Global Transformation: Strategy for Action
Dedication Epigraph Preface Acknowledgments One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Epilogue Comments

Humility
Many-sided Awareness
Beyond Ideology
Whole Persons
Holistic Communities
Holism
Partnerships
The Earth Community
Authority
Being Progressive
Being Positive

This chapter discusses the underlying values that shape the goals proposed in the previous chapter. In combination, these values form a worldview. As Jacob Needleman wrote in Why Can’t We Be Good?,

Perhaps because arrogance has been a problem of my own, humility strikes me as key to a progressive worldview. If one begins with a humble perspective, other valuable attitudes tend to follow automatically.

My mother was a moral person, but she was also moralistic. She basically considered ordinary people “dirty.” Without realizing it, I picked up some of her judgments. When I was thirteen, for example, Sunday School frustrated me because my fellow students didn’t seem serious about our studies. Then, on the way home with the family that gave me a ride, the driver’s vulgar language shocked me. So I went home and declared that I wasn’t going to church anymore because “they’re hypocrites.”

Decades later, my father told me that the main reason my mother didn’t go to church regularly was that she couldn’t find a minister whom she didn’t consider a hypocrite. At that moment, I realized for the first time how my mother’s arrogance influenced my decision to stop going to church.

Being a Little League super-star also contributed to my sense of superiority. As soon as he could, my mother’s father trained me intensively. With this head start, I did extremely well at baseball and softball throughout grade school. I was not only convinced that I was going to play in the big leagues. I was certain that I was going to play first-string shortstop for the New York Yankees.

Eventually, however, my peers caught up with me, I fell back to being no better than average on my high school baseball team, and I developed other interests. The strong self-confidence I learned on the baseball diamond was a mixed blessing, for it wasn’t grounded in reality.

At some point (I don’t recall when), my mother started telling me, “Wade, you’re going to be a great man.” For years, I heard that message over and over. As with my grandfather’s grandiose dreams concerning baseball, there were benefits to my mother’s programming. But it did harm as well as good. To this day, when I hear adults tell children, “You can be whatever you want to be,” I cringe.

Going to mediocre working-class schools didn’t help me achieve my ambition to be a college professor, for I excelled too easily. In grade school, I was usually “teacher’s pet” because I was quiet and timid and learned my lessons quickly. I recall, for example, doing my Latin homework in high school while waiting for the tardy bell to ring and for the teacher to take roll. Throughout high school, only once was I assigned an essay to write overnight (I chose Voltaire as my subject). When I scored in the top one percent on the math section of the national P.S.A.T. test, I became even more convinced that I was brilliant, not realizing that self-discipline is needed to maximize learning at higher levels.

The doctrinaire narrow-mindedness of most of my high school teachers inflamed my arrogance. Their refusal to engage in open dialogue about the iconoclastic ideas I was picking from the books I was reading reinforced my distorted belief in my own intelligence. I considered most people “boobs,” as one of my mentors, H.L. Mencken, put it.

Going to college knocked me down a peg or two, for I encountered students who had received much better schooling and parenting than I had. But my underlying conceit remained intact.

Being in the initial minority supporting the civil rights movement and opposing the Vietnam War only to gain majority support later reinforced my inflated notion of my own wisdom. I felt like I was part of the “hidden remnant,” destined to help lead the masses into the Promised Land.

As a young adult, my basic arrogance remained fixed. Underneath the surface, however, I was uneasy. I sensed that something was wrong.

Shortly after I turned 40, I experienced a breakthrough during a Gestalt Practice workshop at Esalen Institute led by Dick Price. Prior to the pivotal session, I had observed a beautiful, blond woman, probably an upper-middle-class professional, get into the hot-springs bath overlooking the Pacific Ocean. As she got in, I immediately had a negative, gut reaction that made me uncomfortable.

So during the next workshop, I got on the “hot seat” and talked about my mixed feelings concerning my first impression of this woman. To me, she symbolized middle-class materialism, status seeking, and indifference to the suffering of others. But I made these snap judgments without knowing her, based solely on her image, which made me uncomfortable.

Using role-playing, role reversals, pounding on pillows, and other techniques to get me more deeply in touch with my feelings, Dick led me through different incidents in my life that shaped my reactions to people. After a while, I was crying convulsively for several minutes. As we finished, Dick asked me to repeat a few times something that I had said while I had been crying, “I can be critical without being judgmental.” That “Gestalt Mantra” has stuck with me ever since.

To my mind, that mantra made a distinction between criticizing someone for some specific action that violates the rights of others, and making a judgment about that person’s basic moral character. Being “judgmental” implies that the “judge” is denigrating the other person’s essential worth, and it generally involves an assumption of moral superiority with no real understanding or sympathy for why the other did what he or she did.

That Gestalt session prompted me to work steadily on overcoming this tendency by paying attention to my gut reactions and limiting how much they affect my actions. The key is empathy, to see the situation from the perspective of the other, as I learned during a psychodrama course in the Criminology department my junior year of college.

Time and again, when the psychodrama “director” asked the protagonist to switch and play the role of his or her antagonist, he or she would experience an understanding of the other that would cause his or her anger to dissolve.

When we understand what leads to the other person’s action, we realize that we could easily have acted the same way had we lived the other person’s life. Then, instinctively, the sense of moral superiority tends to fade and compassion emerges.

These experiences remind us that all people are equal in the eyes of God (or the Great Spirit, or Allah, or whatever name one prefers for that which cannot be named). From the perspective of the universe, each individual is but a small leaf on an enormous tree, part-and-parcel of the miracle of life. The world is amazing precisely because each individual is so small. The infinite makes us finite. Facing this awesome mystery honestly is a humbling experience that illuminates our own limits (including death) and our need for support.

Most people are kind, intelligent, good-hearted, and fun loving. Some just want to get by, be good parents, enjoy life, and "do no harm." Most people, it seems, also want to be upwardly mobile, to steadily improve their living conditions. And some people, like myself, don’t care much about money, aren’t satisfied with normal routines, and choose to aim for extraordinary goals of one kind or another. But being an upwardly mobile professional or a visionary activist does not mean that those life-styles are "better" than having no great ambition. In fact, a strong case can be made that ordinary simplicity is an enlightened life-style of the highest order.

Regardless, those of us who want to help change the world need to steadily unlearn our tendencies toward arrogance and foster within ourselves genuine humility. We need to learn how to work with people rather than for them. As an aboriginal Australian told Jim Wallis, author of The Soul of Politics, "If you're coming to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together."

Being humble leads to an appreciation of different perspectives on the same reality, a stance that Patricia Williams calls an “ambivalent, multivalent way of seeing” (“multivalent” means having various meanings). To most of us, a table is solid, but to a nuclear physicist, it is mostly thin air. Our ideas are always at least partly wrong, in need of constant revision to be more complete.

With this flexibility, we become less than absolute about our own convictions. We keep in the back of our mind a seed of doubt and remain open to other opinions. Rather than trying to impose an abstract dogma, we experiment to see what works concretely – and concrete reality frequently changes. We remember that what we don’t know always far exceeds what we do know. All perceptions of fact involve interpretation and perspective.

In the early 20th century, the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin designed the following drawing:

Though psychologists have drawn any number of complicated lessons about perception from this drawing, it’s always intrigued me for a simple reason. What it depicts can change instantly from being a vase to being two faces, and how one sees it can alter involuntarily. As such, for me it symbolizes human experience. One’s experience can drastically change with a quick change of perspective, like switching roles in a psychodrama. Nevertheless, the drawing is real. Its actual nature is independent of how it is interpreted.

