[Dialogue] "Emergence" and "Leaderless Revolutions"

[Lee Early]

Both books you mention - - "The Leaderless Revolution" and "Blessed Unrest" go into great and accurate detail of all the things that are falling apart.  I for one don't need to rehearse those all over again.  Both authors use this preamble to point to the fact that "something" must be done.  We can all agree on that point.  Ross points to the leaderless revolution in Spain at the beginning of WWII as an example of how effective and pure anarchy can and should be.  He points to Gandhi and the Salt March as another example.  He later admits that WWII probably had more to do with ending the Raj than the Salt March but that's another point. Anarchy can, did and does work in a small urban community.  Some such communities exist not 15 miles from here and others we know exist in Mexico.  I'm not sure either would point to the Spanish Revolution as their role model however.  Self sufficiency, self reliance and self confidence are great principles for these communities.  They just are not sustainable in an urban setting, in a very diverse population, value systems and "self" needs.  Anarchy, in it nicest form, is not a workable model in our urban, secular, profane and consumerable age.  Overturning the Federal Reserve, turning corporations into co-ops and anointing us all "agents", as Hawken suggests, will not happen.  That is an illusion.

The mini-movements Hawken talks about, all wrapped up together is "The Movement".  One, that is not possible - - wrapping them all up into one movement, even in your head, is not possible and two, Hawken himself says that the word movement is not an accurate word.  Movements require leaders and organization with which to plan strategy and reach objectives. He does not have, what he calls, a cognitive antecedent.  Lacking one, he reverts back to the word "movement".  There are many responses to what is going on.  There are many leaders and organizations and strategies and objectives in those responses.  I do not believe Hawken or anyone else will pull them together to do anything other that what they themselves decide to do and more power to them.

Occupy might be the best current example of a leaderless un- co-opted movement.  The Tea Party started as a grass roots movement and was bought and paid for by the Koch brothers.  Occupy has avoided that fate so far.  It is leaderless although there are some long winded speakers.  It is not organized in an organized sort of way - - General Assemblies as an example.  They do indeed have strategies.  Some are weird, indirect and some might say ineffective.  But, they are there and more power to them.

Where does the ICA fit into all this?  My first answer is to facilitate anything that moves in the hope of finding that pony in the midst of all this shit.  There has got to be one in there somewhere.  In more familiar terms - - facilitate anything that moves in order to see, nurture, form, encourage and grow up the sensitive and responsive part of every society (corporation, organization, family, community and human groupings) you can find - - and - - charge money for it.  $1.98 LENS for Koch Industries will not get us the time of day.  Get their attention and value your skill - - start with $75,000 and go up to $125,000.  I could never get the courage to get $135,000 out of my mouth.  

Some say that the ICA is not about facilitation.  Facilitation is not the mission of the ICA.  Facilitation is a tool.  I agree.  The mission is the sensitive and responsive part and facilitation is the tool.  We should facilitate everything that moves.  Oh, yeah, that sensitive and responsive part is what one of those RS1 dudes called the church wasn't it?  And another thing, if it doesn't move, invite it to lunch and when it finally moves, hit the facilitate button.

Looking around, waiting on something to emerge so we can go help is not in my DNA.  Sorry.  And, I don't see that many organizations asking the ICA to impart any of its wisdom other that to facilitate something.

In my opinion we were relatively successful in the DoD when they didn't know what to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was a vacuum of vision, contradiction and strategy and we happened to be in the neighborhood.  Where the ICA today might be very effective is facilitating the collapse of communities.  I mean total wiped out communities.  DesMoines, I think, was a good example.  Where a natural disaster strikes we should be the "Second Responders".

So, in conclusion - - let the movements or non-movements move.  I do not hear much of a cry for our help.  Facilitate our little (and not so little) asses off.  Look for destroyed communities to facilitate a human face on the one to replace it.

Now, aren't you glad you asked?

Lee


On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:10 AM, R Williams wrote:

> (I'm sharing with the listserv this latest installment of a running conversation that Lee Early and I have been having for the last, well, several years really.  For a couple of days we've been talking about "emergence," Paul Hawken's "mini-movements" and the "leaderless revolution."  Those who know Lee and me beyond casual acquaintance may well decide to hit "delete" at the outset. Otherwise, please do join in the conversation.  It's neither private nor personal.)
> 
> Lee,
> 
> I know you hate it when I quote books too much, and I'm sure my propensity to "appeal to authority" in this way is just a manifestation of my own insecurity, but let me try one more.  Think of this in the context of Paul Hawken's thousands of mini-movements, although it's not a Hawken quote:
> 
> "If individuals begin...to act themselves to produce desired political results, cooperating and negotiating directly with others affected--then a new dispensation will emerge, something that we may not yet be able to describe.  This is the phenomenon of 'emergence,' a key characteristic of complexity: that from the combined actions of many agents, acting according to their own microcosmic preferences and values, a new condition may emerge from the bottom up, almost unconsciously, and certainly without imposition by government, god or anyone else."  (my underlining)
> 
> I have been hearing and tossing around the word "emergence" for some time but had never associated it with complexity theory. This quote is from The Leaderless Revolution, and is probably an apt description, 150 pages in, of what author Carne Ross is pointing to with that phrase.  Here's my paraphrase of Ross's "emergence" of a "leaderless revolution"--something that happens that, over time, brings about significant, lasting change, without any particular person(s) or group(s) being "in charge" and without any obvious, predictable or planned "cause and effect" sequence of events, but which, if it comes, always comes spontaneously from the bottom up.
> 
> Please give me your considered response to what this guy is saying, with perhaps an emphasis on the possible practical implications for people who still want to get something done in this world.  This ought to be right in our wheel house.  He's talking about how we can overcome being victimized by all these economic and political entities who purport to be acting on behalf of "the people" but who in fact are too isolated and insulated to know what people want or need--which raises the question, "On whose behalf are they acting?"
> 
> Randy
> 
> "Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the course of being in the world; not to be supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires."
> -Martin Buber (adapted)
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

Lee Early
LE Associates
19230 Forest Park Drive, NE, A102
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

Office:  206-922-3182
Mobile:  425-212-7997

Email:     leassociates at me.com