by
Troubadour
[TABLE="class: stats"]
[TR]
[TD="class: statpermalink"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The world has come a long way in a short time, going in a few generations from states mostly consisting of dictatorships and absolute monarchies to one of parliamentary democracies and representative mixed states. And at the heart of this transformation is a simple yet powerful truism: The more thoroughly democratic the society, the better its people of all classes and backgrounds fare. Furthermore, we know the reverse is not true at all - prosperity in the absence of democracy is unsustainable, and in fact usually creates highly rigid, stifling societies where human beings are treated poorly by the political order despite relative material abundance. What we find, then, is that democracy is not a simple Yes/No question of how a people is governed, but the degree to which the principle is applied in daily life - a fact brought into sharp focus by the innovations and lessons of the Occupy movement. In this series, I will be describing a framework for permeating American society with democracy, thereby bringing the corporate state to heel and strengthening democratic governance in the balance.
First, you might be interested in reviewing some of the preliminary brainstorming work I've already done on this subject - particularly that on the formation of General Assemblies as a fourth branch of government:
In summary, I argue that the only way to defeat oligarchy in this country is by replacing its stranglehold on our daily lives from the ground up, beginning with instituting first sub-municipal, then municipal, then state, then federal, and finally global General Assemblies - the business of which would all occur at the same local meetings - all checked and balanced by elected bodies, judiciaries, and appointed regulatory institutions. For example, the global General Assembly would not be a separate institution or even a separate meeting from the local - it would just be the parallel result of all the local ones voting on global issues in the same meetings in which they vote on local, county, state, federal, regional, or ad hoc issues. Ditto federal, state, county, and municipal GAs - they would all just be the parallel operation of the hyper-local meetings within their jurisdiction, keeping the numbers at each individual meeting manageable.
I've already painted some broad strokes on how this may be approached, but in this series I would like to pursue a more detailed exploration, so I've divided it into several parts where we can discuss ways to replace corporate authoritarianism with democracy. In Part 1, I offer some thoughts on ways to educate children in democratic values in the home (I don't have kids - I'm just thinking abstractly here), as well as practicing those values in loose social settings.
I.
Born Free (LOL)
Since human evolution makes children so helpless and relatively undeveloped, it also structures their brains to be dependent on parents for behavioral cues (mimicry), relationship information (how people treat each other), and abstract facts (since parents are omnipotent and omniscient, whatever they say is true, even if not fully understood). Authoritarianism, unfortunately, is the easiest human state due to how our brains develop in childhood - submission to authority is not predicated on any rational basis in the mind of a child, but on an absolute instinctual relationship. When the energy of a society runs low due to prolonged stresses, it's very easy to collectively default back to childhood via religion, militarism, or other identity-group bigotry. So it's very important that the seeds of democratic consciousness be sown in childhood to avoid that kind of social back-sliding.
My first suggestion, then, would be to
go easy on the structure while still providing plenty of safety and opportunities: Regimentation of a child's life provides false cues not only about how the world works, but about how it should work. People who grow up identifying the petty, imposed ordering of every detail of their lives with love and trust will want to recreate that environment in society generally, and that very easily leaves them open to militaristic, religious dominionist, or corporatist impulses. They may prefer the "benign" versions of these social settings if they're empathetic people, but they would still hold fundamentally authoritarian values. Of course, not all people respond the same to the same upbringing - they may fly in the other direction, growing up to have a neurotic loathing of order that makes it difficult for them to function in life, and ineffective politically.
The reason regimentation provides false cues is that, in a free society, people have to establish their own structure rather than simply adapting to what superiors impose on them. This is ultimately true even in a career that is strongly hierarchical and involves a lot of regimentation - the people who manage to climb to the top are usually the ones who can see beyond the maze laid out for them and cut their own path, and the key lesson of democratic values is that this doesn't have to imply ruthlessness. Seeing outside the box is the pursuit of a free mind, and can enable even the most moral of people to achieve amazing results (see: Gandhi). An authoritarian mind, by contrast, will tend to be mediocre even in their preferred environment, because they cannot transcend the flaws of their received wisdom.
