-------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Atlee <•••@••.•••> To: Brian Hill <•••@••.•••> Date: 9/27/2005 4:38:32 PM Subject: dialogue with fascists? Dear Brian, Thanks for passing on the notes from Tadit, Michael Givel, Trent Schroyer, Bob Wallace, and others on the TOES list. While there's nothing wrong with a good battle of ideas, I personally find shared exploration more productive and have more than enough of that to keep me busily involved with colleagues in my field. I offer the thoughts below for whoever on the TOES list might find them useful. I admit that they come from within my framework and that I prefer (as Tadit notes) to talk with people within that framework (a trait not exclusively mine, I might add). Which is not to say that other frameworks aren't valid and vital. I think the concerns expressed in this dialogue about co-optation are very real. I have a book on my shelf, MANAGING ACTIVISM: A GUIDE TO DEALING WITH ACTIVISTS AND PRESSURE GROUPS by PR guru Denise Deegan, who explains in detail how corporations can sponsor well-publicized dialogues with mainstream reform-oriented activist groups, make minor compromises with them to reach well-publicized agreements, and use the vocal protests of more substantive (radical) activists groups to marginalize them in the media. There are at least as many ways to co-opt, undermine and marginalize substantive dialogue and deliberation activities as there are to co-opt, undermine and marginalize substantive protest and grassroots organizing activities. This must be taken into account in any effort at effective social change. That is, however, no reason to stop efforts at either dialogue and deliberation or grassroots organizing. Activists are also properly wary of "dialogue" and "consensus" approaches which silence minority views and engineer compromises that do not serve justice and healthy societies and communities. Gsparling wrote "If the Tao [of Democracy's approach] creates majoritarianism, and eliminates minority views, maybe it is indeed another variant of facism." Luckily "the Tao" is NOT about eliminating minority views -- which is a formula for collective stupidity, not collective intelligence. It is rather about using differences creatively. (I understand how hard it is to read the books we critique. I have a hard time doing it myself. But I thought I'd take the opportunity to share what I actually wrote in my book. Maybe Tadit will respond to my self-promotion and buy a copy...) Chapter 18 of THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY, "Consensus: Manipulation or Magic" addresses this issue directly in sections entitled "The dark side of consensus" and "A spectrum of consensus." It advocates "creative consensus without compromise," based on "the assumption that greater truth emerges through the inclusive interaction among all our differences," not their suppression. Few people have experience this form of consensus, but it exists nevertheless. The reference above also describes a form of consensus beyond agreement, nicknamed "co-sensing" or sensing together. This approach not only involves the search for "some understanding or option that really meets all of our needs and deeply excites every single one of us," but is an ongoing way "to be aware of the collective pictures we are painting with our differences, to see things through all our eyes, together, and to feel things through all of our hearts." "Our consensus might be a coming to terms with the need to do something different than any of us would choose by ourselves, simply because it has become clear that any of our isolated approaches would be a disaster, given where everyone else is at." "At its best, consensus involves living through our changing experiences together." And whatever we come up with through our shared inquiry can later be overthrown, just as theories come and go in scientific inquiry. As Tadit noted in a letter to Richard Moore two years ago, Mary Parker Follett, author of the truly remarkable book, THE NEW STATE (1918), thought "consensus was a principle that needed to be integrated through both organizations and communities, not just practiced during a decision making process but [as] a way of life. As an approach it builds consensus by integrating the interests and needs of all." I live in a 9-person co-op house owned by a resident-controlled co-op corporation, which operates on such consensus. It is a challenging, powerful and extremely rewarding process, in which minority views, once understood, often turn the group 180 degrees around. We are not talking majoritarian domination here. Mary Parker Follett says, "Social process may be conceived either as the opposing and battle of desires with the victory of one over the other, or as the confronting and integrating of desires. The former means non-freedom for both sides, the defeated bound to the victor, the victor bound to the false situation thus created -- both bound. The latter means a freeing for both sides and increased total power or increased capacity in the world." Can such processes be practiced with "fascists"? Perhaps that depends on your definition of fascist. Is a "pro-life", anti-Iraq war, pro-community empowerment, anti-Patriot act, Christian fundamentalist redneck parent who supports President Bush and a strong conservationist agenda (based on God's expectation of humanity's stewardship of nature), and homeschools her three children a fascist? She is certainly right-wing, by most standards. In the meantime, she works with local lefty hippy families to co-create a political climate amenable to home-schooling. Some issues they talk about together, others they don't. They live in the same town. They