alternative Aotearoa
  • front
  • purpose
    • scenario >
      • post-capitalist economy
      • teamwork
    • editorial
  • common cause
    • Greens integral frame
    • Aotearoa
  • the Ark
    • alt.community
  • paradigm
    • the fictive self
    • mythistory
  • network
    • resources
  • get this!

group psychodynamics

21/11/2011

0 Comments

 
Remember the psychic octopus that made the global headlines last year after correctly predicting, live on camera, the results of 8 matches in the soccer world cup in a row?  The day after the All Blacks won the Rugby World Cup, TV3 ran a news story after their headline report of it which contained a replay of a TAB television ad in which a couple of young guys were shown trying to get a hen to pick the scorer of the first All Black try in the final.  The guys showed the hen photos of Mils Muliana & Cameron Smith & told the hen their names but it failed to react.  Then one of them showed the hen the 3rd photo said “Woodcock” and the hen squawked and leapt up in the air.  The TV3 newsreader then reminded us that the only try the All Blacks got in the final was scored by Tony Woodcock!!

Phenomena like this strike people as significant yet lack rational explanation, so many dismiss them as “just a coincidence”. Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychologist, invented the term synchronicity in the 1920s to explain meaningful coincidences. His rationale was that the world is interconnected at a deep level, and he gave this common ground the Latin name unus mundus (one world). In the same decade the discoveries of the leading quantum physicists proved that he was right.  Our experience is superficially of differences between things, yet there is an underlying context of unity connecting everything.

The X Files became a popular cult tv show in the 1990s, and what we most remember from it is it's signature notion that `the truth is out there'.  The truth is usually hidden.  People claim to have found it, but usually only a portion of the human race ends up agreeing with them.  Facts often turn out to be a matter of opinion when you examine them closely.  Right & wrong are categories in our minds, but we usually aren't sure if things are right or wrong.  This alerts us to the fact that traditional dichotomies are best relativised by a 3rd category – partial truth.  Group psychodynamics can be handled with finesse by using a 3rd alternative!

Perception is reality.  This observation has currency in popular culture because the way people see the world structures their personal reality. What about impersonal reality then?  Social reality is structured via consensus.  Physical reality is out there, but we all see it differently even when agreeing on the main features.  When I was a kid everyone referred to an account they didn't believe as “a likely story”, sarcasm being popular back then.  So you can imagine my surprise when I looked up the meaning of myth in the Encyclopedia Brittannica & found the original meaning was “a likely story”.  Myths have been guiding beliefs for human societies throughout history, despite many believing they aren't true.  Truth seems irrelevant.

That movie The Matrix a decade ago, how many of you realised when you saw it that it was a metaphor for our collective reality?  We live in a matrix of shared beliefs that define our view of reality.  As we grow up we get the matrix indoctrinated into our heads, first by parents, then by school and friends, and later as adults by the media and culture.  Something is only real to us if the matrix allows it to be.  Unless or until you escape!

So if you want to get good at group psychodynamics you have to be able to finesse the difficulties most people have when it comes to the interface of belief and reality.  The best way forward is to advocate the both/and approach.  This terminology entered culture in the '70s from computer logic.  A binary switch is either on or off, but signals can be combined via a both/and gate.  Rather than exclusion of alternatives, we get inclusion.  When people come at you with a fervent belief, denial alienates them.  Better to include them in your world-view by neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but instead acknowledging that there may be some truth in their view.  Be sophisticated & reserve judgment.  You can always make your mind up later.

Civilisation has been ruled by binary thinking for the past couple of millennia.  Culture therefore frequently confronts us with false dichotomies.  People have been getting brainwashed into thinking things are either right or wrong for so long we assume it's normal.  We must admit from now on that there's a 3rd category in real life: things that are partly right and partly wrong - plus things that we cannot actually determine the truth value of.  Every time you see a polarity, think of a 3rd alternative that relates it to our common context.  If you triangulate the polarity you can show people that the world is not as simple as they thought.