So even if a child is going into a world full of authoritarianism, they are still better served learning to be free: It will make them powerful, and have great advantages over the slaves and slavemasters around them, trapped in their pointless, wasteful attempts to seek advantage through degradation of others. Now, that doesn't mean be an absentee parent, or only be involved when absolutely necessary - it is crucial that a parent be their child's solid ground that makes them feel safe, special, and loved wherever they go, even in adolescence when they have to pretend to feel otherwise in order to practice for the harshness of adult life.
But that sense of safety has to evolve from instinctive faith into personal trust based on experience; that feeling of being special has to evolve from infantile self-involvement to real knowledge of their own gifts and acceptance of their own limitations; and that love has to evolve beyond a bond of dependency and obedience into a connection between individuals - not some filial piety or fealty to an abstract institutional "Family" in the Old World sense. Children need to grow up learning to understand that their parents cared for them and protected them because they love them as individuals, not out of loyalty to some impersonal social obligation to raise offspring - the conservative view of "family."
The next suggestion would be that, when possible - and I realize there are limits to a parent's patience in dealing with inquisitive or oppositional children -
have an answer for everything. Or even answer a question with a question to engage them in a very basic form of the Socratic method. Eventually you are going to give up and say "Because I said so" - I don't think there has ever been a parent on Earth who has failed to say some version of that, some time. But as much as your sanity can handle, it's better to engage their minds than appeal to their trust or, barring that, assert authority. Even if they're only asking "Why?" to make trouble, turning their question into an educational opportunity will both reward curiosity and discourage attempts to use the question as a weapon.
This is important because - again, as far as your sanity can handle - questions should not be framed as transgressive, so their natural inclination to use them as deliberate challenges should fail to yield the expected assertion of authority. Sometimes they may do this only in order to feel secure, because they need to hear authority asserted, but what minimal insecurity might be caused by the lack of the expected response would merely be educational rather than actually frightening to them. They should gradually learn the following in this way:
1. Questions are not bad.
2. Questions are not disruptive, even when they are intended to be.
3. Questions will not be punished by legitimate authority (parents are the archetype for governance).
4. Questions may be answered with questions.
5. Answers lead to more questions.
6. There is always something more to learn.
Next, wherever practical,
involve them in decision-making. Obviously you would start out with innocuous, mundane choices like where to eat dinner for a weekend outing - minimal stakes, a few well-known options, and a choice that could be made on a regular schedule. This is the basis for the Consumerist level of freedom - the lowest and least empowered: The ability to react emotionally/viscerally on what is desired among a set of options provided by others, and freely express the desire. In younger years, they will feel entitled to have their desires met once expressed, and may throw tantrums if the family consensus is for another option. But they will slowly come to have a vague appreciation for the next level of freedom, The Voter - the offering of a visceral personal desire for group consideration, and acceptance of its decision. At some point, if they are capable of it (not all people are), they will internalize the previous lessons and begin to preempt group consensus by making suggestions designed to win - i.e., thinking ahead to balance their needs with those of the group. This is the third level of freedom, The Citizen.
Beyond The Citizen are levels most people never reach, or else only do so erratically - and in developmental terms, they mostly start in adolescence: Namely, going beyond the immediate choice to seek higher-level choices and expand the diversity of options for existing ones - The Pioneer level of freedom. The first incling of this is when a kid first says "Let's go somewhere new," expressing dissatisfaction with the existing slate of options, and a
willingness to take a risk on the unknown. Originally this will probably only imply a difference of scenery - e.g., the same food with subtle differences, and a somewhat different ambiance. Eventually they'll want a totally different menu. Choosing restaurants is a trivial microcosm of the broader nature being invoked, because - when cultivated to a high degree - the Pioneer democratic mentality expands the richness and health of a democracy.
