permaculture

["RIA SWIFT" <Riaswift@msn.com>]

Toby wrote:

 

This is why I said we need to TEACH this structure.  I did not say anything about throwing out the politicians etc., aka Bucky.  TEACH is the operative word.  We already know how to lead and follow.  I am talking about the beginning of something new.  Very capable people will not want to assume the responsibility you had in your business because of all that they assume goes along with being in that role.  If people continue to think about these systems they way they have been they will stay the same.  Absolutely.  That is why I said teach...At least I think I said teach.  You can't change the system without figuring out how to teach the mechanics of it first.  Very few people would jump in.   I brought it up not out of an anarchistic sensibility but a more inclusive one.  I am also not talking about getting rid of the fact that people will not naturally fall into categories leader, interpreter, marketer, sales, etc. whatever their natural proclivity might be.  I am talking about allowing the organism to find it's own natural tendency and then letting that organism do that, something we do not do in this culture.  There is a place for all colors.  One not being better than the other but certainly having different functions - leading the self.  The most internal source of the self knows exactly what to do in any given situation.  But we do not teach people how to access and utilize this internal source.  We direct, dictate, control, etc.  I think nature does a beautiful job of this.  It just does it's thing, no one tells it what to do or how to do it.  That is what I meant about fractal geometry.  It replicates itself.  In my opinion it is better for the individual and then of course that means it is better for the group when the individual decides for itself what it's role will be - if it is in touch with it's deepest nature.  How many people are?  Not a whole lot.  We need to teach that.  I don't know that leaders need to be developed.  I think each person needs to be taught to develop his own specific, special, individual talents, proclivities.  The rest would naturally take care of itself.  Maybe that is clearer.  You guys made me think about how to get this across.  I hope this did it.

 

I hold steady to this idea.  I hope it's clearer now.  I've lived it and it works beautifully.  I don't think you can compare a new way of doing things with an old model.  How do you compare blood letting to a high powered antibiotic?  You can't.  Well enough for me...thanks for the conversations, Ria

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Toby Hemenway

To: permaculture

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 1:57 AM

Subject: Re: leadership (was:Re: [permaculture] Bucky Fuller,interesting Usenet newsgroups

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 07:18 PM, RIA SWIFT wrote:

Think fractal geometry and self-organizing beings like some of the extremely indigenous tribes. 

When I was running a small business I offered my employees--very smart, independent and capable people--a chance to have a profit-sharing plan and to make management decisions. They unanimously turned it down, saying they didn't want the responsibility I had, they just wanted to forget work at 5 and go home. I'm not sure we will ever get to a place where the majority of people in our culture want leadership roles; it's an awful lot of work.

I know hierarchy isn't cool these days, but my observation from the various peoples and groups I've lived with or studied, and of adaptive systems, is that they nearly all tend to self-organize into some form of hierarchy, having various types of leaders--if that's the right word (elders, shamans, chiefs, chairpeople, presidents)--and "followers." In nature, you see hierarchies based on molecules organizing "upward" (a loaded term) into organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, etc, and usually regulated (led) by some sort of nervous system or chemical signaling. In the most mature and healthy of these systems, the elements in the leadership role simply carry out their function without making a big deal of it, without going pathological and acting as though they are the most important or only crucial element in the system. In the most mature human groups, everyone recognizes that the leaders are simply filling a needed role that some others could take on. But that kind of wisdom is uncommon in most cultures I know of.

Particularly in social systems, non-hierarchical (leaderless) groups are very, very rare--even in pure consensus meetings we choose facilitators, scribes, etc.: leadership roles. And a single strong leader generally gets a new organization running successfully a lot faster than a group of "equals." One serious problem with totally flat hierarchies and anarchy is that they are inherently unstable (that may be why they are rare in nature) and prone to takeover by "strongman" types unless every single member works to structure them immune to such takeovers. That's why revolutions and social chaos often breed tyrants: a power vacuum offers a window of instability for a powerful leader to take over. Until everyone wants to assume leadership roles (very far off!) we need hierarchical systems in order to create stable institutions. I think Bucky is dead wrong--toss out our politicians and a much more murderous, tyrannical crowd would replace them quickly.

Toby
http://www.patternliteracy.com

---

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture