If the extreme self-interest personality types are given free rein, they usually ruin the lives of others, erode society and culture, and degrade the environment. They have always been a force to be dealt with by community action, and they are so today.
– Brian Hayden
Canadian archeologist Brian Hayden pioneered the use of the term “aggrandizer strategies.” These patterns, deduced from Hayden’s excavations at Keatley Creek and observed during his stays with simpler societies, are utilized by aggrandizers to weave webs of economic and political control over other people. The original paper came out in 1995 as part of the Foundations of Social Inequality anthology. In 2001, it was restated in another anthology, Archaeology at the Millennium, as part of an essay on the origins of agriculture. And in 2010 another anthology has come out, this time titled Pathways to Power in honor of the original monograph which has profoundly shifted anthropological thought, not only about ag origins, but also about the roots of social stratification, privilege, and poverty.
My summation is based on Hayden’s article called The Dynamics of Social Inequality (2001). Hayden argues that wealth accumulation by itself is not sufficient to account for social inequalities; misers are universally despised in tribal and village societies. Nevertheless, control of wealth is the universal component of pathways to power. He stresses that while these strategies were undoubtedly used many times in the last two millions years, they by themselves will not be sustainable in establishing a hierarchy of power without a surplus-oriented economy. He says:
These surplus conditions, as well as the technologies that produced them, clearly occur before food production and domestication emerge. One other important element is the notion that aggrandizing personalities occur at least to some extent in all populations, even among generalized [egalitarian] hunter-gatherers, whether due to genetic or individual developmental factors. Darwinian selection for individuals pursuing their own self-interest would seem by itself to ensure that some such individuals remained in every gene pool. Aggrandizers and their strategies for obtaining economic and political control are probably the single most powerful factor in understanding the sweeping changes that occur in the transition from egalitarian to transegalitarian [big man] societies.
What are these old and well worn strategies that have been used by aggrandizers the world over up to our time (having, of course, added many new ones along the way)? They are rooted in attempts to monopolize access to desirable resources or roles (food, mates, leadership, political contacts, trade etc.), and to exclude as many other people from these areas as possible. Here is his list:
- Ownership – aggrandizers work hard to establish ownership of desirable resources (land, fishing spots, water, and useful animals).
- Contractual debts – the other strategies listed require that inducing people into debt be part of at least some of the social transactions.
- Feasting – political power is universally acquired by organizing feasts, underwriting large projects, and forging alliances; feasts etc. can easily be coopted and subverted by the enterprising into mechanisms for extracting surpluses and establishing debt hierarchies.
- Bride prices – using surpluses to get the most desirable wives, and to exercise control over young people.
- Investment in children – special training, costly and ostentatious maturation ceremonies, and elite body deformations (e.g. elaborate tattoos or foot binding) raise the value of children as a means to make advantageous alliances.
- Prestige items – surpluses are converted into prestige items that serve as status symbols, and these then are used to make transactions, or to create obligations by gifting. (Hayden argues that many of the early domesticates were prestige “items:” draft animals, chili peppers, avocados, chocolate, vanilla, dogs, pigs, et al).
- Trade and profit – controlling access to exotic or labor-intensive prestige items becomes important, as is the use of interest in economies rich enough to support it; interest becomes a way of seducing people into producing more and more surplus.
- Taboos, fines and control in dispute resolution – noted as the excessive proliferation of taboos on behaviors that incur fines and penalties; the people hit the hardest are folks with weaker social connections and standing; poor people are sometimes disenfranchised or enslaved by these techniques.
- Warfare and other calamities – aggrandizers manipulate conflicts to their advantage, and use natural disasters to consolidate their control over power and resources.
- Access to the supernatural – a very common strategy to consolidate and justify political power is “to claim and orchestrate privileged access to supernatural messages and powers.” This typically involves claims of descent from mythical ancestors, esoteric ritual knowledge, and the ability offer costly sacrifices to obtain the cooperation of the spirit world.
- Manipulation of cultural values – aggrandizers promote cultural values that serve their interests, and exclude those that do not. It is in their interest, for example, to push the notions that certain ancestors can bless or curse the village, or that injuries or deaths can be paid for in wealth, and many many others; they bend, promote, negotiate, and reformulate the rules to suit their own self-interest.
- Separation from others – cultivating special ways of speaking, dressing, manners, and other distinctions serve to separate themselves from other people and limit access to “the club” and its perks.
- Payoffs – grudging toleration is secured by minor gifts to lesser members of the community: free food at certain feasts, charity, increased community defense and others.
Once a community accepts the gambits of the aggrandizers as legitimate, refusal to participate in the new game leads to loss of power and marginalization. Families that cleave to the old sharing, laid-back ways are scorned and kept out of important social networks and consumption events. This is the moment when true poverty is born.
One of the most important consequences of all these strategies is that very strong pressure develops to increase production by any means possible. A classic positive feedback situation is created in which power is predicated largely on the production and control of surpluses, and is therefore used to create and control ever more surpluses, which creates even more power and wealth. Thus prestige technologies, domestication, irrigation, terracing, slavery, soil enhancement, industrialization, fossil fuels, electricity, nuclear energy, genetic manipulation, and many other means of increasing surpluses have been underwritten, promoted and perfected under the direction of aggrandizers. Aggrandizers are in control of this process today just as much as they were in the past.
To avert a calamity due to the intense competition of our leading aggrandizers along with their rapidly decreasing marginal utility, how about we learn to readily recognize and foil the strategies that lead us to bondage and powerlessness? The ancient path of vigilant cooperation enhanced by canny latter-day awareness beckons those who see past the spiderweb.
February 6, 2011 at 12:56 am
This, this is why I love “Leaving Babylon” so much!
Thank you!
I definitely need to read this guy. And we LB readers could collate our existing strategies for dealing with these aggrandizing behaviours..
February 6, 2011 at 2:01 am
[…] Pathways to power is the latest post on the essential-reading “Leaving Babylon” site. Lots of useful musings on the various tactics “aggrandizers” have used to snatch power…. […]
February 6, 2011 at 7:55 am
I recently asked aloud whether anyone was studying these people and their ways. This is a tremendous resource!
Thank you for introducing and presenting Hayden’s work!
February 6, 2011 at 9:20 am
[…] good, or that damming and strip-mining and over-fishing are not going to end well. A member of the Self-Aggrandizing Elite will scoff and call for more study. In doing so, are they looking for a better way to make a […]
February 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I am a fan of G. Edward Griffin, author of “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A second look at the Federal Reserve.” Mr. Griffin likes to say that, in the history of mankind, conspiracies have been the rule rather than the exception. Brian Hayden’s findings seem to confirm Griffin’s belief.
If you haven’t read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” I highly recommend it. It’s a gripping historical account of power and money and its direct influence today. I recently received a mass-email from Mr. Griffin promoting a new book release by historian Servando Gonzalez, “Psychological Warfare & the New Order: The secret war against the American People” (PsyWar). Gonzalez’s book, which I’ve ordered but have not yet received, appears to be the mother of all conspiracy theories and focuses on the power concentrated among members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Should be a thriller.
In order “to avert a calamity due to the intense competition of our leading aggrandizers along with their rapidly decreasing marginal utility,” Vera suggests we “learn to readily recognize and foil the strategies that lead us to bondage and powerlessness.” I agree, and I believe people like G. Edward Griffin and Servando Gonzalez help us to identify what we are up against.
Related Links:
PsyWar on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Warfare-New-World-Order/dp/0932367232/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1297016352&sr=8-5
PsyWar on Griffin’s website:
http://realityzone.com/psywar.html
Creature from Jekyll Island (Note – 5th Edition):
http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html
Griffin’s always interesting “Unfiltered News”:
http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html
February 7, 2011 at 5:25 am
@Larry
Checked out your realityzone site. Looks like a conspiracy theorists zone to me. I not saying there aren’t conspiracies. In fact there a millions of them, but becoming obsessed with them is a waste of time.
I think what leavergirl is trying to do in her blogs is to give people the understanding and language needed to recognize these personality types so that they don’t co-opt your sharing groups for their own narcissistic goals. Correct me if I’m wrong leavergirl.
The people that write these books seem like self aggrandizers to me. They are posing as special people in the know. ‘Buy my book, send me a donation, so that I don’t have to get my hands dirty doing the menial things that the ignorant masses do.’
