Let’s take one more look at the Five Foundational Principles of an Interdependent Society. In my novel, The Doorkeeper’s Secrets, the goal is to birth a society where everyone is dependable; therefore, we can expect others to act with our (and their) best interest in mind.
The five foundational principles create a matrix enabling everyone to give their best efforts, be safe, and find joy in their work, families, activities, and lives. The diagram attempts to illustrate how that might work.
Last time we lifted up the need to have faith in ourselves and others. Part of what will make our culture more sustainable and predictable is a return to basic trust. Over the years I have worked with enough people struggling with addictions, to know that there are times when we cannot trust ourselves. That’s why we need others.
That is true whether it’s an inability to resist “just one drink,” or our inability to understand that (fill in the blank) Continue reading “Creating a Viable Future Principle 3: Faith (Part 2)”
The third of the five principles undergirding the collaborative society envisioned in The Doorkeeper’s Secrets is Faith. When pictured in a diagram the Plan is supported by five pillars with Community, Vigilance, Respect, and the Common Good as the four corners and Faith in the center.
When we speak of faith in the first part of the 21st century, we tend to think of some form of religious tradition, or belief system. That is a powerful meaning of the term which we will discuss in the next posting.
I would like for us to begin with other applications of “Faith.” Ones I believe will become universally important in the coming years. I mean faith in oneself and faith in others.
Our age has an appalling lack of faith. It is especially apparent in absence of trust we see all around. Conspiracy theories abound. Individuals we used to trust, disappoint us. We feel betrayed by their behavior. We often move off into our little tribes, and complain about those in the “other tribes.”
It matters not what the subject might be: politics, economics, education, the latest action (or inaction) of our congress, state legislature, governor, president, favorite sports team, the role of the press, gun control or freedom, money, the power of the rich, or who makes the best pizza. When any of those come up, there is an abundance of opinions (stated as fact) and little light directing us toward a shared understanding. We soon find ourselves wanting to be with those who think sort of like us—because—well it’s easier than taking blood pressure medication.
And we haven’t yet mentioned the most significant parts of lives: our belief system, career choices, mate choices (or choosing not to mate). What about how we will spend our time and energy on earth (will we be a life-long-learner or quit when the diploma is in hand?) will we accumulate friends, possessions, dollars, or goodwill? And what’s our attitude toward those who are different from us?
Yes, we all know these things. But have you thought of them as Faith Issues? They are. Our lack of trust in large groups of “others” is one reason why we do not have a sense of interdependence in our day and age.
For nearly three decades I worked with volunteer organizations in conflict. Usually, there had been a major disruption shortly before I was called. In the first days, I would see the various camps, plus a lot of accusations and finger-pointing. Early in the process, I state my belief: everyone—even those you disagree with most violently—was doing what they believed best for the organization. In-other-words, everyone was acting in “good-faith.” I then encouraged others to adopt the same view.
Once this process gets started we could move toward the perspective of having a “Problem to solve together,” rather than “Turf to defend against others.” In an interdependent society, people work together to address common concerns. When that happens, everyone uses their skill, wisdom, and energy to address the issue. Even when solutions are slow in coming, we still have confidence that we are not alone—and as long as everyone else has not given up—we will get there.
Another stage is finding what we have in common. What is holding us together? Often it is the commitment to a particular mission, vision, goal. In the process of recovering our “glue” or commonalities, we may begin to trust the others—at least a bit more.
Perhaps we can begin such a process as a city, state, nation or international community. If I reach the point of being interested in what you think, and how you reached your conclusion, then I can stop seeing you as someone to be kept off my turf.
Which brings us to the other point for today’s blog. We need to have faith not only in the other but first of all in ourselves. Part of the reason we have so many tribes is lack of trust in our ability to reason out an answer—so we join with others—the group thinks for us.
Even in a group where I agree with the mission, vision, strategies, and general directions being proposed, I am still responsible for raising questions and looking at the broader picture. In other words, joining a tribe does not mean I lose my need to think critically about the issue.
We need to have faith in ourselves: our skills, abilities, curiosity, and wisdom. We need to know our ideas, opinions, values, lives and dignity count. We need to remember that our experiences are different from others, and not sharing our perspective is often a disservice to the overall goal.
We also need to have faith in others: family, friends, teachers, leaders, and those who challenger our lethargy. We believe that our particular “perspective group” has integrity, and is working for the best outcome for all—not just the few. And when we are honest, we must believe the “opposition group” to have integrity and desire what they believe is the best outcome of all.
