autobiology
"all the more so because everyone there was highly self-aware and able to talk beautifully about issues of sexism and ageism and racism and culture"
If I were simply to state that this doesn't surprise me, I guess you'd be justified in calling me a cynic. But it's more than cynicism, really, because like you I'm very interested in finding out why this pattern asserts itself with such maddening predictability. Some of the greatest crimes against humanity of the last centrury were perpetrated in the name of one deeply idealistic system or another -- not much different from the mentality that led our forebears to burn heretics at the stake to further the reign of the God of Love. So I'm beginning to suspect that systematic idealism -- ideology in any form -- is something to avoid. The how and why of it are still a little obscure to me; I've begun reading Deleuze and Guattari's Thousand Plateaus to see if their conceptual framework might help. Anecdotally, I have generally found it easier -- more fun, much less tense -- to hang out with conservative or apolitical, "ordinary" joes and janes than with fellow leftists or progressives. I could say much more in this vein, but I gotta run.
"...I'm very interested in finding out why this pattern asserts itself with such maddening predictability."
Even A-life forms exhibit the same kind of "behaviors." I imagine that cellular automata do, as well.
Thousand Plateaus is a wonderfully entertaining book! And a good demonstration of the relevance of "what" over "why," any day.
Even A-life forms exhibit the same kind of "behaviors." I imagine that cellular automata do, as well.
Sorry, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. (What is a cellular automoton, for example? What ideological purpose is served by reducing lifeforms to made things, to machines?)
Well... my theory about the reproduction of the patterns is that people who are really driven to create a new world tend to be people who can't find the love or status they want in the world as it is. So when they enter a place that's supposed to work by the new rules, their pent-up hunger for that love and status is both overwhelming and raw, and none of its sharp edges have been worn off by the usual casual rub of reality. And so 1) conflict is harsher and stress is higher, and -- as a therapist I once knew used to intone in a sing-song --under stress, we regress. And 2) when that hunger is let loose in the real world it's often looks much more like everybody else's hunger than anyone expected :-)
Dave: If I had commented that in our universe there is a gravitational force of attraction between two cars that is the same as the gravitational force that exists between two horses, would you wonder what ideological purpose is served by my reducing horses to made things, to machines?
That some of the patterns repeatedly asserting themselves in communities of humans are similar to certain patterns repeatedly asserting themselves in communities of cellular automata is perhaps a clue regarding the "how and why" you mentioned.
In terms of conceptual frameworks that can illuminate the paradoxical perpetration of great crimes against humanity in the name of deeply idealistic systems, I think René Girard's Violence and the Sacred, Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, and Agamben's State of Exception are all very helpful.
Oh, so much good stuff here.
Dave -- I don't think it's quite as simple as avoiding ideology, only because that drive to systematize (as well as the drive toward idealism) is so deeply a part of human psychology. Here's the thing about community building. Living in community (or to put it another way, living peaceably together) is perhaps the ultimate challenge of the human race. We're confined to one small planet, and learning how to resolve conflicts WITHIN this global social system is necessary for peace. Community Building provides a model for this challenge. I bring this up only because, to my mind, those apolitical or "ordinary" folks can't remove themselves from the global system, and while the tenseness - the awareness of this ultimate challenge - might be lessened, it by no means indicates that the problem is dissolved.
Allegra - I don't know enough about cellular automata to be able to say anything about whether the emergent systemic patterns are similar, but I'm definitely willing to consider the possibility. And I've read (and loved) A Thousand Plateaus. But if you feel like elaborating at all on the books you mentioned, I'd be happy to hear!
dale - Your point is one I'm VERY conscious of, and I think there are definitely individuals attracted to CB because they've been frustrated with their inability to find real community in the world they live in. I learned a while ago, though, that true community is something that happens in oneself (though this is a simplification and not entirely sufficient; the process of realizing this concurrently with others is what's really necessary); it's only in being in "community" and deeply accepting of one's own self that one can accept, and feel accepted / included, by others. This is why I was at a CB facilitation training; it wasn't so much the community building I was interested in (I'm happy with my communities!), but learning about how to facilitate them elsewhere, so as to spread the likelihood that others would have this insight. But yes, I do agree, and I think that phenomenon you mentioned was definitely at play last weekend.
I haven't done as much highbrow reading as you all, but just from an intuitive standpoint isn't the world not yet ready for utopian ideologies? Don't we all have to sit more and do more yoga first?
From hanging out at protests, I suspect if our anarchists or socialists (and I am both, kinda) were to gain a critical mass anytime soon, then our crimes against humanity might repeat. I dunno, just a thought.
I'm a bit curious about exactly what the community was about? What issues did it have to come to agreement on?
I ask because you describe some obvious and severe conflict - so people had something to disagree pretty fervently about. Communies in real life tend to share goals and/or resources, with disagreements coming from that shared part of life. (With the caveat that if the community has been around a long time, many of the "resources" are the emotional connections that people have developed, and would like to continue in the future).
Ian.
The task was to solely to "build community"; these workshops are often done prior to the group taking another task, whether it be designing a new product or embarking on a trip together. It's the intensity of this (usually the 'being/doing' of community flows from and is mediated by the goals and resource management you mentioned) that leads to the cooking-pot intensity. I wish I could say more about what the conflicts were about, but I don't want to betray any confidences.
You can read a little about the 'process' and the usual stages here, though, if you're interested:
http://www.communitybuildingfoun...foundation.org/
The point is that the content of the conflict doesn't matter; people will disagree on SOMETHING, and it's the patterns that flow from this are what's telling. Anyway . . . the main task, or what the group needed to agree on, was for everyone to feel successfully included in the community. It was painfully difficult.
. . . this sounds amazing . . . and cograts on the new job . . . :)
Years and years ago at a pre Easter sermon by Peter Gomes I heard something that comes back to me so many times and this conversation brings it back again. He talked of Lent as a time of not giving up meat, or chocolate, but of giving up ones convictions. Farland
Commenting by HaloScan