February 7, 2011 at 11:46 am
Dear Glenn,
I agree, it’s a mistake to become obsessed with conspiracy theories. That is not what I have suggested.
When you visited the Reality Zone website, is it possible you confused the ads with the site’s content? The site has three columns. The content is located in the center column with ads in the left and right columns. For sure, the ads are ‘promotions’ – self-aggrandizements, if you will. The ‘content’ is focused on news that differs from what you find in the general media. Many of the stories are about organic vs. genetically modified food that you won’t read about in the NY Times, for example. I don’t agree with everything I read on Reality Zone, but I appreciate its unique perspective.
Regarding power, it is important to recognize aggrandizer personality types to help foster a society based on shared power; however, it is equally important to understand who the current aggrandizers are and how they have usurped power. Understanding how and why we are where we are with regard to ‘power’ will help us avoid going down that road again. For that reason, I am thankful that people like Griffin and Gonzalez have exposed power for what it is. At the same time, you certainly have a right to your own opinion, which I respect.
February 7, 2011 at 4:21 pm
@Larry
Great. It would be good if the essences of this scholarship and scientific knowledge we have accumulated could be passed on to laymen types in an organized way. Preferably in story form. Folk wisdom has always been passed on that way, but these old stories are a bit dated.
It would also be great if solutions were include in these stories, but that may be possible yet.
February 7, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Glenn,
Griffin’s book, “Creature from Jekyll Island,” is very much in story form and is an interesting historical account, albeit quite lengthy. Griffin’s primary thrust is the need to eliminate the type of power concentration represented by central banks, especially the Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal, nor a Reserve).
I suspect Gonzalez’s “PsyWar” will be similar: present the story, recommend a solution.
Note that I have referred to these books as conspiracy theories but, to me at least, they are historical accounts about conspiracies. At some point, conspiracy theories are essentially proven and become accounts of the actual conspiracy. I believe Griffin’s book has achieved that level. Perhaps Gonzalez’s book will as well.
February 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Glenn, that is exactly it. I figure, first comes awareness of their existence, then comes recognition, and then, learning how to deal with them so they don’t spin out of hand bringing us all down with them.
As for Larry’s link, I found the bracketed comments on the news there helpful… got me to understand why the banks are holding onto bazillions of empty houses.
February 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I wrote some comments that I would like to share on Horizons of Significance. So, if you don’t get Antonio’s excellent posts, you should at:
http://horizonsofsignificance.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/double-binds/#comment-813
I think it is valuable for those sharing deeply about our common problems to be a little autobiographical from time to time, so that we get to know each other better. Like, when leavergirl took off down that mountain in her first post, I was with her. I got an initial feel of where she was coming from, and made a connection. I commend Antonio for sharing some of his personal history, and will try to do the same from time to time. Doesn’t this seem an important part of what we are doing? Isn’t this one aspect of what the community we are seeking is about?
February 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm
OK. I am going to risk reposting something. Let me know if this is ok, leavergirl. Another “gem” I put on Antonio’s site:
Many are unaware that the 12 steps of AA are a valid, workable path of deep spiritual development. The first step is acknowledging and then embracing the profound hopelessness of our situation. What this really means is that the situation is indeed hopeless if we have only our customary resources and methods to deal with it. Buddha’s four noble truths begins “life is suffering”. Ordinarily, yes. But there is a Way out. The Way out takes one beyond ordinary ways. The path beyond addiction or suffering begins in the dark night of its total conscious embrace. No hiding. No alibis. No palliatives. Surrender to the total reality of your despair and hopelessness contains a reality which needs to be fully experienced to open onto the difficult Path beyond it. This is essential to answering the question: How bad do you want it (recovery)?
I am not going to present all 12 steps. Nor do I maintain that AA or Buddhism are the only Ways to evolve beyond the sufferings of untranscended ego. What I am saying is that only this kind of deep spiritual therapy is adequate to heal the deep karmic wounds we have all suffered in our time on this planet. Lesser “cures” are illusory. Fortunately much of the methodology of this kind of transformative process has been worked out in the past, and only awaits appropriate modifications to do the job today for any who are willing to do the Work.