Many philosophers and theologians have discussed the underlying unity of apparent opposites. The ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, addressed how the same object can be both hot and cold, depending on perspective, and objects that are motionless on the exterior can hold within them a tension between opposed forces. Hegel developed a dialectical method of reasoning which aimed to understand the unity of contradictions. In Chinese philosophy, the ying-yang school posited that the universe is run by a single principle, the Tao, which consists of two forces, yin and yang, that are opposed to one another. Many indigenous cultures conceived a "dynamic equilibrium" between various forces in tension that would fall out of balance with one another from time to time, thus requiring corrective action to restore balance. Einstein taught us that energy and matter are two forms of the same reality and can be converted from one into the other.

Human identity is also ambiguous. W.E.B. DuBois wrote:

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time," and people often recommend that we see “both sides” of an issue. But reality is even more complicated than that. It often contains many sides.

As the Mexican Octavio Paz reported:

As globalization accelerates and cultures mix, each individual’s identity is more and more a combination of many elements.

Many-sided awareness also helps us understand human behavior. Determining why an individual, a group, or a society undertakes a particular action can easily get very complicated. We are at the center of many forces, some internal and some external, some present and some historic, and others genetic. We are like the captain of a sailboat in a turbulent sea, trying to control our course.

As a result, as Paz said in 1990 when he accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature, “History is unpredictable because its agent, mankind, is the personification of indeterminism.” We therefore cannot be certain, he said, that history has a direction or a goal. Paz concluded:

To acknowledge uncertainty denies neither reality nor truth, but rather merely means that I recognize that I don’t understand everything. Because other perspectives hold at least some kernel of truth, I try to understand them. Even without absolute proof, however, I must act decisively on faith that what I intuitively believe to be true is true.

I affirm that there is a natural order. I try to act in a way that is consistent with that order, in order to contribute to human evolution. But I don’t do so with absolute certainty. I live as I want others to live, while accepting their right to do the same – which often necessitates compromise.

Many people take uncertainty too far. They go overboard and deny any underlying essential truth. As a hipster from San Francisco used to say repeatedly in 1962 during my freshman year of college in Berkeley, “Whatever’s right.” That amoral stance was shocking in contrast to my moralistic Dallas upbringing. My peers and I found it appealing. “Do your own thing” became our watchword, as we proceeded with indifference to shock others, not caring how they reacted. This callous indifference persists, and has carried over into nihilistic “postmodern” thinking that denies that reality can be known.

On occasion, when I’m driving my taxi, I conduct public-opinion surveys. On one occasion, I asked people, “Do you think there’s a difference between right and wrong and if you do, what is it?” Most people responded with comments that struck me as sensible. But a sizeable minority said something like, “No. It’s whatever you think.”

Unfortunately, in recent decades, too many progressive activists have adopted a similar relativistic stance with regard to issues like the totalitarian nature of Soviet Communism, sexual promiscuity, and street crime, which enabled the authoritarian right to seize the mantle of morality. Now, it’s time to reaffirm a resolute, progressive morality, without being either inflexible or doctrinaire. Our knowledge is imperfect, but we know the difference between right and wrong.

Reality exists. There is a structure and order to the universe that remains constant. All of the world’s religious traditions, for example, largely share in common remarkably similar values that are universal because they are consistent with human nature. So we can often agree on what is true, or at least on what is most likely true.

We can replace absolute doctrines with a shared worldview that embraces moral decisiveness, communal solidarity, many-sided awareness, pluralism, uncertainty, diversity, and compromise.

Abstractions are ideas about reality. As such, ideas are interwoven with the reality to which they point. To abstract is to treat ideas as if they were separate, which is to treat a part of the whole as if it were the whole. This attitude usually also assumes that ideas are superior to reality.

Ideology is as an organized collection of abstract thoughts applied to reality. With ideologues, the gap between ideas and reality is enormous. They attempt to fit reality into their previously formed analytical framework and try to shape the world according to these preconceptions.

With this approach, what works best at the moment is often sacrificed for some ideal that is assumed to be more beneficial in the long run. Ideologues are determined to impose their theories, with little or no regard for consequences.

The National Rifle Association opposes absolutely any form of gun control because they don’t want to “open the door” to stronger measures by legitimizing the abstract idea of “gun control.” Some pro-choice advocates oppose any restriction on abortion because they don’t want abortion opponents to build momentum toward outlawing all abortion. Other ideologues push relentlessly for privatization of public services, including efforts to privatize the military, because they want to promote the notion that for-profit enterprises are always better than government-run services. Some leftists oppose all public-private partnerships because they insist on fighting for the public sector “on principle.”

Ideologues love people in the abstract – not in person. Their concepts become divorced from the real world. They live in their head rather than their heart and adopt an impersonal attitude. They care more about their theories than about what is practical. They place too much emphasis on abstract ideas, without reference to concrete examples. As with abstract art, they focus on form and neglect content.

A common aspect of the ideological approach is an absolute, all-or-nothing stance. Another frequent characteristic is utopianism, the belief that perfection is possible, which means that anything less than perfection is inadequate. A third trait of ideologues is dividing the world into us vs. them (which often involves projecting onto others tendencies that the ideologue refuses to acknowledge in himself). Another feature is labeling the opposition “evil,” or using some other similar judgment.

Because ideologues care more about winning their war of ideas than they do about improving actual living conditions, they spend more time preaching than they do listening. They shade the truth or lie, value loyalty over competence, and take sides based on other allegiances, such as “a friend of my friend is my friend, and an enemy of my friend is my enemy.” The ideologue always wants to prove a point or establish some grand principle for the sake of the future.

Describing what is distinctive about the ideological perspective is not easy. But you know it when you see it, as when people are unwilling to consider other points of view. It’s usually reflected in a tone that is shrill, loud, piercing, preachy, and arrogant.

A non-ideological, pragmatic approach accepts reality for what it is, based on shared values that flow from the heart rather than the head. Talking from the heart merges ideas and feelings. People who talk from the heart are willing to acknowledge various points of view and learn from them, rather than always trying to convert others and recruit them into one cause or another. Being pragmatic does not mean that one has no convictions. Rather, it refers to the nature of one’s convictions and one’s attitude toward them.

I felt that I saw a new, non-ideological approach when I listened to Barack Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. At the time, I was studying George Lakoff and working with the Reaching Beyond the Choir Project, looking for new ways to more effectively communicate with a broader range of people. I immediately sensed that Obama was demonstrating a new approach.

So I submitted excerpts from his speech for consideration by the participants in the Reaching Beyond the Choir Project, who at the end of our process voted on a number of proposed statements of purpose for the progressive movement (the author of each statement was not identified). As it turned out, Obama’s “Out of Many, One” statement got the most votes. I was not surprised, for I considered it a remarkable breath of fresh air. It took John Edward’s “Two America’s” speech to the next level and affirmed “One America.”

Some progressives argue that we have to fight a class war because the elite have started it and we have to win it. In Mexico, for example, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ran his campaign on the theme, “the poor first.” But a number of Mexicans who passionately supported Obrador told me afterwards that they concluded that his approach was wrong, that he should have instead emphasized what would be best for all Mexicans. I tend to agree with them and find that attitude to be less ideological. As antipoverty activists in the States have discovered, pressing for universal programs that can benefit everyone and anyone is more likely to be successful than pushing for programs that are only for poor people.

In the United States, many progressives cite the way that radical conservatives took over the Republican Party and argue that progressive Democrats should copy their methods. I agree that progressive Democrats need to run strong campaigns in primaries against “moderate” Democrats who fail to represent their constituents on key progressive issue. But the takeover of the Republican Party suggests to me that excessive reliance on angry confrontation is counterproductive. You can win the battle and lose the war.

Though I disagree with many of his specific positions, I think Obama’s pragmatic approach holds much greater promise. As I write, the growing support for Obama suggests that he’s hit a nerve with his new approach.

With a non-ideological approach, progressives can recognize merit in many values that are commonly considered “conservative,” such as:

• tradition;
• having an agreed upon moral order;
• the importance of authority (legitimate power);
• accountable hierarchies;
• private property;
• free enterprise;
• competition;
• individual liberty;
• self-determination;
• family;
• limits on governmental intrusion;
• love of country;
• personal responsibility;
• self-discipline;
• rewards when merited;
• and punishment when deserved.

