As a green counselor a couple of decades ago I attended a training seminar on counseling women survivors of sexual abuse. I'd already done this work for a couple of years. The trainers asked for our experiences with this type of counseling. When I related mine, and said that I'd had a good bit of success, one of the trainers flatly said that I couldn't have done it. When asked why, she said it was because I was a man.
I wasn't sure enough of myself as a counselor to stand up to someone who was supposed to be an authority and giving a training seminar. Later I regretted not walking out at that moment. But now, with many more years' experience and reflection, I wished I could have calmly dealt with her on logic alone.
By her logic I couldn't be a substance abuse counselor if I hadn't had a substance abuse problem myself. I couldn't have counseled anyone with schizophrenia if I hadn't had schizophrenia myself. In the full extension, by her logic I wouldn't be able to counselor anybody but men my age who had brown hair, grey eyes, was short and skinny, was an Eagle Scout, had been to Europe twice, played the piano, and was intellectual. It would be hard to make a living like that. And a lot of people in need of counseling wouldn't be able to find a counselor.
Of course this trainer was working out of what she understood. We all do. Yet what she ended up doing was unprofessional. Her biases weren't sufficiently understood inside herself to prevent her from misusing her position of authority. But imagine if she had: the training would have gone much differently. She would have engaged me rather than exclude me. She would have been able to accept that not all men were either abusers or so different from women that they couldn't possibly understand. She would probably have had a much fuller understanding of the subject since she understood herself, and the quality of her presentation would have been much higher. Poor woman: she would have avoided showing herself the fool.
We all have biases. But the task, whether given by the Delphic Oracle, the Bible, psychological ideas of self-actualization, the Tao, or whatever traditionally wise source, is to transcend them. It has been a lot of work on my part to do this and I won't be finished before perishing. It's not easy work for anybody. But the longer I go, the more I know, the more and more I believe that people are capable of transcending the things that limit us inside, and once we do we liberate ourselves and those we come into contact with. Life gets much simpler and more authentic when the mistaken is laid aside. Unnecessary fears diminish. Artificial separations dissolve. Being thus less guarded, I have more time and energy so that I can act more out of charity. If the majority of people around me did likewise there would be far less anxiety and depression because we'd all be helping each other rather than suspecting each other.
Until life is through with me I can't help but believe that we can do it.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Meeting the Enemy
So Jimmy Carter is meeting with Hamas leaders. It goes directly against the policies of the Bush administration -- indeed, the policies of many recent presidents -- to meet with an 'enemy'. The expressed reason is that it gives legitimacy to the enemy, something that can't be admitted.
Oppressed peoples strive against their oppressors. If the oppressors refuse to talk with them, negotiate with them, even acknowledge their presence, the oppressed find ways to speak more loudly, and if they are subjected to harm then they don't mind harming the oppressors. Thus terrorism.
I wonder about powerful people who won't spend time with lessers, who won't listen to a point of view unlike their own. Are they afraid of someone less powerful? That's crazy. The only way this is possible is if they hold power but somewhere deep inside fear that they aren't as powerful as they appear, even to the point of impotence. Do they want to avoid being confronted with their own actions that result in others being harmed? Ooh. Ouch.
I also wonder what these men -- and it always seems to be men, doesn't it? -- are like in their marriages. When problems arise in marriage, as they inevitably shall, do these men sit down with their wives, listen to the other point of view, and negotiate a fair solution? If they're capable of doing this at the personal level why do they avoid doing it at the political level? Or do they just get their way in their marriages all the time, just like they do in office?
I suspect that what's happening is that when a politician refuses to meet and deal with an enemy, he does not know how to meet and deal with his own dark side. He hasn't developed the skill. If this is so then it means he lives with an amount of fear, even terror, that something inside him is wrong or evil but he doesn't know how to confront it, how to approach it, how to work past it without giving in to it (why was Star Wars so popular? Because each of us knows the struggle between the Dark Side and the Force). And if this is so then I am uncomfortable with the most 'powerful' men in the world not having conquered themselves, refusing to look inside, and instead projecting an enemy outside themselves to keep the focus away from the feared reality. These aren't the most advanced people to lead us.
