretty rhetorical, actually, as i see it clearly about the shadow side of human nature which in a somewhat roundabout way we are trying to sort out here, but that’s how it needs to happen.) I intend to jump-start that “turning” in my life at least, over the coming few seasons, starting, well…now’s as good a time as any, eh?
…
“Leavergirl for non-powerful non-ruler!”
October 13, 2010 at 4:54 am
leavergirl — I “won” $5,000 in about a year, barely enough to feed and house myself. Hardly a big success. Spiritual needs finally told me to escape that hell-hole of the American Dream….
October 13, 2010 at 5:02 am
Jay D — How does one come to wanting to pitch in the towel and leave the fight/quest? The short answer is: If you haven’t felt like that yet, either you aren’t trying hard enough, or you don’t realize yet how impossible the odds are against your realizing your dreams of a better world for all.
Your post asks excellent questions that deserve a deeper answer than the quickie above. Gimme a little time to think about it. This service periodically fails to notify me of comments. Probably something I am doing wrong.
October 13, 2010 at 7:42 am
Jay D — Part of a longer answer is that these “downs” on the journey are natural responses that are almost inevitable, and are not a sign of unfitness for the task. One reason for being part of a group is that when you get off the trail, others in the group can help you get back on. The Lone Ranger Complex is to be avoided. Going it alone seems like a heroic role, but it is not appropriate for dealing with this protean dragon. Forget the myths and cultural narratives that extol that kind of stance. To use a metaphor that for some has been discredited — this is either going to be a successful transition out of the Piscean Age of individual savior/hero/leaders into the Aquarian Age of group dynamics and cooperation, or we are going to suffer more of the inadequacies of a one-man-rule type of thinking. We are facing challenges now that require a whole new way of thinking/being.
Truth is, there is no separation whatever between our problem of how to share power wisely and the goal of traditional spiritual paths. Aspirants to higher consciousness and enlightenment face the same difficulties that “activists” encounter. Our misunderstandings of what “spiritual” really means are a major obstacle to finding real deep solutions to the world’s dilemmas. Any small groups or movements that try to proceed without clarifying the role of spiritual work on ourselves are, in my opinion, doomed to failure. There comes a time when you either look deeply into the causes of our dysfunctions, or you will continue to futilely repeat the failed efforts of the past.
As one guide book puts it, “Unless you build the house with My help, you build it in vain.” Only better (transformed) people can build a better (transformed) world. Parts of the future technology of transformation lie scattered among the traditions of all cultures dealing with ultimate things. We need to gather and update this wisdom as an essential task necessary for our success. When I lose heart and get down, one of my resources is to delve into the library of spiritual literature I have accumulated over the years. I have always found good counsel there that gives me renewed energy to go forward once more into the breach….
Does the above make me sound like I am really together and on top of everything? I hope not. The truth is that I am a deeply flawed individual groping my way in this difficult world of ours. The attempt to live my ideals is an ongoing project that has its ups, but still definitely has some uncomfortable downs…..
October 13, 2010 at 10:03 am
Mike,
Good reply and it surprises me less and less that i concur on all counts. You said it man, every single thing you just said resonates with my experience too. I love when that happens…saves me a lot of time and words responding, for one thing 😉 !
October 13, 2010 at 10:23 am
Thanks JayD, but don’t be too stingy with your words, you have a lot of good stuff to share. If we all keep churning this milk, we may eventually get some really tasty butter!
The process of sharing ourselves is a big part of the Great Work, the Alchemy of Group Transformation. That work is sometimes boring, contentious, frustrating, seemingly endless, error prone, difficult, but also rewarding, reassuring, delightful, creative, responsible, enlightening….in other words, a lot like life!
October 14, 2010 at 6:43 am
what does one do when they can’t find their voice?
how do I make contact when I can’t do this
this way……………..
I feel like the woman in the crowd that touched jesus’s robe
this is the most I can do
October 14, 2010 at 12:13 pm
No name yet — You might ask your Inner Voice what to do next?
You have already taken the first step….
October 14, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Thanks for the Holloway link (his name sounds kinda Taoist). Reminded me of a poem I wrote a ways back:
If you don’t hurt
you are sicker
than you realize.
If you don’t cry,
then your heart
may be frozen.
If you haven’t screamed yet,
your sanity has
become a disease.
October 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Holloway has some good ideas, but he needs an editor. Too much long winded philosophical polemics. I kept thinking, get to the point!
I like that he gets it that we don’t have an answer to this world/human mess….yet.
We are more at the stage of trying to understand our problems better, so that we could tentatively, experimentally come up with some things to try out. This humility is not equivalent to despair. Too many only want to rush out and “do something.” This urge only reveals their lack of understanding that their own immature consciousness is a big part of the problem.
We are not the people we have been waiting for. We are the people who can possibly become the people we (vainly) waited for.
Inventing the way to find the answer(s) is a crucial step towards finding the things we are needing. The real answers will only be found by those who have gone through the processes that qualify them to perceive and understand the transformations necessary for a new world. If this sounds grandiose, it is. Nothing less will really extricate us from this mess that we are part of.
We are all deeply ill on this planet. We must devise and undergo methods for healing ourselves,before we can think of healing others. Sick people can only make a sick world.