At the highest level, Creator, you set yourself the task of creating new options out of raw possibilities: In restaurant terms, it would be like opening your own place and serving some weird fusion menu. Children will rarely if ever behave on that level, although sparks of it might appear in guided tasks like art classes or science projects. In food terms, they might decide on a lark to raid the pantry and cook their own bizarre concoctions for the family, but usually not much is learned from such experiences - they may take away the fact that they like or dislike cooking, what ingredients they like or dislike, etc., but the broader lesson that they can make something new out of the world they inherit is not one that most people will ever understand.
Over time, more substantive decisions can be opened for debate and voting. If practical, you may ask for consensus on logistical issues like whether to drive, walk, or take a bus - even in areas of the country where pedestrianism and public transit are loathed, kids would still find it fun to ride somewhere in a different mode. Most of the time they would choose convenience just like adults, but as long as the option of alternatives is presented to them, there is always a chance they'll choose otherwise - or maybe they would find they prefer walking or the bus, and have that as their default. It may be educational to present these options even when there would be some negative logistical consequences, such as taking too much time - don't just nix the option because you know it's a stupid idea:
Let them make a stupid choice and find out why it doesn't work well. Try it, and you may find that it's you who were laboring under misconceptions.
Older kids will try to bully or boss around the younger ones in a vote, which lends itself to another educational opportunity: Protecting the integrity of the vote - a mutual obligation of the strong to respect the autonomy of the weak, and the weak to assert themselves regardless of their desire to conform or fear of illegitimate reprisal. How to explain these concepts to a child is an exercise I leave to actual parents. If a member of your family is just incapable of asserting themselves, then it becomes the obligation of the stronger members of the family to be their advocate and propose something by proxy that they might like - e.g., asking an older brother what he thinks his younger brother would like (which also serves as a test of the empathy and honesty of the older brother) - although it shouldn't guarantee selection of that option by the group.
Likewise, attempts to dictate the outcome through use of leverage - e.g., threats or bribery - should not be allowed, since it undermines the democratic process by making it a contest of power or wealth rather than of consensus. For instance, if one kid has a toy that he promises to let the other kid play with only if he agrees on the former's desired restaurant, that's bribery - that's use of wealth to dictate an election. Likewise, a bigger kid threatening to break the other's toys or hurt them would be poll intimidation. Either should result in disqualification from that day's decision. However, threatening to hold their breath unless they get their way is legitimate peaceful protest (assuming they're in good enough health that it's not dangerous), but shouldn't be allowed to determine the decision.
I have no idea how practical any of this advice is, if at all - I can only call it as I see it from memory and abstract consideration.
II.
All for One and One for All
Even in adult social groups - in fact, especially among adults - there could stand to be a much greater emphasis on democratic values. There are two factors in small-group dynamics that need to be addressed, and they're basically the kernels of the problems we see on the larger scale: One, obviously, is the disproportionate domination of certain individual members over the group due either to having an Alpha personality or else just having a lot more resources than other members: Every non-democratic social format from monarchy to plutocracy is based on this ad hoc way in which small groups form and constitute. The other is the diffusiveness of the discontented - people's willingness to simply abandon groups they no longer feel represented by rather than
being that representation in the group: This represents a kind of passive solipsism that is always running away, always conceding ground, and more malignantly, always putting the self over the group when the two are at odds. As opposed to the Alpha, we can call this the Omega personality.
Both forms of democracy-destroying personality are actuated by narcissism and disregard for other human beings - the main difference is in what they want from other people. The Alpha wants status and privilege within the group: They demand to be the Big Shot, the Cool Kid, the one whose favor is most sought and whose disfavor is most feared. The group and all its members are, to them, nothing more than a giant mirror for them to preen in front of - a piece of property that they prize, but not nearly as much as they prize its reflection on them. The Omega, by contrast, sees the group as hired help - an ad hoc conglomeration for convenience with no essential loyalties or obligations implied. They contribute the bare minimum needed for the group to remain convenient for them, abstain from functions they find inconvenient, and abandon it completely when it becomes personally unprofitable to remain even if they could benefit the group and whatever larger purpose it serves by doing so.