Conservative pundits frame Jimmy Carter as a failed president. They badmouth the humanitarian things he does, and meeting with enemy leaders is just unthinkable. Perhaps they are being faced with a person more advanced than they are prepared to understand, and rather than try to understand and learn from a superior example they make him into another enemy. This would guarantee that we do not grow as a culture toward something better. We remain a culture of people who can't confront our own dark side and have to fight off any hint of it. The dark side thus remains and others are harmed by our making them into enemies. How sad.
Oppressed peoples strive against their oppressors. If the oppressors refuse to talk with them, negotiate with them, even acknowledge their presence, the oppressed find ways to speak more loudly, and if they are subjected to harm then they don't mind harming the oppressors. Thus terrorism.
I wonder about powerful people who won't spend time with lessers, who won't listen to a point of view unlike their own. Are they afraid of someone less powerful? That's crazy. The only way this is possible is if they hold power but somewhere deep inside fear that they aren't as powerful as they appear, even to the point of impotence. Do they want to avoid being confronted with their own actions that result in others being harmed? Ooh. Ouch.
I also wonder what these men -- and it always seems to be men, doesn't it? -- are like in their marriages. When problems arise in marriage, as they inevitably shall, do these men sit down with their wives, listen to the other point of view, and negotiate a fair solution? If they're capable of doing this at the personal level why do they avoid doing it at the political level? Or do they just get their way in their marriages all the time, just like they do in office?
I suspect that what's happening is that when a politician refuses to meet and deal with an enemy, he does not know how to meet and deal with his own dark side. He hasn't developed the skill. If this is so then it means he lives with an amount of fear, even terror, that something inside him is wrong or evil but he doesn't know how to confront it, how to approach it, how to work past it without giving in to it (why was Star Wars so popular? Because each of us knows the struggle between the Dark Side and the Force). And if this is so then I am uncomfortable with the most 'powerful' men in the world not having conquered themselves, refusing to look inside, and instead projecting an enemy outside themselves to keep the focus away from the feared reality. These aren't the most advanced people to lead us.
Conservative pundits frame Jimmy Carter as a failed president. They badmouth the humanitarian things he does, and meeting with enemy leaders is just unthinkable. Perhaps they are being faced with a person more advanced than they are prepared to understand, and rather than try to understand and learn from a superior example they make him into another enemy. This would guarantee that we do not grow as a culture toward something better. We remain a culture of people who can't confront our own dark side and have to fight off any hint of it. The dark side thus remains and others are harmed by our making them into enemies. How sad.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The Next Revolution, Part II
To say that love is merely a feeling is to seriously underestimate its character and use. If we are to conquer ourselves we must understand love at its deepest levels.
To describe love and its course in five to seven paragraphs is impossible. Let us accept that it is the most powerful force in the universe, and that it is indeed the force that keeps the universe moving in a forward direction. Gandhi talked about satyagraha, or soul force; this is a deep understanding, yet what provides the energy to animate the soul? What is the name of the energy? It is love.
Love is the energy that encompasses all that is positive and forward-moving. It desires the well-being of everything in existence. It is not particular to one type of people or nation; it applies to all and everything.
It seems that humans are born with the capacity to love. Some are raised being guided to cultivate and trust the loving force. Others are subjected to selfishness mislabeled as love, and even abused in the name of love. The culture one is raised in also provides either accurate or inaccurate ideas of loving. Yet though one learns to turn from love, or is never taught to see it, it exists nonetheless. If one desires to find it, it can be found.
How does one cultivate love, especially if it has been insufficiently taught? It must grow within the individual before it can be turned toward others; how can I give what I don’t have? Ask yourself this: am I able to love? Very few people would be able to answer no. Then ask: am I willing to love? There are many impediments to practicing love, but none are as strong or reasonable as love.