October 15, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Welcome, no name yet! Good to have you with us. 🙂
Mike, sigh, I don’t think he needs a better editor, he needs to grow out of being an obsessive Marxist. 😉 Tedium squared!!! Still, though, gold nuggets within…
I don’t feel very comfortable with grandiose ideas that speak to some sort of an elite. What I am looking for is stuff that every person can understand and learn fairly readily in tandem with others.
October 15, 2010 at 3:24 pm
leaver girl — I am all for finding short-cut methods that will effect deep changes in people. That would be great, and certainly those who buckle down to the unfortunately longer path to transformation do well to be creative and on the lookout in that regard. The amount of work, time, and commitment required for real deep change, such as a high degree of ego transcendence is a major problem in the way of a spiritual solution to our problems. I just don’t think there are any ways around to bypass the need for lengthy serious work on ourselves.
Periodically in the psychotherapeutic field folks come up with quick hit methods, but inevitably they don’t hold up. Of course easy paths to enlightenment are stock in trade of phony gurus. But still, it would be wizard to come up with shorter less demanding methods. My understanding is that this difficulty is built into our evolutionary manifestation, so there are limits to how quickly we may graduate from this planetary school. Still, we have to give it our best shot. But we better get started with the tools we already have, and not wait for the Messiah to get started.
October 15, 2010 at 5:41 pm
The elephant in the living room is us.
October 15, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I tend to think that what is needed is a vision and a moral culture. Check out this rather amazing village began in Ethiopia by a bunch of illiterate farmers. They are thriving.
http://www.awraamba.com/
October 16, 2010 at 5:51 am
Interesting story, leavergirl. It took incredible dedication by a strong leader to accomplish such success as they have enjoyed. Will we ever progress beyond that Piscean dynamic? Will we always be dependent on powerful charismatic leaders to initiate and maintain alternative lifeways?
October 16, 2010 at 9:34 am
Would you say that it took incredible dedication by a strong leader to get AA started and maintained? What I see is visionaries, in both cases, looking for allies, and together creating something that stands the test of time when they move on. A seed is always needed…
These people share power in profound ways, men and women, Muslims and Christians, and as a whole community self-governing their social and economic lives. I have not seen the 1/2 hr documentary yet but so far I have not read anything that points to “leader dependence” in this community. Have you?
October 16, 2010 at 10:43 am
You make a good point about the origins of AA. Sometimes it does take a spark to start a fire. The interesting thing about AA is that after he had contributed so much to getting it going, Bill W. very publicly and effectively bowed out of his leadership role. Pretty rare in our world. He also declined throughout to make money from his position, and was strapped for cash most of his life.
I don’t know how much clout the founder of the Ethiopian outfit wields. It was just my concern based on the usual scenarios. Maybe not in this case? Hope so. Have they got an answer for the modern world as a whole? Maybe some parts of the answer, eh?
Sitting around weaving all day might not appeal to everybody. But who knows, maybe its like a chatty quilting bee? So hard to know what that experience of their commune is like without being there. The huge number of guests they attract is interesting too. Are they sources of income? Does it have a Ye Olde Gift Shoppe, or Williamsburg atmosphere? Hard to say without hopping on a jet for a visit….
In many utopias of the past, when the founder/leader died or moved on, the whole show would fall apart. Something to learn from. Each member, and the group as a whole must become empowered and self sustaining as early in the process as possible.
Having a constitution or set of principles can aid that continuity beyond specific leaders.
October 16, 2010 at 11:17 am
As far as I can tell, the founder gets no money from his position, and the community does not accept donations. They make money through their weaving, and by grinding grain for surrounding area. They would prefer farming, but the government interference foreclosed that option for them.
They govern themselves via various committees, and the founder is one leader among many, though remains the visionary. At least on the surface, it sounds pretty good.
I doubt they have a constitution, but they have a rather stringent set of principles for accepting new members, and for ejecting those who do not hold with the honor code.
My concern with the scheme is that they are very eager to modernize, and to educate the kids along the western model. This may cost them the next generation who will flock to more civilized venues.
October 16, 2010 at 11:44 am
leavergirl #15 — I don’t think our dreams are grandiose. I meant that some folks might think they were unrealistic or grandiose, because we are tackling a big problem — the Biggest Ever — Us.
And I would ask the skeptics “what is realistic worth? See where ‘realism’ has got us?”
October 16, 2010 at 11:50 am
To me, people who ask for some simple guaranteed answer to all our problems, have opted out of the real game, and will be empowered as perpetual critics for life, doomed to never get the impossible answer they demand. But like Sisyphus, they will continue asking the same stupid question forever again and again and again….
October 20, 2010 at 9:33 am
I agree with Holloway’s assessment of the deeply embedded nature of our conditioning, which causes us to see everything in terms of power struggles. How to dislodge this way of seeing the world in individuals and groups is the problem. And having dislodged it, what will replace it as a new worldview?
At the bottom of the thirst for power/over is fear. The isolated individual feels vulnerable and bereft of the power even to survive. She/he feels on the basis of society’s conditioning that she/he cannot trust others to provide even the minimum needed to survive.
