Re: A body is not a society

[Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com>]

Doug Everingham wrote:

> > You are partly right. A body is not a society. But a
> > harmonious / healthy body tries to eliminate unruly / disruptive
> > autonomous / rebellious colonies of cells (cancers etc.). Similarly
> > democratic societies put legal restraints on individual members in the
> > interests of the 'social organism' which, if it achieves consensus, is
> > governed by similar limits -- unhealthy / insane / outlaw individuals
> > are liable to incur legal restraints or even sequestration /
> > exclusion. Where such restraints are decided by consensus they are not
> > dictatorial.
> > Similarly, each (intracellular) organelle in each cell in
> > the body obeys rules / laws of interaction with the rest of the clone
> > / species and environment / ecosystem / biosphere. Nations tend to
> > mould and be moulded by constituent social organizations. The
> > comparison has been made with a fern frond, where each filament is
> > part of a leaflet of a twig of a branch -- the relationship of atoms
> > to molecules is one stage in a 'fractal' series with the ultimate
> > stage a harmonious universe. Many philosophers have addressed this
> > paradox with slogans like 'true freedom requires self-discipline' and
> > 'diversity strengthens unity'.

Hi Doug,

Thanks for continuing this thread. :-)

Metaphors are useful if they clarify. In this case, I think we'd do better to discuss society directly.

From history and from other observations I've learned that hierarchies cannot be tamed. Hierarchies have certain innate dynamics, and they always tend toward centralization of control, self-perpetuation, and aggrandizement. Part of this process involves the nature of organizational politics, and the emergence of cliques and networks in organizations. Within the aggrandizing hierarchy arises an aggrandizing clique. In the case of a hierarchical government, that means we end up being ruled by an elite clique, overtly or covertly. Such has been the story of  civilization for its entire 6,000 year history.

The US provides a perfect example of these aggrandizing tendencies. The US Constitution defines a very devolved (holon-like) society. The individual states are very close to sovereign, with the powers of the federal government strictly limited..."Those powers not granted specifically to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people themselves". Ever since then more and more power has been abrogated by Washington, and now we've finally reached the point where the Constitution itself has been all but abandoned.

This is why I cannot go along with those who advocate holons as a solution to hierarchy. Holon systems are simply hierarchies that we hope will behave in a prescribed way. In order to make sure the holon rules are followed, we must centralize the policing of those rules. Hence, the central holon ends up with the potential power to distort the system so as to enhance its power further. And so it goes, always has and always will.

The central problem of democratic theory, in my view, is to find out how we can eliminate the need for hierarchical governments.

I suggest that the best way to address that problem is to begin by considering it at the local level: "Is it possible for a community to govern itself by direct democracy, without delegating decision-making authority to any mayor or  council?" If the answer to this question is 'no', then certainly direct democracy is not possible on any larger scale either. In that case, there is no way to eliminate hierarchy. Our only course is to try to tame it, and do a better job of it than did the 'Founding Fathers'.

I have considerable reason to believe, however, that the answer is  'yes', that direct democracy is possible at the local level. There are 'consensus creating' tools, dialog processes, that have proven their effectiveness in small-group settings. These processes enable people to move beyond adversarial thinking, and work together collaboratively to find solutions that take everyone's concerns into account.

I am currently involved in several collaborations, seeking to make use of these dialog processes in various local communities. We believe it may be possible for these processes, used appropriately and inclusively, to awaken an ongoing sense of 'We the People' consciousness, where the community as a whole will be able to set its own agendas.

One of the mechanisms we are using has to do with the 'microcosm' concept. If you gather twelve 'random' people, a cross section of the community, and give them an opportunity to 'dialog' together creatively, the ideas and proposals they come up with are likely to resonate in the wider community. Using this and other mechanisms, over an extended period of time, we believe a 'sense of the community' will converge out of the process. More important, once achieved, the dialog processes can continue to refine and evolve that 'collective consensus'.

These particular projects may or may not succeed, but for the sake of argument here, let's assume that self-governing communities are achievable. Let's assume that every community in the world is governed by 'direct democracy', in which everyone's voice is included in the decision-making process. If we make this assumption, then I suggest the problem of avoiding hierarchy altogether becomes much easier to address.

rkm