Matrix & Transformation: Chapter 6

From: richard-at-cyberjournal.org

Date: 16 Nov 2004

Subject: Matrix & Transformation: Chapter 6

To: newslog-at-cyberjournal.org

Copyright 2004 Richard K. Moore

_________________________________________________  

CHAPTER 6:    HARMONIZATION AND GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION

      "May you live in interesting times."

      - An ancient Chinese curse

* The crisis of civilization

We are now in the midst of an extremely volatile and unstable

moment in history. It is a chaotic instability, where a

variety of likely events can each lead to unpredictable and

far-reaching consequences. Nuclear war is a strong

possibility, as the U.S. pursues its New American Century

agenda and tensions continue between Israel & Iran, India &

Pakistan, and China & Taiwan. Abrupt climate changes are

likely to occur, as global warming threatens to melt the polar

ice caps and disrupt the Gulf Stream. Global food supplies are

being diminished by depletion of fishing stocks, water tables,

and arable land. Declining oil supplies threaten to

destabilize our entire energy-hungry civilization, while

rising oil prices are already stressing the global economy.

Even without the oil problem, the global economy is in serious

trouble as it faces the ultimate limits to growth on a finite

planet. And this is only a partial list of potentially

disastrous disruptions. All major governments and political

leaders, meanwhile, have no policy concept other than a

stubborn insistence on 'more of the same'. Attempts at reform

have become futile, as neoliberal economists tighten their

budgets and governments militarize their police forces.

In such a chaotic context, it may seem like a waste of time to

pursue processes of social transformation. Perhaps it would

make more sense to escape to high ground, find a cave, and

stock it with provisions. A few may adopt such a survivalist

strategy, but most of us cannot or will not. For the majority

of us who stick with the Titanic, we might as well use our

time in the best way we can. I believe that taking control of

our own destinies is the most sensible thing we can devote our

efforts to, no matter what the state of the world. If we can

gain control of the ship before it sinks, we may be able to

steer around the worst dangers. If instead we become survivors

in a post-apocalyptic world, then the more we know about

governing ourselves the better off we will be. If we are

forced to build a new civilization, we would be well advised

to take charge of that process -- and consciously avoid the

mistakes of our predecessors.

In other words: even in the midst of a chaotic situation, our

Transformational Imperative remains in effect. Indeed, a time

of chaos is the most fertile time for new possibilities. In

more stable times, there would be no mass constituency for

social transformation. In today's world, everyone knows that

fundamental change is needed. But our societies are divided by

factionalism, and this prevents us from working together to

bring about change. Overcoming factionalism in society, by

harmonizing our differences, is the only way that We the

People can come together and become the desperately needed

agent of transformation.

We know how to overcome divisiveness in the microcosm, in a

face-to-face gathering. There are proven techniques for

achieving that, based on deep listening, and the outcomes of

such gatherings are very promising. Not only do participants

overcome their differences -- and reach a place where they can

work creatively together -- but they come away with a sense of

We the People, and an understanding that factionalism can be

overcome in society generally. As a consequence, participants

also come away with an enthusiasm for spreading the experience

to others. They've seen the light of hope, and being caring

human beings, they want to share it.

My message to activists and concerned citizens everywhere,

regardless of your political or religious orientation, is to

take heed of this ray of hope. If you really want to make a

difference, I can see no more promising direction for your

energies at this time than to help spread a culture of mutual

understanding and creative dialog. Massive worldwide protests

against war and globalization have been ignored, but if We the

People get our act together in the right way, there is no

power that can stand against us. The following links provide

useful information, contacts, and resources:

      Tree Bressen, "Dynamic Facilitation for Group Transformation":

        http://cyberjournal.org/cj/authors/tree/DynamicFacilitation.Group.html

            Jim Rough's Dynamic Facilitation workshops:          http://www.ToBe.net

            Rogue Valley Wisdom Council:

        http://www.rvwc.org/

            Tom Atlee's politics and democracy pages:

        http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_Index.html

        http://www.democracyinnovations.org/

            A Canadian experiment in citizen's councils:

        http://www.co-intelligence.org/S-Canadaadvrsariesdream.html

            National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation:

        http://thataway.org/index.html

            Report on popular democracy in Venezuela:

        http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id='846'&lists='cj'

* Achieving critical mass: the role of activists

Despite the transformative experience of harmonization in the

microcosm, and despite the many groups and initiatives aimed

at spreading this experience (eg., the above links), there is

not as yet any real momentum -- and no real harmonization

movement. The Michigan gathering shows promise, in terms of

systematically getting some momentum going. But in terms of a

major movement that initiative is only a drop in the bucket.

If the movement is to really get off the ground, we need a

much wider variety of initiatives. If there is to be a

harmonization movement, I believe there must first be an

earlier movement, a movement to spread an understanding of

harmonization -- and the importance of overcoming factionalism

-- among activists.

Throughout the West there are hundreds of thousands of

activists. They are the stalwarts who regularly show up at

anti-globalization and anti-war protests, and they are the

ones who organize such events. They organize boycotts to fight

against sweatshop practices, they create community currencies,

they demonstrate against or in favor of abortion rights -- and

there are hundreds of other such causes. Activists are people

who have the motivation, and make the time, to roll up their

sleeves, get involved, and do what they can to make a

difference -- according to their own values and perspectives.

If this kind of mass energy could be shifted to spreading

harmonization, the movement could build momentum very quickly.

In general, when people experience a harmonization session,

they come away with an enthusiasm for spreading the

experience. In the case of activists, that enthusiasm would

likely be turned into action. Currently, most activists think

in terms of adversarial engagement within the current

political system. After experiencing the empowerment of We the

People working together, activists would naturally want to

share this experience with other activists and with people

generally. They would have new visions of how social change

can be brought about -- as did the participants in the

Michigan gathering.

The Michigan participants were activists of a sort, what we

might call 'organizational' activists. From their experience

of overcoming divisiveness, they naturally thought in terms of

joining advisory boards, building bridges between their

organizations, planning follow-up conferences, and creating

policy agendas. These are very useful initiatives, and in

their way they can do much do reduce factionalism in society.

But at the same time these initiatives are basically

hierarchical in their nature. They are, in their main thrust,

aimed at coalition building -- within the context of

adversarial politics. Rather than spreading harmonization as a

cultural movement, these initiatives are, it seems, directed

more at using harmonization as an organization-building tool.

The great bulk of modern activists, on the other hand, tend to

be 'grassroots' activists. They think in terms of

face-to-face, locally-based affinity groups rather than

at-large membership organizations. They participate in

large-scale events -- but they see those as collective

expressions of grassroots energy rather than the result of

coalitions among hierarchical groups. Their demonstrations are

marked by diversity, creativity, 'spirit', and spontaneity,

rather than by agendas and centralized planning. Within the

context of our adversarial political system, these grassroots

activists can be criticized as regards their ultimate

effectiveness. But in terms of deep social transformation,

this kind of activism could be very effective indeed -- if

empowered by an understanding and appreciation of

harmonization and its potential.

In closing the previous section I said, "If you really want to

make a difference, I can see no more promising direction for

your energies at this time than to help spread a culture of

mutual understanding and creative dialog." To that I would now

add that the most promising way to get the momentum going is

by bringing in grassroots activists and giving them the

opportunity to experience a harmonization session for

themselves. The communication and organizational links among

these activists tend to be horizontal and multi-branched --

based on networking rather than hierarchy. If a fire can be

lit among grassroots activists, it would be likely to spread

widely and quickly.

* Achieving critical mass: the role of community

If a harmonization movement develops momentum on a grassroots

basis, then we could expect many different kinds of sessions

to be organized. We could expect the same kind of imagination,

variety, and energy to be expressed as we currently see in the

many diverse forms of activism throughout the West. In this

way an understanding of harmonization could spread throughout

the culture. In this section, I'd like to discuss some of the

kinds of sessions that we might expect to see, and consider

how the movement might lead to an awakening of We the People

-- as an agent of social transformation.

One kind of session might be among activists themselves, as a

means of reaching consensus on activist projects. In

anti-globalization protests, for example, most of the

protestors have been strictly non-violent while others, the

'anarchist' wing, insist on engaging in property destruction.

Perhaps, by using harmonization, more coherent tactics could

be adopted among all parties in such an event. This could

increase the effectiveness of the event and perhaps reduce the

likelihood of conflict with police.

Another kind of session might be among different parties in a

local dispute, as a means of reaching resolution. Perhaps some

community is divided between people supporting a development

project and others wanting to protect the environment.

Harmonization might enable the community to come up with a

consensus approach that everyone can support. For local

environmental activists, organizing such a 'both-sides'

session could be more fruitful than a traditional

environmentalist protest event.

Another kind of session, like the Michigan gathering, might be

aimed at reducing divisiveness among competing organizations.

Certainly many activists will think in traditional political

terms, and there might be attempts to create a political

movement or even a new party. And there are countless other

possibilities, limited only by the imagination and creativity

of diverse activist groups. And whenever a certain kind of

harmonization session achieves a successful outcome, that

would provide energy and inspiration for future similar events

in other places. In this way the movement could spread

non-linearly, along many lines of propagation, and a broader

sense of 'harmonization movement' would emerge.

Of all the various kinds of sessions that might arise, there

is one in particular that I would like to focus on -- a

session aimed at creating a collective sense of identity and

empowerment within a local community. For a variety of

reasons, I suggest that this kind of session offers the

greatest potential for social transformation. In order to

explore this notion further, let's examine the Ashland

gathering -- the one that generated the enthusiasm for the

Michigan event.

Held in January, 2004, the Ashland event was billed as "The

Rogue Valley Wisdom Council" (see URL above). A "Wisdom

Council" is a concept developed by Jim Rough, the inventor of

Dynamic Facilitation -- one of the most effective forms of

facilitation for achieving harmonization in a diverse group of

people. The Wisdom Council is Jim's proposal for how the We

the People experience might be translated into the political

domain. The basic idea behind a Wisdom Council is to bring

together a group of randomly selected citizens, as a kind of

'representative microcosm' of a larger population -- a

community, a region, or even a whole nation. Ideally, a Wisdom

Council would be officially chartered in some way, so that the

outcome of its harmonization process would have a claim to

democratic legitimacy. The ideas and proposals generated in

the Council session would be published to the larger

population, and could presumably find their way eventually

into public policy.

The Ashland session was organized as an attempt to implement

this Wisdom Council vision for the people of Rogue Valley,

Oregon. Not every part of the Wisdom Council formula was

followed, for example there was no official political

chartering of the event. But overall the event was a very

useful experiment and from it we can learn quite a bit about

the potential of Wisdom Councils and of community-based

sessions more generally.

In order to achieve a reasonably random selection of

participants, hundreds of names were picked randomly from the

phone books for the Rogue Valley area. These people were

contacted by phone, and eventually a small group agreed to

participate in the event. Jim Rough personally facilitated the

two-day session, and the group did indeed achieve a strong

sense of We the People. The event was recorded on video, and

one can readily see the transformation in the participants. At

the beginning they were all rather shy and didn't feel they

had much to say. By the end, they were overflowing with

enthusiasm about the possibility of some more direct kind of

participation in the democratic process.

As a follow-up, a public meeting was held in the week

following the session, and this was also recorded on video.

The meeting started off with a report by the participants on

their experience, and their highly articulate expressions were

in stark contrast to their original shyness. The meeting then

broke up into several roundtable discussions, each including

one of the Council participants. There was no attempt to

facilitate these discussions, and remarkably the enthusiasm of

the Council participants turned out to be highly contagious.

The people at the meeting were able to somehow pick up the We

the People spirit without actually going through the

harmonization experience themselves.

Everyone came away from the public meeting with a great deal

of enthusiasm, including the organizers. But along with the

enthusiasm, there was also a kind of let-down. The potential

of We the People had felt so real, so promising, and yet the

next day the world goes on as usual. How can We the People be

more than a transitory experience? How can it have a

noticeable effect on society? Where do we go from here? What

next?

For these particular organizers, the answer to the 'What

next?' question was the Michigan gathering. The strategy there

is to piggy-back on existing activist organizations. Those

organizations have some degree of political influence, and if

that influence can be shifted away from divisiveness we can

hope for beneficial political consequences. Jim Rough's

strategy with Wisdom Councils is similar, only he seeks to

piggy-back on official political institutions rather than

activist organizations. Both strategies are promising and make

good sense, but the sense they make is within the context of

the existing hierarchical political system. They are not aimed

at creating the kind of deep social transformation that is

required to deal with the unprecedented crisis being faced by

humanity and civilization.

