Gandhi, Self-Improvement, and Mutual Support

The lack of commitment to self-improvement among progressive political organizations in the United States mystifies me. Not even Gandhian advocates of non-violence reflect the personal-growth principles articulated by Gandhi, which has been summarized as: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

The “Principles, Practices and Beliefs” section of the wikipedia entry on Gandhi begins:

Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his own demons, fears, and insecurities.

In his words, Gandhi stated:

Prolonged training of the individual soul is an absolute necessity

The greater the spirit of passive resistance in us, the better men we will become.

One of the reasons for my departure to India is still further to realize as I already do in part, my own imperfection as a passive resister and then to try to perfect myself….

This requires a detached state of mind, and it is a state very difficult to reach.

God helps when one feels oneself humbler than the very dust under one’s feet….

If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.

The broad range of these comments indicates a critical, key characteristic of self-improvement – namely, it is open-ended, involves the whole self, and can engage any aspect of the self. The self is freewheeling, unpredictable, uncontrollable, and boundless. The goal of self-improvement is to become a better person, whatever that might mean for each individual, not merely develop pre-defined skills.

If the aim is narrower, like to become a better activist, then restricting oneself to a specific curriculum makes sense. But if the aim is to become a better person, then one must be open and responsive to whatever emerges. Any kind of change may be prompted.

Another key characteristic of self-improvement indicated by Gandhi’s life and teachings is that the honest acknowledgement of mistakes, failures, and shortcomings is essential. As the Dalai Lama said:

There are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong.

This willingness to be vulnerable is best not left to chance. Without commitment, intentionality, and accountability, one can easily avoid the disciplined effort needed to evolve.

A third lesson we can learn from Gandhi is that personal growth is a social affair. As one who rejected Western hyper-individualism, Gandhi recognized that what one can achieve alone is limited. So he established communal ashrams, or modest residential communities, as places to foster ongoing self-development. Concerning the Sabarmati ashram, he said, "This is the right place for our activities to carry on the search for truth and develop fearlessness.” With a particular emphasis on developing self-discipline, these residential centers nurtured “better men” who practiced nonviolence in all situations.

In Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World, Tina Rosenberg documents the power of peer learning and mutual support. As summarized by the publisher:

She identifies a brewing social revolution that is changing the way people live, based on harnessing the positive force of peer pressure. Her stories of peer power in action show how it has reduced teen smoking in the United States, made villages in India healthier and more prosperous, helped minority students get top grades in college calculus, and even led to the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. She tells how creative social entrepreneurs are starting to use peer pressure to accomplish goals as personal as losing weight and as global as fighting terrorism. Inspiring and engrossing, Join the Club explains how we can better our world through humanity's most powerful and abundant resource: our connections with one another.

A book just released by Berrett-Kohler, True North Groups: A Powerful Path to Personal and Leadership Development, pursues the same theme. The publisher offers this summary of the content:

All too often, we find ourselves forced to confront life’s challenges on our own. What we need is an intimate group with whom we can examine our beliefs and share our lives. For the past thirty-five years, Bill George and Doug Baker have found the answer in True North Groups—small groups that gather regularly to explore members’ greatest challenges. These groups provide opportunities for the honest conversations essential to develop the self-awareness, compassion, emotional intelligence, and authenticity required to be inspired human beings and inspiring leaders.

Gandhi, Rosenberg, George, and Baker all suggest that it is important for peers to honestly face one’s mistakes and provide mutual support to avoid them in the future.

Yet I still know of no progressive political organization that is clearly dedicated to helping its members support one another in their efforts to become better persons (which would also enable them to be more effective activists).

The largest current nonviolent action project is the October2011 Movement, which will be convening in Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC on October 6 to demand the creation of a just and sustainable world. Its website lists “fifteen core issues the country must face.” None of these issues refer to the need for mutual support to foster self-improvement. And the site’s definition of “nonviolent resistance” says nothing about ongoing self-improvement.

The only resource the October2011 site lists under “Nonviolence Resources” is the downloads page of the Metta Center for Nonviolence. The wallet card highlighted there does include a quote from Gandhi that advocates “a change in human nature.” But the principles and strategies included on that card do not affirm open-ended self-improvement. The card only includes, “Do not yield to threats…. Renounce that and you are free.”

Neither does the Metta Center website, with its valuable, extensive collection of resources, affirm the cultivation of inner peace. It does advocate “the conversion of a negative drive, such as anger or fear, into constructive action [which] can be cultivated systematically.” But that emphasis is on channeling negative energies into action, rather than developing a peaceful state of being, which precedes action and is the heart of nonviolence.

Moreover, the site says nothing explicitly about the need for critical self-examination and it offers no concrete methods for providing mutual support for such introspection. Rather the site emphasizes intellectual study.

In the section “What can I do to learn about nonviolence?” the site does recommend forming small supportive groups to engage in study, provide constructive social service, and build alternative institutions. Though a great starting point, this strategy fails to include the need for an explicit commitment to self-improvement and mutual support with regard to that effort.