Perhaps this would be a good start: do no harm, to the self, to others, to all in existence. It is a simple idea, as simple as the Golden Rule, that if it were implemented would result in vast changes. Any person or society can do it. An innate part of us recognizes what harm is. We can learn to not feed it. Ask yourself whether decisions and actions move you toward loving, toward what we want collectively, or whether they move you away from it. If a decision moves you away from loving but you act on it anyway you are cultivating conflict within yourself, and stepping away from your own well-being and that of all you affect with your action.
Acting from love is hard until it becomes habit. There are many backward steps to make up for, and fears borne of inexperience will advise you against love. People and society around you may not be loving; why should you be when they aren’t? Well, you get to live with your choices. Even if those around me aren’t loving I can live without the conflict and backward steps, and may even pull some around me into loving when they were indecisive.
This, then, is the basis of the next revolution, that which underlies it as the guiding principle.
To describe love and its course in five to seven paragraphs is impossible. Let us accept that it is the most powerful force in the universe, and that it is indeed the force that keeps the universe moving in a forward direction. Gandhi talked about satyagraha, or soul force; this is a deep understanding, yet what provides the energy to animate the soul? What is the name of the energy? It is love.
Love is the energy that encompasses all that is positive and forward-moving. It desires the well-being of everything in existence. It is not particular to one type of people or nation; it applies to all and everything.
It seems that humans are born with the capacity to love. Some are raised being guided to cultivate and trust the loving force. Others are subjected to selfishness mislabeled as love, and even abused in the name of love. The culture one is raised in also provides either accurate or inaccurate ideas of loving. Yet though one learns to turn from love, or is never taught to see it, it exists nonetheless. If one desires to find it, it can be found.
How does one cultivate love, especially if it has been insufficiently taught? It must grow within the individual before it can be turned toward others; how can I give what I don’t have? Ask yourself this: am I able to love? Very few people would be able to answer no. Then ask: am I willing to love? There are many impediments to practicing love, but none are as strong or reasonable as love.
Perhaps this would be a good start: do no harm, to the self, to others, to all in existence. It is a simple idea, as simple as the Golden Rule, that if it were implemented would result in vast changes. Any person or society can do it. An innate part of us recognizes what harm is. We can learn to not feed it. Ask yourself whether decisions and actions move you toward loving, toward what we want collectively, or whether they move you away from it. If a decision moves you away from loving but you act on it anyway you are cultivating conflict within yourself, and stepping away from your own well-being and that of all you affect with your action.
Acting from love is hard until it becomes habit. There are many backward steps to make up for, and fears borne of inexperience will advise you against love. People and society around you may not be loving; why should you be when they aren’t? Well, you get to live with your choices. Even if those around me aren’t loving I can live without the conflict and backward steps, and may even pull some around me into loving when they were indecisive.
This, then, is the basis of the next revolution, that which underlies it as the guiding principle.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Geographical Illiteracy
A coworker grew up in Zimbabwe, and around age 11 emigrated to the States with her family. She is now a U.S. citizen. This morning I asked her if there was any news from the homeland, if Robert Mugabe had gone into hiding before somebody wiped him off the face of the planet. She was pleased that I was interested. She was even more impressed that I knew Zimbabwe was named Rhodesia before Mugabe took over in 1980.
Her name is Praise. I like that about several people I've met from Zimbabwe: they give their children hopeful, spiritual names.
Praise and I were talking about the politics and wars in the area of her homeland. She lamented that American children don't learn much about world geography and don't take much interest in the difficulties of other nations. Another coworker, a woman around 40, joined the conversation.
"How big is Africa?" she asked.
"It's a continent. There are lots of countries there," I answered.
She hadn't realized it. To test her knowledge I said, "Egypt is in Africa."
She was flabbergasted. She didn't know. She didn't know what continent Egypt was on.
