Deep Nonviolence or Strategic Nonviolence?

By Wade Lee Hudson

Many proponents of nonviolence merely affirm nonviolence as a strategy for political action rather than as a way of life. “Strategic nonviolence” seeks social change without necessarily seeking reconciliation with opponents. Nonviolent methods, including legislation, are used to impose change by force.

This approach makes sense, to a degree. Despite the best of efforts, individuals who wield great influence often hold on to their opinions and their power to the bitter end. And because most demonstrations need to be open to last-minute, short-term participation, the ground rules for those actions can’t exclude people who aren’t prepared to commit to nonviolence in their daily life. Doing so would limit how many people would participate. Insuring nonviolence for particular actions is the understandable focus for actions.

In contrast, “philosophical nonviolence” is grounded in spiritual beliefs, affirms love of opponents, aims for the realization of the humanity of all people, and seeks reconciliation rather that the defeat of one’s opponents.

In addition, proponents of “living nonviolence,” believe that because violent tendencies are learned, it is necessary to unlearn violence by practicing love and compassion at every possible opportunity. Intense anger and injury to others are forms of violence that need to be addressed. Verbal expressions intended to injure another are a form of violence. Though ideally others can learn how to avoid being hurt by what others say, in reality we often feel hurt when others are cruel or disrespectful. Nonviolent practitioners aim to minimize hurtful language. Those who use conflict resolution and nonviolent communication promote this form of nonviolence.

As I see it, Kingian Nonviolence articulates the perspectives of philosophical and living nonviolence in a powerful manner. As developed in the 1980s by Dr. Bernard Lafayette, a close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and David Jehnsen,Kingian Nonviolence is “a philosophy and methodology that provides the knowledge, skills, and motivation necessary for people to pursue peaceful strategies for solving personal and community problems.” It aims to “reduce violence and promote positive peace at the personal, community, national, and global levels.” By using “skills and methodologies that people already possess,” it facilitates nonviolent conflict resolution in personal, social, and political arenas.

Kingian Nonviolence is based on the following six principles:

Principle 1: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people.

It is a positive force confronting the forces of injustice and utilizes the righteous indignation and spiritual, emotional, and intellectual capabilities of people as the vital force for change and reconciliation…. Kingian Nonviolence is about taking a stand against injustice, to make a commitment to looking injustice in the face and confronting it with the power of Agape, of unconditional love for humankind...

We cannot practice our principles only when we are in activist spaces, or assume that injustice does not happen in progressive circles. Being committed to nonviolence means committing yourself to the role of peace-maker.  It means when you see violence or injustice anywhere that you are committing to acting or speaking out against it.  True nonviolence is not only a strategy or a tactic, it is a way of life. 

Principle 2: The Beloved Community is the framework for the future.

The nonviolent concept is an overall effort to achieve a reconciled world by raising the level of relationships among people to a height where justice prevails and persons attain their full human potential.... The Beloved Community was Dr. King’s vision for a reconciled society that has found true, positive peace and justice for all people.... This includes those who we currently consider to be our “enemies.” In nonviolence, our goal is not to defeat our enemy, but to win them over....

The values that make the Beloved Community possible must be reflected in our efforts to achieve it. If we use violence, fear and intimidation in our effort to make change, that will be what is reflected in the change that we create.

Principle 3: Attack forces of evil not persons doing evil.

The nonviolent approach helps one analyze the fundamental conditions, policies and practices of the conflict rather than reacting to one’s opponents or their personalities.... Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not individuals.... When we attack personalities, it makes reconciliation more difficult since attacking people often escalates a conflict.... The problem is not the people but in a culture that has accepted violence as a way to make change. 

Principle 4: Accept suffering without retaliation for the sake of the cause to achieve a goal. 

Self-chosen suffering is redemptive and helps the movement grow in a spiritual as well as a humanitarian dimension. The moral authority of voluntary suffering for a goal communicates the concern to one’s own friends and community as well as to the opponent. Voluntary suffering can be redemptive.  It can give you strength, and inspire others to join.... Organizers in the Civil Rights movement... went through it because they had a larger goal in mind: freedom.  And they understood that violence will not get them that goal in any sustained way. 

Principle 5: Avoid internal violence of the spirit as well as external physical violence.

The nonviolent attitude permeates all aspects of the campaign.  It provides a mirror type reflection of the reality of the condition to one’s opponent and the community at large.  Specific activities must be designed to maintain a high level of spirit and morale during a nonviolent campaign.