Perhaps one reason for the general reluctance to fostering self-development is the risk of oppressive authoritarianism. It’s far too easy for charismatic individuals with a vision of a new world to build cults to actualize their vision. But despite those perversions, the impulse to advance human evolution remains valid.

One way to proceed constructively is to insist that each individual define his or her own self-improvement goals, as is the case with the draft format for personal-political support circles. My conversations with my taxi passengers indicate that most people are already aware of how they would like to evolve. And they have sensible notions. But most of us could use more mutual support in our efforts, if only to remind us to stay focused and to hold us accountable.

Regardless, one way or the other, the need to clearly, consciously facilitate both self-improvement and mutual support seems compelling. The dehumanizing forces of modernization are extremely powerful. Countering those forces effectively calls for conscious, disciplined, skillful effort.

A Personal-Political Support Circle

Contents:
· A Personal-Political Support Circle
· True North Groups
· “Fooled by Science” Excerpt
· Readers' Comments

A Personal-Political Support Circle

On September 9, I sent the following ”An Invitation to Experiment” to about 60 friends and associates:

Can you help test the following format for a “personal-political support circle” Saturday, September 17, 2-5 pm, at 1280 Laguna, #6-J, San Francisco? Please let me know if you’re interested.

Participating in this experiment involves no ongoing commitment. It could be a one-time event.

If you can’t come Sept. 17, can we discuss this idea some other time, either in person, online, or on the phone?

The personal-political support circle, which Brandon Faloona and I designed, is intended to be a simple, user-friendly tool to help political activists become more effective by supporting each other in their self-development efforts.

With no trained facilitator, a wide range of individuals and organizations could conduct circles either just once or on a regular basis. An existing organization could convene a circle at the beginning of their meeting(s). Three or more members of a particular organization could do so separate from their routine meetings. Or friends and/or relatives could gather informally.

Eventually a network of circles might affiliate with one another, share reports on their efforts, and occasionally gather with members from other circles for fun, fellowship, and sharing.

With those thoughts in mind, the proposed format follows:

· Break Bread (informally share a meal, perhaps a potluck, or special snack while enjoying each others’ company).
· Silence (one minute to meditate, pray, reflect, or relax).
· Check-in (going around the circle, individuals report on how they feel at the moment).
· Self-Development Report (going around the circle, individuals report on their recent efforts to be a better person, if any, as well as their thoughts about future such efforts).
· Political Action Report (going around the circle, individuals report on their recent communication with an elected official or public administrator concerning a possible change in public policy, if any, as well as their thoughts about future such efforts).
· Open Agenda (the circle engages in open-ended conversation and/or decision-making about activities in which some or all members may want to participate; if the circle is held at the beginning of an organization’s meeting, it could proceed with its routine agenda).
· Evaluation (individuals report how they feel about the meeting).

Ground rules:
· All comments are kept confidential.
· When going around the circle, participants may choose to pass.
· Each person defines his or her own self-development goals and methods.
· If all participants belong to the same organization, they may coordinate their political action; otherwise each person may define his or her own political action goals and methods.
· When going around the circle, others offer little or no feedback; the emphasis is on listening and being heard.
· Time limits can be established as needed. Apart from the breaking bread and open agenda items, the rest of the circle might take a total of two minutes or so for each participant.

What do you think?

Yours,

Wade

In response, eight women and one man have expressed strong interest. One said, “I am very interested in your process and see it as an important step in the support and development of activists.” Another said, “What do I think? It's great. AND, per usual, how do we get activists and want-to-be activists to participate and essentially ‘break with habits’…”?

Only two respondents, both men, expressed negative comments. One said, “I don’t entirely share your orientation toward personal growth and self-development.” The other said, “What you've come up with is not my bag.” I’ve asked each to elaborate, but have not yet received a response.

Another reason why I believe something like this approach could be helpful is that it could be a way for activists to recruit individuals who aren't currently engaged and support them in acting on their concerns, even if only by communicating with one elected official once a month. Then, after their toe is in the water, more involvement becomes possible.

Unfortunately, however, it is proving difficult to findi time for those who are interested in a “personal-political support circle” to meet.

Despite the strong responses to “Why Compassionate Politics” (see below), the lukewarm feedback thus far to the support-circle idea leads me to suspect that this project may not get off the ground. It may not be a good enough of an idea as currently formulated. The cultural forces militating against it may be too powerful (it’s interesting that most of the affirmation has come from women). Or I may not have the skills and capacity to initiate it.

I’ll continue to test it a bit longer. We do have a small meeting set for October 1 to consider these and related ideas. Only four people are confirmed for that meeting at the moment, but more may join in between now and then. Regardless, I’ll reevaluate everything at this meeting and afterward (after reading True North Groups, which I’ve ordered and is discussed below).

In the meantime, others are welcome to experiment with the “personal-political support circle” format. If you do, please let me know how it goes. Perhaps you can move this idea along.