"You mean," she said, "like the U.S. is..."
"In North America."
"Oh," she said, "yeah. I get it."
Not to put this coworker down -- she really does well in her job -- but she proved Praise's point.
Her name is Praise. I like that about several people I've met from Zimbabwe: they give their children hopeful, spiritual names.
Praise and I were talking about the politics and wars in the area of her homeland. She lamented that American children don't learn much about world geography and don't take much interest in the difficulties of other nations. Another coworker, a woman around 40, joined the conversation.
"How big is Africa?" she asked.
"It's a continent. There are lots of countries there," I answered.
She hadn't realized it. To test her knowledge I said, "Egypt is in Africa."
She was flabbergasted. She didn't know. She didn't know what continent Egypt was on.
"You mean," she said, "like the U.S. is..."
"In North America."
"Oh," she said, "yeah. I get it."
Not to put this coworker down -- she really does well in her job -- but she proved Praise's point.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Hillary, and other stuff
Hillary Clinton in the last couple of weeks has lost my vote. I was leaning away from her already, but her recent gaffes have swayed me. She has fudged or even re-invented experiences which were easily exposed. I have spent the last seven years steaming over the blatant dishonesty of the Bush administration; I can't support Hillary when she's showing dishonesty. In fact, her attacks and stories are all looking like whatever is politically expedient to get elected...not what I'm looking for. I hope enough people see this so that her tactics don't work.
So in the last couple of days poverty-stricken people in nation after nation around the world have been protesting the rising prices of food. What happened so that so many people in so many places all did the same thing at the same time? Clearly they weren't organized by a central committee. And we didn't hear about it in America until it was happening...the media didn't consider it important in earlier stages. The punch line: tonight, while poverty, starvation, and the protests over food prices still go on, the top headline on my homepage is that Mary-Louise Parker has broken off her engagement. Ah, America. You gotta love it.
But we have heard that the Olympic torch has been having a tortuous journey. Part of me remembers the U.S. boycotting the Olympics under President Carter (one of the few things I disagreed with him on) because I don't think sports should be held hostage to politics. But another part of me is satisfied that activists have a legitimate point this time and are capitalizing on the world's focus on China to make their voices heard. It's really something, isn't it, when legitimate dissent can't be suppressed?
From the Shooting Sunset dictionary:
Change (n): a rut leveled
So in the last couple of days poverty-stricken people in nation after nation around the world have been protesting the rising prices of food. What happened so that so many people in so many places all did the same thing at the same time? Clearly they weren't organized by a central committee. And we didn't hear about it in America until it was happening...the media didn't consider it important in earlier stages. The punch line: tonight, while poverty, starvation, and the protests over food prices still go on, the top headline on my homepage is that Mary-Louise Parker has broken off her engagement. Ah, America. You gotta love it.
But we have heard that the Olympic torch has been having a tortuous journey. Part of me remembers the U.S. boycotting the Olympics under President Carter (one of the few things I disagreed with him on) because I don't think sports should be held hostage to politics. But another part of me is satisfied that activists have a legitimate point this time and are capitalizing on the world's focus on China to make their voices heard. It's really something, isn't it, when legitimate dissent can't be suppressed?
From the Shooting Sunset dictionary:
Change (n): a rut leveled
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Next Revolution, Part I
I've mentioned in several blogs that I envision the next revolution in human development to be mastering the self instead of the environment. There are two overarching reasons:
1. For all of human history we have had wars. There are numerous reasons for war, but they probably all start well before armed conflict with the fears of leaders who believe that there is a force out there strong enough to take over -- economically, militarily, culturally -- and therefore it must be stopped. All wars result in destruction and death, and modern war results in more civilian deaths and destruction than ever before with indiscriminate bombs (even if our leaders tell us they're 'smart' and 'humanitarian') and the inability to tell enemies from civilians. Victory comes at a high price for the common good of all humanity. Every victory has been, in the long run, temporary, and the story is played out again and again with each successive generation. At what point do we say that it is not our highest acheivement? How many times do we play it out before saying, "Gee, that resulted in the same thing that all other wars have"?