Then we can begin to rely on a process to bring us closer together. To be discussed next time.
Continuing our discussion of community, we must consider the impediments to building a more desirable future. How we associate with; connect to, and support one another is key to undergirding a more resilient tomorrow. In other words, we must create a better sense of connectedness.
Whether we learned them from our parents, school, others, or simply our limited experience they serve no useful purpose. Most of us will not overcome all our intolerance, but building community demands that we keep it from warping our decision making.
The problem comes when we assume “everyone thinks as we do,” or try to convince others “our way is the only way.” That’s true whether we are talking about our nation, political party, economic theory or religion.
For example, I value education. I believe everyone should have opportunities to learn. But that doesn’t mean I approve of everything happening in schools (bullying, abuse of power, stifling creativity, waste of resources). Nor does it mean I believe there’s only way or time for people to learn.
But when I run into people who believe education is a waste of money, kids don’t need to learn to write or add, much less art, history, literature, science, or music–well, that poses a roadblock to my being in community with that particular person. It doesn’t make it impossible–just a barrier.
The same would be true if we were talking about a political position or deeply held point of faith. Shared values help solidify community.
Differing values cause us to work harder—to find those things that bind us together. All too often we decide not to do the work, but simply exclude that person from our tribe. But, when we behave that way—we miss an opportunity to expand our horizons—and settle for an incomplete vision of our future.
If we hope to move toward a future that has equality, dignity,
and respect for all–not just “the few,” then we must begin by strengthening our community building skills. Are there other significant barriers I have overlooked?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Next time we will look at Vigilance the second of the key principles, that need to guide us.
In the future envisioned by The Doorkeeper’s Secrets, five key philosophical principles function–the first is community. Last time we looked at some factors creating community. Now we need to address the impediments to building community. I see four main stumbling blocks to forming a sustainable sense of community: distance, boundaries, biases, and values.
But as the centuries have passed, some of the original needs for binding together have changed. Other than our family of origin we regularly make choices about our lives. School, work, friendships, religious connections, professional associations, avocations, clubs, as well as community and civic responsibilities are all examples of connections we choose (at least in part).
With our capability to travel long distances and instantaneous access to events anywhere in the world, one could argue that geographic closeness is no longer required to establish community. “Virtual communities” are limited only by our willingness to find, or create one around a subject or connection of our choice. We often select a LinkedIn or Facebook group based on our interest, or a real “time connection” with some of the other members.
There are obvious limitations but much of our “emotional need” to be connected to people “similar to us” can be met through social media as well as personal interactions.
Yes, there are those who would like to make some of the lines harder to cross. However, my being born Caucasian male in the US is purely an accident. Why should I then have more control of my life than people from Mexico, Egypt, India, Japan, South Africa, Palestine, or anywhere else? We are all human regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, age, education, language, or favorite sports team. None of those distinctions should inherently impact the respect and dignity granted to everyone.
However, there is another type of “boundary” needing attention. I refer to the “personal space” and privacy surrounding each of us. Everyone has a right to expect those boundaries to be respected. We (especially us white males) must rededicate ourselves to observing other’s boundaries.
This is about inappropriate sexual behavior. It is also about respecting others’ information and creating a safe, respectful environment all around us.
I can’t prevent someone from using a racial slur, or vulgar “joke” when elsewhere, but in my house, my office or my presence such behavior will not be tolerated. Respect needs to become the norm; division the exception.
Next time the obstacles of bias and values.
November 22, 1963, I was a Sophomore in college. My campus job included making trips to the bank to pick up change for the men’s dormitory offices. I was three blocks from the campus when a red sports car pulled to the curb beside me, and a man I had never seen before or since, rolled down the window and said, “They’ve shot the President.” Stunned I asked him to repeat himself, which he did. We exchanged a few more words, and he moved on.
I arrived at my destination three minutes later, and the news was being “pipped” over the bank’s public-address system. No usual chatter about the weather, or ball games, or the hype about opening a “Christmas Club” account. Everyone focused on the broadcast and his or her internal reflections of what this was going to mean.
In that shared tragedy, the customers and tellers became a community. No one was anxious to get back to their regular activities; we lingered, listened and shared shock and grief.
By the time I got back to campus, classes had been canceled, and everyone was gathering in the recreation rooms of each dorm, where there were TVs. We didn’t have smartphones or internet, but word traveled from one end of the country to another in the matter minutes. For the next few days, we became a national community.