++++

True North Groups:
A Powerful Path to Personal and Leadership Development
by Bill George and Doug Baker
Berrett-Koehler Publishers

•By the author of the best-selling True North (150,000 copies sold)
•Offers an innovative way to develop a confidential support group that helps us develop as people and as leaders
•Filled with practical resources to assist in every aspect of creating a True North Group

All too often, we find ourselves forced to confront life’s challenges on our own. What we need is an intimate group with whom we can examine our beliefs and share our lives. For the past thirty-five years, Bill George and Doug Baker have found the answer in True North Groups—small groups that gather regularly to explore members’ greatest challenges. These groups provide opportunities for the honest conversations essential to develop the self-awareness, compassion, emotional intelligence, and authenticity required to be inspired human beings and inspiring leaders.

“At various times,” George and Baker write, “a True North Group will function as a nurturer, a grounding rod, a truth teller, and a mirror. At other times the group functions as a challenger or an inspirer. When people are wracked with self-doubts, it helps build their courage and ability to cope.”

Drawing on recent research in psychology and sociology, George and Baker explain why these groups are so critical to our personal and professional success. They cover every detail from choosing members, establishing norms, and dealing with conflicts to evaluating progress and deciding when it’s time to restructure. True North Groups provides a wealth of practical resources, including suggested topics for the first twelve meetings advice on facilitating groups, techniques to evaluate group satisfaction, and much more.

For the millions of people who are searching for greater meaning and intimacy in their lives, this book will help them to grow as leaders and as people—and to stay on course to their True North.

+++++

From “Fooled by Science,” H. Allen Orr, New York Review of Books.
A Review of The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement
by David Brooks

…Second, most of these biological facts don’t matter, at least for Brooks’s purposes. What of our view of humanity changes if, when parents achieve an “attunement with their kids,” the molecule that “floods through their brains” is schmoxytocin, not oxytocin? The salient fact is that some molecule or some part of the brain underlies various aspects of consciousness or unconsciousness. But this is hardly news. As the philosopher Jerry Fodor once quipped, it’s been clear for a while now that mental processes occur north of the neck. The rest is a sort of biological bookkeeping that, while significant to the specialist, seems to provide the popular writer only with a long list of factoids. It’s not that these facts are wrong or unconnected to the higher-level phenomena—lust, emotional uplift, or insight—that Brooks discusses. They’re just superfluous.

In any case, surely what matters most to us about human nature typically takes place at a more macro level. In the language of biology, human nature is a phenotype—a trait or set of traits that is observable—and the underlying mechanics are a different matter altogether. (By analogy, imagine that an accountant opens a spreadsheet on his computer and unexpectedly announces that you have ten million dollars in your account. It’s true that, when the file was opened, this and that line of code in the computer program was executed. But it would be odd to conclude that this is the level at which something interesting just happened.) This kind of argument can be taken too far but Brooks at least owes us an explanation of why all these biological details are supposed to matter to his project.4

But perhaps the biggest problem with much of the science in The Social Animal is that it doesn’t tell us anything that Brooks’s narrative hasn’t already said. Most of us learn about human nature from experiences in real life or from the lives of those portrayed in fiction. And that’s probably as good a way to learn as any. When we begin to see, in Brooks’s story, that the adolescent Erica will never get far if she doesn’t master her anger, it doesn’t help to be told that, during times of stress, epinephrine surges or that self-control in children is a good statistical predictor of success later in life. As many have noted, our folk psychology differs from our folk physics in that, while the latter is notoriously poor, the former often seems remarkably good. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky famously suggested, when it comes to revealing what makes people tick, a scientific psychology might never outperform the novel. I have no idea whether this is true, but The Social Animal certainly makes one take the possibility seriously.

+++++

Readers' Comments

Readers submitted the following comments in response to Why Compassionate Politics:

++
i really like what you said and i totally agree - will have more time to think on these things in a little while.....will contact you from mexico. thanks for keeping on wade -- you're a good man.

loving blessings,

Gail Keene

++

This is fabulous. You are definitely on the right track.

JaneAnne Jeffries

++

One of the best WW yet!

Mary Hudson

++

Hi Wade, Take a look at The Watchman's Rattle by Rebecca D. Costa. Good insight into this problem from a different perspective. How complexity leads to over load and the loss of cognitive skills which are replaced by beliefs that are not looking for working solutions. Her book foreshadows the Rep./Tea Party obstructionism with no proposed solutions.

Robert Kourik

++

I just read your posting to Shared Purpose. Your statement -- “To my mind, to transform our social system, we must simultaneously change our institutions, our cultures, and ourselves.” – prompted me to wonder if you had read any of the works of Ken Wilber, specifically about his AQAL model – which explains why your statement is exactly on the money.
If you have not heard of Ken Wilber, please let me know, and I will describe the AQAL model for you.
Thanks for your thoughts about this important subject…..