So let's return to the Ashland experience, and consider again

the 'What next?' question -- from the perspective of

transformation. How can We the People achieve democratic

legitimacy -- not as an influencer within hierarchical

politics, but rather as a primary actor in society? I suggest

that the answer to this question can be found at the community

level. I've been referring to face-to-face sessions as being

examples of 'harmonization in the microcosm'. The community, I

believe, is the natural next step. If a community as-a-whole

can achieve harmonization, then that would be an example of

harmonization in a very important larger microcosm, the

microcosm of a community. If a whole community can 'wake up',

then We the People would exist as a coherent entity in an

identifiable territory. This would be a very important

milestone in terms of social transformation, and we will

return to this point shortly.

What would it mean for a community to achieve harmonization --

for a community to 'wake up'? It would not necessarily mean

that the whole community participates in face-to-face

sessions, although that might be possible in a very small

community. More likely 'waking up' would be a multi-stage

process. In Ashland, a significant number of people came away

with a considerable amount of enthusiasm, from both the

session and the public meeting. It seems likely that a similar

project could be carried out in any locality, with similar

results. So let's take the Ashland scenario, and consider how

that kind of momentum might develop into a community waking-up

process.

It seems to me that there would be two 'threads' in such a

process. One thread has to do with organizing more sessions

and spreading the experience among more members of the

community. The other thread has to do with the content of what

is discussed in the sessions -- and the publication of that to

the community at large. The first thread serves to involve

larger and larger segments of the community in the vision of

We the People, and the second facilitates the evolution a

'sense of the community' -- the awakening consciousness of We

the People.

After several sessions, it seems likely that certain issues

would rise to the top, as being of general community concern.

There would begin to be a coherence in the awakening

consciousness, as a harmonized perspective begins to emerge on

those issues. Subsequent sessions would have a 'starting

point'; they could move beyond simply discovering a sense of

We the People, and go on to advance the ongoing community

dialog. Each session would bring in new perspectives and

concerns, leading to greater coherence in an evolving

community consciousness. As harmonization became part of the

local culture generally, it would become possible for larger

gatherings, and shorter gatherings, to operate effectively

within the context of harmonization. At some point the

community as a whole would be awake -- it would have a sense

of itself as a community, it would have evolved ways of

maintaining community dialog, and it would have a shared

understanding of its collective concerns and priorities.

I've extrapolated quite a bit, in drawing out this scenario.

But based on the experience of previous harmonization

sessions, it seems to me that these kind of dynamics would be

likely to develop if sufficient organizational energy were

applied to pursing the two threads. In the case of Ashland, I

believe enough energy was generated to enable a next step to

be taken in this process -- a follow-on session, let's say,

and some effective local publicity. Out of the enthusiasm

generated in that next session, there would be new energy

released to enable another step, and so on. Perhaps that will

happen or is happening, but for the time being most of the

energy seems to have been diverted instead to the Michigan

event. What is needed for the community process to proceed is

not more seed energy -- an Ashland-like event can provide that

-- but rather an awareness, on the part of organizers, of the

transformative potential of awakened communities. This is a

point that I promised , a bit earlier, to return to.

My claim here is that an awakened community has the potential

to be an active and effective agent of social transformation.

There are three basic reasons for this claim, and they have to

do with political legitimacy, ability to act coherently, and

ability to serve as a model for other communities. Let's

examine each of these reasons in turn.

The most basic principle of politics, since time immemorial,

has been a mutual respect among societies as regards

sovereignty and territorial integrity. Whenever this principle

is violated we note that as an exceptional episode, and we

give it a label like 'raid', 'invasion', 'conquest', 'war', or

'imperialism'. Most of us yearn for peace, and we define that

in terms of societies not interfering, or threatening to

interfere, in the affairs of other societies. In today's world

sovereignty and territorial integrity are defined, for the

most part, at the level of nations. In earlier eras, the level

was kingdoms, chiefdoms, tribes, and hunter-gatherer bands.

The principle that the 'people of a place' have a right to run

their own affairs, according their own system of governance,

goes all the way back to our origins, evolving out of the

territorial behavior found throughout the animal kingdom,

including in particular the primates.

As the size of political entities has grown, through conquest

and imperialism, peoples have often been forced together

against their will. With the Kurds and Palestinians in the

Middle East, the Basques in Spain, and the Tibetans in China,

we see examples of peoples who see their primary identity in a

smaller entity, and who yearn for their own sovereign

territory. In the splitting up of the USSR, Czechoslovakia,

and Yugoslavia, we see examples of such yearnings being

allowed to play themselves out. In some cases we may

sympathize with a demand for independence, and in other cases

we may not, but we all recognize that any legitimate claim to

independence must begin with a consensus among the 'people of

a place' that they want to be independent. Thus international

recognition of a new nation is frequently associated with some

kind of plebiscite, verifying that the desire for independence

is genuinely shared by most people throughout the identified

territory.

It is within the context of this primordial principle -- that

the 'people of a place' have an inherent right to seek to run

their own affairs -- that I speak of the political legitimacy

of an awakened community. I'm not claiming that a community

has the right to become a sovereign state, at least not at

this point in our discussion. What I am claiming is that a

community is the 'people of a place', and there is an inherent

political legitimacy in the will of a community -- if that

will is based on a genuine consensus of the members of that

community. An awakened community has the ability to achieve

such a consensus -- to evolve a community 'will' or 'agenda'

-- and it has the ability to express that will with a coherent

community voice. When 'We the People of Our Town' can speak

with such a voice, then that voice has a legitimate claim to

be taken seriously by surrounding communities and by relevant

governmental agencies.

Let's next examine the ability of an awakened community to

'act coherently'. When a community has achieved a sense of its

collective will or agenda, then there are many ways in which

the people of the community can act to move that agenda

forward. For one thing, they can select a slate of candidates

from among themselves, and elect them to all local offices

with something near 100% of the vote. In this way We the

People can also speak with the official voice, and exercise

the authority, of the local governmental apparatus. The people

of the community would be involved in ongoing policy

formation, by means of appropriate harmonization processes

that the people work out for themselves. The local government

apparatus would serve as the operational arm of the people,

rather than as a vehicle of power and wealth for local elites

and politicians. And there are many things an awakened

community can do outside the governmental context, such as

organizing co-op industries to create employment and generate

income for the community. Regardless of what local agendas

might be pursued, We the People would be learning how to

think, act, and respond as a whole community. This is an

important phase of the waking up process.