So, we cannot persuade anyone to give up their power, money, property, position — unless we can eliminate their fear. The process of reaching a new level of consciousness is one of deconstruction and reconstruction at the same time. Inviting one to leave one’s old house goes hand in hand with showing them how to build (with others) a better new house. With one hand you take away, while the other hand gives something better.
Part of the transition process is awakening to how totally unsatisfactory the old house (and the old way of thinking) is. That is part of the re-education aspect. Where will this take place? In small groups designed to facilitate this growth. Without this preparation, folks would inevitably take the seeds of their dysfunction into any ambitious Utopian venture or revolutionary campaign, as has been proved again and again. Without the learning and inner change through small group participation, we cannot hope to tackle the bigger problem of building a new world successfully. The key is to understand that we must deeply change ourselves in order to become capable of a new way of living together.
Those who rhapsodize in imagination about gathering around the campfire in some aboriginal Eden, somehow forget in planning their own back to nature experiment to focus on this group process that was so essential to what success our ancestors achieved in their communal living. One function of preliminary work in a small group is to uncover and work with the problems that will inevitably surface in that interaction. Some participants will be excused from the group due to their inability to learn cooperation beyond the power games of ego. To go forward to greater projects in spite of failing to get along with each other in the more modest endeavor of creating and evolving in a small group is to invite failure. Folks whose watchword is action! Will constantly push in their impatience “with all the talk” to do projects the group is unfit to accomplish. Often these folks will be the first to quit the group when their unrealistic hopes are not immediately realized.
Just some preliminary thoughts on how the profound inner changes necessary for a new way of being together might evolve….
October 20, 2010 at 11:03 am
Mmm… I am skeptical of the therapeutic approach, Mike. I think it’s far more likely that some people are drawn to power-over like others are drawn to oxycodone — for the rush. And the process of addiction proceeds similarly. Others may step into power because of certain talents, but refuse to step aside for others. In any case, it is a mutual problem… those who crave power must stop stealing it, and the rest of us have to stop allowing the theft…
I would be interested in your thoughts on how your groups have handled power grabs or power dysfunction over the years.
October 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Leavergirl, Mike, another gobbled post comment, dang it… But my upshot was to ask L what is the therapeutic approach she’s referring to, as i’m not finding it and am trying to see deeper into our differences here…maybe not so deep? But please explain.
Mike, you gearing up for “L.B.”? Me three. Would love to hear of any plans you have, or if you are wary of divulging them here.
October 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm
By the therapeutic approach I meant Mike’s claim that it is our business to psychoanalyze them and change them (eliminate their fear).
I guess I am also doing a bit of analysis… although the addictiveness of power is pretty much common knowledge… in any case, I am not out to “change them”, I am into being part of small groups that shift the pattern of power-over, both sides of the equation taking responsibility for the dysfunction. Does that make more sense?
October 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm
leavergirl — I never used the terms therapy or psychoanalysis. How you interpreted what I wrote in those terms baffles me. I spoke of a group process through which people could learn to drop their power/over conditioning and learn to live cooperatively. I do not imagine that this will be automatic or easy. Groups in the past that have tried to assume their idealism would be sufficient to ground a new way of being and living together have been consistent failures. Often they have assumed that sharing common ideals was enough to ensure they would smoothly work together to realize their dreams. When the reality of their own unreconstructed egos surfaced, they were unprepared to deal with it, and would enter a cycle of finger pointing and fault finding, before abandoning their efforts, often with no real awareness of what had gone wrong.
Also it is not only unresolved issues with power relationships that folks bring to any joint venture. The pervasive influence of our dysfunctional culture reaches into every aspect of our lives. Learning to live and respond in a healthy manner is a whole new ballgame for anyone attempting to shed the harmful conditioning of a lifetime spent in a sick culture. To enter into projects needing a whole new consciousness with some hope of success, one must realistically assess one’s state of inner preparedness. If this is done honestly, one will conclude that there is a lot of work to be done on oneself.
The shallow self-confidence and inflated expectations of some seeking a new way of life would be laughable if the results were not so tragic for them, and hence for all of us, in the long run. Better to face the real depth of our difficulties from the beginning, and avoid the failures of the past. This is not psychoanalysis, this is simple sanity.
October 20, 2010 at 4:48 pm
No, you never did. I was reacting to your “At the bottom of the thirst for power/over is fear. So, we cannot persuade anyone to give up their power, money, property, position — unless we can eliminate their fear.” This is how shrinks think, no? They think they *know” what is at the bottom of it, and how to fix other people. I don’t buy this paradigm. Maybe you don’t either, it just struck me kinda weird.
I would love to hear any stories from your long group experience of how actual people have dealt with power abuse and trying to equalize power.
October 20, 2010 at 5:19 pm
There are two keys to preventing an individual taking over a small group. First, the group needs some brief statement of principles which explicitly recognizes the problem and delegitimizes it. Secondly, when someone in the group seems to be moving in that forbidden direction, someone needs to call them on it, and bring it openly to the attention of the group. If these two things are done, it has been my observation that such takeovers are successfully avoided.
October 21, 2010 at 10:53 am
When you call them on it, how is that done in a way they can hear…do you use NVC?