Lynne Monds

++

Good morning, Wade. Thanks for this message. I think your interview of the disaffected activist is very telling. I want to forward your message to another project, because I think it makes some strong points.

This question – of why activism – informed and truly insightful activism – is so difficult – is a very tough question.

Personally, I think the answer has to do with all the points your respondent mentioned
“Yes. Self-righteousness. Seeing everything in black and white. Taking the hard line.”
And maybe a few more – like complexity and the exploding interdependence of issues – and what I like to describe as “bandwidth limitations in human cognition”.

Put another way – there is too much going on, it is moving too fast, and we don’t have a way of understanding it that can keep up with the pace of change. We don’t have a vision, we don’t have a comprehensive framework to understand what is happening.

So – we revert to simplistic models with strong self-righteous tendencies – assume that we ourselves are the good guys, and the other guys are at best the unknowing dupes of some evil power (corporations, lobbyists, whatever).

Just for a simple-minded example – Obama was forced by our existing framework to choose “healthcare” rather than “jobs” – because in this current framework, he could only hope to take on one at a time. Is that his fault? Probably not – but an answer – a way forward, a way to overcome this problem – has to come from somewhere.

And I think that “somewhere” is going to have to come from spirit – the normal human link to broadband deep intuition and holistic perspective. We have to find a way to “get integral” – to somehow formulate a model that includes all the simultaneous forces – which are currently blowing us away and leaving our congress in something like static gridlock.

On my sharedpurpose.net system, we are just beginning a conversation on Thomas Friedman’s new book, “That Used to Be Us”. If you had the time, maybe you and I could talk a little bit about how “compassionate politics” could play a critically important role in the emergence of something new. Personally, I think it’s the only way. We need “the power of the spirit” reaching out in every direction – in the form of “community weaving” – pulling all the simultaneous contingent forces into one holistic/integral framework, almost certainly coordinated over the internet – bringing everything into one framework – in a way that follows that simple model of the NoLabels.org motto – “Everybody AT the table, everything ON the table…”

That conversation on sharedpurpose.net is right here:
http://sharedpurpose.net/groups/forum.cfm?tq=579379&login=100803
If you got the time, I think your comments on “Compassionate Politics” would reach an interested audience – many in the Bay Area.

Thanks Wade – hang tough, keep banging.
Bruce Schuman

Why Compassionate Politics

From time to time I ask total strangers about their impressions of the progressive movement. Thus far, without exception, their concerns about certain weaknesses in that movement echo my own.

Last week a young woman got into my taxi and asked what had just happened with the weekly Monday-night protest about the recent killing of a man at a BART subway station by a police officer. I reported that the organizers of the protests had decided to stop disrupting BART service and instead simply distribute leaflets. She replied with a comment about how such disruptions are no way to gain public support.

I said, “Yes. You wonder why it took them so long to figure that out. But when I was young and stupid I took that approach myself.”

She responded, “So did I when I was in college.”

“What issues did you work on?”

“Issues related to education.”

“Are you still engaged in activism?”

“No. I’m not.”

“Do you wish you were?”

“Yes, I definitely do.”

“What might prompt you or encourage you to get engaged?”

“I’m not sure. That’s a good question.”

Then after a long silence during which she seemed to reflect on that question, I asked, “Is there something about the approach taken by activists that discourages you?”

With strong feeling she immediately responded, “Yes. Self-righteousness. Seeing everything in black and white. Taking the hard line.”

I then told her about my own work on these issues and she thanked me profusely for asking her those questions. She then talked about having volunteered in a program for homeless children but having got burned out after devoting several hours a week to that stressful project.

As she left my taxi, she thanked me again for my questions and said she’d be thinking about them.

Two nights later, another passenger initiated a conversation about the Sixties. She commented on how there is less activism today and people seem more “self-protective.” She said she was still somewhat active.

When I asked her if there is something about how activists operate that discourages non-activists from becoming active, she quickly said, “Adopting a very angry and antagonistic stance, rather than one that is positive and proactive.”

Those interactions reveal real problems with traditional activism and touch on tensions that are difficult to resolve. On the one hand, passionate true believers with a hard line can recruit enough people to launch a project and get media attention. Soon, however, they reach a plateau and find they need more support from the mainstream in order to change public policy, but their militant methods alienate the mainstream, whose support is critical.

My interest is with encouraging the development of new strategies that could attract disaffected concerned individuals like my taxi passengers and greatly increase the number of people engaged in activism. My goal is not to persuade militants to change. They have a role to play. Liberals and radicals need each other.

Recently I’ve focused on “compassionate politics” with an emphasis on achieving long-term systemic transformation through steady short-term incremental reforms. To my mind, to transform our social system, we must simultaneously change our institutions, our cultures, and ourselves. This process therefore necessarily involves ongoing personal growth, which many consider spiritual.

One form of self-improvement that seems critical to address is the arrogance to which my taxi passengers referred.

It is my belief that activist organizations need to consciously foster the growth of supportive communities that are clearly, explicitly dedicated to self-development as well as political action.