Porto Alegre is a medium-sized city in Brazil which operates

under a bottom-up consensus process that has enabled the

residents to achieve some degree of We the People

consciousness. The budget of the city is determined by this

process, in which everyone can participate, and the official

government implements that budget -- spending the allocated

amounts on the identified items. Porto Alegre is recognized

internationally as being a well-managed, efficient, and

livable city, and has won many civic prizes and awards. Within

the constraints of higher-level government and funding, an

awakened community can basically run its affairs according to

its own preferences and priorities. Policies on open spaces,

public services, traffic, zoning, and other matters can be

developed creatively, with respect for the concerns and tastes

of everyone in the community. We the People, at the level of

community, can be the agent of transformation of its own civic

environment.

An awakened community, I suggest, would be a very appealing

model to people in other communities. Every community today

has conflicts between different factions or ethnic groups,

gripes about the way the local government runs things, and

recognized local problems that seem to never go away.

Activists, concerned citizens -- and even elected officials --

in such a community would naturally have some interest in

finding out how 'Our Town' was able to resolve its internal

conflicts, and move forward toward achieving a civic

renaissance. Perhaps nothing could be more effective in

spreading a culture of harmonization than the inspiration

provided by a growing number of awakened 'Our Towns'.

* The waking of the giant

So far in this chapter we've been looking at harmonization

mostly as a cultural movement. We saw in the previous chapter

that such a movement exists in an embryonic form, with a

handful of initiatives seeking to generate momentum in one way

or another, based on one strategy or another. In this chapter

we've been exploring ways in which such a cultural movement

might gain momentum. We've looked particularly at the

potential role of grassroots activists, and focused on

applying harmonization to the mission of enabling 'We the

People' to wake up at the level of community. I suggested that

this focus is important because the people in a community, if

they find common purpose, can claim a kind of legitimacy

(being the 'people of a place'), and because the community

level can give We the People practice in thinking and acting

together coherently, and because awakened communities could,

by their example, be effective vehicles of movement

propagation.

If the movement were to develop in this way, and if several

different communities began to achieve a sense of We the

People, and if interest in these activities began to spring up

in the society at large -- then we would probably be able to

say that the movement had reached critical mass. In actual

experience with harmonization processes, as in Ashland and

Michigan, participants have come away with a great deal of

enthusiasm. It seems to me that we would see that kind of

enthusiasm magnified many times when the process is enabling

communities to begin taking charge of their own affairs. With

that kind of enthusiasm, and sufficient initial momentum, I

anticipate that the movement would take off in a big way.

In terms of our waking giant, this would bring us to the point

where the giant is conscious and able to interact

intelligently with its local environment. But social

transformation cannot be brought about at the local level. We

the People may begin to awaken locally, but our consciousness

must become global if we are to save humanity from the crisis

it faces. The giant is not fully awake until it understands

its role in the wider world. Fortunately, it is very likely

that awakened communities would soon discover the limitations

of what can be accomplished locally. For example, they would

find themselves encumbered by restrictions placed by

higher-level government, they might find that outside

landlords control much of the property in the community -- and

that remote corporations have more say over the local economy

than do the local government and the people combined.

Eventually, people would begin to realize that further

progress requires a deeper perspective than that of civic

improvement.

Communities are made up of real people, some of whom are

experts in various areas, and some of whom are concerned about

things like sustainability and globalization. There is no

reason to assume that there would not be sessions early on in

the waking up process that would be brave enough to venture

into radical thinking of one sort or another. I've found that

in face-to-face discussions people can entertain surprisingly

radical ideas. It is only in public forums and the media that

everyone seems to limit themselves to mainstream thinking.

Here's one experiment I've carried out a couple times in

airports. I'd find myself next to some 'very ordinary' middle

class couple and I'd strike up a conversation. They'd ask what

I did, I'd say I write, they'd ask what about, I'd say

political stuff, and then I'd say, "For example, what do you

think of capitalism?". That's a question that had never

occurred to them, and amazingly, within about ten minutes of

discussion they'd be saying something like, "I see what you

mean, capitalism doesn't really make much sense, does it?".

I'm not saying that people can be converted quickly away from

capitalism, only that people are more open than we might

presume to entertaining deep questions about the myths of

society -- if the circumstances are right.

Earlier, I introduced the concept of 'harmonization dynamics'

-- within the context of a face-to-face meeting. In that

context, those dynamics typically lead to remarkable results:

people learn to respect one another as human beings, they

learn to resolve their differences, they learn how to work

creatively and effectively together, and they experience a

sense of We the People. In that earlier discussion, I

contrasted the dynamics of harmonizing meetings with those of

'adversarial' and 'collaborative' meetings -- in which

differences are not resolved, but are instead either

reinforced or submerged.

Just as harmonization exhibits remarkable dynamics in the

microcosm, I believe we can expect it to also exhibit

remarkable dynamics in the macrocosm. I think we can assume,

for example, that awakened communities would tend to stay in

touch with one another on a networking basis. It would be only

natural for them to want to compare experiences and share

ideas amongst one another. And as people began to see the need

to think more globally and more deeply, they would be likely

to organize gatherings and conferences to bring in as many

ideas and perspectives as possible -- and to seek to harmonize

them. After such gatherings, people would go back to their

communities and most likely there would be follow-up

discussions, harmonizing community perspectives as regards

whatever ideas or proposals came up at the wider gathering.

Good ideas or resolutions-of-conflicts that come up in one

community would tend to spread around and be considered by

other communities. Breakthroughs in any microcosm would soon

become breakthroughs for the macrocosm. In this way, a

movement-wide consciousness would tend to develop -- and We

the People would begin to have meaning on a society-wide

scale. The macrocosm reflects the microcosm: communities would

learn to respect one another as human communities, they would

learn to resolve their differences, they would learn how to

work creatively and effectively together, and they would

experience a sense of We the People -- at the level of the

macrocosm.

If these kind of dynamics emerge and become a factor in the

mainstream culture, then the giant will be fully awake and

ready to become a player in society. We the People will be

emerging from the anonymous masses, just like the figures

emerging from the rock in Michelangelo's "The Prisoners".