Violence is not only a physical act.... Holding onto hate and anger is something that hurts you more than the person you hate, and is an act of internal violence that you do to yourself.... Nonviolence is not only a refusal to shoot your opponent, it’s also a refusal to hate your opponent.  If we are driven by anger, hate and a desire for vengeance, those emotions will be reflected in the change that we create.  Nonviolence is a commitment to respond to conflicts through understanding, love and true justice.

Principle 6: The Universe is on the side of justice.

Truth is universal and human society and each human being is oriented to the just sense of order of the universe.  The fundamental values in all of the world’s great religions include the concept that the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice. For the nonviolent practitioner, nonviolence introduces a new moral context in which nonviolence is both the means and the ends....

The problem in our society is that we invest so much in violence – wars, prisons, violent entertainment.  With all the investment we make in violence, it should be no surprise that we see so much violence and injustice in our society.  With all the investment we make in violence, it is our karma that we live in such a violent society. We need to invest in peace, and invest in justice.  If we can invest more time, more resources, and more action into peace and justice, we will ultimately begin to see those returns.

The “Six Steps of Kingian Nonviolence" offers guidelines for putting these thoughts into practice:

Step 1: Information Gathering
The way you determine the facts, the options for change, and the timing of pressure for raising the issue is a collective process.

Step 2: Education
Is the process of developing articulate leaders who are knowledgeable about the issue.

Step 3: Personal Commitment
Means looking at your internal and external involvement in the nonviolent campaign and preparing yourself for long-term as well as short term action.

Step 4: Negotiation
Is the art of bring together your views and those of your opponent to arrive at a just conclusion or clarify the unresolved issues, at which point the conflict is formalized.

Step 5: Direct Action
Occurs when negotiations have broken down or failed to produce a just response to the contested issues and conditions.

Step 6: Reconciliation
Is the mandatory closing step of a campaign, when the opponents and proponents celebrate the victory and provide joint leadership to implement the change.

Philosophical and living nonviolence also make sense to me. To my mind, all three forms of nonviolence can be integrated into what I call “deep nonviolence.” The leaders of a campaign to improve public policy can build a leadership team based on philosophical and living nonviolence without demanding that every participant in the campaign embrace their worldview. They can foster a loving community among themselves that enables them to be more effective in their political work. They can attract others with contagious happiness, serve as examples, and encourage others to practice nonviolence more fully, without requiring it.

By adopting a compassionate tone in one’s rhetoric and avoiding the demonization of opponents, they can conduct themselves in a manner that increases the chances of achieving reconciliation. At the same time, however, they can accept that at times legislation and other forms of nonviolent force are justified, as did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he accepted the introduction of Federal troops into Little Rock to assure the integration of schools there. So deep nonviolence slightly modifies Kingian Nonviolence in two ways: 1) not insisting that reconciliation be the “mandatory” final step of a campaign and 2) seeking a reconciliation that could lead each side to “win over” the other side in certain ways.

As I see it, steps two and three in Kingian Nonviolence, education and personal commitment, are best achieved within the context of a community rooted in peer learning and mutual support. Spiritual preparation is an ongoing, never-ending process. To avoid being “driven by anger, hate and a desire for vengeance” and instead be grounded in “a commitment to respond to conflicts through understanding, love and true justice” is no easy task. Staying in touch with the life force that energizes and structures the universe can be helpful in this regard.

This preparation, it seems to me, would best incorporate the following elements:

Be explicit. The growth of community benefits from expressing core principles in writing and asking members to embrace those principles. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. King, for example, used “nonviolence pledges” to strengthen personal development.

Accountability. Informal, natural, spontaneous friendships develop with many activists and should be encouraged. These relationships often provide valuable support that enhance personal development. But with activists who take on major, urgent goals, it’s easy to forget about the need for personal development and mutual support. Simple structures can help remind activists to work on their personal development. One example would be to ask members to report briefly on their recent personal development efforts. Even if done only once a month, this activity could serve to remind members of their commitment.

Accept the need for trust. Being open and honest about mistakes and weaknesses is a delicate matter. Most people understandably need to trust that others will not use admissions against them or report on comments incorrectly or out of context in a way that is hurtful. Pledges of confidentiality can help in this regard. It can also be helpful to accept that such revelations will only occur in small groups that form among people who are comfortable with one another.