2. There are nuclear warheads on the knife's edge at every moment. We have the ability to destroy the planet now for what would be another chapter in temporary victories. A permanent solution to a temporary problem, you might say. Like suicide. Today, like no time in history, it is imperative that we find another direction before we either intentionally or accidentally wipe out all life on the planet.
I have many ideas for the next revolution. Perhaps in a series of blogs I will end up with the structure for a book. Hopefully, expressing my ideas will not propel me into notariety so much as it will infect others with ideas that will have widespread impact.
There are many reasons for moving toward the next revolution, but these two will suffice for the time being. They alone make a strong case.
1. For all of human history we have had wars. There are numerous reasons for war, but they probably all start well before armed conflict with the fears of leaders who believe that there is a force out there strong enough to take over -- economically, militarily, culturally -- and therefore it must be stopped. All wars result in destruction and death, and modern war results in more civilian deaths and destruction than ever before with indiscriminate bombs (even if our leaders tell us they're 'smart' and 'humanitarian') and the inability to tell enemies from civilians. Victory comes at a high price for the common good of all humanity. Every victory has been, in the long run, temporary, and the story is played out again and again with each successive generation. At what point do we say that it is not our highest acheivement? How many times do we play it out before saying, "Gee, that resulted in the same thing that all other wars have"?
2. There are nuclear warheads on the knife's edge at every moment. We have the ability to destroy the planet now for what would be another chapter in temporary victories. A permanent solution to a temporary problem, you might say. Like suicide. Today, like no time in history, it is imperative that we find another direction before we either intentionally or accidentally wipe out all life on the planet.
I have many ideas for the next revolution. Perhaps in a series of blogs I will end up with the structure for a book. Hopefully, expressing my ideas will not propel me into notariety so much as it will infect others with ideas that will have widespread impact.
There are many reasons for moving toward the next revolution, but these two will suffice for the time being. They alone make a strong case.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Redefining The Redefinition
5. tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad-minded; specif. not orthodox or conventional 6. of democratic or republican forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies, etc. 7. favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif. favoring political freedom for the individual; progressive.
This is the definition of liberal in Webster's New World Dictionary. If this is what liberal is, I am proud to call myself a liberal.
It is quite an accomplishment for Bill O'Reilly to shorten the definition of liberal to people without values. Nothing in these three words fits the original meaning. Logically it is impossible for people to not have values, unless one is brain dead. What is even more fantastic is that so many people believe O'Reilly's definition uncritically.
Why does O'Reilly and his ilk change the definition to something totally different and impossible? Because each of the qualities listed in the definition interfere with the agenda of the people now in power. How sad, that they have to lie to the public in order to get what they want. And it's shades of 1984. Reading the definition with the opposite of the qualities listed is frightening. And a question: if liberal describes a democratic or republican form of government, what is a government that detests liberalism?
Even sadder, taking progress away from the people, nation, and culture leaves us with short-term benefit for those in power and ultimate stagnation, even loss, for everybody else.
Let's restore the original meaning of liberal. Let us no longer allow people into positions of power by lying to us. Let us value what is good and dismiss that which is selfish. Let us restore the good name and legacy of our great nation.
This is the definition of liberal in Webster's New World Dictionary. If this is what liberal is, I am proud to call myself a liberal.
It is quite an accomplishment for Bill O'Reilly to shorten the definition of liberal to people without values. Nothing in these three words fits the original meaning. Logically it is impossible for people to not have values, unless one is brain dead. What is even more fantastic is that so many people believe O'Reilly's definition uncritically.
Why does O'Reilly and his ilk change the definition to something totally different and impossible? Because each of the qualities listed in the definition interfere with the agenda of the people now in power. How sad, that they have to lie to the public in order to get what they want. And it's shades of 1984. Reading the definition with the opposite of the qualities listed is frightening. And a question: if liberal describes a democratic or republican form of government, what is a government that detests liberalism?