get along. I was fascinated to find, in talking to a top conservative (whose speeches, which I'd read before meeting him, deeply upset me), that he was actively opposed to the Patriot Act and believed abortion was a private matter that should not be legislated. I hadn't realized that "conservatives" believed such things. I decided that my putting people in Left/Right boxes oversimplified our differences -- and obfuscated our similarites -- so much that it disempowered me, making it difficult to see allies who were right in front of my face. As far as I can tell, dialogue between the Left and the Right isn't about establishing "quotas on how many Jews, blacks, women, homosexuals, peasants, etc. would be allowed killed within a year." I haven't yet heard any proposals for that. Nor is it about abolishing advocacy, protest, and efforts to organize against power abuses and institutionalized oppression and exploitation. It IS, however, about removing our ideological blinders so we can actually see the real people we are dealing with, in their full diversity, not just through movement-crippling polarized lenses. It's about being able to talk to each other when we share problems or live in the same community or when we are in a family or business relationship or friendship with someone who thinks dramatically differently from us. It is about being creatively human together, not just ideological. An exercise sometimes done in classrooms and community groups has participants line up against opposite walls depending on how they fit various categories (with a "don't know/other" option, as well). The facilitator calls out such dichotomies as pro-life/pro-choice, man/woman, parent/not a parent, evolutionist/creationist, equal rights for gays or not, income under or over $30,000, college educated or not, Republican/Democrat, veteran/no military experience, immigrant parents or grandparents, etc. What is enlightening is how much the group shifts, divides differently depending on the categories declared. It opens everyone's eyes to their radical hidden diversity. So how about the real fascists, the proclaimed neo-Nazis, for example? I have little experience with them, but I have a friend who facilitated a community meeting that was being disrupted by a neo-Nazi skinhead. She listened to him carefully, reflected back to him what she heard (with the full emotional load), was curious what he thought. No one had ever listened to him so well before, and it is remarkable how behaviors can change when someone feels fully heard, often for the first time. He soon became engaged as a positive participant in the group. Does that mean every fascist will respond that way? Certainly not -- especially where there are extreme power differentials and a lot of manipulation going on behind the scenes or in the media (or, worse, with police or military power, or organized vigilante violence) -- all of which require a more militant activism, which can often be usefully combined with dialogue, as practiced (for example) by Gandhi and King. Dialogue with extremists and powerholders can be extremely difficult. It is worth noting that the skinhead example above took an exceptionally skilled facilitator, which most groups seldom have. My point is not that we should always include fascists in our meetings and activism, but that the category "fascist" may limit our thinking and sense of what is possible. It is obviously much easier to find common ground among those who share values, experiences, political ideologies, etc. But it is also possible to extend our reach to include more and more diversity. It takes knowledge, skill, and proper preparation for this, but for some of us this seems worth exploring and learning -- even as our activist brothers and sisters pursue more adversarial modes of action. Since the vast majority of the population are not fascists, I suggest that building the capacity to include 85-90% of the population in a single cooperative movement -- especially a collectively intelligent one that can learn and change through experience -- may be a worthy undertaking. Finally, I'd like to say that efforts to "dialogue with the Right" are a very, very small part of my work. Most of my work deals with dialogue and deliberation among randomly selected citizens -- an approach which sidesteps the issue of political categorization, allowing people to just show up as the full human beings that they are. Anyone wanting to read the relevant chapters 12-14 of my book about that, can do so freely online at <http://taoofdemocracy.com/toc.html>. I hope some of this is useful to some TOES list folks. Coheartedly, Tom -- ============================================================ If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to: •••@••.••• You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website, provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source. Richard Moore (rkm) Wexford, Ireland "Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World" http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Apocalypse_and_NWO.html List archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog _____________________________ "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire." - Srdja Trifkovic There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs. _____________________________ Informative links: http://www.indymedia.org/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/ http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm http://www.MiddleEast.org http://www.rachel.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/ http://www.zmag.org http://www.co-intelligence.org ============================================================