🙂
October 21, 2010 at 11:50 am
JayD — I am looking into NVC for the first time. Will probably order their book. (So many books, so little time!)
So far, what I have done is to mention the specific behavior that I feel is outside the group’s guidelines. Eg. “Your taking so much time to speak is not giving others time to share.” Or, “You are making decisions for the group without consulting us.” Or, “You are putting it out that you are the leader of this group, but we have agreed we do not have a leader.”
So, I am not criticizing the person as such, only the specific behavior. Of course tone of voice, facial expression, etc. are important to convey that you are just reminding the person that he/she may have inadvertantly stepped past our guidelines, and can easily come back into alignment with the group’s intentions.
October 23, 2010 at 11:01 am
I think this is as good an example as any, what you’re saying mike, the issue of how to call people on their time or power-hogging in the groups you envision sprouting all over the place. There’s been a debate peacefully raging (inside my own head annyway) as to whether NVC as currently constructed is up for the job of being adopted by groups and I.C.s pretty much as is, if it needs minor tweaking or more major, or is best as a multi-purpose compassion wrench inside a larger toolkit. But it all comes down to, doesn’t it, how we “hold” it all inside ourselves, how we energetically, attitudinally approach that loudmouth guy who we resent for steamrolling that shy woman into submission. This basic expression of ‘power-over’ dynamic, naturally, is what bothers a lot of us most in groups, to the point where people, often those with the most of value for the group to hear, quietly leave and don’t come back. “Survival of the loudest”, the least considerate of others, has gotta go. But even if we’re not among the less considerate, we still have to make that change inside, do that inner work.
That work has been my main obssession ever since i realized how much a “part of the problem” i was and would remain until i got myselves together, so to speak.
October 23, 2010 at 11:41 am
JayD — Sometimes our understandable desire for peace and tranquility only sets the stage for someone to grossly violate the written or understood principles of the group. In these cases someone needs to step up and call that person on their behavior, however temporarily upsetting that may be to one and all.
A group has been called a living organism, which it is. Living cells have certain requirements to remain viable and properly functioning. Repelling attacks both from without and within are necessary functions of a healthy organism. Failure to respond quickly and effectively to threats leads to diminished function and possible eventual death.
Given the ubiquity of inner dysfunctions within every person now on earth, harmful behaviors in groups are inevitable, to imagine otherwise is not realistic. Also, as you point out, to exempt oneself from responsibility for carrying the seeds of discord within one’s own self is disastrous. To become conscious of, and take responsibility for our problematic selves is a key goal of being in a group dedicated, first to healing ourselves, and then only to trying to help others awaken to the need for personal transformation.
Acknowledging that I harbor a host of little i’s in me, some of which can be pretty nasty when they are expressing is a key to getting a handle on them. And also such work at inner monitoring makes me more understanding and forgiving when someone else unexpectedly comes out of left field with a zinger aimed straight at my undefended weak points. Nevertheless, this understanding and compassion for others does not eliminate the responsibility to clearly call them on their shit when they are manifesting it. The concept of “tough love” has been much misunderstood and abused by some, but like most things there is a true and needful form of it that we need to learn to access and use when appropriate.
Thanks JayD for your insightful comments.
October 23, 2010 at 1:28 pm
HOUSEKEEPING Q:
(Maybe this will result in future commenters not having the same problem i’ve had and leaving in disgust or something.) At the bottom of these comments, and above the text box i’m writing this in, are the small boxes right under “leave a reply”. Usually they already have my name and email “(required)” filled in. So when they occasionally aren’t, like the other day, people like me might tend to not notice and go ahead and write something, then click “submit comment”. But therein lies the trap i’ve fallen into more than once here. (To paraphrase and exaggerate freely:)Immediately an error message appears from the overlords at WordPress informing me that i’m guilty of their version of dickery, and apparently my “consequence” is to lose what i’d just written. Hitting the “back button” on the browser bar doesn’t work…does anyone know what does, short of always having the back-up copy (we discussed before)? Obviously at that point, we should be able to just fill in the damn boxes and re-submit without punishment, so i’m probably missing a workaround and am doubting it’s anything totally obvious.
October 23, 2010 at 2:51 pm
JayD, I will inquire of the wordpress overlords. When I try erasing my info, the browser back button works to preserve the text despite the error message. So something else is going on…
October 24, 2010 at 11:00 pm
This being my first time commenting – I do want to express my appreciation to leavergirl, Mike and Jay and all who comment on this blog – as I find your writings inspirational, thought provoking, and soothing. Ah, so I am not the only who sees and struggles with these issues. I always look forward to reading what’s new.
But collaboration is not easy. I struggle with it myself. For I think within me, there is both the collaborator and the disruptor. Where is the line – if I push for something I believe in – when do I switch from being a collaborator to a disruptor?
I think of this quote that I think originally I found on this blog – http://lassieandtimmy.blogspot.com/:
Two people do not have to agree on what’s right
to be together.
They just have to want to be together.
If that sounds simple, try it sometime.
–
— excerpts, Paul Williams, Das Energi
If one extrapolates from the specific two people – to any group of people who want to function successfully together, I think this succinctly sums up the fundamental difficulty with collaboration – which is what “changing the world without taking power” means to me.