The word “conservative” has so many different, conflicting meanings, I see no reason to use it except with quotation marks. Human beings are not torn between “conservative” and “progressive” tendencies. We are torn between a multitude of tendencies. Reducing worldviews into only two categories suppresses the many-sided awareness that is called for by the real world, which is complex and contradictory. Because labels distort reality, they must be handled with great care.

In his Nobel lecture, which he titled “In Search of the Present,” Octavio Paz criticized reliance on ideology in his reflections on the decline of modernity’s key myth, its belief in “endless progress.” He said “our conception of history as a unique and linear process of succession” was being called into question. Recent developments are

Paz objected passionately to “ideologists intent on introducing principles derived from a political theory.” As he pointed out, “the believers, confident that they held the keys to history, erected powerful states over pyramids of corpses. These arrogant constructions, destined in theory to liberate men, were very quickly transformed into gigantic prisons.”

Today, these comments apply to both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, who are trying to revive ancient ideologies, as well as neo-conservative militarists, who are trying to preserve an evaporating empire.

Toward the end of his talk, Paz pointed the way toward a different stance, a focus on the present, which is filled with presence.

“Presence” is the state of being present, as in “he tested for the presence of radon.” Presence also refers to a spiritual energy or influence felt to be nearby, as in, “Straightway I became conscious of a Presence in the room.” It also means the impression that something is present, as in, "She felt the presence of an evil force." It also suggests a dignified manner, a quality of self-assurance and effectiveness, as in, “She has a presence about her.”

When one is present, if one can’t change or escape a noxious reality, one accepts it and concentrates on changing what can be changed. One accepts imperfection. As Leonard Cohen wrote, “There is a crack in everything / That’s how the light gets in.”

When one is present, in attendance, one is open to presence, available, alert, attentive, spontaneous, in touch with feelings, intuitive, and ready to respond – rather than wrapped up in ideas, preoccupied with the past or the future.

When I’ve asked my taxi passengers, “Do you ever stop thinking?” most of them have said, “No.” One said, “Only when I play with my dog.” Another said, “Sometimes when I get a massage.”

Most people in the modern world always seem to be pondering something, engaged in a train of thoughts, whether remembering past events or imagining the future, scheming and dreaming, weighing the merits of various options, or speculating on how to make a difference by shaping the world according to their own ideas. As Eckhart Tolle said in The Power of Now, “We have forgotten how to be – to be still, to be ourselves, to be where life is: Here and Now.” Those who are present, filled with presence, merely want to do some good – one day at a time.

Barack Obama, by spreading a non-ideological, moral worldview, reflects Paz’s recommendation that we focus on “limited remedies to solve concrete problems” from a “rigorous global” perspective in the midst of “the advent of the now.” As Dan Balz reported in the Washington Post:

Politicians seldom speak in those terms, though it is critical that they do so in order to help us elevate ourselves to a new, more moral level.

When Bob Dylan rejected being a propagandist for the Movement, or “left-wing servant” as Allen Ginsberg put it, he reflected a similar perspective, as documented in Martin Scorcese’s film, No Direction Home. “An artist has got to be careful never really to arrive at a place where he thinks he’s ‘at’ somewhere. You always have to realize that you’re constantly in the state of becoming (Dylan).” That’s why we need artists and poets and musicians to inspire us to deeper, pre-verbal understanding.

When Dylan released “My Back Pages,” I had to listen to it many times before I could accept it. He recalled and lamented how with great pride he had used “ideas as my maps” and had screamed “lies that life is black and white” like the romantic Three Musketeers, based on what he had memorized about “ancient history.” He had adopted a “soldier's stance,” not realizing that when he started to preach, he became his own worst enemy. “Abstract threats” made him defensive and rigid. But now, he declared, good and bad were not so clear and he celebrated that after having been “so much older then,” he’s “younger than that now.”

Guided by ideas and romantic notions, I too had seen life in black and white. Good and bad were quite clear to me. And I aimed to be a mighty preacher. Over time, however, I came to agree with Bob. I now aim to be “younger than that” with the unquenchable curiosity of a child.

Dave Von Ronk, one of Dylan’s early mentors, said that he and his fellow ideologues attacked Dylan for being unsophisticated at the time, but he now suspects that Dylan was far more sophisticated than they were. My impression is that Obama manifests a similar, non-ideological approach that is much more subtle than many people realize. The fact that so many progressive ideologues don’t appreciate the wisdom of his strategy just reinforces my conviction that they don’t get it because they’re locked into ideology, as were those purists who trashed Dylan for “going commercial.”

So my recommended starting point for global transformation is to go beyond ideology – that is, be present, pay attention to the whole of experience, focus on changing what we can now or in the near future, and really listen carefully to the people we encounter.

When we’re humble, we can relax, love life, and appreciate all that it means to be human. We hear the birds sing and dance to their music. We no longer get stuck on ourselves. We drop our grandiose dreams (or at least recognize them for what they are). We no longer try to prove to others that we’re God’s gift to humanity. We take time to delight in the smile of a child and lose ourselves in the mystery of the moon. We open ourselves to the many dimensions of human experience.

As well as working to provide for our children and ourselves, we laugh, play, enjoy orgasms, gossip, tell stories, offer others a sympathetic ear, stay informed about current affairs, try to help make the world a better place, vegetate in front of the TV, argue about what is right, go into a trance at the cinema or a concert, write poetry or paint because we enjoy it, grow gardens, beautify our homes, or engage in any one of countless other sometimes pointless activities that enrich our lives and enable us to keep on keeping on. Often, totally present to the here and how, we lose all sense of time and “forget about today until tomorrow (Bob Dylan).”

When we expand our sense of self beyond an ego-centered focus, we can become rooted in our true self. Rooted in the frontal lobe of the brain, the ego is analytical, calculating, controlling, selfish, and future oriented. Egoism, a combination of rationalism and selfishness, is always about Me. But we’re more than a productive machine, an instrument to serve some future-oriented cause, whether making money or social reform. We’re also “a flower that has the right to bloom (Michael Franti).”

In my college room-and-board co-op, my friends and I used to look down with disdain at the fraternities and sororities that talked about cultivating “well-rounded” individuals with social skills, intelligence, emotional maturity, athletic ability, self-discipline, and other traditional virtues. We felt that these institutions were grooming young adults to conform to a narrow mainstream. They were producing Organization Men and Women, properly attired and well mannered.

We had a point. But there was also truth to their game plan. Looking back, part of the motivation behind my criticism was resentment that my childhood had been relatively deprived compared to those frat rats and sorority sisters. I sensed that my dysfunctional family had stunted my development. Emotionally I was repressed and socially I was awkward.

Learning how to get in touch with and express my feelings has been a long, gradual process. Driving taxi, believe it or not, helped me learn that “small talk” is often better than silence. At the age of 60, I finally felt that I had “grown up.” I now feel that I’m much more able to engage in real, open, attentive relationships. At last, hopefully, I’m ready to be a whole person, in a way that is similar to what those fraternities and sororities had in mind.

The modern world, however, seems to be moving in the opposite direction. As economic insecurity intensifies, more and more people feel pressure to specialize and work really hard to stay ahead of the competition. Relationships become specialized as well, with their own division of labor. People, for example, discuss emotions with one person, have intellectual discourse with another, play with someone else, do politics with others, and worship with yet others. We no longer share many important experiences with the same people. Lives are becoming fragmented, which results in self-fragmentation.

In Walden (1854), Henry David Thoreau gave voice to the emerging American individualism when he wrote: “I should not talk about myself so much if there were any body else whom I knew as well. Unfortunately, I am confined to this theme by the narrowness of my experience.” In his journal, he stated, “History is the record of my experience. I can read only my own story, never a syllable of another man’s.” Thoreau’s inability to share experiences with others was a tragic harbinger of the future.