The same can be said about September 11th or the many towns and neighborhoods that have experienced a school shooting, or other acts of violence. The same happens when there are fires, tornados, hurricanes, floods, and devastating snow or ice storms. When there’s trouble; people help. Helping one another makes us into a community.
There can be positive experiences that create a community: Neal Armstrong stepping on the moon, or your team winning a championship. While the achievement may live on; the community formed around it seems to be more short-lived, or self-selected (as in the case of shooting events).
All the examples I’ve used involve a “shared experience.” Sharing experiences with others tends to create some lasting memories or even long-term relationships. Another key to community is focus. If you were in a coma during the week of 9-11, you likely wouldn’t have the same intensity of response years later, as one who experienced it moment by moment as it happened.
So, if Community is to be one of the focal points drawing people into a positive future, where do we look for a sense of community other than tragedy or chosen focus? In the mind of the characters in The Doorkeeper’s Secrets, my book about a possible non-dystopian future, a sense of Community is an essential element.
These are Foundational Principles. The absence of any one will create instability in the philosophical underpinning of the culture. We will continue our exploration next time by looking at the barriers to effective community. Understanding the barriers to community will give us a starting place for creating a “better version of ourselves.”
If the human race is to have a future, we must learn to be respectful and honor the dignity of each person’s contribution. In other words, we must listen to one another and learn from each other as we seek the common good; collaborate and become dependable.
Today, if someone is called a “collaborator,” it’s often an accusation. Suspicion of collaborating with the enemy of one’s nation, company, family, political party, or religion may be grounds for dismissal from work, friendship, or society.
However, most collaborations are positive: Rogers and Hammerstein, Lewis and Clark, or Ben and Jerry’s are only a few. When parents agree on discipline principles for a child; when educators agree on the essentials for a course of study; or when communities develop infrastructure plans we see this skill at work. To collaborate is simply working with someone else on a project. It’s the essence of teamwork. No baseball team can win without each player contributing their skills at the right time—both at bat and in the field. When a batter hits against a pitcher, she or he knows there are eight other players on the field ready to take charge and make the best of the situation.
Teamwork is similar to interdependence. To be in an interdependent relationship with colleagues, spouse, or friends means each person contributes their best to the situation. Interdependence happens only when those involved are dependable. Everyone must carry their weight, because all others are doing the same.
So why are we talking about this? Well, my picture, in The Doorkeeper’s Secrets is based on a cultural shift. The change required includes moving our economy and social structures away from greed and competition toward collaborative and interdependent leadership and relationships.
When I learned about leadership from a collaborative stance, it quickly became the only kind I wish to offer. Interdependence means it is not all up to you – whether you are at the top of the organizational chart, or think of yourself as a “flunky.” It’s a gift to know all the ideas and wisdom (in or out of the organization) is available for the asking.
We can begin taking steps in a cooperative-supportive direction. Some are small like looking for “Fair Trade” and “Ethically Sourced” marks on foods we purchase. Recycle and buy products that are at least partially made of recycled materials. Other actions include supporting cooperative ventures; seeking sustainable everything (especially energy) and asking our politicians what they plan to do to ensure a habitable planet for the fifth generation.
The future of planet earth is bright because we can work together to address issues. We have wisdom, intellect, and technical capabilities sufficient to address and solve many of our problems. In my picture of the future – we do. The real question is: will we?
It seems that every few weeks we have another newsworthy shouting. The frequency appears to be on the increase. Such events are almost commonplace.
Analysis following those events often includes statements like “‘Americans’ love their guns.” A statement conveying a pessimism about any significant restrictions on these weapons.
Since the Las Vegas shooting, I have been thinking about weapons and safety in the future. I am an optimist. I believe we can produce a safer tomorrow. But it is clear to me, as a writer and human being, our current violence trajectory must change, if we possess any hope for a tomorrow based on dignity, compassion, and respect.
Two thoughts occur to me. One about how our people developed such a dependence on guns; and the other about reducing violence. So how did a nation founded on justice get so violent–the antithesis of just behavior?
When I was a kid most of the radio dramas, and early TV shows promoted for children were “Westerns.” (before Howdy Doody or Mr. Rodgers; and yes, I am old enough to remember radio dramas).
Most plots are similar. Some bad characters with guns would come riding into town shooting up things and threatening people. The townspeople were all milk-toast types who just wanted to get along. But soon one of the outlaws would do something unforgivable (often having to do with the virtue of one of the locals).
Then someone confronts the gunslinger who insists on a showdown at noon on Main Street. They meet the next day and either prove that right will always win, or not. Then Marshal Dillon or Annie Oakley show up to “… put things right.”