Because how do we make changes and function without taking power? When there are multiple solutions, multiple approaches, and only one is going to be taken – then how is that decision made? Someone or some group has to have that power/authority. And for the people who advocated the path that was not taken – how does one support something perhaps one doesn’t believe in?
I am curious about what the reaction the reaction to my next assertions which I know is simplistic, but is what I have concluded from my experience thus far. I agree with Mike that each person overcoming their own fear is key. I think insecurity, which is a manifestation of fear, is the basis of much defensive and aggressive behavior (including my own). I also think people are more collaborative if they feel valued and understood, which I think is another way of saying when they feel secure.
AA has been discussed as an example where not taking power is emphasized. I actually look toward the place I work as a successful example. I work at an institution that emphasizes collaboration and quality, as well as a belief in a balanced work/life ratio. The staff I have met from the sites in different states and from my own and other departments at my particular location – from the board of directors down to the receptionist – all believe in the core values of putting the patient first. And I have met members of the board of directors, because one year, the board decided that its members would collectively meet with staff in non leadership roles in every department – to talk about any concerns and solicit suggestions.
I do realize I am the exception – and every place has its problems, and mine is no exception. And – it is true – that in my department, which I think is one of the most collaborative group of people I know – disruptors can seriously break up cooperation, and create divisions where harmony existed before. But somehow, the disruptors self selected themselves out. Of course I do not know the full stories – but I do know a couple, and I was surprised at how much was offered to encourage staff, who were disruptive in some way, to stay.
I look toward our physician group for keys to successful collaboration – and from that I surmise the key to successful collaboration is in each individual’s belief in the importance of consensus. Of individuals seeking and valuing other people’s ideas and agreement – before moving forward. Of letting go of one’s particular ideas, or being open to another solution. Everyone has their quirks – the best group dynamics accepts them – and minimizes and diffuses the more negative effects. Reins people in, and the people allow themselves to be reigned in.
Easier said than done. My own particular section – of 4 people, does not embody the belief in consensus. We do have the same goal – but we each try to accomplish it by pushing our own beliefs, and slightly undercutting each other. I am as guilty as my colleagues – though I know I do not intend it. I am trying to figure out how we can be more like our physician group.
October 25, 2010 at 11:41 am
Greetings M.be,
Good to read your words, always good to see folks emerging from the lurk-zone.
You quoted,
“Two people do not have to agree on what’s right to be together. They just have to want to be together. If that sounds simple, try it sometime.”
No, it’s not simple (or it’s basically simple more than it’s easy) and usually much harder and more complex when it’s more than two people (depending on the people, of course), which gets us into reasons beyond “wanting to be together”. Couples can bond strongly around personality and sexual compatibilities and the shared trials of living together in an insane world, and bond around deep dysfunctional patterns we got from growing up in that world. But if we’re talking about anything resembling a social movement, whatever we call it instead, and however small, we get much more into territory concerned with agreeing on what’s right and wrong. Since a bickering couple dynamic doesn’t play so well in groups, moving closer to “consensus” (closer than the me-first attitudes that undercut each other) in collaborative circles is of course crucial. But even more so, and no doubt you noticed the theme underpinning this blog, we each need to work on ourselves closer to the core from which our behavior emerges. Far, far from easy (though often fairly simple), but if groups can center more on that, then “agreement” on all the relative minutiae is less important. Yet on the grounded level where getting tons of stuff done is necessary, like your workplace, both levels and more need to be embodied. Which doesn’t fit well with the dominant culture. So to me, that’s why we here don’t believe in Babylon as worth investing more perpetuation energy in, which is maybe the main thing we agree on–there’s a core systemic predicament we are hopelessly stuck in, and we must take the game to a truly different and deeper level. But if you can work on yourself at least, that example can spread, often even if it’s just you; it still makes a difference with others you affect. And your life will be more fulfilling. That all is a lot of what keeps me going for it.
October 25, 2010 at 5:53 pm
JayD — It seems to me that what a group needs is a consensus about dissensus. It needs to be understood from the outset that disagreements are not only permitted, but encouraged. That a major goal of a group is to develope in the group and deeply within each member the capacity to invite criticism and be open to the contrary opinions of others. The sharing process can be structured to facilitate this kind of learning. The Native American use of the “talking stick” is great for this, even in a two person group! My wife and I use this when we get hot at each other. It helps you hold your tongue and listen, which alters the whole communication dynamic.
If we are ever to be able to abide each other with all our damaged ego stuff, and become fit to birth a better world, we must realize the need for real work on our own problematic selves. A caring, trusting, supportive group can be an enormous help in achieving these changes. Of course developing a group with those qualities is part of the learning curve, but it can be done.
That people’s emotions will be triggered in this process is natural, inevitable, and desirable. A passionless group or individual is a dud. Processing and non-judgementally witnessing these inevitable flare ups is crucial to our growth. To assume that we have nothing to learn in this area is a fatal error on which many groups have foundered (speaking from experience). How we express and handle our emotions will make or break a group. How can we presume to initiate a new way of living together without this essential knowledge? Good intentions will never carry us through without real work on ourselves. IMHO.