But finding progressive-minded people with whom I can collaborate on these issues is not easy. With their focus on the outer world of public policy, progressive political activists largely ignore the inner world of spirit and feelings and build organizations that are impersonal machines. They seem to think that their passion and their ideas will suffice.

And individuals who are engaged in personal or spiritual development shy away from politics.

So I’m beginning to seriously wonder if I should shift my methodology somehow. I’m definitely open to new ideas.

In the meantime I’ll continue to discuss these concerns with friends and associates and I’ll participate in the Take Back the American Dream summit October 3-5, where I will talk about these issues when I can. Since Van Jones, founder of the American Dream Movement, shares at least some of my unease with the progressive movement, his project may eventually promote personal as well as social and political transformation.

Many political activists are becoming more open about their dedication to personal/spiritual growth. Perhaps some day these seeds will bloom and caring progressive communities dedicated to both personal growth and political action will flourish.

The Compassionate Politics Network: A Declaration for Action

NOTE: The following is the latest draft of a statement of principles for a possible new project that will be launched if and when sufficient interest becomes manifest. Your feedback would be very much appreciated.

We the undersigned aim to help transform our interdependent world into a caring community dedicated to the well being of all humanity.

As wealth and power become ever more concentrated, modern societies are becoming more ego-centered, impersonal, materialistic, fearful, angry, unhappy, dogmatic, unequal, divided, undemocratic, and violent.

To reverse those trends, humanity needs to become more compassionate, warmhearted, spiritual, confident, positive, happy, open-minded, equal, unified, democratic, and nonviolent.

As members of the human family, we seek to make it possible for all people to meet their basic needs, enjoy life, develop their potential, and contribute to their communities.

Many methods can serve that purpose.

This declaration presents one: a Compassionate Politics Network composed of small support groups whose members have good times together and bear witness to one another in becoming better human beings and more effective activists.

As members of this Network, we endeavor to steadily improve our environment, our institutions, our cultures, and ourselves.

We create model communities that point the way toward a more just and peaceful world.

We love others as we love ourselves, treat others as we want them to treat us, avoid both self-sacrifice and selfishness, and spread contagious happiness.

We plant seeds, accept our limits, and celebrate life.

We meet at least monthly to share a meal, enjoy one another’s company, report on both our self-improvement efforts and our communications with our elected officials, make essential decisions, and consider planning a pleasurable social activity for some or all of us to engage in together.

Members might consider themselves libertarian, conservative, radical, liberal, socialist, independent, some other designation, or reject such labels totally. The bottom line is endorsement of this declaration.

Members respect and accept others’ decisions concerning how to implement their commitment.

Members set their own self-development goals.

The monthly support groups simply ask each person to report on their recent efforts concerning self-improvement and political action, if any, as well as their plans for future efforts.

In this way, these groups serve to hold members accountable to their commitments. Knowing they will be asked to report on their endeavors at the monthly support group, members are more likely to follow through on their pledge.

In these and other ways, our Network aims to attract more participants in the creation of a qualitatively different, much improved society rooted in a new higher purpose.

When we achieve those goals, humanity will have fundamentally transformed its global social system into a compassionate society that operates in harmony with the natural world.

Those who support this declaration are encouraged to invite friends and relatives to participate in a self-directed support group composed of individuals who endorse the declaration.

We invite you to sign this declaration and help build the Compassionate Politics Network.

The Personal is Not Political

As discussed in Wade’s Journal: July 31, 2011, I remain convinced that society needs compassionate communities with members who are committed to both ongoing self-development and regular political action (which might be only occasional letters or phone calls, for one can be a political activist without it being all-consuming).

In response to that post, Marcella Womack offered the following comment:

I'm glad you have returned to the dialogue. It is evident that you are continuing to read and deepen your own understanding of how we make change. In your own paper [Evaluation of the Residence College (1967)]” about the experimental nature of the program you were asked to critique, you said: "Individuals are not encouraged to develop, to create their own vibrant sense of meaning and direction. Inner strength is seen as a threat; so the ground for a stable sense of autonomy is undercut." In other words you seem to be advocating for personal development of the inner self that would result in greater strength and a greater capacity to "act in the world."

Your quoting from one "feminist Leader" about the two dimensions of consciousness-raising (“The Personal is the Political”) leaves one thinking that you believe "the Women's Movement" came to "the" conclusion that it was one or the other. You need to grasp the fact that one "feminist Leader" was sharing what she had discovered for herself and expressing that. She was the one who saw it as "either/or."

My own experience as a feminist leads me to know it is BEYOND either/or and is truly "both/and." Through the experience of consciousness-raising done then with my "feminist” sisters, or later with my therapist, or with my best friend, I continue to find that the personal IS the center from which I come and actually the only place that personal change happens at its most profound level. And always, the personal actions - directed at systems change and greater respect for all peoples - come out of the consciousness that the self-exploration has generated.