February 8, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Not sure, Mike. How does this continue the conversation opened by the post? As you know, I frown on people using this blog to preach their favorite sermons… I am the only one who gets to do that… 😉
February 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Leavergirl, yes we can…and must, “see beyond the spiderweb”. And those of us who have been learning to do this as a way of life would do well to find ways to actually get together and use and spread this knowledge. As you know. I appreciate your helping set out much of the requisite knowledge.
Mike, i think it’s important, and fairly doable in this case, to overtly make that linkage from a cross-post to the topic/convo at hand. You kind of left it hanging there, eh?
As to your call to get more autobiographical (to stick our necks out more in my experience), it should come as no surprise that i very much agree with your idea. To the point that it seems to me kind of glaring and and as such worth pointing out that i’ve been as much about doing that here as about anything else, and yet it has seemingly pretty much gone un-noticed, much less appreciated. Ironic, no?: IMO, folks hold back sometimes because it can feel like a “self-aggrandizing” ego-stroking thing in itself to be honest about one’s strengths that they bring to a table, and the opposite when they admit to their dark sides. But when that process is held back, community weakens/does not keep strengthening beyond a same-old-same-old point. Yet i keep trying, turning toward new networks if need be…hopefully this time the need to will not continue to grow because this one is serious about nurturing that crucial synergy it lobbies for.
(“Just my own” idiosyncratic take(?) as always, of course…)
February 9, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Hi all,
JD wrote
“IMO, folks hold back sometimes because it can feel like a “self-aggrandizing” ego-stroking thing in itself to be honest about one’s strengths that they bring to a table”
I think that is correct. Nietzsche called it “slave morality” – the unwillingness of those who had been slaves (victims of aggrandizers) to be willing to admit – to themselves and others- what they are capable of. Here’s a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
Of course, pushed very far, that can take you to some rather awkward places, which is why we need containment/harnessing strategies and checks and balances. But, in my opinion, we need also to have the self-confidence to do away with false-modesty (which can sometimes be simply a bid for affirmation/fishing for compliments).
Best wishes as ever to the captain of this blog and all who sail in her comments section
February 10, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Gadz. Nietsche was such a babbler. Good points, but… way too much self-confidence in his own abstractions… 😉
Jay D, good points. I am reflecting that I am not JM Greer and do not need a stream of accolades, my friends. I figure, the best way to appreciate my posts is to piggy back onto them with your own insights. (Don’t go ruining my hard-won epistemological humility, now! ;))
Mike? If I don’t hear shortly your spirited defense of bringing unrelated pet sermonettes to this blog, in the face of your knowing I do not want them here (as we have discussed this before), I am going to delete it. For other folks… I am writing about this openly because this is an old issue between me and Mike and doing it privately seems not to have worked. Feel free to pitch in… I am not interested in being a dictator! (Your other input is always valued, Mike, and most welcome.)
Speaking of dictators… Moob is on the way out. Ha! I made the prediction a couple of weeks ago on another blog… (preening meself, yikes, entering the shifting sands of predictioneering, I think I’ll have to gird my loins in the future to resist the siren call)…
February 10, 2011 at 2:29 pm
“I am not interested in being a dictator!” Did you steal that line from Mubarak? 🙂
But, seriously, in all the groups I have taken part in throughout the years, I have always opposed censoring anyone’s sharing. I figure if someone shows up and says something, then that is what they want to contribute to the group. It may not make sense to me, it may be totally off-topic, and I may vehemently disagree with it, but so be it — I respect their right to say it (Voltaire).
I would never be consciously so disrespectful of the learned blog-master as to characterize her sharings as “sermonizing.” (Unconsciously might be another matter!) In group interactions I follow Krishnamurti’s dictum: first and last freedom. I trust the process of free sharing to sort things out for the best outcome. Pushing the river in a preferred direction sometimes misses the most intriguing side channels. Creativity languishes from too much control.
Over and above all that, I have taken the core concern of this blog to be: leaving Babylon. How do we get beyond the nightmare? Any comment that bears on that has my interest.
February 11, 2011 at 5:39 am
Here is an article in Altnet someone may be interested in. It’s title is” Vision: How Small, Mostly Conservative Towns Have Found the Trick to Defeating Corporations”
http://www.alternet.org/vision/149725/vision:_how_small,_mostly_conservative_towns_have_found_the_trick_to_defeating_corporations?page=entire
It has about 160 comments under it. Mostly the usual stuff but a few are interesting [I didn’t bother read the manifestos.]