The philosophy of dualism has immense tradition across cultures due to its survival value – you either correctly identify a looming predator or you don't.  Escape or die.  But the world is not really black & white.  It is coloured.  Even in monochrome there are shades of grey, and it is normal to distinguish between the different shades.  In politics the drama comes from assertions about the nature of reality – claims that things are like this produce opponents who say they're actually like that. Priorities seem either right or wrong, but when it comes to producing a consensus – which is normally the only way people in groups can achieve group success – then the details of any proposal must be agreed.  The devil is always in the details, so success only comes when you arm-wrestle the devil!  This is the practical consequence of triangulating polarities. Negotiating agreement relates the polarised camps to the common ground and the compromise can be formulated in that context.

I've been telling people for decades that the difference between Labour & National is that whereas Labour people are normally brain-dead, National people are normally both brain-dead and morally corrupt.  The current National govt is the first I've seen for 40 years that so far seems an exception to this rule, but wait & see – the 2nd term may reveal their true colours, huh?  I realised at age 21 that both parties were wrong, so there had to be a 3rd alternative, which my generation of rebels would produce.  Didn't happen!  Well, we eventually got the Greens.  They proved to be smart enough to identify themselves as neither left nor right, but in front, which I immediately knew was my stance, so I joined them & did what it took to get them into parliament.  Too bad they turned out to be really just another bunch of mainstreamers.

But hey, there's a natural polarity between the Greens (party members) and the greens (all who self-identify as green but don't want to join the party).  The latter have always vastly outnumbered the former.  Triangulate that polarity and you have the path forward!  Once you start exploring the motivations of each group, you find out why the branding only works for some.  Brands are a key to group psychodynamics – each brand activates a different value psychology (in both adherents and observers).

Just as the greens are a tribe, the Occupy movement is the genesis of a new tribe.  If it gells.  Coming together brings a crash course in group psychodynamics – polarizing of views is a transitional phase so folks first focus on differences, then focus on common ground (both/and) to unite the movement.  People divide themselves naturally into bodies of opinion, but always remember that divide & rule is the traditional strategy of social control systems.  The powers that be always exploit that natural tendency.  The people only prevail when they get their act together!  It's natural for groups to select leaders and for males to compete to be group leaders – but leadership aspiration often arises from the hero syndrome & ego, which are incidental to group success.  That comes when people pull together naturally and operate as a team.  Leaders also become targets for other groups, which means it's better to have several or change them often.  Hard to hit a moving target, right?!

Occupy is a protest movement – against what?  Exploitation, corruption, the social control system (Federal Reserve, Wall St, Bilderbergers, fascism) but members ought to brainstorm their own answers.  Ultimately the movement ought to be for an alternative – brainstorm that next!!  Not all rich folk are enemy:  Soros is a good guy, in my opinion.  Very important to have compassion & goodwill, do reconciliation to enable working together - spirituality ought to be part of political action. Remember that good & evil is a polarity;  most people doing wrong are not evil, merely bad! Business as usual trades goods but socialises bads: they need to pay their true costs. Enforce that feedback to triangulate the economy and make business more ethical.

If the Occupy tribe manages to transcend protest & grievance and gell into a real alternative political movement aimed at solving the problems they are complaining about, I'll be willing to help. You can represent the 99% effectively if you make that transition real - but doing so will require marketing. Marketing works in politics just like in the economy: tell the right story to the people, find the frame that intersects with their world-view, then infect them with your ideavirus.