Is your call to all of us to take political action in one certain way? Or are you wanting to stress that "political action" must come out of a personal stance that commits to justice and right human relations? Every person must make the individual choice within themselves in terms of where they place both their attention and their action. This, to me, is an integration between the "personal and the political."

Given the definition you have of “the political" (the activities of governments), you may actually be calling for colleagues who are developed, "creating their own vibrant sense of meaning and direction" and who have “inner strength and a stable sense of autonomy." Way back when, you were already out-picturing those who would be needed to make change in the world.

I suspect all of us who read your column would say "yes" to that. And I, personally, would say, "Don't limit this need to people choosing to focus on the activities of governments." All areas of our Earth life need change-makers.

Linked in service,
Marcella R. Womack
NEW DAWN LLC
Project Consultant, Workshop Facilitator, Writer, and Speaker
Kansas City, Missouri

THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
"...to freely bloom - that is my definition of success." Gerry Spence, 1929

I very much appreciate Marcella’s kind words and agree that all areas need change-makers. I also agree that everyone must make their own decision about their priorities. If someone chooses to be completely apolitical and concentrate on other forms of service to humanity, I accept that decision, don’t desire to lay on guilt trips, and don’t want “all of us to take political action in one certain way.”

I do, however, suggest that we ask ourselves, “Should I communicate more with my elected officials?”

Myself, I feel a moral responsibility to vote and let my elected officials know what I think between elections and I regret that I don’t do so more often. Most Americans feel the same way: they wish that others and themselves were more engaged politically.

Concerning the women’s movement, I agree with Marcella that many other feminists in the women’s movement have taken positions other than those articulated by Carol Hanisch in “The Personal is Political.” That’s why I referred to Hanisch and her colleagues as “this element of the women’s movement.” The National Organization for Women (NOW), for example, has definitely focused on governmental policy.

But NOW has not adopted a holistic approach. In fact, as I expressed in “Looking for Holistic Political Organizations,” to my knowledge no progressive political organization in the United States intentionally helps their members support one another in open-ended, self-determined personal-growth efforts.

Hanisch was far from alone in her rejection of individual solutions. Some time ago, in a private meeting a prominent leader of the women's movement in San Francisco commented, “We were not about self-improvement."

In “The Personal Is Political: Widespread Slogan of the Women's Movement,” Linda Napikoski reports that by the time Hanisch’s essay was published in 1970, “‘the personal is political’ had already become a widely used part of the women's movement and was not a quote attributable to any one person.” She also states, “Consciousness-raising was a form of political action... Hanisch noted that ‘political’ refers to any power relationships, not just those of government or elected officials (emphasis added).”

Power dynamics in personal relationships are critical and must be addressed. Social patterns are greatly influenced by governmental policies. And those who attempt to change governmental policies need to deal with those issues.

But “political” refers to activities directly related to the government. The attempt to re-define the word by asserting that “the personal is political” strikes me as a confusing abstraction. In general, we should use commonly accepted definitions, especially when those words are rooted in concrete reality.

More importantly, with its narrow focus on “consciousness-raising,” that redefinition denigrates both politics and self-improvement. It proclaims that only awareness of broad social patterns and collective action really matter. In the meantime, from this viewpoint, incremental political reforms and individual solutions to personal problems are insignificant (or actually undermine prospects for revolution).

Awareness of far-reaching feminist issues and a sense of direction are important. We owe the women’s movement a great deal for its contribution in that regard. But as we move toward long-term systemic transformation, we can pursue short-term political reforms and individual solutions that improve lives and move us in that direction.

Those of us on this path need to find one another so we can better advance our efforts.

The American Dream Movement: Integrating the Personal and the Political

The recent release of the brilliant Contract for the American Dream  by the American Dream Movement may offer an opportunity for like-minded individuals to pursue both personal and political transformation within a potent, national effort.

The preamble to the Contract affirms the “pursuit of happiness” and the first national summit will include “arts to lift the spirit.” Those elements suggest that the Movement may be open to using methods that enhance the nonmaterial world, which could make for a more effective effort than is usually the case.

One option would be for a “personal-political caucus” (perhaps named differently) within that Movement to integrate the personal and the political. While experimenting with how to enrich our lives personally and socially, we could provide others in the Movement with information they might find useful.

More than 250,000 people have already signed the Contract, which was produced with input from 131,203 individuals. As a next step, the Movement is calling for August 2011 Recess Actions to challenge politicians who want more budget cuts. Then the Movement will convene a Take Back the American Dream Conference  October 3-5 in Washington, DC.

I have signed the Contract and will participate in the conference, where I hope to explore with others how we can pursue a fundamental, comprehensive transformation of our society by incorporating lessons from the personal/social/spiritual spheres into our efforts.

The Conference invitation declares, “There will be…sessions organized by you.” So those of us who are concerned about both personal and political transformation and already know each other might invite other participants to address our concerns, goals, and hopes.

The personal is not political. Those two realms are different but not separate. They need to be fully interwoven and consciously integrated.