I don’t know anything about the legality of what they are suggesting, but I do know something about conservative towns, and I would be willing to talk about that.
February 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Glenn, that is a good story, thank you. Keeping it in the grassroots is the most promising way to do it. Giving it a prominent place in the news may not be a good idea though… you want the predatory eye looking elsewhere, no?
Mike, but what if a group is gathered for a purpose (with folks having limited time and energy), and one person persists with their own agenda? If it’s about peak oil, they want to talk about their relationships or their latest project. My neighbor Jean wants to tell stories of her mother. Our book club has two and a half hours to talk about a particular book, and we really don’t want to listen to Jean’s momstories (we listen to plenty of them in other neighborly contexts). Putting their pet agendas above the group’s agenda, especially after the focus of the group has been restated and they persist… that is not a behavior I am comfortable with.
I support your right to publish your stories but I regret that you are not willing to be more discerning whether or not the stories fit in with the ongoing conversation *on this blog.* I bent over backwards to accommodate you when you were reposting your minispeeches to various sites including mine. Eventually, I explained in detail why that was not working. And here we are again… I feel frustrated because I am looking for respect for the (very few) norms this blog has. I don’t see this blog as the right place for your little sermons (and I am not using the word in a pejorative sense by any means). Would you be willing to find more appropriate venue? Or hey, how about starting your own blog? 🙂
I am keeping this conversation visible just in case other folks want to pitch in.
February 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Mike K.
I would second Leavergirl’s suggestion that you start your own blog. It can be done for no more money than it costs to post comments and it gives you a place where your agenda can be heard.
I know that a lot of the friction we encounter before we’re ready to make this kind of leap can evaporate once we’ve taken the plunge.
Having your own place. It’s what we all need and want. A blog isn’t the total answer, but it is a place for your voice and what you find is of value to express.
It brings its own responsibilities, but you can handle that!
I would read it.
February 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Another option, since we were invited to chime in: A “general discussion” section, so the specific post being discussed isn’t hijacked in a sense? Well, that may be too distracting, too..? Kind’a sad to think that members should need to start their own blogs in order to repeat pet themes, since that’s just more fragmentation and we want to go the other way, eh? But maybe Mike’s not really “with us” in that sense..? Which is fine, of course, but i’d be disappointed as i tend to agree with him about stuff. Yeah, I feel sad too, not understanding why one would want the right to divert attention from an essay topic, when it’s so hard to stay focused as it is, and there’s so few comments that actually discuss the topics LG brings up in any depth.
February 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Still thinking about a place for “general” comments, without us having to start our own blogs, or my “stretching” too far to make oblique questionable connections: E.g., LG mentioned peak oil, which reminds me of the “new” Wikileak of cabled comments by a very credible-sounding source within the Saudi scene, that they won’t be delivering what they have projected and they know it, and in fact peak oil in Saudi Arabia is at hand. No surprise. And no direct revelance as it’s more like confirmation of doomer porn scenarios. But still, it is “news” with implications we pay attention to, and seems it should be open for discussion without fragmenting into yet another blog. (Solid-seeming evidence of the case for “LB” ASAP is very relevant, no? But where to post it?) Maybe a discussion group elsewhere?
Just thinking aloud here…thanx for inviting weigh-ins, oh blog-goddess, and thanx for some strictitude here, the balancing act you are walking us through.
February 11, 2011 at 5:37 pm
There was a time in my life when if a relationship “went south”, I would just walk away muttering &*!# YOU, and that would be that. I would never speak to that person again. Times have changed, due to a lot of work on myself, especially in groups. So here goes from the “new improved me.”
In my many years in small groups, there is one dynamic that always surfaces. Some person or persons will feel and manifest that they should have more say in the group than others. This often takes the form of trying to control what is done in the group, how it is structured, what people can share, how long they can talk, what functions they should perform, etc.
Those feeling this entitlement may justify their controlling behavior because the group meets in their space, they initiated the group, they have special knowledge or status that qualifies them to lead, etc.