October 26, 2010 at 10:07 pm
P.S. Actually, without ALSO the promise of intentional community to work toward and feeling gradually closer to, people to “do it with”, work with, i think i would lose my will. It’s sort of like the two-sided coin of “freedom from” and freedom to”. That’s a lot of my lens for viewing and holding all this, and why i’m here following leavergirl’s blog.
October 27, 2010 at 9:08 am
Welcome, M.Be.
Like Jonah, I am riding in the belly of the medical whale at the moment, and it will be a bit before i can get it together to comment. Carry on!
October 27, 2010 at 9:54 am
Mike,
Concurrences from this corner. What next?
October 27, 2010 at 9:57 am
JayD — I agree with you that having others to share with and provide mutual support and encouragement, and fresh ideas is essential to our growth. I lived in the woods alone for a year one time, and although it had its values, in the end it was totally untenable. We need each other on this journey, and yet we can be prickly as porcupines in relationship. How do porcupines make love? Very carefully. We need to learn that. I am still stepping on other’s toes in my unconscious, blundering, self-preoccupation. If we can create a situation where it is OK to tell another what bothers us, and it is OK for them to receive it and process it, that would be a good place to learn a deeper way of relating. I think a small intentional group is a learning lab for creating community.
October 27, 2010 at 2:03 pm
JayD — I think leaver girl has attracted a small group here, disembodied as we may be, we are still real persons interested in a better world. We are also folks who take a more than usual interest in this problematic historical juncture we find ourselves at. That common purpose can serve as a glue to keep our unique individuality’s from flying apart in the process of our sometimes contentious sharing. Just as folks in AA often remind themselves, we are in serious trouble, and our little group is like a lifeboat in stormy seas. We can’t gain much by punching holes in our craft, and going overboard to swim it alone is not a good option.
Games of ego and dominance are dubious luxuries of those who are not brought together for life and death purposes. Our search for ways out of this morass is not a game. Our lives really do depend on our coming up with some better answers on how to get this human experiment on track. Although mutual criticism is an essential ingredient in our creative search, we have to learn how to give and receive it in a constructive spirit. The idea of dissensus means that seeking to agree on everything can be stifling to new ideas, and end up in a deadening conformity.
A group is like one of the first atomic piles. We want the pile to heat up and produce a lot of energy, but we want to avoid a nuclear meltdown or explosion. Hence the carbon rods in the pile that impede the fissioning atoms from getting out of hand. Emotion and energy can really build up in a group that is synergizing in mutual brain storming. The talking stick, and periodic calls for silent running are a couple of ways to modulate the energies. Just as in say, intense periods in psychotherapy, or some vigorous types of spiritual practice, insights about self and others can spiral to high intensities, calling for periods of chilling out to let things soak in and become integrated.
Maybe this all sounds far fetched, because most groups are not constituted to produce these effects. Perhaps these are things that are out of the ordinary, that need to be experienced in order to be understood. Of course I am now talking in terms of face to face groups, and how much of this intensity can be achieved in an online group is an open question. Still, the need to come up with better methods to address the profound and complex problems we are facing now is important. We can’t always jump to the effective answers we need. Sometimes we need to devise better instruments first. How to link brains to create a mental fusion reactor would be an interesting experiment in that direction…
Read Malcolm Gladwell’s essay, “In the Air” on his site for a glimpse of some of the possibilities.
October 28, 2010 at 1:07 am
I did not give the example of my workplace as evidence that the Babylon state that our world is in is worth saving. That government, society, economy, corporations are broken I consider a given. I was always puzzled by a business model that believed in continuous growth – which means continuous consumption, guaranteed by planned obsolesence. Why build something designed to break? Why always go with the lowest bidder which invites exploitation? Why as we become more efficient at producing, are we working longer hours? What about patterns that make more sense – at least in nature – equilibrium and diversity? Daniel Quinn’s works struck a chord with me – when I read them in the early 2000’s – and ever since I have been wondering, so how do we get the keys to the food (and of course not just food, but all resources).
But I am a more localized, practical person. The “world’s problems” are a little too abstract and unwieldy. For me, the ideas of true collaboration and empowerment of individuals is a more identifiable goal in the puzzle on how to get back the keys to our resources, which is why I enjoy this blog and its discussions.
In my previous entry, I was responding to text quoted by leavergirl – on how to envision a world that is not power based. Two examples of what that structure could be like came to mind – the first was the collaborative, consensus driven culture of my work place.
The second is the open source software (freeware) community. I only dabble in web design and software development, so I am no expert in this field. But this community might be considered as having the essence of “getting the keys to the food” idea of Quinn (and I read these books years, ago, so I may not be accurately stating the books ideas – but that was the one that stuck with me) – for the major software – is free. A logical question one might ask is – how can software be free? Who would support the development of it? Who would maintain it? There is no company “in charge”. Development is on a based on volunteers.
What is the result? Well developed software (Apache, a server program basis of much of the internet is freeware) that somehow gets developed and maintained. Help, forum, instructions galore. Everyone instructing everyone else on how to use the software in general, or their particular component they developed. A great diversity of add on’s and plug ins. No paying $400 for the software and then spending $50 for the book to learn how to use part of it. Then paying additional amount for the software and the references for each upgrade.