Avoid arrogance.  It’s easy to assume that one has “the answer” and needs to convert others. “Transformed people transform people,” for example, is a formulation that suggests this kind of elitism, as is the belief that some people have reached a “higher level” of awareness. But all of us are “looking through a glass darkly.” What we don’t know far exceeds what we do know and each of us can learn from anyone at any time.

Foster Ongoing Growth. Gandhi affirmed “evolutionary revolution,” rather than sudden, forceful overthrow of the old order. Focusing on achievable, never-ending growth can improve lives and living conditions in important ways. This perspective applies to individuals as well as societies. A simple shift in priorities or perspective can lead to dramatic improvements, while keeping many pre-existing structures and values. 

Acceptance. By accepting those conditions that we cannot change, focusing instead on what we can change, and trusting that the Universe will take care of Herself, we can better maintain a peaceful, positive, compassionate attitude that enables us to be present with others and responsive to who they really are. Rather than trying to make others over in our own image with pressure or persuasion, we can concentrate on being creative and constructive in our own lives, without needing others to do what we want them to do.

In these ways, social-change activists can better cultivate inner peace and social harmony among themselves. Doing so strengthens their efforts and demonstrates that others can engage in similar efforts to create a new society that is much different and greatly improved.

Wade’s Bio

On October 11, I’ll be leaving San Francisco to go to Las Terrenas on the north coast of the Dominican Republic, where I’ll rent a fully furnished one-bedroom apartment 300 meters from the beach. You’re welcome to visit and crash on the sofa bed in the living room.

While I’m away, the owner of my building won’t charge me rent and will pay me $450 per month to house other tenants in my apartment during the rehab of the whole building. So I should be able to live in the Dominican Republic without depleting my savings and won’t return home until the end of May.

During my absence, I’ll concentrate on my autobiography. Others whose opinions I hold in high regard, including Mike Larsen, a literary agent, and Dave Robbins, a retired English Literature professor, have encouraged me to complete this project. Perhaps others can glean from my narrative some lessons they can apply usefully to their own life, even if I only publish an e-book and never find a traditional publisher.

To tell my story well, however, it will need to be entertaining and engaging. Toward that end, partly because my memory is faulty, it could be helpful if you would share a memory or two of your own.

So please consider sharing a story about me that is humorous, dramatic, embarrassing, and/or revealing. If you can send me a helpful photo, video, email, or other document, please do so. Also, if need be, perhaps we can meet to video your story or scan or copy your material.

Keeping faith,
Wade

Friendship, “Therapy,” and Mystification

By Wade Lee Hudson

For some three months, I’ve been seeing a psychotherapist, Rebecca Crabb, Ph.D., weekly, for the first time in my life. I started not because of any crisis. I simply wanted to fine tune my life by learning how to be somewhat happier and less preoccupied with certain minor, nagging problems that have recurred. Even if the growth may be slight and subtle, I never want to stop growing. Thanks to Medicare, I can afford it.

The experience has been beneficial. I tell Rebecca what’s happening with me and my thoughts and feelings about the future. We discuss bumps in the road, my sense of what’s missing in my life, and how I might manage to enrich my experience. She’s a good listener, remembers what I’ve said, asks good questions that help me dig deeper or see matters from a different perspective, and occasionally offers suggestions for me to consider.

Though the focus is on me, Rebecca occasionally reveals herself. These revelations have reassured me that we are largely on the same wavelength, which helps me trust she can understand me.

I tell her what I would like to tell close friends, if they were willing and we had more time to talk. I’m completely honest with her. Though I don’t have time to share everything, there’s nothing I’m unwilling to share.

As the female Dr. Watson in the contemporary Sherlock Holmes show, Elementary, was a “sober companion” for Holmes, I feel Rebecca is my “intimacy companion.” I go to massage therapists to work on my body. I go to her work on my feelings.

But we are not real friends. The focus is on me and she gets paid. Our relationship is not mutual. I would like to be close friends with her, but that would be contrary to her beliefs (even if she wanted to be my friend, which is uncertain). And she may be right: not being friends, for one thing, might help her be more detached, which can enhance our work.

This experience has prompted me to reflect on the differences between therapy and close friendships and what others think about that question.

Recently, after discussing an issue with which a friend who was struggling, she commented, “Thanks for being my therapist.” Later, I thought to myself, “Really? I just thought I was being a friend.”