  [picture here]

* Cultural dynamics and cultural transformation

What we would be seeing, with harmonization in the macrocosm,

is the beginning of a fundamental cultural transformation --

from a hierarchical-adversarial culture to a

networking-harmonizing culture. Under hierarchical-adversarial

dynamics, people seek empowerment by joining forces with some

faction or 'cause'. When we 'push' within such a system,

opposition energy arises to push back, and the net transaction

tends to reinforce divisiveness -- whether or not our pushing

gets us anywhere. In such a culture, we have little motivation

to think creatively about solving the problems that face us as

a society because no one would listen to us, and besides our

energies must go to supporting those candidates and causes

which are, at best, _somewhat aligned with our own concerns.

No one asks us for our ideas, they only ask us for our

support. The creative thinking that sets the direction of our

societies comes from the top down, and it reflects the

interests of those near the top. Furthermore, this

hierarchical planning results in a tendency toward uniformity

in society -- cookie cutter towns with a Starbucks, a WalMart,

look-alike motels and freeways -- and now occurring on a

global scale.

A networking-harmonizing culture begins in the community, and

its creative thinking is aimed at dealing fairly with

everyone's concerns. We can seek empowerment in such a culture

by openly expressing our concerns and ideas, and by listening

respectfully to those of others. If we 'push' a concern which

is important to us, we will be listened to, and rather than

opposition we would find cooperation in trying to find a way

in which the concern can be dealt with, taking into account

conflicting concerns as well. Regardless of what the concern

is about, the net transaction tends to broaden community

understanding and deepen harmonization. In such a culture, we

have every motivation to think creatively about the problems

that face us a society, and at the scale of community we will

find that we are blessed with a considerable measure of

collective wisdom.

In a networking-harmonizing culture, creative problem solving

goes on in parallel in every community, and indeed in every

gathering or conference that is concerned with social issues.

Whenever something is learned in one venue, or a new idea is

generated, that becomes available for consideration everywhere

else. In this kind of culture, we could expect the emergence

of diversity, as different communities find their own way of

dealing with their own unique problems and opportunities. Such

a culture would be incredibly more creative in dealing with

social and economic problems than is our current culture.

Under hierarchy, fundamental policies are determined

centrally, and then implemented everywhere more or less the

same way. Apart from the fact that 'one size does not fit

all', there is a more systemic problem: a central planning

agency is a creative bottleneck. It's like having one central

processor in society's computer instead of thousands of

parallel PCs -- each of which can share its discoveries with

the others. (In our current society, we see this kind of

parallel creativity in the way the marketplace operates, but

unfortunately all that creativity is constrained and channeled

by the harmful dynamics of capitalism.)

I suggest that a networking -harmonizing culture is precisely

what we need to be aiming for, in terms of social

transformation. The community as the primary autonomous unit,

harmonization as the way of relating, and networking as the

principle of organization. That is my formula for the

enlightened society. I come to this not because I think it is

ideal, nor because it suits my native sentiments -- although

both or these are true -- but because from a systems

perspective I see this as the only viable alternative to

hierarchies and elite rule.

But I get ahead of our story. So far, in our examination of

where harmonizing dynamics might lead, we've gotten to the

point where a culture based on networking and harmonization is

growing up within the larger hierarchical society. The new

culture is characterized, to use the rhetoric of revolution,

by 'captured territory' -- ie., the network of awakened

communities. This territorial aspect is very important. When

people in their everyday lives participate with their

neighbors in a new culture, that culture is reinforced and

strengthened, and the culture begins to elaborate itself in

the form of artistic and poetic expression. Awakened

communities are in fact 'liberated zones', and in liberated

zones we begin to see the potential of a transformed society.

Without territory, there are only dispersed partisans. With

territory, a new culture will begin to lay down roots.

I daresay it would not be too long before people would began

to ask, "Why can't we just run society this way? What are

those jerks in Washington (or Dublin, or Paris, or wherever)

doing for us anyway? What do we need them for?" This is when

the giant begins to realize its own power. In terms of

revolutionary dynamics, this situation is very similar to that

of the American colonies under British rule.

The American colonies were not really ruled by Britain, rather

they were compelled to pay tribute to Britain in monetary

terms, in the form of levies to the Crown or profits sent home

to British-owned enterprises operating in the colonies. In

terms of governance, the colonies had their own elected

assemblies that managed their own local affairs. The American

Revolution was not a social revolution -- as were the French

and Russian -- it was simply the severing of ties with the

Mother country. Whereas the French and Russian revolutions

were followed by considerable conflict and strife, the

aftermath of the American 'Revolution' was relatively orderly

and civil. The new society had already been in place -- it

only needed to be freed from outside domination. The

Constitution was not intended to transform the colonies, but

rather to legitimize the way they already were -- and to

preserve the privilege of those who had come out on top under

Crown rule. There was no breakdown of society, no chaos, when

the British were defeated. The transition to the new regime

was at least orderly, even if it didn't lead to a democratic

society.

Similarly, as the new networking-harmonizing culture begins to

establish itself throughout society, people will begin to

realize that their relationship to the hierarchy is a matter

of paying tribute -- in taxes to government, in profits to

corporations, in interest to banks, and in young people

sacrificed to the military machine. As we gain experience in

running our own affairs, we will understand that it is

possible for us to sever our ties with oppression and

exploitation. At this point, our giant is making the decision

to claim its rightful ground.

* Global transformation and the third world

The third world persists in poverty for precisely one reason:

because it has been systematically dominated, robbed, and

looted by centuries of still-ongoing imperialism on the part

of the industrialized nations. This has been a horrible fate,

accompanied by much genocide, bloodshed, and suffering, and no

right-thinking person would wish such an experience on those

peoples. And yet, there is a benefit that accrues from that

suffering: social transformation will be much easier for the

third world than it will be for the West.

The problem for the West is that we believe we already live in

democracies. When a 'bad' official gets elected, we blame

ourselves for not 'getting out the vote'. We get caught up in

adversarial games, pursuing reform, and don't realize that all

the paths of the maze leave us inside the same box. We are

kept from liberation by what the Sufis call a 'veil of light',

which is more dangerous than a 'veil of darkness'. A veil of

darkness is a recognized obstacle, against which we know we

should muster our resources. A veil of light is a seductive

siren that seems to be what we want, but which imprisons us.

Moving past our pseudo-democracy veil of light requires, if my

investigation has been relevant, a wholesale cultural

transformation. Only when we experience genuine democracy will

we realize that what we had wasn't the real thing.