Even sadder, taking progress away from the people, nation, and culture leaves us with short-term benefit for those in power and ultimate stagnation, even loss, for everybody else.
Let's restore the original meaning of liberal. Let us no longer allow people into positions of power by lying to us. Let us value what is good and dismiss that which is selfish. Let us restore the good name and legacy of our great nation.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A Season of Change
Within the last few months the theme of 'change' has come into the speeches of presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama's. Thinking about it, change is nothing new. It's the only constant thing, one philosopher observed. Yet it has become important at this time in America. Why now?
Superficially, there has been constant debate about the Bush administration's policies and actions, and we're tired of the controversy. We're tired of the infighting. We're tired of trying to talk to somebody who won't listen. We're tired of authoritarianism. We're tired of a war that has no end in sight. We're tired -- and quite upset -- that somebody in the name of freedom and democracy has pardoned himself from the rule of national and international law and turned America into something it should never be. It's time for a change.
Yet something deeper must be going on as well. The Bush administration has outright resisted changing to what the people want. Many people -- members of Congress as well as citizens -- were initially for the war but now oppose it. Many Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush and McCain; on one level this is merely a device in an election year to guarantee more votes in November for themselves, but on another level the 'party line' is slowly dissolving more than just election-year politics.
For more than ten years there has been a movement seeping through the psychotherapy world that has spread worldwide. Initially proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente and incorporated in the research and application by Miller and Rollnick, it is a model of 'change'. The five steps in the cycle are Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance. This model is being ever-more successfully applied in the treatment of substance abuse and mental illness. What people who become familiar with the model are realizing is that change applies to everything.
A feature of this model is that ambivalence is natural. It is largely absent in the Precontemplation stage (where somebody doesn't realize or want to acknowledge that something should be changed), peaks in Contemplation, decreases in Preparation, and decreases even more in Action and Maintenance. It never goes away for good unless the person goes into denial that anything needs changing. Going back to the observation about people initially being for the war and are now opposed to it, this is a good illustration that many people were ambivalent at the time the Administration was gearing up for war, and this ambivalence was capitalized on by limiting factual information and exaggerating fear-provoking material to sway the ambivalent to their side.
An example of Precontemplation is what was mentioned about the Bush adminstration not changing to anything that the people want. They see nothing wrong with their agenda or style and so there is no reason to change. The problem, from their perspective, is that a change is needed in people around the world so that they understand the the threat that terrorism poses. It wasn't a priority issue before the Bush presidency, but is now named as the number one issue.
Another illustration of Precontemplation, also coming from recent campaign dynamics, is that many conservatives are saying about the race issue "there's nothing to discuss". They don't see a problem. They don't want to see a problem. Trying to push them into Action when they aren't even prepared to acknowledge the problem is guaranteed to result in a fight.
I don't have enough insight and room here to go into all the details included in these thoughts, so let's go back to the current Presidential candidates advocating for change. The election cycle itself has pushed the nation into the Preparation stage for change: it's inevitable. The candidates are cultivating their images to Prepare people to vote for them. Action will occur in November when the election is held and in January when we change the guard.
What is important is that we become familiar with the process of change, and that we make sufficient preparations to decide on and enact a good change. Again, Miller and Rollnick give us a rather simple exercise to help. What it amounts to is a pro-con list, this time in four quadrants instead of two columns. What is considered is 'What is Good about how things are now', 'What is Not So Good about how things are now', 'What would be Good about changing it', and 'What would be Not So Good about changing it'. All bases are covered.
While this would be a good exercise for individuals to do prior to voting in November, it would be critical for the media to do this from now until then -- factually -- to help the nation Prepare for the election.