(written for Occupy Auckland 31/10/11)

0 Comments

on creating an alternative

2/11/2011

0 Comments

 
I've been liaising with Lisa & Bill since Lisa offered to help the Occupy Auckland movement by providing nightly speakers for an early-evening 15 minute talk.  Seemed a good way for older folk to provide guidance.  Unfortunately the movement remains bogged down in negativity due to the prevailing social pathology in their group culture, so I've decided to pull out.
Essentially oppositionist, the movement has adopted the collective stance of adolescent rejection of the parental authority of the state (the state being controlled by the capitalists, regardless of whether a left or right govt is in control).  This is understandable.  Protest movements are the traditional form of political expression of the angry people when elections don't solve the problem.
I believe the OWS premise is flawed:  protests don't solve the problem either.  What they should be doing is forming an alternative political movement to offer the people a positive alternative to the status quo.  That means formulating an alternative, articulating it, advocating it.  Instead, they remain locked in grievance mode.  A week ago they decided to produce a list of grievances to present to the media, yet this job remains undone.
Various suggested points have been provided by individuals in the movement to the person who they selected to formulate the list.  I have seen some of them notified to the Occupy online site.  They can be interpreted as a list of complaints but they really point to problems.  The next step, which the movement must take if it is to be effective, is to identify the solutions.  Instead, Occupy Auckland follows OWS in the traditional stance of the protest movement.  After 40 years of this syndrome failing to deliver the desired results, my attitude is enough of this shit.  Get over it!  Act like adults instead of adolescents.

At least the Greens have the right approach, as does Lisa with her Awareness Party;  they're both advocating a positive alternative.  I've explained in my earlier essay here that I discontinued all involvement with the Greens in mid '95.  [I may  make the reasons public.]  I've been staunch ever since in avoiding all party members and my aversion has kept me from checking out their website lest it make me angry and disgusted.  Don't like being that negative, but my conscience requires me to tell the truth.  I understand that negative feedback is an essential healthy part of community, but liberal socialists can't handle reality at all and would find my critique too severe.  I'm not inclined to hurt people, so better to cut all ties.
However last night I finally went to look at the Green Party site:  it's nice & user friendly in ambience but content seemed banal.
I know I can feel good about the Greens if they retain support for Tibet & decriminalising cannabis.  When I took over as organiser of the Greens justice and international relations policy working groups in '91 I discovered to my disgust that the justice policy didn't include decriminalising cannabis & the international relations policy didn't include freedom for Tibet.  So I put both in immediately!!  I then drove the policy consensus process through regional adoption to national adoption.  I've been grateful for Nandor Tanzcos  & Russel Norman leading both causes in the public arena in the intervening years.
However, a quick check of the website failed to find a policy statement in favour of either issue.  That's liberal socialists for you - if it's an issue of natural justice, integrity and authenticity they will run & hide every time.
0 Comments

key principles

1/11/2011

0 Comments

 
A year ago Bill & I formed a small group to brainstorm a new political movement, which has met sporadically since.  I encountered Lisa Er just before she resigned from the Greens and we explored the possibility of collaboration.  It turned out Lisa had a preconceived plan that was unsuitable for us so she launched her design as the Awareness Party and I proceeded to formulate my design on this site separately.
It was clear to me that Lisa had chosen the wrong name for a viable alternative political movement, plus her list of key principles was inadequate.  I identified 4 essential principles that were missing:

symbiosis
The reason symbiosis is an essential principle is because humanity must achieve a symbiotic relationship to nature in order to survive.  The current and traditional relationship is exploitative and destructive on our part.  An alternative political movement must signal to people that it is part of the solution to the global crisis by identifying itself as a better option than business as usual.  It can only be a better option if it includes a sustainable economy, which requires eliminating the exploitation and destruction of nature in a society that is sustainable in perpetuity.  Embracing symbiosis with nature is essentially a spiritual transformation.

equity
The reason symbiosis is an essential principle is because it is the key to wealth-sharing.  Recognising equity of access to common wealth restores our original tribal economy in which food was always shared equitably.  Survival of the tribe always depended on this basic equity.  It is enshrined nowadays in human rights covenants adopted by the UN but states keep failing to ensure that the economy delivers it, due to the fact that they remain captive to vested interests.  An alternative political movement must enforce delivery.  Intergenerational equity must be preserved in a sustainable society.