Even as a kid I remember wondering why the town lets the bully terrorize them? So, they are all shaking in their boots, and poor shots, but there are 45 to 100 of them, and only one “gunslinger” and a few cronies. With everyone working together they could route out the bad guys.
So, from the frontier days, the U.S. has been taught that bad guys misuse gun and good guys (with better morals and skills) overpower the outlaws. One problem is, nowadays, we can’t depend on the good guy being available when the abuser shows up. Particularly true if he walks into places where people are unarmed, or they ambush from the seclusion of hotel rooms, movie theaters or towers. Thus, people think they need a weapon to defend themselves, and the more mass killings, the more pressure for individuals to “be prepared to defend themselves.”
Well, that’s the mythology we’ve grown up with. It is clear our present path leads to greater chaos and the dystopian futures predicted by many. So, how do we exchange this philosophy, for one giving us a more optimistic future?
In my version, we come to grips with the need for personal safety and keeping weapons out of the hands of those who would abuse them.
Some suggest today’s violence problem is largely about mental health. Well of course it is. In my future, everyone sees a counselor at least once per year. But for now, how do we use stable mental health as a condition for gun ownership? I may be well-balanced at the moment. Everyone is subject to loss of stability with events such as an illness (physical or mental), emotional disruption, or some unanticipated unpleasant life change (divorce, death of a loved one, demotion or firing). An imbalance comes, and the available weapon becomes a temptation often producing disaster.
In the version of the future portrayed in The Doorkeeper’s Secrets, there are few guns. Law enforcement uses stunners (an advanced form of Tasers); active duty military has weapons when in a war zone or training; hunters may own hunting weapons that are securely locked up at a hunting preserve; plus, everyone wears “smart outer garments” preventing assault or injury.
Perhaps one key is to stop glorifying the “rugged individual” who does everything on his or her own. I believe there is more than one of us because we need each other. I need and benefit from the work, ideas, and values of many people I will never meet–so do you. From the food I eat to the car I drive to the electrons bringing this message to you–we depend on the gifts of others (even if we pay for them). Society will work for more people when we become more collaborative.
Collaboration will be the subject next week.
Sarah Begley writing in October 9, 2017, Time Magazine points out we have had few utopian stories catch the interest or attention of the reading public. She names only five such classic novels–the most recent of which is the Parable of the Sower by Octavia E. Butler.
At the same time, we’ve had a boatload of dystopian books and movies. As I read the article, I began to ask is my novel what everyone has been waiting for? Or is it doomed to be ignored because it is not gloomy enough? Only time will tell.
The essence of all faith is driving us toward something better. For many, the something better is to be found only in the afterlife. For others, faithfulness is about improving life here and now. Even those who place their trust in country, job, or the things money can buy do so with the belief that those things will bring fulfillment.
So if we all desire our lives to be transformed, then why the resistance to stories that suggest that it happens? Part of the answer is that we humans feel accomplishment in the struggle and the doing more than the end result. Some may measure their sense of self-worth by the size of their bank account. But for most of us, money becomes a means to an end. We use our money to get what we need, or desire. Our most profound sense of value often comes from the efforts that enabled us to reach our goals or at least get closer.
Sarah Begley points out, “One obvious roadblock to writing good utopian fiction is that perfect societies are, well, perfect–meaning they don’t leave much room for narrative tension.” If that were true life would be rather dull.
So what about The Doorkeeper’s Secrets? Well, it is based on the belief that we can treat one another better. All people deserve respect, dignity, and an opportunity to contribute to society. Furthermore, we two-legged creatures are smart enough to address, listen, and solve most of the problems we face today. In some cases, solutions will mean making adaptions to compensate for the lack of attention to areas like the environment.
Is it “pie-in-the-sky” to think that we can develop an economy where everyone has a job they enjoy, a decent home, nutritious food, medical care, quality education, and personal safety? A place where differences are honored and seen as learning opportunities. A culture where no one becomes a slave to the economic giants and none get rich off the labors or ideas of others.
Since I believe that kind of world is possible, I have written about it. So where is the tension? For one thing, not all states have accepted the new model. Also, there are some who will do anything to undo “The Plan” and get back to being rich and powerful–even if it means letting millions die. Finally, there are some inherent weaknesses in all collaboration centered social orders and the story explores at least some of those.
I hope you will join me in my future. Then we can decide if it is utopia or just another failed attempt at human maturation.
E. L. Morrow -- Author 