activism – Page 2 – Engaging Peace

Standing Rock: A Change of Heart, Part 4

Posted on December 12, 2016December 13, 2016 by kathiemm

by Charles Eisentstein

The way we see and treat someone is a powerful invitation for them to be as we see them. See someone as deplorable, and even their peace overtures will look like cynical ploys. Distrust generates untrustworthiness. On the other hand, when we are able to see beyond conventional roles and categories, we become able to invite others into previously unmanifest potentials. This cannot be done in ignorance of the subjective reality of another’s situation; to the contrary, it depends on an empathic understanding of their situation. It starts with the question that defines compassion: What is it like to be you?

That question is anathema to the militant and the warmonger, because it rehumanizes those that they would dehumanize. Broach it, and they will call you soft, naïve, a fool or a traitor.

What it is like to be a police at Standing Rock? Or what it is like to be an ETP executive? Can you bring yourself into the knowledge that they are our brothers here on earth, doing their best under the circumstances they have been given? I imagine myself in the ETP executive suite. The stress level is high. The board of directors are freaking out. The banks are threatening to pull their funding. We’ve spent tens of millions leasing capital equipment. Maybe we have bond payments due. Business is tough enough as it is, and now these protestors come in who don’t realize that pipelines are safer than rail tankers. They use gasoline too, the hypocrites! And they’re making us into the bad guys! And look how hate-filled they are! Yup, it’s obvious who the good guys are.

I am not endorsing this viewpoint. I am merely trying to understand it. One product of that understanding that is uncomfortable for the ego of the militant is that it would take courage for the ETP executives to halt the project — to do so would require sacrificing their self-interest as they understand it. Similarly, it might take courage for a policeman to defy orders or disbelieve propaganda or break ranks. In a way, we are all in the same boat; we are all facing situations that invite us to choose love over fear, to listen to the heart when it feels unsafe to do so. We need to help each other obey that call. In that, we are allies. We can be allies in calling each other to our highest potential.

Another friend described his encounters with pepper-spraying police at Standing Rock. He noticed that in each instance, it was only one or two police who were doing most of the violence. The others were standing around looking uncomfortable, probably wishing they were somewhere else.

What would activist tactics look like if they were based on the conviction, “Most of the police don’t really want to be doing this”? What would it look like to express in word and deed an underlying certainty that each of them is here on earth to carry out a sacred mission of service to life? How would it feel to them to be told, “I am sorry you are being put in this position. I am sorry you are under such pressure to contravene your heart. But it is not too late. We forgive you and welcome you to join us in service to life.”

As I write this, the first of two thousand U.S. military veterans are entering the camps at Standing Rock. They have vowed to stand with and protect the Water Protectors with their own bodies. They are not bringing weapons. Many of them are leaving jobs and families in order to help protect the water. If they too can keep peaceful hearts, they will magnify the invitation to the government, the company, and particularly the police to make the courageous choice themselves.

Victory at Standing Rock will have far-reaching consequences. It may seem inconsequential in the macro view if the pipeline is merely rerouted or replaced with rail tankers (which are even worse than pipelines). On a deeper level though, a victory will establish a precedent: if it can happen at Standing Rock, why not globally? If a pipeline can be stopped against great odds in one place, similar violations can be stopped in every place. It will shift our view of what is possible. That’s one reason why I agree with the Sioux elders’ preference to keep the movement focused on the water and not let it be hijacked by climate change activists. Climate change is the result of a million insults to a million places on earth. Honoring the place of Standing Rock establishes a principle of honor to all places.

Writ large, the situation at Standing Rock is the situation of our whole planet: everywhere, dominating forces seek to exploit what remains of the treasures of earth and sea. They cannot be defeated by force. We must instead invite a change of heart by being in a place of heartfulness ourselves – of courage, empathy, and compassion. If the Water Protectors at Standing Rock can stay strong in that invitation, they will demonstrate an unstoppable power and win a miraculous victory, inspiring the rest of us to follow their example.

