Naomi Klein 7:43 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO4aH5ZSb_o
When people fall in love with what seems to be a perfect theory, a set of rules, and they love those rules more than they love people or places. In fact they start to see the messy reality of life as interfering with the beauty, the imagined beauty, that exists only within their texts, only in the sacred texts whether they’re economic texts, or religious texts, or the dream of racial purity. I think we need to fear people who love systems more than people because the flipside of the love is the hatred for anything or anyone that interferes with the realization of that system. And the other thing about dangerous utopias is they can’t co-exist with other ideas. They need the whole stage.
Severity of words. I’ve seen some discussion in aikido circles where some people say that there are those out there who do aikido for a hobby. This is inevitably greeted by a number of people who don’t like being described as hobbyists (and somehow identified themselves as being targeted by the term that they stigmatize). I sympathize with those who react in this way because I myself consider aikido a bigger and more pervasive aspect of my life than “just” a hobby. However, I admit that I don’t make a living from it and if it somehow ceased to be a part of my life I wouldn’t necessarily need to replace it as I would with a job, or be devastated as I would with a child. For the sake of convenience, when someone uses the word “hobby” to refer to what I do, I try to accept the situation and the point they’re trying to get at, particularly if the discussion is not contingent on their interpretation of my practice as a hobby. At times I will paranthetically insert, “Well, a serious hobby (but anyway, go on)…”
The word “hatred” in the quote struck me as something most people are not prepared to acknowledge in themselves. I reckon most people would feel more comfortable with another word, and perhaps even feel an urge to qualify the particular contexts in which they would have this stance or feeling. However, humans are nothing if not clever and making excuses, procrastinating, reframing something in order to reduce discomfort, etc. are ways we exercise our cleverness.
In my own introspection (and this brought me, virtually out of necessity, to simultaneously cultivate compassion), I have expanded my view for the ways in which I am “bad”. This includes the ways I may manifest or embody “hatred”. In my case, I can recognize this as being suspicious or even just wary of others, looking down upon others, being dismissive of others, feeling superior when I juxtapose myself to specific others, avoiding, believing that I know everything about others, becoming irritated or impatient with others, keeping only to those who are like myself, etc. As you can see, these are all ways in which my hatred might manifest toward those who muddle up the beauty that I perceive in the theory, or frame, that I love or advocate.
The necessity for introspection re: use of words and frames.”Connected”, “accepting”, “responsible”, “mature”. The connotations of words. Mystification of ideas, actions, even reality. All too often we encounter use of words such that we know what they mean on an intellectual level, but they don’t reach us on a gut level. Or the words are so mundane that when they might be intended to inspire or illuminate, they fail because we “already” know. Often, when a theory comes with certain catch phrases or words, those words take on a mystical status. It’s an especially tough spot to be the creator or a proponent of a theory, when using those words, because the words may be received differently by different person. It’s part of the problem of a theory being perceived as something that will be perceived the same or very similar by everyone.
When we try to implement a better or grander or deeper meaning of “connectedness”, for instance, it is pretty easy for a person to come to feel better connected with people, but the people around wouldn’t necessarily agree. So, is that person’s experience of “connectedness” driven by a compulsion to realize the theory and all its glory, so that he becomes more susceptible to deluding himself that he is connected? And is that “connectedness” of the theory the same for everyone? or does the theory “presume” that each person will experience it differently? or does the theory “presume” that each person’s experience will evolve? And, regardless if it’s the same experience for everyone, do the people around the individual also experience the connectedness or is it just the person who is trying to realize the theory who is experiencing it? And does the individual, expectedly or inadvertently, during his development of “connectedness” start to see what others label as “connected” as not the genuine thing, completely different from what he himself is developing? (ie how does the individual see and act relative to other interpretations of the word?)
And, regarding a theory “presuming” people realizing it in this way or that: does the individual, and do we as objective observers, concern himself with what the originators of the theory presumed or intended? If the originator is not available, at what point do we stop wondering what he was thinking, how he was seeing the world, etc. and take ownership of our own point of view and consequent interpretations?
The necessity for introspection re: one’s vision. I’ve found lacking in general people’s (including myself) tendency to go only so far in imagining how everything would be if it went according to the way they thought it should.
For instance, many people imagine a more peaceful world. I wonder how many people have given time to be astounded and appreciative of how “enlightened” people would be in that world. People would be able to hold on to things as high value and high priority but have no hang ups or attachments when they encounter people who have different values and priorities. People wouldn’t feel perplexed or disturbed by anything others did – other people’s actions would not be digusting, aberrant, “wrong”, etc. If two people had mutually exclusive wants or values (eg wanting a single thing) they would not only be patient enough to sort out and negotiate this difficult situation, they would be pretty intelligent and innovative also. People wouldn’t be perturbed or perplexed by what they didn’t know about others – there would be no suspicion, no hoarding, no preparing against others. No insecurity. No anxiety. Or, in this imaginary world, maybe I could get anxious but the majority of people around me would a) have time for me and b) help to alleviate my anxiety so that my anxiety and I don’t have a primary effect on society, that society continues overall to function in a non-anxiety based way?
This idea of the overall vision relates to concern for the originator of a theory also. Taking, for example, Skinner’s theory of behavioral psychology where all organisms behave only according to previous experiences being rewarding or punishing: If I implemented his theory simplistically relative to my misbehaving child, I’d simply use various punishments until his misbehaving stopped. If it didn’t work, I might dismiss the theory. If it did work but my child started staying away from me, then I might think, now what? According to the theory, reward him for coming near and punish him for staying away? At some point any person will start to see how endless and complex it is to actualize the theory. Not to imply that it should be easier or harder, but at some point, I think it’s beneficial to wonder, how did Skinner see the world? How did he see his theory as applicable to the world? If I stuck simplistically to his theory, I’d think he saw the world as depressingly mechanical. I’d wonder if he had any appreciation for creativity or joy. And if I thought to myself, No, I don’t believe Skinner was such an unfeeling, simplistic person, I might delve more deeply into his theory.
Nonviolent Communication – an example. I’ve encountered various people who are “into” NVC to some extent or another. One pattern I’ve noticed is that they point out to me when I use a non-NVC communication ie a “violent” communication(?). It occurred to me to ask, Are you able to be nonviolent only with other nonviolent people? That must be pretty taxing, to go through day to day life, full of non-nonviolent communicators, those people who are muddying up the world that the theory presents as possible. What thoughts and emotions must fill the day of a NVC-er? Every moment, thinking, Hey, that’s a judgment; God, this person is making a request in a really inefficient way, etc.
Of course, I am referring to people who are able to realize the theory only so far. Even without knowing the originator, I think ti myself, there’s no way that he/she intended to come up with a theory so that NVCers could only comfortable hang out with other NVCers. He/she must have intended something to help people deal with a largely non-NVCer world, maybe even by putting into the world less “violent” communication, making the world a more nonviolent place. Based on that, I infer that to realize the NVC theory is, implicitly, to pursue self-mastery eg of the “Hey!”s and “God!”s, while communicating in an NVC way oneself.