In a democracy if the citizens don't participate or don't prepare themselves sufficiently for voting it is likely that they will be manipulated into electing someone who has an agenda that isn't the common good, someone who will capitalize on the ambivalence and inaction of the people to work the change that they want for themselves or special interests. The process of change requires work. And it can't be handed to a candidate to promise without the citizenry doing some work of its own. Obama may be promising change, but We, The People need to Prepare him to do the job for the common good. We didn't do this for Bush. See where it got us?
Superficially, there has been constant debate about the Bush administration's policies and actions, and we're tired of the controversy. We're tired of the infighting. We're tired of trying to talk to somebody who won't listen. We're tired of authoritarianism. We're tired of a war that has no end in sight. We're tired -- and quite upset -- that somebody in the name of freedom and democracy has pardoned himself from the rule of national and international law and turned America into something it should never be. It's time for a change.
Yet something deeper must be going on as well. The Bush administration has outright resisted changing to what the people want. Many people -- members of Congress as well as citizens -- were initially for the war but now oppose it. Many Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush and McCain; on one level this is merely a device in an election year to guarantee more votes in November for themselves, but on another level the 'party line' is slowly dissolving more than just election-year politics.
For more than ten years there has been a movement seeping through the psychotherapy world that has spread worldwide. Initially proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente and incorporated in the research and application by Miller and Rollnick, it is a model of 'change'. The five steps in the cycle are Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance. This model is being ever-more successfully applied in the treatment of substance abuse and mental illness. What people who become familiar with the model are realizing is that change applies to everything.
A feature of this model is that ambivalence is natural. It is largely absent in the Precontemplation stage (where somebody doesn't realize or want to acknowledge that something should be changed), peaks in Contemplation, decreases in Preparation, and decreases even more in Action and Maintenance. It never goes away for good unless the person goes into denial that anything needs changing. Going back to the observation about people initially being for the war and are now opposed to it, this is a good illustration that many people were ambivalent at the time the Administration was gearing up for war, and this ambivalence was capitalized on by limiting factual information and exaggerating fear-provoking material to sway the ambivalent to their side.
An example of Precontemplation is what was mentioned about the Bush adminstration not changing to anything that the people want. They see nothing wrong with their agenda or style and so there is no reason to change. The problem, from their perspective, is that a change is needed in people around the world so that they understand the the threat that terrorism poses. It wasn't a priority issue before the Bush presidency, but is now named as the number one issue.
Another illustration of Precontemplation, also coming from recent campaign dynamics, is that many conservatives are saying about the race issue "there's nothing to discuss". They don't see a problem. They don't want to see a problem. Trying to push them into Action when they aren't even prepared to acknowledge the problem is guaranteed to result in a fight.
I don't have enough insight and room here to go into all the details included in these thoughts, so let's go back to the current Presidential candidates advocating for change. The election cycle itself has pushed the nation into the Preparation stage for change: it's inevitable. The candidates are cultivating their images to Prepare people to vote for them. Action will occur in November when the election is held and in January when we change the guard.
What is important is that we become familiar with the process of change, and that we make sufficient preparations to decide on and enact a good change. Again, Miller and Rollnick give us a rather simple exercise to help. What it amounts to is a pro-con list, this time in four quadrants instead of two columns. What is considered is 'What is Good about how things are now', 'What is Not So Good about how things are now', 'What would be Good about changing it', and 'What would be Not So Good about changing it'. All bases are covered.
While this would be a good exercise for individuals to do prior to voting in November, it would be critical for the media to do this from now until then -- factually -- to help the nation Prepare for the election.
In a democracy if the citizens don't participate or don't prepare themselves sufficiently for voting it is likely that they will be manipulated into electing someone who has an agenda that isn't the common good, someone who will capitalize on the ambivalence and inaction of the people to work the change that they want for themselves or special interests. The process of change requires work. And it can't be handed to a candidate to promise without the citizenry doing some work of its own. Obama may be promising change, but We, The People need to Prepare him to do the job for the common good. We didn't do this for Bush. See where it got us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)