What if I am wrong? Not every nonviolent action succeeds in its explicit aims; not every invitation, no matter how powerful, is accepted. Yet even if the pipeline goes through, if the Water Protectors stay off the warpath another kind of victory will be won – the creation of a psychic template for the future. With each choice we face, we are being asked what kind of world we want to live in. The more courage required to make that choice, the more powerful the prayer, because Whoever listens to prayers knows we really mean it. Therefore, when we choose love in the face of enormous temptation to hate, we are issuing a powerful prayer for a world of love. When we refuse to dehumanize in the face of atrocity, we issue a prayer for universal dignity. When thousands of people sacrifice their safety and comfort to protect the water, a powerful prayer issues from their gathering. Some day, in some form, it will be answered.

This is the final post in a four-part series. You can read the original essay here and learn more about Charles at charleseisenstein.

The “Just Enough” Policy: Behavioral Control of Collective Protest through Minimum Reward, Part 1 of a 3-part series

Posted on April 4, 2016April 5, 2016 by kathiemm

Author: James Montgomery Flagg. 1917. In the public domain.

By Anthony Marsella, Ph.D.

What does it take?

What does it take to awaken the American (USA) people to the egregious political, economic, and moral abuses and violations of their Constitutional rights and privileges? What does it take for the American people to demand changes in existing government and corporate political, economic, and social policies and actions limiting accountability, transparency, and participation?

What does it take for the American people to successfully reduce the concentration of power, wealth, and position favoring a few and denying equality and opportunity for the masses? Why are American people failing to respond to the numerous crises in American society that reveal widespread corruption, cronyism, and incompetence in public and private institutions and organizations?

Why are Americans savoring the fruits of consumerism, materialism, commodification, competition when the consequences of these institutionalized values are destructive for individuals and the social fabric? These questions are but a few of the many questions being asked daily across America and the world. At issue is the disproportionate presence of silence and passivity, and the absence of activism.

I am not discussing, nor am I advocating, widespread rebellion or revolt, even as some voices have called for these as solutions in the face of a creeping oppression. Rather, I am seeking an understanding of why so few protests have emerged and been sustained across time and place?

No one can deny the existence of protests from both “liberal/progressive” circles, (e.g., Occupy Wall Street, Wisconsin Teacher Unions, LBGT organizations) and conservative/tea party circles (e.g., regarding border immigration, abortion rights, gun ownership rights). Yet, in my opinion, these protests have been focused on specific causes, often informed by narrow ideological reasons. I am seeking an understanding of sources that could undertake a broader and unified protest, seeking to re-claim and to improve upon America’s inspired heritage of human rights — a protest to reclaim “moral authority,” “national identity,” and “social and civic responsibility,” not through guns, violence, and anger, but through virtue.

It must be asked whether current divisions across gender, racial, ethnicity, social class, political, wealth, regional, and religious boundaries have limited any collective citizen response challenging the concentration of power, wealth, and position that seeks national and global domination. In my opinion, the concentration denies citizen participation by controlling means, motives, and consequences of national activism, especially by creating divisions across diverse population sectors. Although developing diverse identities is to be encouraged because diversity is the essence of life itself, a sense of unity is lost as too many are denied equality.

And how does the fractioning of a society lend itself to external control and domination by those with wealth, power, and position? For me, the answer is simple: “A society can assume unlimited diversity, as long as it provides equal access to opportunity.”

It is the disproportion in opportunity, rights, and freedoms that lead to resentment, struggle, and violence. The USA needs a national vision identity that recognizes and accepts the conditions required for civility and citizen accommodation in our global era, including (1) an appreciation of the value of diversity, (2) a willingness to accept an interdependence ethic, (3) the commitment to nonviolence/nonkilling, and (4) a belief in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unfortunately, what has emerged in the USA is a “limited good” mentality¹ in which gains by one group or sector are considered losses by another, because there is only so much “good” to go around. But while this may be, in part, an accurate appraisal of our global situation, there are forces at work that seek control stemming from the age-old divisions rooted in concentrations of power, wealth, and position. Choose your century, country, or cause, and “concentration” will always be the root of problems.