In analyzing extensive polling data from 1992 to 2004, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger found “a country whose citizens are…feeling evermore adrift, isolated, and nihilistic.”

In her book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Ariel Levy wrote about “a hypersexualized culture that encourages its young women to be Girls Gone Wild and its young men to be piggish voyeurs,” as summarized by Garance Franke-Ruta in “Remapping the Culture Debate” in The American Prospect.

Michael Adams, in his 2005 book, American Backlash: The Untold Story of Social Change in the United States, argues that more people increasingly reject both traditionalism and progressivism. “The culture at large [is] becoming ever more attached to hedonism, thrill seeking, and a ruthless, Darwinist understanding of human competition,” he concluded.

In the first part of the 19th century, Alexis De Tocqueville compared selfishness and individualism and analyzed the interaction between the two:

...Individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness.

By reducing people to objects, specializing our relationships, promoting selfishness, and isolating individuals into ego-centered bubbles, the modern world denies much of what it means to be human. Contrary to the dominant myth, each individual is not a discrete, rational self that is controlled by its ego.

The individual’s sense of self is rooted in the mind, or consciousness, which has no boundary. No one can measure the mind, for it is not material. So the self, though distinct, is not separate. And the conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg, part and parcel of the unconscious mind, which is grounded in a genetic inheritance shared by all people, described by some as the “collective unconscious.”

Artists who tap their unconscious mind describe a process of being a conduit for energies over which they have no conscious control. Most people experience intuition as a mysterious process. Many people who meditate intensively report a loss of the sense of division between self and other (these experiences are reflected in distinctive changes in the brain during meditation). Athletes and other performers describe a spontaneous state of “being in the flow” during which the ego releases conscious control. Ordinary people report that they sometimes stop thinking, relax, and allow deep feelings to emerge when they dance, have sex, play with their children, commune with nature, or get a massage.

Jeffrey Stout expressed “wonder, awe, and even gratitude…for the powers that bear down on us, for the majestic setting of our planet and its cosmos, and for the often marvelous company that we keep here.” We are both a tiny being in an enormous universe and the center of the universe. We are both finite and infinite at the same time, a microcosm of the cosmos, “part of the sacred wholeness of reality (Needleman).” Even if you consider yourself an atheist and avoid spiritual language, you probably appreciate the value of these pre-verbal experiences.

In a remarkable review of the concept of “authentic experience” in Western intellectual history in The Nation, Jackson Lears, editor of the outstanding Raritan: A Quarterly Review, summed up authenticity as “primal, unmediated contact with the palpitating forces of real life…[or] full engagement with existence.” From this perspective, the self is not split off from experience, reality, and life. Rather, experience is the ground of being in which the self is embedded and inherently interwoven. During direct experience of reality, the self is “made whole, transparent and all of a piece.” At these moments, according to Ross Posnock, we experience “the exhilaration of dissolving selfhood in Emersonian transparency.” “Transport, rapture, ravishment, ecstasy. These are the words I want. This is the effect of music,” declared Thoreau in one of his less individualistic moments.

Lears argues that these “immediate, pre-reflective and personal experiences of “organic community” and “individual liberation” are not necessarily irrational, though they can be. “The most ambitious philosophers of experience (Martin Buber, Walter Benjamin),” according to Lears, “sought a synthesis of…ecstatic immediacy and mature reflection…attuned to the pleasures of body and mind…in fleshy, mortal humanity.” After all, as William James argued, even rationality is driven by desire – the desire to make sense of the world.

By accepting ourselves for all that we are we can let go of our self-absorbed narcissism. We can stop loving only those who appear to be carbon copies of ourselves. We can drop the notion of an ideal, separate self, which is merely a figment of the ego’s imagination. By accepting death, we can face life. By acknowledging all that we don't know, we can constantly pursue a deeper understanding of our actual condition, with all of its terror and tragedy.

All of these phenomena illustrate how the individual is not detached, but rather is enmeshed in a life force that courses through all life. And because individuals are not separate, we can share experiences with one another – we can experience the same reality.

Each individual is unique, with his or her own personal identity composed of national, racial, ethnic, gender, faith, age, and other identities. When we are oppressed due to one or more of those particular identities, defending and asserting that identity is natural and can strengthen resistance. Yet all people also have much in common.

Fundamentally and primarily, all of us are members of the human family. As Emerson said, "There is no weakness or exposure for which we cannot find consolation in the thought [that] this is part of my constitution, part of my relation and office to my fellow creature." When we more fully affirm that universal identity, and decline to claim superiority due to membership in a particular group, all of us benefit. When we feel at one with others and all life, we can trust to be open and honest and take risks. Rather than limit ourselves to fixed identities, we open ourselves to the full range of human experience.

Labels exclude. When we pigeonhole, we tend to deny characteristics that don’t fit within that label. As William James said, “When we conceptualize, we cut out and fix, and exclude everything but what we have fixed.” Patricia Williams, an African American law professor, articulated an alternative when she declared, “I…feel simultaneously more than one thing, and…hear a lot of voices in my head,” which led Posnock to describe her as a “bundled self.” In the same vein, Zora Neale Hurston, another African America woman, wrote, “I do not wish to close the frontiers of my life upon my own self. I do not wish to deny myself the expansion of seeking into individual capabilities and depths by living in a space whose boundaries are race and nation…. The stuff of my being is matter, every changing, ever moving.”

As summarized by the wikipedia, Abraham Maslow identified that all human beings need to:

• fulfill physiological needs for food, water, air, and sleep;
• address the need for safety and security, including requirements for adequate structure, order, security, and predictability;
• seek love and belonging, including friends and companions, a supportive family, identification with a group, and intimate relationships;
• receive recognition from other people that fosters feelings of self-esteem, self-acceptance, status, competence, and confidence;
• make the most of their unique abilities and strive to be the best they can be;
• acquire knowledge and understand that knowledge;
• create and/or experience beauty, balance, and structure, which often involves a sense of “transcendence” in which we become aware of not only our own fullest potential, but the fullest potential of human beings at large.

With humble many-sided awareness, each individual is a whole, complex system, as difficult to explain as the weather. Each individual is both autonomous and deeply influenced by many different factors. There is no irreconcilable opposition between self and other, only difference and tension.

Maslow’s analysis captures most of the elements of “human nature,” but it neglects one key ingredient, our responsibility to others. To be whole, we must respond to the needs of others.

If you, dear reader, saw a small child drowning in a shallow pool, I suspect you would save it. When the Indonesian tsunami devastated that region, there was an outpouring of aid from throughout the world. When people confront suffering and see an effective way to help without too much hardship or risk to themselves, they usually respond. Sometimes they do so even when the task is difficult and dangerous.

I frequently recall that more than 40,000 people die needlessly every day. Since those deaths are preventable, I feel compelled to try to do something to help prevent them.

Serving others does not require my neglecting my own needs. Buddhism asserts “neither selfishness nor self-sacrifice.” Jesus of Nazareth made a very similar point when he said, ”Love your neighbor as yourself” – that is, love your neighbor in the same way and to the same degree that you love yourself.

This concept is consistent with the “seven holy virtues” presented in the widely popular epic poem written by Aurelius Clemens Prudentius around 400 A.D. In order of importance, his virtues (with slightly modified, more contemporary language) are:

Almost 2000 years later, those benchmarks still hold up well as a description of a whole, good person (I discovered this ranking of virtues only after I had started this chapter by writing about humility first).

Love is key. Human beings are essentially curious and compassionate. We naturally identify with others, feel sympathy for their pain, and rejoice in their joy. When we love fully, we rise above egoism, without negating the ego. With humility, we see matters from the other’s point of view. We’re honest, courteous, and kind. And we’re open to compromise and cooperation.