Another feature of their controlling behavior is that they will never admit to it, and will vigorously dispute anyone who might even hint at it. This tendency of some to want to be leaders or “stars” is widespread in our dysfunctional culture, indeed all of us probably manifest aspects of it to some degree. These folks will always justify their behavior as “for the sake of the group.” Even Mubarak will try to convince us of that.
Vera, you and I have agreed that abuse of power is the number one problem in our world. Therefore it should not be that great a surprise that it would raise its head in our little discussion group. I notice that in your implied threat to exclude my input from your blog, you did not solicit opinion from other participants. You are of course free to make an autocratic decision in this matter, in effect making yourself judge, jury, and executioner. I really hope you will not take that route, but will remain true to your quest for the paths to true community.
I hope you will not construe anything I have said as coming from resentment towards you. I sincerely like you and your leaving Babylon project. In case you are not open to what I have shared, and decide to exclude me, so be it. I will still follow your blog and pray that every good thing come to you. Your friend, mike, who dares to critique your management style, but loves you all the same. As you know, I am a big Lao Tzu fan — “He governs best who governs least.”
February 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Ah, Mike…methinks you’re missing the point here. Please take a step back with us and look at it from a fresh perspective. Your logic, for the first time ever, puzzles me and i feel sad, as i’d come to see you as especially reasonable and gentle and a good listener. You’re apparently trying to do that here, though in all honesty, this stuff today comes across as kind of passive-aggressive, if you ask me. Sure we all agree with Lao Tzu (did you see Heider’s unique translation, “The Tao of Leadership”?) But bro’, you didn’t hear Leavergirl, far as i can tell, in fact it seems like you’ve ignored all others’ input on the matter so far. Don’t you care how it comes across?
I habitually think VERY much in terms of overall fairness, am probably sort of fanatical about it, and i think in multiple ways, you’ve been treated fairly here. I do think that our dear blogger did sufficiently consult us, and explained her sensible position clearly, but you don’t seem to be looking at it even-handedly, more like it’s a personal rejection of you or your hard-won wisdom.
Your points about abuses of power seem, of course, right in general and as such very important, yet misplaced here and as such seem to me a psychological projection that is not in context of the blog.
It’s a simple matter to me: S/he who starts and runs a weblog (as opposed to a physical project that others get equally involved in and/or really invested in, which ain’t the case here at this point), well, it’s their game and as such they get to make the rules…unless it’s been decided otherwise by the group or leader. I feel my input is very much valued…as is yours, when you pay attention to the topic and respect its track. Is that really asking a lot? You seem to be acting as if this is an irrelevant factor, that it shouldn’t matter. Bummer. I hope you can hear this, because i think i hear you, i see the buttons it pushes for you, but from a more objective perspective if possible, please consider that it might not be the way it seems.
February 12, 2011 at 9:28 am
Jay D — Thanks for your thoughtful input. Sometimes the way you discover limits is by running into them. I’ve been doing that my whole life, and have some significant bruises to show for it. Daring to criticize the group leader is par for the course. BTW I salute Vera for publishing my critical remarks. I knew she had that in her, and was hoping it would come to the fore. (Jay D — If you choose to frame everything I say as “passive aggression”, then all my remarks are going to look really bad. When a person gets pissed at someone — as I did at Vera — and then tries to moderate that from loving and understanding parts of themselves, they are always vulnerable to the passive aggressive implication. Classic double blind. What can one do? Just soldier on….)
That para was getting a little long. I try to remember Vera’s preference for shorter paras — see, I’m thinking about your comfort babe! (Wow — another awkward attempt at humor to lighten things up….will it fly? Who knows…) So let me say that although I may not always be on the same page with Vera and others, I do feel that I am in the same book. What book? The book of how the heck do we exit this nightmare of power-over and create a better more egalitarian, sharing, loving community on this planet. Is that what leaving Babylon is about to the rest of you? That is why I am sharing on this blog. Everything I have written since I came on board months ago has been about that (in my mind — but perhaps not in yours?)
Apparently, my mistake has been that I took this group (do you even think of it as a group?) to be an open, egalitarian occasion to widely explore the disaster of a domination based civilization and the possibilities to change that, and come up with ways beyond it. Perhaps due to the general approval of dissensus, I got a little carried away with my tendency to range widely in my thought. My ideas of a better world have always included a lot more freedom than some are comfortable with. In my life, I have run into more than a few who think I am completely nuts in this respect — “Has he no respect for order?”