Basically,
Alphas run with imperial armies, Omegas with bandit hordes. We can see the two pincers-like social forces eroding democracy in America in these two phenomena - the authoritarian narcissist, and the mercenary misanthrope. The fascist and the libertarian. The Bible-thumping preacher and the stock trader. The rest of the members of any group need to recognize how to harness these personality types for the benefit of the group's members rather than allowing itself to become a tool of some constituent's neurosis.
And because people are not all one way or another, we all would be wise to recognize the Alpha and Omega impulses in ourselves and fight them with a balanced recognition of the properly symbiotic relationship between individual and group. The Alpha sees the group as a singular, seamless object for them to possess and wield, and they have the most to gain from pushing the idea that The Group is some superior entity above its individual constituents - thus they can endlessly rationalize harming other members, since it's "for the good of the group," even if the result is that everyone who actually comprises the group but them is miserable.
This is akin to dictators who seize power claiming to be motivated by patriotism, or religious zealots who wreak havoc and horror claiming to be securing Paradise - they've adopted a quasi-schizophrenic frame of mind where the collective object has nothing whatsoever to do with their actions on the constituent elements. To this kind of person, annihilating every single molecule in your body should not necessarily mean they've killed you - by their perverse logic, they actually "saved" you from those molecules. It's the end result of
dualism, and a fatal illusion when it rises to the level of social policy.
Meanwhile, the Omega sees the group as forage or carrion to pick at - some opportune source of whatever they're seeking, and into which they never put back more than they take. These are False Friends, sunshine patriots, and unreliable allies - quick to suspect the group of deception or falsehood, slow to forgive it when it disappoints them, their attitude is more that of a plantation slave overseer than a member of a team with common goals. A group, to them, is just a treacherous animal they're trying to yoke to their own ends, and they couldn't give less of a shit about its other members. An Omega may ham-handedly or incompetently try to impose their will on the group, only to be rebuffed or told to piss off by Alphas who see it as a personal challenge, at which point the former either retreats into sullen hostility (while still tagging along, if it remains convenient) or else leaves the group to find easier pickings elsewhere.
The problem with both is that they can't reconcile themselves to mutualism - everything has to be a one-sided relationship favoring them, or else they feel as though they're being somehow victimized. An Alpha who's not in charge will always have the nagging suspicion that the one above him/her isn't as worthy of it as they are, and the group is somehow less worthy of their leadership for failing to recognize it; an Omega who's not totally self-sufficient will always deeply resent others for the fact that they're forced to rely on them to some extent, and treat them bitterly when they fail to serve as well as the Omega would serve themselves. Take an Alpha far enough away from power, and they outright hate the group for failing to see their inherent superiority - i.e., they become an Omega. So we see how the Ouroboros of authoritarian power relationships closes upon itself.
For most people, the destructive social instinct is closer to Omega than Alpha - very few of us have any strong inclination to lead others, and we all tend at times to see the sociopolitical groups to which we belong (parties, cities, states, countries, etc.) as simply our servants rather than involving mutual relationships. Sometimes it's hard to see - and even harder to explain to someone else who doesn't see - that it simply isn't possible to have any kind of one-way relationship be sustainable. You can't keep demanding of a group, put back less than you take, and have that group continue to remain prosperous and effective. Conservatives don't understand this about the United States of America, and I think many progressives don't understand it about the Democratic Party - reward and punishment have nothing to do with it. You reap what you sow, and if all you sow are demands, all you'll reap is bitter disappointment.
