Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999
To: Wilberlist
From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.JordanGU@t-online.de>
Subject: Politics

Musings:

The crucial issue in the contemporary political world is, I believe, the very difficult transition from an interactional logic based on hierarchies and dominance, to an interactional logic based on a role distribution upheld by mutual respect and trust.

The liberals and parts of the left denounce the dominance principle, and reject all use of it. Thereby they get into big trouble when it comes to dealing with persons and groups with whom a mutually respectful relationship, free from force, is not possible. There *are* people in the world who are not willing or capable to relate to others with respect for their integrity, for example criminal gangs, fascist groups or authoritarian regimes. The problem with the liberals is that they are very unwilling to recognize that sometimes dominance is the only sensible option, and that one has to devote resources and time to create the necessary physical capability and know-how to deal with groups who are seriously harming others.

The conservatives, on the other hand, don't earnestly believe that a transition to a genuine mutuality logic is possible, and therefore tend to think in terms of dominance even when it would be more productive to try out mutuality. Because they believe that the human being is essentially egoistic, and often destructive, they tend to adopt the classical "realist" worldview, which expects that everyone else will try to dominate us. Better therefore that we are the strongest, and dominate the others. They tend to see the ugly forces of chaos and destruction everywhere, and have no scruples about hitting hard before the evil forces grow strong. Consequently, the conservatives are usually better than liberals at beating destructive forces, when no dialogue is possible. Unfortunately they too often dismiss the possibility or desirability of dialogue.

Lately, I have come to respect some of the more intelligent conservatives, those who are prepared to use the whip to get people to adopt some basic mutuality principles. I am right now typing an taped interview I made with a conservative MP in Stockholm. He strongly emphasizes the important role of the conditions the European Union and the European Council are making for admitting the Eastern European countries. Even though there may be little understanding for the need for respecting basic human rights, minority rights, the principles of parlamentarism and representative democracy, free press, etc., the combination of the economic benefits they see in a closer relationship to Western Europe on the one hand, and the conditions for gaining access to these coveted goods on the other hand, lures them into institutionalizing these worldcentric principles. As they do this, they slowly, and unevenly, go through a process which may start with lip-service, but which continues with gradual understanding and acceptance, and finally full-blown assimilation of these values. Without the whip and the craving for material benefits, this process would probably be much, much slower. My interviewee pointed out that even the Russian nationalist Zhirinowsky participates in meetings at the European Council. Through the quarrels and debates resulting from having to confront oneself with others' arguments in a forum where unilateral domination is not possible, even a person like Zhirinowsky may come to accept certain playing rules.

I think that a mature foreign policy would combine an intimate understanding of the game of domination with a strong commitment to move towards mutuality.

Joy hit it exactly in a recent letter to me [Hi, Joy!]:"The tricky part is knowing when behavior needs to be stopped, when that is the most important thing versus when listening is the most important thing." Indeed. And beware of those who think they have the right answer. One of the most dangerous elements of the cognitive and behavioural repertoire of the human species is that we may easily come to the conclusion that someone is threatening us, that this someone needs to be stopped, and that spending time with listening would endanger ourselves. When this behavioural dynamic is triggered, we may believe that any empathy with the "enemy" may reduce our ability to defend ourselves, and we therefore cut off our inner empathical bond to the other. This dynamic is useful for self-defense, but it relies heavily on accurate assessments of the situation. There seems to be a part of the brain which is very inventive in producing apocalyptic fantasies. Such images can easily trigger self-defensive violence.

I don't think that meditation necessarily helps developing the capability of assessing when a government or a political movement moves over the boundary that separate the realm where listening is most appropriate from the realm where physical force is necessary for defense of vital needs. It may help staying committed to universal compassion, but not for making initiated assessments of political risks. This is, BTW, an example of an emergent.

Bert, are you still there? Any comments?

Thomas