To tell the truth, I feel comfortable with what I have shared on this blog. If you are not comfortable with it, please tell me exactly what displeases you, so that we can have a productive conversation about it. This little group is a microcosm of the larger world. If we can’t sort things out among ourselves, what chance do we have of solving larger problems?
On the other hand if Vera feels that my presence on her blog somehow “poisons the well”, I will exit as gracefully as I can. Sometimes silence is the best gift one can bestow on others.
February 12, 2011 at 11:33 am
Mike wrote, “To tell the truth, I feel comfortable with what I have shared on this blog. If you are not comfortable with it, please tell me exactly what displeases you…”
My take on it, M, is simply that you cross-posted an off-topic comment that seemed to add nothing new to what you’ve said before (AA, etc.) Poor netiquette. The reason it came across passive-aggressive is you intro’d your self-described “gem” by saying “let me know if this is OK, leavergirl”, then when she patiently explained why it wasn’t, you took offense instead of “getting it” or even seeming to try.
I, like you am hyper-sensitive to abuses of power. The big diff here is that you see one and no one else does. There are very few “rules” here, and the main one that exists is about the intention to minimize this blog being yet another unfocused forum for people’s insensitive random rants and raves, which are a major turn-off to others.
I still believe that if you take another step further back, imagine it as me that “did it” if it helps, you have the wisdom to see beyond any bruised ego issues which, let’s face it, we all still have when a given piece of input isn’t welcomed.
Peaceout!, as the youngin’s say.
February 12, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Mike and I went through some tussling on Orion which I took to be good natured, until… until it wasn’t. When Mike posted some unpleasant stuff to this blog, carrying the conflict over, I deleted it and put his comments on moderation. At some point later, I deleted a comment that was nowhere in the vicinity of the conversation. At this point, an email conversation ensued, where I said:
Mike wrote very graciously in reply:
I was very happy to receive that email, said so, and took Mike’s comments off moderation in response.
When, however, I have brought up the likely inappropriateness of the recent 12 step comment, which, incidentally, was equally unwelcome on Antonio’s blog, Mike attacked me.
Mike, I don’t play the games you are playing. As far as I am concerned, you have broken your word, and have again chosen to flaunt the only norm this blog has (to stay more or less on topic). I am putting your comments back on moderation for the duration.
P.S. Don’t ever call me “babe” again.
Folks, if there is any feedback regarding how I run the blog you wish to give, or how I have dealt with this little skirmish, I will be glad to receive it, in public or by email. I have published all this so that you have a bit of background and can make up your own mind. I very much appreciate y’all being here.
February 12, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Your nasty dismissal is received. I will not trouble you again.
February 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Come now, man, we can do better than that, can’t we?
February 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm
P.S. E.g., very recent words of wisdom (and why i feel sad):
“This little group is a microcosm of the larger world. If we can’t sort things out among ourselves, what chance do we have of solving larger problems?”
February 13, 2011 at 9:09 am
Vera — Pardon me for intruding one last time. I canceled my subscription to your site at word press yesterday, but was surprised to see two emails from there this morning from Jay D. I would like to respond to his questions, but don’t have his email address. I would appreciate it if you would share my address:
annsiudmak@windstream.net on your site, for anyone wishing to contact me. Be happy. Still your friend, mike
PS — This is the last you will hear from me, promise!
February 13, 2011 at 2:08 pm
You put it better than I knew how, Tony. Thank you.
(clicking on the quote will take you there)
August 21, 2011 at 6:19 pm
A nice article by Erik Curren on the “five bummer problems” that done in the Vikings in Greenland.
http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/five-bummer-problems-that-make-societies-collapse/
“Diamond thinks a big problem was that the rich and powerful were so into keeping up with the Joneses — “flogging” the land (that’s over-farming to you and me) and competing with other chiefs for who could bring in the most crops and support the biggest posse of loyal retainers — to do anything to stop the madness.
Or, as Diamond puts it, there was a conflict between the short-term interest of the elites and the long-term interest of the whole society. And, since the chiefs and bishops were largely insulated from the problems that their reckless consumption created, they didn’t see how messed up things were getting until it was too late.”