The third world, on the other hand, sees the mainstream

capitalist imperialist system as a 'veil of darkness'. People

in the third world know that most of their rulers are corrupt

puppets, and their socieities are being raped by globalization

and corporations  -- modern descendents of the missionaries

and conquistadors. People in the third world don't need to

awaken to the possibility of transformation, they need only

the freedom to liberate themselves. If the West is able to

transform itself to a culture based on networking and

harmonization, and if it ends imperialism and extends the hand

of friendship and support to the people of the third world, I

suspect that social transformation will be global in a matter

of weeks.

But in fact the third world is not waiting for us in the West

to lead the way. All over the third world people are

struggling for local control, and they are building networks

and learning to find their empowerment as We the People. They

have been forced into bottom-up solidarity by the array of

forces exploiting and dominating them. They have not been

encumbered by illusions of living in democracies. Under the

hyper-exploitation brought on by globalization, rejection of

the imperialist system is spreading to all strata of many

third world societies, not just the poorer segments. I

mentioned earlier the example of Porto Alegre, a medium-sized

city in Brazil, where the budget is determined by a bottom-up

consensus process. This model has been replicated elsewhere in

Brazil, and there there are many other democratic initiatives

and innovations being pursued in Brazil, under the progressive

stewardship of a strong labor party at the national level.

There are more radical examples of third-world leadership on

the path to social transformation, but before I mention them

I'd like to review a few points. Consider for a moment the

possibility of a whole society operating on the basis of

harmonization and networking. Each community basically runs

its own affairs, and wider scale issues are dealt with by

harmonizing the concerns of all affected communities. There's

a lot more to be said about how that could work in practice on

a global scale, and we'll get into that in the next chapter.

For the moment and for the sake of the argument, please

imagine that such a society would be viable.

What I'd like you to notice is that voting and political

parties do not play a role in such a society. Parties are the

embodiment of factionalism, and they make no sense in a

culture of harmonization. If people have concerns that need to

be addressed, harmonization is a more effective way of

addressing those concerns than would be the formation of a

faction dedicated to those concerns. As regards voting, there

are two kinds to consider: voting on issues, and electing

representatives. As regards issues, voting is a vastly

inferior decision-making system in comparison with

harmonization. If there are competing proposals on the table,

it makes much more sense to creatively harmonize the

underlying concerns than it does to simply choose among the

proposals. Indeed, this is the core principle underlying the

virtues of harmonization.

As regards electing representatives, the issue is really one

of hierarchy. In our current system, candidates compete to be

given the power to rule over us. We choose among masters, live

under a hierarchy, and call it democracy. While we live under

this illusion, it is natural that we value 'open and fair

elections'. That serves to maximize the meaning of our votes,

for whatever that's worth -- or at least it helps us be

comfortable in our illusion. But 'open and fair elections' are

only of value within the context of hierarchy. In a society

based on harmonization there are no rulers and no need to

elect any. Instead we might select people, or solicit

volunteers, to manage certain projects or to represent the

community's concerns in some gathering or conference -- what

the Native Americans called a 'pow wow'. Such representatives

or managers are not 'given power', but are rather given the

responsibility to carry forward the agenda that has been

articulated by the community as a whole. If people compete for

such roles, it is not on the basis that they will 'make better

decisions', but rather on the basis that they are good

managers or good communicators. And in many cases, it would

probably be a team or slate that would be selected for such a

role rather than an individual. Competitive elections of

rulers, whether 'open and fair' or not, makes no sense in a

society based on harmonization and networking.

It is in the context of these observations that I dare to

bring up the examples of Cuba and Venezuela. I'm not claiming

that these are ideal societies, nor that they embody

harmonization, but I do suggest that we can understand these

societies better if we are able to see that competitive

parties and elections are not the same thing as democracy.

According to mainstream mythology, there are basically two

kinds of governments: democratic and dictatorial. In this

mythology, democracy equals fair & competitive elections, and

everything else is dictatorship. And indeed, most of the

governments in the world that don't have fair & competitive

elections are indeed dictatorships. I suggest, however, that

Cuba and Venezuela are examples that need to be examined on

their own merits.

In the case of Venezuela, we do have fair & competitive

elections, as recently verified by international observers

including ex-President Jimmy Carter. Nonetheless, based on the

grassroots support for Chavez's radical programs, one suspects

that a one-party-state scenario might develop. Based on

eyewitness reports I've seen, by Venezuelan and foreign

observers alike, Chavez is facilitating a cultural

transformation in Venezuela. He is not launching massive state

programs, but is instead encouraging local empowerment, and

providing services and support for those programs which seem

to be achieving results. Katherine Lahey, a community studies

major at the University of California Santa Cruz, offers these

comments in an article she wrote based on her observations in

Venezuela:

      The stitching of the fabric of the revolution is unmatched in

      its strength and breadth of anything I have ever seen.

      Throughout the country, not just in the urban barrios, social

      programs called 'misiones' - a social development strategy

      borrowed from the Cuban revolution - are being implemented by

      the people with the support of government resources.

            What takes place behind the scenes of each mission is simply

      incredible and inspiring beyond words. These campaigns include

      education - from literacy to university level, health,

      employment, citizenship, support for indigenous groups and

      their reincorporation into society, economic justice and

      resistance to neoliberalism through development of grassroots

      and community cooperatives and businesses, to name a few.

            - Full article at:

      http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id='846'&lists='cj'

Chavez is genuinely trying to help the people of Venezuela

mobilize their own creativity to solve their problems and

develop their communities and society generally. He is not

representing a privileged elite. If his efforts lead to a We

the People kind of democracy in Venezuela, then competitive

elections will not be relevant to the situation. It is likely

that the people would choose to continue on that path -- there

would be no rascals to vote out of office. Venezuela under

their "Bolivarian" revolution needs to be judged on its own

merits, not compared to a set of political standards that

themselves do not deliver democracy. If Chavez starts

suppressing or exploiting people then he's a dictator after

all. If he continues to shepherd a cultural transformation

toward local empowerment, then we should acknowledge him and

the people of Venezuela as being bold pioneers on the path to

global social transformation. So far, at least, that seem to

be what is going on. In the third-world context, Venezuela is

apparently evolving a credible response to our

Transformational Imperative. And that is precisely why our

elite rulers in Washington and Wall Street don't like Chavez

and don't like the broad-based support of the Venezuelan

people for the Bolivarian revolution. One can only hope that

the Venezuelan military is loyal to the government, unlike the

Chilean military in the time of Allende which was covertly

linked with the CIA.