Human beings are born with an instinct to serve others. This reality leaves us free to choose our chains. As Martin Buber wrote in I and Thou:

Geoffrey Galt Harpham argues that there is an ethical force

Jacob Needleman writes:

To be complete, one must be present and responsive to others. Otherwise, one is less than fully human. Without community, the individual withers. Strong individuals need strong families, and strong families need strong communities. We can matter to one another and still be independent. We can be close yet free. There is no irreconcilable conflict between altruism and self-interest. If one gives freely, not expecting anything in return, benefits return, eventually. But payback is secondary. Altruism, or unselfish concern for the welfare of others, is primary.

In “How Selfish an Animal? The Case of Primate Cooperation," the primatologist Frans de Waal writes that in biology:

As Dylan expresses, “What good am I…if I just turn away…shut myself off…know and don’t do…see and don’t say…look right through you…turn a deaf ear…freeze in the moment…fail to see…turn my back while you silently die.”

In May 2007, the Washington Post reported on recent scientific studies that look at what happens in the brain during reflections on moral issues. The article concluded:

In high school, I ridiculed John Donne for claiming, “No man is an island.” And during my 40s, I explored the degree to which I could meet my needs by relying only on my own internal resources, guided by Dick Price’s formulation, “increasing self-sufficiency while drawing on support as needed.” But I discovered that to maximize my potential, I must frequently benefit from assistance offered by others.

At the age of eighteen, the civil rights movement provided me with my first profound sense of community. And when I was 20, working as an orderly in a psychiatric ward that aimed to be a therapeutic community opened my heart to the gratification that can result from serving others. Most likely, I’ll always be motivated by what I learned from those formative experiences. If I don’t have it, I’ll always ache for compassionate community, even if the forces of modernization isolate me.

One-fourth of all Americans say they have no one with whom they can discuss personal troubles, more than double the number who were similarly isolated in 1985. Overall, the number of people in Americans’ closest circle of confidants dropped from three to two. These trends are disturbing.

Though individualism has brought benefits, it has resulted in ever-increasing ego-centeredness as human beings are being sucked into the suffocating quicksand of selfishness. By reinforcing the notion of a separate, abstract, ideal Self and asserting an opposition between that Self and others, liberal individualism has failed to accept individuals for what they are, creatures who need community.

A deep, democratic sense of community rooted in the loving acceptance of concrete reality could answer the emptiness engendered by liberal individualism. Rather than living in an abstract dream world, closing down our emotions, and shutting ourselves off from each other, we could let go of our addiction to ego-centered rationality and its future-oriented calculations. We could nurture a deep-seated awe at the beauty of the universe. We could return to our primordial roots and discover what it really means to be human, rather than merely a specialized instrument. We could learn to trust the future and integrate rationality with compassion, while being immersed in the present. We could reach out to others, really pay attention to them, and openly share our feelings with more than just one or two people.

We can also try to rearrange that playground where infants fall into the pool. Concern about the suffering of others leads logically to concern about the social structures and public policies that create suffering. Individuals share responsibility for their situation but they aren’t completely responsible. Social conditions also play a role and governmental policies help shape social conditions.

The Center on Policy Attitudes reports that random samples of citizens “often expressed respect for the civic act of contacting Congress and deplored that they and others did not do this more frequently.” People generally believe that their social responsibilities extend beyond merely voting occasionally and donating to tax-deductible charity organizations.

Consequently, it seems to me, our innate ethical nature calls us to participate, at least occasionally, as best we can, in political action to improve those public policies that result in so much suffering. In particular, through our government, we need to assure economic security and equal opportunity, and prevent discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary characteristic. Then, those who choose to work hard can advance financially, always learning how to adapt to increasing complexity along the way.

As Lears suggests in his reflections on the work of the historian E.P. Thompson, we need progressive communities that aren’t grounded in utopian rationalism or ideology but “in local attachments, customs and practices – all of which [come] together in a common culture, or (in Williams's signature phrase) ‘a whole way of life.’”

Some people say they feel no need for that kind of community. They meet different needs with different people and they seem to manage quite well. But compartmentalizing life in this way strikes me as risky, for doing so makes it easy to reduce others to their usefulness. It also risks self-fragmentation – that is, losing the sense of being a whole, unified, person. People can end up applying one set of values to one part of their lives and other values elsewhere. Like the contract killer in a Naked City segment said returning home after killing five people, "What has one thing to do with the other?”

Occasional solitude is important, but I suspect I’m not alone in wanting to share more experiences with the same people, if only for several hours a month and with only ten or fifteen people. With strangers at a sporting event, concert, or movie, sharing the same reality is rewarding. Experiencing meaningful events with fellow members of a progressive, holistic community would be even more rewarding.

I’d rather not use a word like “holistic,” partly because it’s often associated with various New Age movements, many of which are flaky. But there’s no synonym in the English language and summarizing complex concepts in one word is helpful. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “holistic” means “emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.” The wikipedia describes “holism” as follows:

Under “Holism in Sociology,” the wikipedia states:

As addressed above under “Whole Persons,” individuals are not isolated actors being controlled and directed by their own rational ego. “Mind over matter” is a myth, because there is no mind separate from matter. Natural facts are not lesser symbols of “higher” abstract ideas or spiritual realities. Evolution, which is unpredictable, is not being controlled by some transcendent intelligent design. Practical understanding is not inferior to intellectual knowledge or spiritual insight. Science is not superior to religion, and religion is not superior to science.

Those misconceptions are rooted in Platonic dualism and Plato was wrong when he claimed that the subjective world and the objective world are separate, rather than merely distinct and different. He made a distinction into a dichotomy. He and his fellow Greeks believed in a dualism between body and spirit, and they placed the spirit, or the mind, on a higher level. This split led to a focus on consciousness in Western thinking that has persisted to this day. This perspective has fostered individualism, the denigration of the body, and a lack of concern for justice in the material world.

As John Dominic Crossan detailed in The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus, Jesus and his contemporaries faced the challenge of Greek cultural imperialism. Prior to Roman domination, the Greeks had spread their influence widely through “Hellenization” (as the United States extends its power today with “Americanization”). The Greek worldview began undermining traditional Judaism long before the time of Jesus. Later, it was reflected in early Christianity (though Paul was inconsistent).

At a most fundamental level, traditional Hebrew monism had affirmed that the spirit is necessarily enfleshed, not accidentally enfleshed. This profound unity of body and spirit involved a love of the body and nature. This attitude contributed to the Jews’ concern about economic justice and their concern about physical purity. “We are enfleshed spirit and enspirited flesh, and we meet divinity not just in abstract speculation but in historical development. [This conflict] is here today whenever flesh is separated from spirit, flesh is then sensationalized, spirit is then sentimentalized, and both are thereby dehumanized (Crossan).”

A holistic perspective sees energy and matter as always intertwined, two sides to the same reality. Reason is not a disembodied force. The mind is boundless but it is bound to the body. The spirit, soul, mind, or whatever you want to call that which provides us with a coherent sense of self is not independent. Contrary to the individualist myth, the self is dependent on its body, other people, and life itself. The mind, as Jackson Lears put it, is "in constant dialogue with the world."

In the United States, Ralph Waldo Emerson, though he was inconsistent, often reinforced this individualist, Platonic idealism. In his review of Bill Brown's A Sense of Things: The Object Matter of American Literature, Harpham points out:

Harpham argues that the "thought" and the "object" are not separate and that thinking is always implanted in the body. In addition, with Brown, he reflects on how "things are humanlike and humans are thinglike," "material things can absorb and express human identity, interests, and relations," and objects can "even relieve some of the anxiety created by [social] alienation by giving substance to life, anchoring the subject in the durable world." Humans therefore always must test their theories "against the material specificity of the world.... Things may represent, in fact, the most productive point for theory, when, uneasy with its own abstractness, theory turns to the world in an attempt to get a grip."