One way to do that would be for political activists to incorporate into their work some simple, best practices developed by those who concentrate on personal-growth work. That is what I’d like to pursue with fellow participants in the American Dream Movement.

Wade’s Journal – August 7, 2011

Contents:
--The American Dream Movement
--Happiness Research
--5 Ways To Listen Better
--Obama and the Debt Ceiling
--My Birthday Videos
--My New Declaration

+++

The American Dream Movement

Two months ago, Van Jones, whom I hold in very high regard, initiated the American Dream Movement with support from scores of prominent progressive organizations. They declared “the American Dream is under siege,” called for a new national movement to fight back, solicited ideas for policy positions to advocate, and convened house meetings to evaluate the enormous numbers of proposals that were submitted online.

When I learned of the project, I sent Van the following email:

****

Dear Van,

I signed up for a July 17 event and like your call to build an American Dream movement.

However, two points seem to be missing: the need to nurture spiritual growth and mutual support.

As reported in the abstract of "The Polls—Trends" by Sandra L. Hanson and John Zogby in Public Opinion Quarterly, Sept 2010, Vol. 74 Issue 3, pp 570-584: "Results from a number of U.S. public opinion polls collected in the past two decades [concerning] attitudes about the American Dream … suggest that a majority of Americans consistently reported that the American Dream (for themselves and their family) is more about spiritual happiness than material goods."

The pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the American Dream. Building the American Dream movement therefore needs to be rooted in contagious happiness and a deep concern for how we treat each other. Promoting happiness requires more than changes in public policy.

Far too often, progressive activists are too materialistic, task-oriented, impersonal, intellectual, and arrogant, among other weaknesses. We need to learn how to steadily correct those mistakes and improve how we treat people, which requires self-improvement.

My hope is that the American Dream movement will clearly, explicitly affirm a commitment to spiritual growth and mutual support.

With great respect,

Wade Hudson

****

My house meeting was cancelled at the last minute, but Paul Loeb reported that about 20,000 people participated in events throughout the country. Since then, Van has spoken at events and to the media representing the movement. Their website has a frequently updated blog, asks supporters to “help spread the word and show our strength with … American Dream signs and logos,” and states “If we can get these signs to start popping up everywhere, nationwide, we'll show the public and the media that our movement is gaining steam fast!”

I’ll continue to follow the development of this project and hope for the best, but it strikes me as largely more of the same, whereas new strategies are sorely needed.

+++

Happiness Research

According to a report from three Italian researchers, data from 1975 to 2004 collected by the annual General Social Surveys that monitors change in U.S. society through interviews with thousands of Americans reveals that Americans are less happy today than they were 30 years ago thanks to longer working hours and a deterioration in the quality of their relationships with friends and neighbors.

Studying the same data, a University of Chicago professor “noticed definite upticks when the nation flourished economically. For example, she found that 1995 was a very good year on the happiness scale.”

In 2010 a Conference Board survey of 5,000 U.S. households showed just 45% of respondents say they are satisfied with their jobs, down from 61% in 1987, the first year in which the survey was conducted, according to the Wall Street Journal, which concluded:

Lower job satisfaction over the past 20 years has come as more companies have dropped or cut pension benefits and asked employees to contribute more to health care. Meanwhile, wage growth has been relatively stagnant. Ironically, the two-decade decline in happiness has coincided with substantial increases in worker productivity. Gains in the tech sector have ensured that even as workers become more unhappy, they have become more productive

+++

5 Ways To Listen Better

An excellent TED Talk. To watch, and listen, click here.

+++

Obama and the Debt Ceiling

Evaluating Obama’s performance in the debt-ceiling battle is not easy. But what is clear to me is that a major problem is the lack of an effective movement to pressure him to take stronger stands.

I believe Obama probably made certain mistakes on the debt issue. Those decisions appear to be rooted in deeply held incorrect convictions, as William Greider argued in “Obama's Bad Bargain“ when he said, “I think Obama has at last revealed his sincere convictions.” Ironically, Obama who has talked so much about transcending ideology seems confined by his own ideological bias, which Jim Sleeper summed up as “neo-liberal” in his thoughtful “The Republic After Obama.”  Obama seems to really believe his rhetoric when he brags about the federal budget being as small relative to the overall economy as it was under Eisenhower. So he has failed to clearly argue that the deficit is best dealt with by establishing tax fairness and restoring economic growth, even if we have to wait a few years to reduce the deficit substantially.

And Ray Teixeira may be right when, in “Obama’s Unhealthy Obsession With Independents,” he charges that when Obama and his team look at independent voters they “want to see teeming hordes of voters who are above the partisan allure of party, untroubled by the bad economy (or, at least, not planning to vote on that basis), and pining for a Washington where the parties, darn it, just work together. So that’s what they see.” In fact, however, most independents are less concerned about the deficit than they are about the jobs situation. So Teixeira faults Obama for accepting “the GOP framework that cutting debt, not creating jobs, was the country’s central problem.” The consequence, he argues, is that “we have a deal that severely undercuts Democratic policy priorities and cuts government spending just as the economic recovery is showing signs of tanking.”