I've saved Cuba to the last because it is the most

controversial case. We never hear Castro's name mentioned in

the news without it being accompanied by the label 'dictator'.

And in mainstream entertainment propaganda, we see stories of

'daring refugees from tyranny', who never have anything good

to say about the Cuban Revolution or Castro. And in the case

of Americans, we are told by our government that Cuba is a

communist dictatorship, and that loyal Americans shouldn't go

there. And it goes deeper than that. With the history of the

Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, and the derision of

Cuba in right-wing circles, Castro turn out to be rather

deeply embedded in the general American psyche as a bad-guy

commie dictator. I risk alienating my readers if I dare

challenge that myth.

Nonetheless, I must take that risk and offer the challenge. As

an example, Cuba is too valuable to ignore, despite the shadow

cast by decades of demonizing propaganda. As it turns out, the

extent of Cuba's success in achieving a culture of

community-based democratic harmonization can be estimated by

measuring the hostility of Washington towards Cuba. Hostility

from Washington is not a guarantee that democracy exists

somewhere, but wherever a people stand up effectively for

their rights against the imperialist system, you can be sure

Washington's ire will soon follow. For Washington, Cuba is too

important an example to allow it to be seen for what it is --

proof that there are viable models for development outside the

capitalist paradigm. The success of Cuba stands as a

contradiction to the dominant mainstream economic mythology.

It is not at all surprising that Washington and the corporate

media make every effort to demonize, destabilize, and harass

Cuba in every way they can -- and every effort to make other

third-world nations understand that Washington would look with

strong disfavor on any nation that might seek to emulate Cuba,

as we have seen in the case of Venezuela.

Charles McKelvey, an American Professor of Sociology, has

spent considerable time in Cuba as an observer. In 1998, he

wrote a report on his studies for an Internet list, and here

are two excerpts:

      The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local

      elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area

      is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of

      1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to

      discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years,

      the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to

      eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by

      the Communist Party or any other organizations. The

      nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings,

      which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those

      nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation.

      They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of

      all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are

      generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is

      generally not larger than 1500 voters. If no candidate

      receives 50% of the votes, a run-off election is held. Those

      elected serve as delegates to the Popular Councils, which are

      intermediary structures between the circumscription and the

      Municipal Assembly. Those elected also serve simultaneously as

      delegates to the Municipal Assembly. The delegates serve in

      the Popular Councils and the Municipal Assemblies on a

      voluntary basis without pay, above and beyond their regular

      employment. ...

            So the Cuban revolutionary project has many gains, not only in

      the area of social and economic rights, but also in the area

      of political and civil rights. Because of these achievements,

      the system enjoys wide popular support, in spite of the

      hardships caused by U.S. opposition and by the collapse of the

      Soviet Union. Drawing upon the institutions that they have

      developed over the last forty years, they are responding to

      the present challenges and are surviving in a post-Cold War

      world. The strength and vitality of these institutions is

      worthy of our investigation, for Cuba may represent an

      important case as we seek to understand how peripheral and

      semi-peripheral states can overcome the legacy of

      underdevelopment.

      - Full article at:

      http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id='0009'&lists='cj'

I am not trying here to give a full, balanced report on Cuba

or Venezuela. I imagine there are failures as well as

successes in both places, as regards democracy and justice. My

main point here is that the absence of competitive elections

is not necessarily a sign of dictatorship, and may in some

cases be a sign of a democratic process characterized by the

dynamics of harmonization. Each case deserves to be evaluated

on its own merits by looking at the results on the ground and

at the reports of people who live there. And the fact that

Castro is still around after all these years is not

necessarily evidence that he is a tyrant. It could equally be

an indicator that the people of Cuba continue to support their

revolution, and that Castro continues to support the people in

their project. If that is the case, as it seems to be, then

one can only hope that the Cuban scenario does not depend too

heavily on Castro's personal moral leadership, as he will not

live forever.

As regards the third world in general, I repeat my observation

that social transformation will be easier to accomplish there

than in the West -- once the West abandons its imperialist

ways. In the meantime it seems that the third world is leading

the way in transformational innovation and may provide models

that we can learn from in our own pursuit of transformation.

* Engagement with the regime

In the West there are two primary obstacles to transformation.

The first, which we have been discussing at length, is the

current absence of an effective transformational movement. In

the principle of harmonization at the level of community, I

believe we can find one viable path to building such a

movement. Perhaps there are other viable organizing principles

and paths as well, although I haven't heard of any as yet. But

whatever kind of transformational movement might arise in the

West, it will sooner or later need to face the second

obstacle: determined opposition by the ruling elite regime.

In this section, I will try to anticipate the various kinds of

opposition we could expect to encounter, based on the

experiences of previous social movements and based on what we

know about the tactics and attitudes of the current regime. I

will present this material as a kind of Movement Guidebook --

"How to Overcome the Regime With the Least Confrontation". I

am not competent to write a definitive version of such a

guidebook, but this seems to be the most convenient way for me

to convey observations and analysis which, hopefully, may be

of some value to the movement.

To begin with, I believe it is very important that we look to

the game of Go for our models of engagement rather than the

game of chess. Chess is about battle, and on the battle ground

it is those who command tanks and attack helicopters who have

the advantage, not the people. Besides, transformation is not

about destroying anyone, but about taking everyone's concerns

into account. When eventually they have no useful alternative,

our elite brothers and sisters will be willing to talk to us,

and their concerns will be listened to with the same respect

afforded everyone else. Indeed, it will be much easier for us

to transform our economies and infrastructures when we have

the enthusiastic cooperation of those who currently run our

governments, corporations, and banks.

The game of Go is about gradually consolidating territory

while artfully constraining the alternatives of your opponent

-- so that eventually he has no available move that can

improve his position. Among master players, it is seldom

necessary to actually remove stones from the board -- both

players know from the position what would be the outcome from

that mundane exercise in mechanical capture, and so they don't

bother with it. As I pointed out earlier, this kind of

strategy characterized Gandhi's resistance movement against

British occupation. Certainly his non-violent ethic provides a

model we want to emulate, and I suggest his Go-like strategic

approach also provides us with useful lessons.