From this perspective, the natural world is sacred, for it is infused with spiritual energy, and abstract notions of a supernatural world apart from nature is another form of dualism that depreciates nature. Being present to the natural world and responsive to people in the here and now is more urgent than theorizing about possible separate realms. Since the spirit is necessarily embodied in the natural world, and the natural world is necessarily infused with energy, religious experience is natural, not supernatural. Dealing with the real world is work enough without trying to grasp other realms.

Later, according to Lears, as the Protestants, Romantics, and Modernists rebelled against modernization and

Scientists and theologians alike recognize that matter and energy are two forms of the same reality. We cannot separate the subjective and the objective, or the inner and the outer. Nor can we separate humanity and nature. Each individual is enmeshed with all of nature. We are all rooted in the same life force that provides structure to life. A butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane across the globe. We are one.

The objective world is important. The economy is critical. The government, with its power to incarcerate and kill, is central. But we also need to care for the subjective world.

Many mysteries necessarily remain. The human mind will never understand everything. Mysteries dissolve pride and arrogance. The “fear and trembling” of mystery is inescapable, even if we hide from it. People try to make sense of mystery with myths and such, but language always falls short. We may be comforted by assuming that specific words explain spiritual experience, or that ideas about God are literally true. But if we mistake symbols and myths for reality, we're in trouble.

As individuals, we often take charge of ourselves, but we’re never totally in control and we often respond involuntarily. Countless instinctual, unconscious, learned, and social pressures influence our actions. And human societies can never completely direct either human history or the environment. With humility and without imposing predetermined ideas, we can only do our best to be whole, in harmony with the forces around us.

To fulfill our responsibilities to one another, we need partnerships rooted in humility, equality, and respect – partnerships with lovers and spouses, partnerships with co-workers, partnerships between employers and employees, partnerships between businesses and community, partnerships between teachers, parents, and students, partnerships with our fellow activists and friends, partnerships between the people and the government, partnerships with other nations, and a partnership between humanity and Mother Nature.

The time for domination (and submission) is over. We must recognize that top-down, one-way relationships don’t work in the long run. The myth of the Industrial Revolution – that machines and the factory are a panacea – has been exposed. We must stop treating each other and the environment like disposable objects. God over man, man over woman, humanity over nature, boss over worker – these notions are obsolete. Trying to be King of the Hill is like trying to catch a rainbow. There is no Great Leader or any Knight in Shining Armor who will save us. We cannot assume that God will tell us what to do. We can no longer get away with “going along to get along.” Blind obedience is no longer a viable option.

We’re in this together and each of us must step up and carry our share of the load. None of us knows exactly what to do. None of us is perfect. We all make mistakes. But we can do our best, shoulder to shoulder.

The more you are turned on, the more I am turned on, for joy is contagious. The more powerful you are, the more powerful I am, for my power depends on our power. We need to be partners in joy and power.

It’s not all about you. It’s not all about me. It’s about us. It’s about life. We are called to embrace God’s creation. We are called to love life. We take care of ourselves so that we can take care of each other.

If we give in order to receive, the karma is minimized. If I give you a shoulder rub only if you promise to give me one in exchange, our pleasure is reduced. Authentic love is not a calculation. It is spontaneous.

Partners accept their differences. Even identical twins are different. To try to mold life into our own image is to smother life. We respect each other and want the other to flower in his or her unique way.

We are open to the world and each other. We allow life to course through our bodies and souls. We don’t close ourselves off or separate ourselves. We are at one with the universe and with our fellow humans. We trust our profound natural goodness and express ourselves freely, honestly, with freshness and spontaneity.

We want to inspire one another to be all that we can be, while recognizing “I’m nobody’s savior and nobody’s mine either (Ferron).”

Personally, the experience of genuine partnership has been relatively rare in my life. More often than not, I’ve found that others either want to be dominant or submissive. In the mid-1970s, Esalen Institute convened a large conference in San Francisco with a remarkably insightful title, “Spiritual and Therapeutic Tyranny: The Willingness to Submit.” Ever since, that phrase has stuck with me and guided my observations, prompting me to notice how often people place others on a pedestal just so they can knock them off later.

Though real partnerships have been few and far between, when they’ve happened, I’ve realized it with crystal-clear clarity. The experience is hard to describe, but when it happens, you know it.

In terms of the partnership between governmental leaders and their people, P.A. Payutto, a Thai Buddhist scholar monk, summarized Buddha’s recommended qualities for governmental leaders as follows:

These ancient principles, also embraced by other spiritual traditions in their highest incarnations, remain relevant today and apply to citizens as well as public officials. Even in democracies, responsibility for public policy is not totally transferred to elected representatives. Citizens remain obligated to stay informed, voice their opinions on important issues, and act wisely to advance constructive policies.

Real partnerships can protect communities from becoming totalitarian, which is a threat with any community. By definition, partners respect each other’s autonomy and individuality. They connect freely. A community composed of partners leads to unity in diversity, rather than conformity and homogeneity.

During the height of the Katrina crisis, Stevie Wonder appeared live on CNN to perform a new song about that catastrophe. During an interview prior to singing it, he said:

Finding this statement to be provocative, I asked my associates with the Strategy Workshop, “Do you agree with him? Do you believe that his formulation is an effective argument that should be used widely?”

One member responded, “Golda Meir said something with the same freight as the source of peace between the Palestinians and Israel. It works in that area and I see no reason it would not work in every area of conflict.”

Another commented, “I agree with Stevie. So do these folks; I think this one should be forwarded everywhere! http://www.globalcommunity.org/flash/wombat.shtml” (a link to an excellent flash video by Global MindShift).

Another said, “vis-à-vis stevie wonder…in the labor movement…it is known as…’an injury to one is an injury to all.’”

Others agreed as well, but one member voiced some of the reservations that prompted me to post the question. He said:

When I responded, “Stevie Wonder did not equate the two, for he did not say that the one is the same as the other. Rather, we said we should love the one as much as the other,” he answered:

So I replied:

Barack Obama’s aunt in Kenya summed this point clearly when she told him, “If everyone is family, no one is family.”

The reference to Global MindShift led me to check out that project extensively and I found it very valuable. They rely heavily on the work of the cosmologist Brian Swimme, who argues that modern science offers us new clarity about what it means to be where we are in a universe that began from a single point 13.7 billion years ago and is still expanding and growing increasingly complex. Swimme expands Stevie Wonder’s commitment from all humanity to all life on Earth. I find his words compelling.

Swimme says we need to understand our origin, the Big Bang. Following this “amazing eruption of light,” the basic components of our bodies, protons and electrons, began to stabilize. “So, to be human,” he argues, “is to be an extension of that original energy that emerged mysteriously at the beginning of time.”

Two hundred million years later, stars formed, composed of hydrogen and helium. Over the course of billions of years, these stars created carbon, oxygen, phosphorous, and then iron. But iron can’t burn. So iron caused a gravitational collapse that reduced stars to a single point. This collapse then caused explosions that produced planets like the Earth. Swimme concludes:

At a certain point, this self-organizing process “protected itself with a membrane. And inside that membrane we have the first living cell,” which led to the evolution of humans. Human beings, however, proved to be unique because

With language, humans learned how to communicate these experiences to others and pass this knowledge on through generations. So we are individuals only in a limited sense for “our minds are actually created and supported by 200,000 years of human experience.”

This consciousness has enabled us to fundamentally alter the functioning of the entire planet. “If there were no humans around today, there would be, maybe, one species going extinct a year,” Swimme reports. But thousands of species are going extinct every year due to human activity, which means we must accept “that we live in the most destructive moment in 65 million years,” overwhelming “billion-year-old dynamics.” We are shifting from solely genetic determination to cultural determination.

Since only humans can correct what we are doing to the planet,

Swimme also recommends that we realize “the system is far too complex for us to actually manage or control. It's way beyond our capacity. Because, remember, it's the system that gave birth to us.” Given this reality, we need to “begin by aligning ourselves in terms of the fundamental dynamics of the system itself” by operating in harmony with Nature.

Swimme, like Paz and Buber, also asserts that being in harmony involves being present.

Being present leads us to find our authentic role in the process of evolution. But this self-actualization does not lead to isolation, for “as we find our way into our authentic self, the community of life will blossom forth…. [Authenticity] is generated by a deep exploration within and yet it ignites a vibrancy of life without.”

Our actual situation means that

Swimme’s perspective inspired me to expand my sense of community. Still, as humans, it’s only natural that we pay special attention to our fellow humans.

The threat of more terrorist attacks, for example, is real. To deal with this threat, we need firm, decisive action in close cooperation with other countries. We need a global community. If the United States had a more reasonable foreign policy, other countries would cooperate even more than they do now. Exaggerating the threat and overacting militarily magnifies the threat.

Even if it required protective tariffs, each country could decide, as much as possible, to grow most of its own food, manufacture most of its own products, and provide most of its own services. National independence and self-sufficiency could become more widely affirmed, for strong nation states are needed to regulate economies and protect the environment for the benefit of all people, including future generations. Without seeking uniformity, all people need to dedicate themselves to the welfare of the entire human family by growing a global community rooted in the Earth Community.

Humanity’s partnership with life itself is essential. Since all human beings have the same source, we share in common the same particles and energy. Native Americans sensed this reality when they worshiped "all my relations." Each part of the world is a microcosm of the cosmos. The Earth is a single living being. All humans belong to universe.

Unlike other creatures, human beings are not bound by our genetic inheritance. We can remember the past, envision the future, and alter the present.

Since we are embedded in the very fabric of life, we are responsible to protect life’s basic structure, including its ability to evolve toward ever increasing diversity. Since we can’t alter the underlying structure of life itself, we need to work in harmony with it, as part of the Earth Community.

The equality of partners does not negate leadership. Two dance partners may delegate the authority to lead to one or the other, or take turns leading. A law firm may select one partner to be the managing partner. Parents accept the teacher’s authority in the classroom, teachers accept the parents’ authority at home (where important learning takes place), and both can work together with the child to form a learning plan. Voters accept that legislators must negotiate compromises on details, and legislators listen to constituents closely, especially when most of them clearly support the same position.

When I was a child, “Father Knows Best” was a hit TV show. Like many, if not most, of his peers, my father was a terror in the background, belt in hand to beat me when he deemed it necessary. In response to children asking why, parents would simply say, “Because I said so” and leave it at that.

Like many adolescents, as a teenager, I rebelled, however timidly. Looking back, I had good reason. My parents were often arbitrary and unjustified in their prohibitions and my high school teachers unfairly discriminated against me because they disagreed with my beliefs. So I went overboard. I tried to copy Marlon Brando in “The Wild Ones” who, when asked, “What are you rebelling against?”, answered, “What do you have?”

As a young adult, I constantly pushed for greater participation by everyone in all decisions that affected them. We called it “participatory democracy” and “direct democracy” and wanted organizations, institutions, and neighborhoods to be self-governing. I still believe that those principles are relevant, that we can often open up decision-making processes and give more people more voice.

But I often took it too far by demanding that virtually everyone be involved in almost every decision. I challenged authority and hierarchy at every turn. I wanted total equality and I wasn’t alone. Many cultural and political activists identified with “the Sixties” adopted similar positions.

This legacy remains. Today, even a relatively mainstream, sensible think-tank like American Environics includes “rejection of authority” on their short list of progressive values. And George Lakoff and his Rockridge Institute argue that “the importance of authority” belongs to the “conservative” worldview, not the “progressive” worldview that affirms “deep democracy (maximizing the engagement of all citizens in self-government).”

Rejection of authority was a characteristic of 60s radicals like myself. But succeeding generations are less confrontational and most of my peers have grown up and adopted a progressive position that accepts authority, or legitimate power, and representative democracy.

Relying on consensus decision-making in small groups can work, especially with people who know each other well. But in larger groups and society at large, hierarchy is necessary. Society needs structure and authority. People in certain positions of power need to give directions and trust that those directions will generally be followed if they are sensible.

In a commentary on John Dewey, William A. Galston wrote:

The radical rejection of authority has never been a “progressive” position. That attitude certainly doesn’t describe the Progressives of the early 20th century who were Victorian authoritarians offended by the trend toward personal liberation and consumerism. And New Deal progressives who embraced the federal government as a central instrument in social reform certainly had no problem with authority.

The turning point for me came in my early 40s. I served on the governing board of a small activist organization that I had initiated. After several months, I felt that the organization was spinning its wheels and volunteered to work 30 hours a week in the office, feeling that I could work as co-equals with the Coordinator. In doing so, I unilaterally usurped her authority, which resulted in considerable tension. I consulted with a friend of a friend, who suggested that I read Boards That Make a Difference by John Carver. I did and it blew my mind, setting off one light bulb after another.

Carver argues that nonprofit organizations should clearly define separate roles for board and staff so that they can work together more productively as equal partners. Representing their community of interest, boards should define the organization’s goals in writing, select an executive director, and regularly evaluate how well the organization is meeting its written goals – rather than trying to micromanage and make operational decisions itself. The board chairman’s main task is to facilitate the formation of consensus among board members. On the other hand, the staff, rather than trying to manipulate or control the board, should simply be available to provide information that the board needs to make decisions. The clarity and simplicity of Carver’s “separation of powers” between co-equal units immediately rang true for me.

Of particular interest to me was Carver’s concept of leadership. Up to that point, my understanding of leadership was the traditional notion that a leader persuades others to take a certain action. This approach to leadership is one valid option. Society needs vanguards on the cutting edge that inspire people to do what they otherwise would not do.

Carver, however, suggests shared leadership, or partnership, as an alternative. Board members who agree on their primary mission can come together as equals to clarify their goals and adopt methods for achieving those goals. Everyone can exercise leadership. At any one time, anyone might make a suggestion that makes sense to the others and moves the group forward. The chair facilitates this decision-making, without necessarily guiding it. And the board as a whole leads the organization in its general direction, while the staff leads the organization in its specific implementation of its policies.

To maintain its authority, the governing board of an organization also needs to impose some discipline on its members in terms of expecting public support for its decisions. Carver argues that organizations need to "speak with one voice." "Dissent is expressed during the discussion preceding a vote," he states. "Once taken, the board's decisions may subsequently be changed, but are never to be undermined." To my mind, this policy doesn't require secrecy or dishonesty. Boards can still operate openly and disagreements can be recorded. And afterwards, so long as dissenters stay on board, they can briefly comment on their disagreement, but the primary emphasis should be on their support for the organization.

Myself, I feel that I was addicted to being “the leader” who persuades others to take certain actions. My ego needed it. Now, hopefully, I can follow Carter’s lead and concentrate on really working with others as equal partners to form consensus on how to proceed.

In writing this book, I’m playing both roles. On the one hand, I hope to encourage people to adopt certain new goals and strategies in their lives. But at the same time, I’m hoping that this book will help me find more people who already share my basic beliefs so I can partner with them to figure out together how to achieve our shared goals. Ideally, I’d like to find others who are already doing what I’m looking for, so I can just plug in without having to once again start something new myself.

More recently, I’ve been greatly impressed with an article, “The Art of Chaordic Leadership,” by Dee Hock, the founder of the Visa credit card company. In 1968 Hock convinced Bank of America to give up ownership and control of their credit card program and created an independent non-stock corporation to manage, promote and develop it, which led Visa into enormous success.

Hock believes that many systems, perhaps including life itself, operate “on the edge of chaos with just enough order to give them pattern.” So by combining the first syllables of the words “chaos” and “order,” Hock coined the word “chaord,” which he defines as “any self-organizing, self governing, adaptive, nonlinear, complex organism, organization, community or system, whether physical, biological or social, the behavior of which harmoniously blends characteristics of both chaos and order.” Hock argues that such systems require a new understanding of leadership.