In today’s global era, filled with challenges that defy solution (e.g., population increases, poverty, violence, wars, environmental pollution, crime), “control” by a few (e.g., 1%, bankers, dictators, corporate royalty, Davos faction, monopolies) has become the means and the end. In the USA, which leads the world in military force, financial wealth, corporate cartels, and exportation of popular culture, “control” is essential to preserve an existing state of affairs that denies equality, and promotes homogeneity.

The USA has the world’s largest military budget, highest medical costs, greatest number of prisons and prison inmates, and greatest divisions of wealth (e.g., 1% versus 99%). What this enables — indeed ensures — is the opportunity to implement a “Just Enough” approach to keeping collective control.

NOTE:

George Foster (1965). Peasant society and the image of limited good. American Anthropologist. Limited good refers to the concept that in peasant societies the world is seen as a “competitive” place in which “goods” are limited, and so distrust, envy, jealousy, and resentment are fostered. Hmmm?

Anthony Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 15 edited books, and more than 250 articles, chapters, book reviews, and popular pieces. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

This is the first in a three-part series originally published on https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/06/the-just-enough-policy-behavioral-control-of-collective-protest-through-minimum-reward/

Reflections on Government Change, Reform, Renewal, Suggested Topics for Discussion, Dialog, and Debate, Part 1

Posted on March 18, 2016March 19, 2016 by kathiemm

by Guest Author Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., March 17, 2016

Introduction Several months ago, a friend and colleague familiar with my relentless idealistic aspirations for improving government, said to me: “So what would you change? How would you improve the situation?” How would you make it better for everyone?

A good question and one well warranted! I suspect the request was meant to silence my complaints, even as my friend agreed my complaints and criticisms were justified. The difficulty is, the problems are disproportionate in number and complexity. Reciprocity and interdependency of the problems defy any hope of simple solutions.

Appeals to the branches of federal government (i.e., Executive, Representational, Judicial) are futile, because these branches are the source of many of the problems, and will only serve to promote their special powers and influence. Corruption, cronyism, and competition have infected all branches, and, some claim, limit function and purpose, requiring a nefarious and reprehensible “shadow government” consisting of a “military-industrial complex” favoring special interests.

The problem is the existing “System” of governance! It is politicized, asymmetrical, and unresponsive to needed changes, sustaining abuses and inequities. The “System” is the vehicle for consolidating wealth, power, and position of a few at the cost of the many. Citizen activism seems to have little impact. In a previous publication, titled “The Just Enough Policy,” I argued government keeps citizen protests minimal, by offering “just enough” to maintain citizen comfort (Marsella, A.J. (2014). The just enough policy: Behavior control of collective protest through minimum reward. War, Peace, Justice: An Unfinished Tapestry. Aurelius Press, Alpharetta, Georgia, pp 97-104).

Even with official government claims of deference, respect, and admirations for our iconic founding documents, voiced for election image purposes, the “System” engages in passing thousands of laws, regulations, and privileges whose content and consequences eludes even the most ardent of reformers. The laws, regulations, and privileges morph into scores of new departments, institutions, agencies, organizations, and support services, impossible to eliminate or control, and with little transparency and accountability. Each department, institution, agency, and organization becomes a power unto itself, acting to perpetuate its existence, even as it no longer has a function or cause.

Laws, regulations, and privileges enacted by the “System” become endless responses to urgent crises; power asymmetries; unmet defense, social, and economic requirements; special industrial and corporate interests insuring profits and dominance; and political accommodations to elected and appointed government officials quietly lobbying for favorite projects (e.g., bridge to nowhere). All are the stuff of the megalithic “System” defying change. From this “System,” just and unjust governance is enacted daily. Inconsistencies, conflicts, and abuses in enforcement and applications thrive, subject to the interests of those in power.

Citizens have lost trust in government and institutions. Surveys place public trust in government at less than 10%. Current presidential debates, even amid their differences, reveal the extent to which institutions serve the interests of special interests. Each candidate argues we are in moral, political, and legal collapse. None offer profound recommendations for change, fearing perhaps being termed a radical or worst. Citizens are required to accept myths whose continuation is reinforced by biased media propaganda and “strat com” (i.e., strategic communications – biased lies).