On another occasion, when I told a friend I was seeing a therapist, he said, “Good. That way you can go into things more deeply.” Later, I thought, “Really? Why couldn’t I go more deeply with my friends?”

Over the years, when I explored setting up different kind of loosely structured “support groups,” others have sometimes resisted, saying, “That sounds like therapy to me.” Those comments have puzzled me.

So the other day I posted the following on my Facebook status update:

Is therapy essentially different from close friendship? Do or would you communicate differently to a therapist than you would to a close friend, lover, or spouse? Are there some things that you would say to one but not the other?

After receiving five responses, I clarified my question with:

I did not ask if there are differences. Rather, I asked if there are essential differences: "Are there some things that you would say to one but not the other?" Perhaps, for clarity, my second question should have read: "Do or would you communicate differently to a therapist than you would LIKE TO COMMUNICATE WITH a close friend, lover, or spouse?"

Or, in terms of what you say, would you like to communicate to your close friend/lover/spouse the same thoughts and feelings that you would communicate to a therapist? And would you like the other to respond as you would like your therapist to respond?

This amplification elicited further responses.

One respondent commented, “My close friends are my therapists and often it is daily. :-).” And another said, “It's not so much that I would SAY anything different. The difference is what I expect to get back.... I expect active assistance in resolving issues. I've had to fire a lot of lazy therapists.” A third said, “If we turned more often to good friends & mentors, I think we'd all benefit from learning to listen better, from developing empathic sensitivity, and from discerning wise counsel.” And a fourth commented, “I'm thinking in terms of the transformation of society generally from a ‘tribal’ society in which affective bonds predominate, to a market economy in which contractual relationships take over. In an affective community presumably there would be no need to distinguish something called ‘psychotherapy.’”

I largely agree with those comments, though it seems close friends can offer active assistance in resolving issues as well.

But most of the responses, such as the following, indicated a different perspective:

Absolutely different. The therapist holds no judgment so you feel like you don't have to hold anything back at all. Also, she is trained to deal with a range of issues and can bring insight that a friend can't.... Yeah, I probably do want to tell my best friends a few things but I hold back for many different reasons, some because of me, some because of them....  I feel like I am paying for my therapist's education and experience. I'm not paying her to be a friend, I have lots of those. But I am going to her for her expertise. Just like I wouldn't ask a friend to fill my cavity, I also wouldn't ask my friends to offer me certain types of advice. 

You subconsciously choose friends who reflect your view of reality. A therapist can offer a completely objective perspective, and can present it without fear of losing the friendship. Also, one of the tools of overcoming shame is to self-disclose, but once you self-disclose to a friend, there is no taking it back. Consequently, people are more hesitant to share their deepest sources of shame to friends. Also, without training, even the most trustworthy, loving friend might not have the tools needed to help you process your experiences. Good intentions are not always enough. I highly recommend good friends, therapists and 12-step groups as three different but equally valuable sources of support and insight....  I would still say yes, there is a difference. There is no reason to burden my friends with my ancient shit. I don't tell my friends what I tell my doctor or my car mechanic, or my financial adviser - not because I'm ashamed, but simply because that's not what they are there for. 

When I pay someone, I have an agreement about what they will do for me when I talk about something. I will tell my therapist literally anything, but not my friends.

Survivor that I am, I discuss a lot of things that happened in my life that I would NEVER talk about in depth with close friends. I use my therapist a lot for education and information about abuse and intimacy issues, PTSD, etc. She knows the specifics of all the shit that happened. My close friends know there was trouble in River City but I don’t discuss the details. Way over the top for most people I've learned, even close friends. So yeah because of the education/teaching function with my shrink, it’s an entirely different deal that the deep talk about life and what’s it all about alfie with my friends. I like my friends the way they are and my shrink the way she is. Hope this helps

 Yes, very essential differences. All can be necessary at times in my experience, & a great bounty.

To my mind, these comments reflect a mystification of “therapy” and an exaggeration of the expertise that is involved. Most grandmothers, long-term bartenders, and others with rich life experience are as adept as are most therapists in helping others deal with personal problems. The analogies to dentists, car mechanics, and such don’t hold true for me. Good “therapy” does not involve a technician objectively operating on objects. Such objectification is a myth that reinforces the hyper-specialization that is spreading in our culture. This mystification disables, for it fosters dependency on supposed experts and undermines self-confidence.

Good “therapy” is a heart-to-heart human relationship, even if it is largely one-way. I place “therapy” in quotes because I do not consider the process to be a matter of a doctor administering treatment to cure an unhealthy condition, which is the definition of medical treatment. The conditions addressed are normal ways to cope, given the situation. A shift in perspective can help one cope more effectively, and others can assist in that shift. But most of the work is internal and does not involve an expert applying a medical method analogous to giving a drug or doing surgery.

Rather than “therapy,” I prefer to think of a “special friendship,” one that is commercial and largely one-way. One might also call it counseling, mentorship, or coaching.

I understand that many people prefer to compartmentalize their life by having different relationships to meet different needs. I see that some matters can best be discussed privately. And I recognize that some people are fully content with their life and feel no need for any self-improvement. So maybe I’m being judgmental. But I can’t help but feel that it is unfortunate that so many people so frequently feel that they have to hold back even with “a close friend, lover, or spouse,” which is the phrase I used in my original post.

In 1985 and 2004, researchers asked Americans: “From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking back over the last six months—who are the people with whom you discussed matters important to you?” From 1985 to 2004, the percentage who said they had no such confidante increased from 10% to 25%. In 2004, 53% reported they had no one outside their immediate family with whom they discussed important matters. The average number of confidantes decreased from three to two.

I know there are many understandable reasons why people withhold their feelings, including the fact that others find it “over the top.” And it becomes a habit that we develop as a way to cope with authority figures. As I discussed in “Facing Fear,” Howard Thurman summed up the dilemma aptly when he said, “This fear which served originally as a safety device…becomes death for the self…. The weak have survived by fooling the strong…. [But] the penalty of deception is to become a deception…”

So it saddens me that people are so often afraid to be fully present, open, and transparent with one another. If I need to discuss some issue with a therapist, I would like to be able to also discuss it with a close friend, lover, or spouse.

In the busy, modern world, spontaneous, natural human friendship is becoming less frequent. My intuition is that, for many people, it would help to develop some simple structures and formats that would facilitate heart-to-heart communication. One example is a “listening dyad,” which I did with one friend for a few months (before I left the country). We’d meet for an hour with a bag lunch and one person would talk for 30 minutes about what was happening in his life and the other would just listen. Then we’d switch roles. That was it. And each of us seemed to benefit immensely.

Another example is the “soul session” that I convened twice in Mexico. About eight people gathered in a private home. Without a facilitator or any predetermined agenda, we simply “spoke from the heart.” Both sessions seemed to be valuable, but a particular interpersonal conflict interfered with its continuation. Nevertheless, I feel that if participants were selected more carefully to assure an adequate comfort level, this method could work.

But such methods are not for everyone and regardless, they are secondary. No tricks will work unless the participants are authentically curious and compassionate. So long as self-centeredness remains the norm, social isolation will persist and when crises emerge, people will go to a therapist to try to get fixed. Myself, I believe better, mutual friendships among peers would prevent many of those crises and enable many people to live richer and more meaningful lives.

Obama and Syria

By Wade Lee Hudson

When, with Syria on my mind, I posted “Manufactured Crises” last week, I did not address how such crises are resolved, partly because it’s hard to generalize. And sometimes they spiral out of control and those who precipitate them suffer unforeseen consequences. By and large, however, they get resolved short of total catastrophe and Cable News moves on to the next feeding frenzy.

So it is no surprise to me that we already have a possible breakthrough with the Russian proposal to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control.

When, thanks to a Facebook post by Norman Roberts, I read Wayne Bomgaars’ “President Obama’s Brilliant Strategy No One Seems To Recognize” yesterday before the Russian overture surfaced, I sensed that Bomgaars may have been largely correct. Now I believe his analysis has even more credence.

He argues:

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.

I shared the link on my Facebook timeline, which prompted Justice St. Rain to share it as well. Overall the comments on those two posts, the comments on the FreakOutNation Facebook page, and how widely the post is circulating on the Web indicate that Bomgaars’ argument is credible.