transcendence
The reason transcendence is an essential is because it is necessary for people do to liberate themselves from an unsatisfactory status quo.  Personal transcendence is often accomplished via reframing, education & enlightenment, therapies and self-improvement disciplines.  Insufficient application of transcendent techniques to group involvement is the reason for the inertial effect of business as usual as a collective mind-set.  Replacing that paradigm with a better way of working together requires collective transcendence.  Only by doing this will our quality of life improve.

natural justice
Collective decision-making must be constrained by the moral imperative of producing decisions that are consistent with the common good.  This can readily be achieved by imposing a legal requirement that group decisions conform to the principle of natural justice.  Normally this equates to social justice and the concepts of fairness and the greater good of all.  Historical usage as a legal `term of art' cannot be deemed to prevail over our recognition of the basic principle.  In deciding, people are best advised to use their conscience and prioritise the common interests of everyone.

It is worth noting that the Greens have a global collective tradition based upon 4 key principles:  ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, and non-violence.  While these always seemed reasonable I sensed their insufficiency and am not surprised by efforts to extend them, as in the US ten-point plan.  Their social justice principle is more akin to the equity principle above than the natural justice principle.*  To extend a sectarian view into the mainstream requires precision of thought and articulation;  reasoning that connects to common sense!

Ecological wisdom superficially equates to the symbiosis principle but the greens failed to think deeply enough to identify it explicitly.  They correctly identify a sustainable society  and regenerative agriculture as required but fail to specify that the economy must be sustainable also.  They imply intergenerational equity is necessary without actually saying so.  The american greens have created a non-growth principle (#10) separately from the sustainability principle (#3), but non-growth is a consequence of a sustainable economy, not a basic principle. 

There is merit in emphasising the point, but you need to do that in public relations via a social charter or manifesto when you explain how people can collectively prosper without growth.  I agree with acknowledging  participatory democracy as a natural right, along with gender equity.  Their decentralisation principle (#5) is better identified as the principle of local autonomy - that too is a natural right people ought to have.

Their #6 tries to describe equity in economic systems, and working together for the common good.  It beats all round that bush in woolly thinking without actually getting to the heart of the matter.  Economic democracy is the closest they get but they fail to identify it as a key principle.  Their #8 seems valid but embracing diversity is stronger if you actually identify a principle of inclusion of minority views in public life - a right of representation in public debate.

Their #9 is mere idealism devoid of principle - it looks like a vision statement instead.  There is actually a principle of responsibility that could be identified.  Everyone is responsible for the effects of their behaviour on others.  The group also has the right to enforce accountability on members.  That's a separate (complementary) principle!

freedom of choice
The right have correctly identified that we must be free to choose, as Milton Freidman famously put it back in the mid-'70s.  This fundamental right of expression of our decisions is guided by our personal values.  It applies superficially to goods & services, but more importantly to self-development, fulfillment and destiny.  The economy works best when we have the incentive to contribute in the manner that best suits our skills, talents and aspirations.

All such key principles are contenders for inclusion in a contemporary social charter.  Such a document is valid on the basis of consensus.  Consensus only happens when people move beyond complacency and formalise their agreement.

* see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pillars_of_the_Green_Party
http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
0 Comments

    Author

    Dennis Frank (mystic, fringe-dweller, leading-edge conceptualiser) also blogs @
     http://altaotearoa.blogspot.co.nz/ 

    Archives

    June 2016
    August 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    December 2013
    June 2013
    May 2012
    November 2011
    October 2011

    Categories

    All
    3rd Alternative
    Alternative Political Movement
    Avante Garde
    Coalition
    Collaboration
    Common Cause
    Democracy
    Fringe-dwellers
    Global Threats
    Greens
    Matrix
    National
    Occupy
    Psychodynamics
    Voters

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.