He argues against top-down management that focuses on the exercise of authority to motivate, train, evaluate, direct, and control employees. Instead, he proposes that 50 percent of a manger’s time be devoted to self-management, managing “one's own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts…. It is not making better people of others that leadership is about.... It's about making a better person of self.”

In addition, 25 percent of a manager’s time should go to the management of one’s superiors, “bosses, supervisors, directors, regulators, ad infinitum.” And 20 percent should be invested in managing peer relationships with “associates, competitors, suppliers, customers.”

Then, as for managing those over whom they have authority, managers

Hock sums up his concept of leadership as follows: “Lead yourself, lead your superiors, lead your peers and free your people to do the same. All else is trivia.”

In reviewing organizations that really click, Hock asserts:

“A true follower cannot be bound to follow,” Hock states. “If the behavior of either [the leader or the follower] is compelled, whether by force, economic necessity, or contractual arrangement, the relationship is altered to one of superior/subordinate, manager/employee, master/servant, or owner/slave.”

“A true follower cannot be bound to follow,” Hock states. “If the behavior of either [the leader or the follower] is compelled, whether by force, economic necessity, or contractual arrangement, the relationship is altered to one of superior/subordinate, manager/employee, master/servant, or owner/slave.”

This notion of leadership between partners does not deny authority. A basketball team needs a coach to call plays at certain times. The quarterback on a football team needs the authority to change the play at the line of scrimmage when faced with an unexpected defense. Drivers need to obey red lights even when there’s no other traffic. Especially in a densely populated society, authority is essential, but rules are valid only because people obey them.

Authority is power that is accepted as legitimate by those it affects. The legitimacy of power is not automatic. Authority depends on whether power is exercised wisely. Power needs to serve the common good and not just selfish gain. Power needs to be willing to delegate. Power needs to listen. Power needs to follow as well as lead. Power needs to treat people as the human beings that we are.

We usually give people in positions of power the benefit of the doubt at first. But over time, authority must be earned. Those with authority must handle it well, by engaging in respectful partnerships. Otherwise, power deserves to be challenged and those in power either need to change how they operate or be replaced.

And all of us need to support one another in becoming authoritative leaders, so we can cooperate freely, spontaneously.

In addition to being holistic, the worldview presented here is progressive. By “progressive,” I mean, first of all, an affirmation that the government has a major, positive, important role to play in society at large. When there is a compelling need, the government must act properly and effectively. Strong national governments are essential to provide essential conditions for a decent life and to help ordinary people protect themselves from powerful, global economic forces.

Progressives also believe that individuals and society can advance with steady, step-by-step progress. Though being prepared for disaster is wise just in case, cataclysmic and/or violent revolution is neither necessary nor inevitable. The system must not collapse for us to move forward. We can transform society through nonviolent, revolutionary evolution. Incremental reforms can lead to comprehensive, fundamental, systemic transformation.

Just as slowly adding heat can change water into steam, we can steadily create a qualitatively new world. Just as societies and individuals can fall into self-reinforcing, negative downward spirals, we can foster a positive upward spiral.

Progressives are also humanistic. Progressive-minded people respect human beings and believe that people are essentially good and naturally affectionate. Down deep, underneath our weaknesses, a core of compassion holds us together. Progressives trust that most people, placed in a healthy environment, will do what is right and steadily help to improve themselves, their communities, and their society.

We accept our responsibility to help change the world. Not caring, doing nothing, and leaving it to others would be to deny what it means to be human.

Progressives promote the empowerment of individuals rooted in compassionate, democratic communities. Autonomy, or self-determination, is fundamental, but individuals are not separate and isolated. We are inter-connected and inter-dependent. Our actions can be either helpful or hurtful, often in ways that are unanticipated. We need to pay attention to those consequences, take responsibility for them, and do our best to aid others as much as possible.

Human progress has been characterized by the spread of democracy throughout society. Democracy does not assume that everyone is identical, but it does assume the equal value of all people and that all people should be equal before the law with a real voice in affairs that concern them whenever feasible. Consequently, we need to maximize democracy and personal empowerment in all of our institutions.

Democratic management of the economy is particularly important. The notion of a totally free market is a myth, for governments, monopolies, and oligopolies have always shaped the economy. The idea of God-given absolute property rights is also a myth. Society necessarily must define (and limit) the rights of property owners. Within a democratically managed capitalist economy, individuals can be free to start their own business at any time and business owners can generally set their own prices. At the same time, however, society can insist that businesses serve the public interest as well as earn money. And citizens can insist that their government closely regulate or control those areas that only the government can handle.

Progressive values have been affirmed in all our institutions. Educators, for example, have affirmed the value of individuality, self-expression, and community service. Progressive artists have been on the cutting edge, developing new art forms. Religious leaders have insisted that no religion should be declared superior to others or imposed by force. In whatever arena, progressives promote humanistic values and push for positive reforms.

From a progressive point of view, change is a never-ending, ongoing process. Utopia or perfection will never be achieved. Progressives are not utopians seeking perfection who, as Henry Samuel Levinson expressed it,

There’s no guarantee that change will be positive. Regress is possible as well as progress. As Octavio Paz stated,

So Progressives are pluralistic, as Carlos Fuentes affirmed in December 2005:

The point of life is to perpetuate itself and evolve into more complex forms. We grow, develop our potential, reproduce, and nurture our children, grandchildren, neighbors, and ourselves. As progressives, we advance human evolution in all of its unpredictable richness and diversity.

Negative emotions get the best of us from time to time. Unruly children can prompt us to impose excessive punishment. Fear and anxiety can lead us to lose control or freeze up inside. Violations of our human rights and terrorist attacks on our soil can lead to anger and the desire for revenge.

But we need to learn how to overcome these feelings, or at least control them and not allow them to lead us into irrational, counter-productive over-reactions. As Stephen S. Hall reported, people generally considered wise can “register the negative” without getting bogged down in it. “The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook (William James).”

We need to remember to be guided by love. Firm discipline, law-and-order, and self-defense are critical. People need a certain amount of security, comfort, and peace-and-quiet. But taken to the extreme, pursuing these goals with anger and force simply does not work. We need to evolve to a higher awareness.

To love life means that we face reality for what it is, including its limitations. If we cannot change or escape what is wrong, we best accept it, at least for now, and concentrate on changing what we can change. Rather than getting hung up in negativity, we best let it go as soon as we can and focus on moving forward step by step. All of us experience grief, pain, resentment, anger, and other negative feelings from time to time. But if we experience negativity fully, head on, we can more quickly get over it and experience a positive love of life.

To love life means that we accept death, including our own death. If we hide from death, we hide from life. If we face death and accept it, we can better avoid being confused or paralyzed by fear or anxiety. We stand grounded in reality, calmly aware that our time could end at any moment. We know that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. We are able to avoid inflaming threats, such as the threat of terrorism, by over-reacting in ways that worsen the threat.

In the short run, anger-oriented political organizing can quickly mobilize highly charged-up people. But over time, this approach motivates only the hard core, as most people decide to sit on the sidelines. They choose not to waste their time with overly strident people who aren’t going anywhere.

To sustain a large movement over time, we need to be positive, loving, confident, calm, flexible, patient, realistic, humble, ready to share power, respectful of all people, and clear about meaningful, long-term goals that will improve living conditions. Openhearted affection and pushing for creative improvements can hold more people together for longer periods of time than does organizing based on negativity. We need to dig below the surface to tap deep feelings of love for all humanity and all life.

If we want to win victories and build momentum by appealing to the majority of regular folks, we need to learn how to enjoy life, spread contagious happiness, be optimistic, and take care of each other and ourselves by listening and paying close attention to one another. For most people, these changes happen gradually, as growing up is a never-ending process. To transcend or manage our negative tendencies, constant self-examination and self-improvement, in communion with like-minded people who talk openly with each other about their efforts to become better human beings, are essential.

Well-designed structured activities can foster joy, mutual support, and the embrace of lif