Regardless, I remained convinced about the need to avoid getting caught up in the media’s addiction to crisis. In his 2010 book, The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things: Crime, Drugs, Minorities, Teen Moms, Killer Kids, Mutant Microbes, Plane Crashes, Road Rage, & So Much More, Barry Glassner chronicled how our society foments fear about the future, rather than nurture healing in the present. About this excellent book, the publisher states:

In the age of 9/11, the Iraq War, financial collapse, and Amber Alerts, our society is defined by fear. So it’s not surprising that three out of four Americans say they feel more fearful today then they did twenty years ago. But are we living in exceptionally dangerous times? In The Culture of Fear, sociologist Barry Glassner demonstrates that it is our perception of danger that has increased, not the actual level of risk. Glassner exposes the people and organizations that manipulate our perceptions and profit from our fears, including advocacy groups that raise money by exaggerating the prevalence of particular diseases and politicians who win elections by heightening concerns about crime, drug use, and terrorism. In this new edition of a classic book—more relevant now than when it was first published—Glassner exposes the price we pay for social panic.

I first encountered the concept of “manufactured crisis” as a tool of social control decades ago in At the Edge of History by William Irwin Thompson. Reflecting on the Syria crisis, the other day I looked for some of his recent work and found a February 9, 2013 essay titled “Thinking Otherwise: Cancer of Consciousness.” In this essay, he refers favorably to Naomi Klein, who presents a similar argument about manufactured crises in her Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Thompson comments:

In the cultural shift from the print media to electronics with the Internet and the World Wide Web we are seeing a new disease being transmitted along the channels of communication. People no longer speak to one another and listen, any more than pornography addicts love and make love to another person. People scream at one another and they rant in their chosen obsessional fixation...

He concludes:

Some of humanity has made the spiritual transition into Teilhard de Chardin’s Mystical Body of Christ evolving toward the Omega Point, while others are stuck in the sicknesses of religions rotting in the stinking compost heap of the disintegrations of civilizations. If you work to imagine the future, you just might see the present.  

The Apocaplypse is here and now and the Kingdom of Heaven is within, blooming without.

In response to “Manufactured Crises,” Shyrl McCormick wrote:

Thank you for this!  Your thinking and observations are very akin to Margaret Wheatley's So Far from Home: Lost and Found in Our Brave New World.

Wheatley states:

This book contains maps of how we ended up in a world nobody wants—overtaken by greed, self-interest, and oppressive power—the very opposite of what we worked so hard to create. These maps look deeply into the darkness of this time so that we can develop the insight we need to contribute in meaningful ways. 

This book provides maps for the future, how we can transform our grief, outrage, and frustration into the skills of insight and compassion to serve this dark time with bravery, decency, and gentleness. 

As warriors for the human spirit, we discover our right work, work that we know is ours to do no matter what. We engage wholeheartedly, embody values we cherish, let go of outcomes, and carefully attend to relationships. We serve those issues and people we care about, focused not so much on making a difference as on being a difference.

I resonate and plan to read this book.

Manufactured Crises

By Wade Lee Hudson

Our social system routinely produces “crises” that provoke fears about the future. These phenomena distract humanity from more urgent problems and enable elites to reinforce their privilege. Some consider this dynamic the result of a conspiracy. I see it as the way “the system” works.

In modern societies, power is centralized. Key organizations, administered by carefully selected elites, administer those organizations. Arrogant, ambitious individuals are attracted to positions of power. Top-level administrators carefully screen those who want to move up the ladders of power. Only those who “fit in” are accepted.

One result is that elite administrators choose not to “rock the boat.” They go along to get along in order to gain status and credibility. If they are lucky, they’ll leave a legacy for future generations.

But no one organization rules, either within any one country or the world as a whole. Rather, countless organizations constantly compete with each other, always trying to gain more power by mobilizing forces in support of their objectives. One easy way to mobilize others is to tap fear and anger in order to defeat “enemies.” Power elites routinely resort to these tactics.

Grassroots activists also reinforce the culture of fear, which is at the heart of our most serious problems. The Internet and 24-hour cable news amplify and quicken this dynamic. People get caught up in the feeding frenzy of the latest crisis, inflamed by voices that get attention (and advertising dollars) by being dramatic.

Whether or not humans can transcend these self-perpetuating patterns remains to be seen. To my mind, our chances will be enhanced if we learn to inspire each other with positive, realistic visions of a better world rooted in reconciliation, rather than tapping anger and fear.

Being worried about future catastrophes is counterproductive. Our current tragedies should be more than enough to motivate us. The future is now. Learning how to be present is an urgent task.

Positive visions will be most effective if they are credible and comprehensible, rather than utopian. If we focus on changing what we can change, today and tomorrow, rather than getting agitated about longer term threats, our prospects will improve.

We may even eventually restructure our institutions so that they are more fully democratic and dedicated to the common good of all humanity rather than greed and domination.