Not all the add on’s or modifications are free – for more complex programs – and for consulting – people may charge extra. But I am glad – for often they offer a watered down freeware version, of their program. And sure, why shouldn’t we pay for the extra development they have done?
These examples, give me hope, that non powered based system are possible – and may exist in some, although not perfect forms now. The question is then how to make these more prevalent.
I was initially going to first write a little while back when one of you asked – where are the women in this discussion. I hesitated because I knew my view point is different. For I do not see only power hungry dysfunction in the individuals around me. Most people I have met have been collaborative. People may power play tendencies and pettiness – but I do not find those characteristics dominant, once you get past the defensiveness. I know this means either I have lived a sheltered life – or I am blind to power hungry natures – and I think probably both are true.
But I believe in my belief in the inherent collaborative nature of people. Below is my favorite quote – from my favorite fiction book “Cloud Atlas” by David Mithcell.
“..Scholars discern motions in history & formulate these motions into rules
that govern the rise & falls of civilizations. My belief runs contrary,
however. To wit: history admits no rules; only outcomes.
What precipitates outcomes? Vicious acts & virtuous acts.
What precipitates acts? Belief.
Belief is both prize & battlefield, within the mind & in the mind’s mirror,
the world. If we *believe* humanity is a ladder of tribes, a colosseum of
confrontation, exploitation & bestiality, such a humanity is surely brought
into being, & history’s Horroxes, Boerhaaves & Gooses shall prevail. You and
I, the moneyed, the privileged, the fortunate, shall not fare so badly in
this world, provided our luck holds. What of it if our consciences itch? Why
undermine the dominance of our race, our gunships, our heritage & our legacy?
Why fight the “natural” (oh wesaselly word!) order of things?
Why? Because of this: – one fine day, a purely predatory world *shall*
consume itself. Yes, the devil shall take the hindmost until the foremost
*is* the hindmost. In an individual, selfishness uglifies the soul; for the
human species, selfishness is extinction.
Is this the doom written within our nature?
If we *believe* that humanity may transcend tooth & claw, if we *believe*
divers races & creeds can share this world as peaceably as the orphans share
their candlenut tree, if we *believe* leaders must be just, violence muzzled,
power accountable & the riches of the Earth & its Oceans shared equitably,
such a world will come to pass. I am not deceived. It is the hardest worlds
to make real. Torturous advances won over generations can be lost by a single
stroke of a myopic president’s pen or a vainglorious general’s sword.
A life spent shaping a world I *want* Jackson to inherit, not one I *fear*
Jackson shall inherit, this strikes me as a life worth the living. Upon my
return to San Francisco, I shall pledge myself to the Abolitionist case,
because I owe my life to a self-freed slave & because I must begin somewhere.
I hear my father-in-law’s response: “Oho, fine, *Whiggish* sentiments, Adam.
But don’t tell *me* about justice! Ride to Tennessee on an ass & convince the
rednecks that they are merely white-washed negroes & their negroes are
black-washed Whites! Sail to the Old World, tell ’em their imperial slaves’
rights are as inalienably as the Queen of Belgium’s! Oh, you’ll grow hoarse,
poor, & gray in caucuses! You’ll be spat on, shot at,lynched, pacified with
medals, spurned by backwoodsmen! Crucified! Naive dreaming Adam. He who
would do battle with the many headed hydra of human nature must pay a world of
pain & his family must pay it along with him! & only as you gasp your dying
breath shall you understand your life amounted to no more than one drop in a
limitless ocean!”
Yet what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?
October 28, 2010 at 1:05 pm
No worries…i didn’t, and i doubt anyone else here read you as believing your workplace example was evidence that the status quo is worth saving.
I appreciate your thoughtful post, which i’ll finish reading next time, and probably have more to say.
October 29, 2010 at 9:15 am
A Concluding Unscientific Postscript on Psychopathology and the Power Elite:
When individuals do tremendous harm to others, do we really need to go to psychological “experts” and their quibbling definitions to indict these people, and hold them accountable for the disasters they are perpetrating? Isn’t this search for precise labels and categories a symptom of our over reliance on intellectual or scientific formulations to guide us in situations which are really matters of common sense? For one, I don’t give a damn what you call these folks; they are bad people doing bad things, period.
Let’s get on with figuring out how to stop these people who are responsible for so much suffering, and quit nit picking over precisely how to describe them, or explain their hateful behavior.
November 2, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Mike, i’m not clear on the context for your “quit nit picking” critique. Is “A Concluding Unscientific Postscript on Psychopathology and the Power Elite” a cross-post? I guess that would explain it…if you’d explain it. And/or are you referring to leavergirl’s labels in this post that you praised highly?
Now I’ll go check out Gladwell’s site…
November 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm
JayD — I guess I was more responding to some comments at Orion which questioned whether corporations or those making up their armies of enablers were truly “psychopaths” or whatever other dysfunctional labels our creative psychological industry has come up with. All I was saying was that we should not get lost in these definitions in order to identify these folks as the evil doers that they are. If enough people were responding at this site, I would inevitably get some questioning my use of the term “evil”.
