Jay Fenello wrote to rkm:
In order to fix our system, we'll need a new consciousness
among the people -- one that can see through the illusion as
presented by the corporate media.
rkm responded:
I suggest that the ~process~ by which such a consciousness
propagates will be every bit as much part of the revolution
as the ~content~ of the consciousness. And I don't mean
Internet.
Jay:
Would you share your current thinking on this topic? For
myself, here's a scenario I can envision ... At the edges of
chaos, within the many groups who are under attack, an
infectious idea is waiting to be born. It's an idea ("meme")
that will change the world. The meme will explain the common
problem we all face, and give us an empowering way of
working together to address it. It's a meme that will
resonate so profoundly, that all of the subjugated people of
the world will cease hostilities, and unite to address the
current Earth crisis. (while the Internet may not be
required for any of this to happen, I do believe it will
help speed up the process.)
rkm:
I have come to some conclusions on this topic. And where I
ended up is not at all where I began. My best attempt to
write about this can be found at:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/manifesto.shtml
Basically, my conclusion is that the needed meme is not
about content but about process. That is, it is about
politics. How does society make decisions, and how does it
run itself?
For the past 10,000 years, political history has had one
central theme - the evolution of hierarchical control
systems. From chiefs, to kings, to national governments,
and finally we've reached the ultimate centralized global
regime. 'Representative democracy' is simply a refined
method of centralized control. Not that refined, actually,
since it hasn't changed in its essence since the Roman
Republic.
Our model of representation is to select people who are then
empowered to make decisions on our behalf. It doesn't work.
It is an abdication of responsibility. We need to first
decide locally what we want, and it is our agenda that needs
to be represented, by whom is important but only secondarily.
The central problem, as I see it, is that of achieving
consensus at the local level. How can a community pool its
common sense and knowledge in a synergistic, collaborative
way. This isn't easy, but there are methods that work.
It's not rocket science. An interesting source:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html
One of the myths that needs to be overcome is the myth that
it takes experts to solve problems, or even that experts are
capable of solving problems. The real problems of the world
are common-sense problems. Must we be sustainable?
Obviously we do. What's the issue? Can we do it under an
economic growth imperative? Of course not, that's obvious
as well.
That's all very sketchy and incomplete, but it shows you the
flavor of where I've come to. I think we need many memes,
each of which dispels one of the myths that enslaves us.
In addition to the myth about experts, there's the myth that
people can never agree, that ideological differences
prevent consensus, that wide-scale decisions need to be
made centrally, that common people lack wisdom, and many
others.
The one big meme, the one that will actually begin the
electrifying process of change, is one of action. It's when
communities actually begin to come together and find a
common voice, a voice that expresses their own collective
wisdom. The actual words of that voice are secondary, the
problem is not one of correct ideology. The world is wide
and there will be many solutions to problems. Viva la
cultural difference!
This one big meme, as I see it, can only take the form of a
movement. That's really what a movement is - a meme in
action. Sometimes it can't be reduced to simple words, and
in that sense isn't a meme in the sense you were using the term.
The anti-globalization movement, for example, is a 'social
meme' that is only cheapened by any small set of slogans.
But the anti-globalization movement is far too
inside-the-box. It lives within the paradigm of 'noisy
activists can eventually influence decision makers by
swaying public opinion'. Acceptance of 'decision makers' is
a fatal flaw, and 'public' as ~separate~ from the movement
is a fatal flaw. The movement must be the public. The
activist role must be a community-building role, not an
"I'll lead the way" role. The answers must come from the
people, and most activists are quite aware that they don't
have all the answers.
I'm impressed by an initiative that recently crossed my
path:
http://www.earley.org/Transformation/conscious_action_proposal.htm
best regards,
rkm