But the debt ceiling issue gets complicated upon closer look.

Leftist critics want Obama to be like FDR and lead an angry assault on the “economic royalists.” They want Obama to be a cheerleader for a left populist attack on corporations and/or the wealthy, to lead a movement that does not exist. They lament that Obama did not transition his campaign organization into an insurgent force that would challenge and threaten moderate Democrats, like the Tea Party confronts Republican incumbents. Many of them want to fight the good fight, organize the masses, and trust that they will win eventually, even if the Presidency is sacrificed in 2012.

But FDR had powerful grassroots force pushing him, whereas Obama does not. If Obama were to act like FDR, he would risk going out on a limb that would endanger his re-election. His left critics focus on what would be ideal policy, but neglect political calculations concerning the impact of various options on his electoral prospects, especially with independent voters. Rather than scapegoating Obama and spending so much time complaining about him, these critics should concentrate on building an effective grassroots movement.

I believe it is important to re-elect Obama, if only due to his court appointments and the many positive, under-the-radar policy changes made by his Administration, as well as the fact that he’s more open to persuasion than any likely Republican President would be. Political calculations therefore are important. Independents can swing an election and Obama’s attention to the deficit could help him with independents who care strongly about the deficit. So I’ve been irritated by most leftist critiques of Obama because they ignore those political concerns, especially when they lapse into ad hominem arguments.

During the debt-ceiling battle Obama did manage to help de-legitimize the House Republicans. His “angry” press conference illuminated key issues. He did use his bully pulpit to flood Congressional switchboard with supportive phone calls. And the American people still disapprove of the Republicans even more than they disapprove of Obama.

In talking about future political battles in Congress, Nancy Pelosi recently said, “[W]e wouldn't let our country default.” This comment touches on the political risk that would have followed if Obama and the Democrats had called the Republicans’ bluff. Republicans would have charged Democrats with indifference to the deficit and creating default in order to protect their “tax-and-spend” ways.

Instead, the compromise protects many programs that serve the neediest, enables the Democrats to project an image of being concerned about deficits, and provides the Democrats with the ability to run against the “Roadblock Republicans.” Even Standard and Poor’s pointed to the Republican-created gridlock as a major problem when they downgraded our credit rating. Most Americans still blame Bush more than Obama for our economic woes and they favor Obama’s economic policies over the Republicans’. Considering how bad the economy is, the fact that Obama’s approval rating has not fallen more than it has indicates that he has operated with considerable skill. So Obama and the Democrats may be in a better position for 2012 than would have been the case if they had refused to settle the debt ceiling issue as they did.

By temperament Obama wants to try to facilitate consensus. As he made clear during his campaign, he is not inclined to inflame conflict at the outset of addressing an issue, but is willing to fight if and when consensus proves impossible. He wants to try to be bipartisan as long as there is hope for agreement. That approach makes sense for a President, who is not Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

But late July may well have been the time to really confront the Republicans on the debt-ceiling issue. I tend to think so.

A key question for me is how far the House Republicans would have pushed their opposition to any increased tax revenue if Obama and the Democrats had insisted that the deficit-reduction plan be “balanced,” a position supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including most Republicans. It strikes me as strange that I’ve seen no commentary on that question: would enough Republicans have changed their position in the face of a sustained stock-market collapse?

My cab passengers whom I’ve asked, including well-informed workers in the financial sector, have said that the Republicans would’ve eventually backed down.

My own suspicion is that they would have refused to raise the debt ceiling until the August 2 deadline passed, but after the stock tanked for two or three days, enough of them would have voted with the Democrats to raise it (in conjunction with a balanced plan to lower the deficit). After the matter was settled, Pelosi said, “They didn’t have the votes.” I take that to mean the Republicans would have been unable to sustain their hard line.

That scenario could have enabled Obama to project the image of a strong leader who will fight for his principles and avoid late-night jokes such as David Letterman saying that when Obama celebrated his birthday, he “asked for an iPad, [and] let Republicans negotiate him down to a wad of gum.”

But maybe Pelosi was right. Perhaps it would have hurt Obama and the Democrats in 2012 if they (and the Republicans) had “let our country default.” We’ll never know. But as Pelosi suggests, now that the Republicans are emboldened, we may see similar brinkmanship later this year. And this time it may be easier for the Democrats to stand firm. Regardless, come the 2012 election, we’ll probably see a more combative Obama.

+++

My Birthday Videos

To celebrate my 67th birthday, my sister and brother-in-law communed with Mother Nature in Marin County. Some video that I shot is on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRhn0u3mGE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXsFb6oU8OU and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2318250113827 and http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2318296674991.

+++

My New Declaration

I’m working steadily on drafting a new manifesto to summarize my thinking about a new approach to community organizing geared toward social transformation. I look forward to discussing it soon, both online and in person.