Now, that said, "All for One and One for All" in this case means that every member of the group is for every other member, not for the abstract collective. This principle is identifiable in its most basic form on the level of the modern, love-defined family (as opposed to the Old World, institutional family) where care and loyalty are recognized as being ideally universal within the group rather than conditional or power-based. Similarly, in a small social group, there might be stronger emotional bonds between a subset, but the recognition that someone is part of a group should come with standard benefits and obligations that are universal to and from members. And it should be understood that both benefits and obligations are between the members, not between each member and some disembodied ideal of an institution.
What this means in practice is that abstract obligation to an institution - something that can easily lose its persuasiveness in the light of personal interest - should never take the place of obligations to each other in the networking sense. In other words, stop seeing groups as one thing, and instead see them for the webs they are.
Your obligations as an American are to every other American, not to a flag, not to a name, and not to a piece of ground. Your obligations as a member of a bowling team isn't just to bowl the best you can, but to help coach each of the other members to bowl the best they can too. The same goes for your obligation as a Democrat, as a progressive, as a person who lives on the 400 block of Thusandsuch Street in So-and-So City, and whatever other group to which you belong either by choice or by random association. Unless you want to be treated like a tool, stop treating others like tools - and that includes groups of others.
Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. --JFK
To this day, that quote continues to be misconstrued by both fascism-oriented conservatives and libertarians as harking to some abstract national state existing apart from its people, but from the context I would say that's not it at all: Kennedy was not telling people to sacrifice for a flag, or a name, or a piece of land, or even really an ideal like freedom - but for the reality of freedom in each of our lives: A mutual defense of rights, and mutual commitment to each other's prosperity. This statement is the triumph of true individualism, because it finally places it in the context in which it can survive and flourish, rather than the toxic moral, political, and social vacuum that libertarians prescribe.
So when you're with a group of friends, and they want to do something you don't - go with them anyway, because the group decided on it and you're part of it. Don't just flake off and do your own thing - make a conscious effort to be aware of, respect, and invest yourself into the group, even if no one else is that serious about it. In that case, then let it be you who makes it something solid - why not? Eventually, every group that means anything began with one person to whom it meant something. Let it be you who represents whatever it is you stand for in a group that otherwise doesn't represent you at all - why not? The worst they can do is throw you out, and then you can be done with the matter in good conscience - your duties are discharged, and they've done you a favor by proving themselves incompatible with you. Be the Change, and Change Ye Shall Have.
---
Later parts in this series will deal with the Workplace, Religion, and I'm sure many other areas ripe for democratization.
![[Image: inequality-page25_1.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_1.png)
![[Image: inequality-page25_therichest280.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_therichest280.png)
![[Image: inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png)
![[Image: inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png)
![[Image: inequality_mediannetworth_1.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_mediannetworth_1.png)
[TABLE="width: 630"]![[Image: inequality-10richest_2.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-10richest_2.png)
![[Image: inequality_taxcuts_2.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_taxcuts_2.png)
Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.![[Image: inequality-who%27swinning_3.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-who%27swinning_3.png)
![[Image: inequality-taxrate_3.png]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png)
![[Image: lossgain_0.jpg]](https://motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg)
![[Image: change-since-1979-600.gif]](https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif)
![[Image: who_are_450_0.png]](https://motherjones.com/files/images/who_are_450_0.png)
![[Image: 400-top-taxpayers.png]](https://motherjones.com/files/images/400-top-taxpayers.png)
![[Image: dave80x95.jpg]](http://motherjones.com/files/imagecache/author-thumb-small/photo/dave80x95.jpg)
![[Image: des.m1227occupy005-450x286.jpg]](http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/des.m1227occupy005-450x286.jpg)
![[Image: storyimages_1297992078_memorialhigh.jpg_640x480_310x220]](http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimages_1297992078_memorialhigh.jpg_640x480_310x220)
Photo Credit: PR Watch![[Image: spacer.gif]](http://images.alternet.org/images/site/spacer.gif)