And again I would say let’s not put too much weight on our imperfect language. We should not expect a precision in word usage that it will never yield. More broadly, let us not nit pick each others attempts at expression, or we will never get anything communicated. Sometimes bad people are just bad people, and we can just let it go at that. Now if someone wants to say these are really good and blameless folks who are destroying our world, then we need to discuss that. That would need a deeper look at what the difference is between good and bad persons and their behavior. But to subject every simple statement to some deep scientific or philosophical analysis can be a real discussion killer, leading into an endless fog of uncertainties. Imho.
November 3, 2010 at 2:26 am
Agreed, both of you. Well said. Ah, that consensus issue is a hot potato, i should know. I was careful to say it’s important to get “closer” to consensus when need be; without stressing needing to be in agreement about every thing. But i’m not at all sure it was a good way to get it across, the “need for balance” there. And I think about these ‘limitations of words…let’s not get hung up on them’ all the time. And get hung up some times, i DO. If i was the trigger for any alienating feelings like i was being too preachy about words or concepts or anything, i want to give a caveat and apology.
I am going through a lot of change in my sense of self, good stuff overall, but it’s hard to sort out how to say what and what not to say sometimes; it messes with how i use words. They feel so limited, sometimes it’s hard not to get carried away in trying to be clear, eh?. I’m facing it, life and those in it, such as me, are sort of weird, what with our crude symbologies and all, ha.
But compassionate and minimally judegemental caring really come first, so i listen and learn…As far as those i’m talking to here, i re-read and noticed at some point i was saying “you” when i meant it in the general “whoever” sense…sorry if i came across boorish or arrogant…I tend to try to draw people out, get fairly clear on their meanings if possible, and pretty fast and go sort of deep, as it feels to be later than it seems in this world and we need to get on with whatever we’re here for while we can. And after all, that’s how i’d like others to do unto me. But all easier said than done. And all you few folks who write at this site are good to read, and i have a lot of respect for the minds here, so…i think i’ll step back and do more of that ‘listen and learn’.
November 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Mmmm…been wondering for some time if the reprints from elsewhere were a good idea… I have gotten one complaint about the confusion references (people, topics) from elsewhere not connecting to anything in the discussion going on here can create. Now I am seeing that context is essential too…
Maybe it would make more sense to only do excerpts embedded in a comment that pertains and furthers the discussions were have here. What you both think?
November 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Hi Leavergirl, not one of the “both”, but my two cents are it is bestto only do excerpts that pertain. If there’s a burning thing, then another blog post and a link to it. But you (sensibly) blog in long-form and well-crafted. I am more of a Jackson Pollock (just throw the paint at the canvas, and see what sticks/dribbles etc).
Best wishes as ever
Dwight Towers
November 3, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Sounds good. Anything to reduce confusion, while balanced against time-saving; cross-posting can be very handy, e.g.
Good to read that Mr. Towers is still around these parts. I saw a reference to him/you recently somewhere…Got any good linx for us of what’s up in the Towering world?
November 4, 2010 at 5:21 pm
OFF-TOPIC
Hi Jay D,
preparing to take a sabbatical, moving out of house etc etc. Time very limited. I quite like Dave Pollard’s latest post (October 30 or so) about a scorecard on our dependence-on-the-megamachine. And there is a FANTASTIC cartoon about what happens when women try to point out sexism on the internet at “gabby’s playhouse”
http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444
Aargh! For some reason it is down!! Well, it should be up again soon. I blogged about it and the kerfuffle around it over on Dwight Towers wordpress site, under “The Cellmate Test”.
Best wishes to you all, especially the redoubtable and indispensable Leavergirl.
November 15, 2010 at 10:45 am
I just discovered you leavergirl. Followed a link and here I am. I have skimmed your material and so far you are writing about what I have been thinking for a long time. I think we’re on the same page from what I have read so far.
I’m an American living in Ireland, and I did attend the Dark Mountain Uncivilization Festival in Wales last spring.
Cheers.
November 15, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Welcome, Glenn!
Have you fled America for good? I keep wondering if I should return to Europe… but then on the other hand, maybe we can yet get a good ole luddite community going here, in which case I wanna be part of it…. 🙂
November 16, 2010 at 3:55 am
I probably am here for the duration leavergirl, but I didn’t flee America. I’m here for family reasons. Doing what I perceive as my duty as a parent and grandparent.
I do miss Oregon a lot though. The subculture that I had lived in there was leaderless and value driven. It had evolved naturally. Like Bobby Dylan said, “If you are going to live outside the law, you have to be honest.”
There aren’t any hippies where I am now, but the Irish definitely believe in living outside the law. They just don’t get the “you have to be honest” part. That’s why they are about to be taken over by the IMF. That’s my opinion anyway.
I posted the link to this article on the Uncivilization web site. We’ll see what happens. I do think that Dougal and Paul are the real deal, and that they see themselves more as facilitators than leaders. The problem they have with developing Ludda type communities in the UK is lack of land. The aristocracy owns lots of it. I don’t know what land prices are over there but it has to be astronomical.
I met lots of great people at the Uncivilization Festival. Didn’t attend many events, mostly just chatted and danced.
I’m verballed out for now. Looking forward to you next article on power.
Cheers