In our case, assuming that the movement develops along lines

similar to those I have outlined, the first strategic

objective should be to capture as much territory as possible

-- while keeping a low a profile on elite radar. The initial

task of the movement is not to confront any regime, but rather

to spread and develop a culture of harmonization and

networking. The more widely such a culture can spread and the

more firmly established it can become, prior to encountering

strong elite opposition, the better off we will be. We would

be well advised to focus our initial We the People empowerment

on local problems and issues, and on developing our We the

People consciousness. We need to learn to walk before we can

run, and during that learning process we should not tread too

near to sleeping dogs.

During this stage, we need to beware of the temptation to

reach too high and too soon for the gold ring. The experience

of harmonization generates a lot of hope and enthusiasm, and

many of us might come away with the feeling that there is a

magic short cut to transformation. We see this already in the

agenda of the Michigan organizers and in Jim Rough's Wisdom

Council strategy. These are intelligent people and their

sentiments are beyond reproach, but the diversion of movement

energy in those ways causes problems of two kinds. The first

problem is that early attempts to influence the general

society are premature: they can only have meaning within the

arena of adversarial politics, and there has not as yet been

an opportunity for We the People to evolve any kind of

consciousness of who we are and what we're about. Any

discussion of major issues at this point would be

impoverished, and would be dominated by mainstream thinking --

discussion now could only remain 'inside the box'.

The second problem, perhaps more harmful, is that premature

efforts take up scarce energy that would be more usefully

devoted to spreading a culture of harmonization more widely,

particularly with a focus on grassroots activists and

community empowerment. At this early, embryonic stage of the

movement there are only a handful of activists who are

politically oriented in their activism and who at the same

time understand the value of harmonizing processes. Until some

of their energy is guided by a more strategic transformational

perspective, or until new activists get involved, the

potential of the movement remains, unfortunately, only latent.

Despite our best efforts to keep a low profile on elite radar,

it is unlikely that we could postpone an elite response for

very long. Public opinion and shifts in alignments are of

great interest to the establishment, and they keep close tabs

on trends. It's not that they want to be responsive to public

sentiment, but rather that they want to maintain control with

their system of divide-and-rule propaganda. If they begin to

see a trend toward people listening to their own drummers, and

dialoging across factional lines in their communities, the

opinion managers will have the good sense to perceive that as

a potentially serious threat to their system of control. They

might initiate appropriate counter-measures earlier than would

seem to be warranted by the actual progress of the movement on

the ground. We must keep in mind that the current regime is

characterized by preventive, preemptory action against those

deemed to be a potential threat. Indeed, the Patriot Act

amounts to a preemptory strike against popular movements in

general.

Let's consider some of the early counter-measures that they

might deploy. Surveillance and infiltration by spies and

provocateurs are very common tactics used against movements of

all kinds throughout the West. But a harmonization movement is

relatively secure against those tactics. The moment has

nothing to hide as regards its activities, and the

harmonization process is characterized by too much good sense

to allow itself to be sabotaged by a provocateur pushing some

counter-productive agenda. There may be infiltrators who

intentionally try to thwart the progress of sessions, and we

may need to develop some sensible counter-measures to that

line of attack. More drastic measures, such as arresting

organizers or banning discussions among citizens, are unlikely

to be undertaken at any early stage. That would be a strategic

error on the establishment's part, as it would only bring

attention to the movement and generate support for it.

There are other counter-measures that might be deployed, but

the one I believe is most likely would be a demonization

campaign launched over various media and propaganda channels.

Religious conservatives would be warned, from pulpits and from

radio pundits, that harmonization is a cult movement, and that

it seeks its wisdom not exclusively from the Word of God --

good Christians should stay away. To the libertarian-minded

would come the warning, from radio chat jocks and online

bulletin boards, that harmonization is communistic and that it

submerges the individual in the collective -- stay away and

don't risk being brainwashed. Liberals would read in the Op-Ed

pages that harmonization is undemocratic and that it would

lead to one-party tyranny. They would learn that it's hip to

dismiss harmonization, in the same way that it's hip to scoff

at 'conspiracy theories'.

It would a mistake to underestimate the potential

effectiveness of such a campaign, particularly in the American

context. If the general population adopts a variety of strong

negative attitudes toward harmonization, that might stifle or

even destroy the early movement. But if the movement can build

sufficient momentum in the meantime, and establish sufficient

roots, it should be able to hold its ground and respond

effectively to such an attack. We can take some comfort from

the fact that a demonization campaign would make no sense

until after the movement has made noticeable progress.

I believe that such early confrontation would lead to a major

turning point in the development of the movement. The

establishment would be pushing the movement to consider issues

beyond the civic and the local -- perhaps earlier than if the

movement had been left to develop at its own pace. In the

struggle to respond, We the People would be forced to raise

our political consciousness. Nothing can wake up a giant more

quickly than a poke with a sharp stick. The establishment

would be saying we are dangerous to society, and we would

begin to realize that they are right. We would begin to

understand that the latent destiny of the harmonization

movement is nothing less than the transformation of society.

The movement would be spreading a culture based on

harmonization and networking, and it would be developing a

vision of a society organized around those principles. As the

movement deals with difficulties, innovates in the local

arena, and finds ways to cooperate effectively on a networking

basis, people would be creating the foundations of a

transformed society. They would come to understand, based not

on theory but on their own experience, that We the People are

capable of running our own affairs, and that we can do a much

better job of that than can any remote and corrupt central

government. And yet, even with this raising of

'transformational consciousness', the movement could continue

to co-exist comfortably within the current electoral system.

In liberated zones, we would be able to incorporate local and

regional governmental structures into the movement. Government

there would be aligned with the will of the people, which is,

after all, the proper role for constitutional government.

The movement would have no incentive to cause any kind of

trouble for the regime -- until the time came when such

initiatives could be effective. Before that time the threat to

the regime would exist only in potential, and conflict would

be most likely to arise due to preemptive attacks from the

establishment, not all of which can be anticipated in advance.

We can only trust in the inherent wisdom of the harmonization

process, and our own collective creativity, to deal with such

challenges as they arise.

Eventually, if we overcome the intermediate obstacles, most of

our society will be part of the new culture, and we will have

developed a coherent vision of a transformed society. Only

then does it make sense to initiate decisive dialog with the

regime. One form of dialog will be to elect our own people to

all the national offices. But enforcing rules from the top is

not the way of harmonization. We will also want to bring elite

leaders into the dialog process -- but only when they realize

their best option is to participate. When the time comes to

consolidate the new society, we can expect everyone to be on

board.

      _________________________________________________