A Sampling of Myths

Myths are important, yet as they fall, we are left with uncertainty and disappointment. Myth are widely held perceptions and expectations accepted as “true.” Myths function to guide our behavior by constructing beliefs we consider as “accurate” assumptions about the world. Some of the most critical myths are now considered untenable and in need of major critique and reform. These include:

Capitalism is the best foundation for a national economy, only moderately subject to corruption and abuse. Clearly, capitalism and its Wall Street castle has demonstrated its inherent tyrannical and exploitive nature.
Democracy is the foundation of our government system. Tragically, it is clear democracy has yielded to oligarchy, cronyism, and nepotism. It is perhaps better termed “demonocracy” and “hypocracy.”
Two-Party Political System, long the foundation of elected government, has proven to be an anachronism, in need of change in response to national diversity in political, ideological, moral, and economic profiles. Political interests claim ownership of the two major parties, placing power in the hands of a few. Cronyism, corruption, nepotism, and oligarchy dominate the structure and process.
Equality before the law is proven daily to be violated in American society. Equality is, in fact, subject to a distorted distribution favoring the privileged. “Black Lives Matter” is a visible response to the inequities.
Freedom, as choice, is not available to all. Rather freedom is subject to status markers (e.g., men have more freedom than women; whites more freedom than people of color; rich more freedom than poor). The “System” is the greatest source limiting freedom; Government and private sources are engaged in mass surveillance, monitoring, and archiving.
Moral Authority of the United States of America is lost. We have no moral compass that has not been erased or destroyed by our political and economic actions. We have, as a nation, pursued scores of reckless regime overthrows, and engaged in invasion, occupation, and exploitation. “The ends justify the means!” is the Government’s motto. Ethics, law, and justice are no longer arbiters of policies and actions.
Peace is not a USA goal! The peace we seek as nation is a peace permitting selfish exploitation of special interests (e.g., commercial, foreign government allies). We are a violent society and nation. We are a culture of war!

What can be done? What changes must be made? See my next post.

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hawaii). He is widely recognized as a pioneer figure in cultural and international psychology and psychopathology. He has published 20 books and more than 300 journal, chapter, and popular articles. He is the recipient of numerous national and international awards.

Posted on January 18, 2016February 1, 2016 by kathiemm

guest author: Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D.

The new calendar year is upon us . . . in every sense of the word! We use the New Year as an opportunity for renewal — a chance for a fresh start. We leave behind the accumulate residue of the past year, and respond now with a blank slate of possibilities — an imagined vision of what could be . . . “If only.” Yes, it is the “If only,” constraining us and inspiring us. I once wrote a wisdom bite: “If! A two-letter word, simple in sound, profound in consequence.”

So here we are! Wanting a new start, but clear we have much unfinished business from last year. There is wisdom in knowing the challenges we face, for life is never free of them. It is also useful to know the resources we possess, even if they may be inadequate to the task. It is useful to explore the dynamics of resource-challenge relations. There will always be tradeoffs and compromises, and these are disappointing. Yet, they constitute a reality that cannot be ignored. So what does 2016 look like from the resource-challenge perspective?

In my opinion, there are reasons for fear, and reasons for hope. Has it ever been anything different? Hasn’t history shown us each age was filled with its challenges and resources? Yes, this is true. But what is different this year – 2016 – is the “global stage” in which the challenges and resources are being tested and contested. We are unprepared for the magnitude of stage. And, the problem is resources are always fewer in number than challenges. But is their power less?

There is something noble and inspirational about the willingness to assert human and environmental dignity and worth via various resources. There is something noble about joining causes to bring positive changes. This may be the most important thing! It is hard to speak of the nobility of the human spirit when we consider the widespread abuses and insults human have engendered. But perhaps the “process” of responding to challenges reminds us of the essence of life itself – a felt force seeking and pursuing, not only survival, but growth, development, and becoming. Go for it!

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822.

Show, by your actions, that you choose peace over war, freedom over oppression, voice over silence, service over self-interest, respect over advantage, courage over fear, cooperation over competition, action over passivity, diversity over uniformity, and justice over all.