Let's Get Coherent! (was theory & praxis)

(Note:  I am both replying to a new message from Richard Hutchinson and
forwarding the message to FixGov and AlternateCulture Lists. For full
text of Hutchinson msg, pls see below.  I have also cc this to some known
leaders in the Seattle movement for consideration, comment, and further
dissemination as appropriate. )    

Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU writes: 

<If you prefer to use a broader, everyday sense of the term, then I would
argue that effective leadership can take many forms. > 

Yes, I am using a broader, everyday sense of the term 'charismatic
leader' to describe the type of person who can catch and spark the
imagination and passion of people from disparate walks of life.  Just as
so many vote in an election based on 'emotion,' followers in a protest
movement will do the same.  The Beatles set out to 'change the world with
their music' and millions followed them.  If you recall in my initial
post I wrote:  'A more pragmatic approach may be . . .  

You continue:  <There are the more visible spokesperson sort of roles
(which might be called charismatic), and the behind-the-scenes
organizational builder sort of roles, and others, and they rarely all
come together in one person.>

They don't have to come together in one person -- but the focus has to be
on one person.  Once the leader emerges from the pack,  the rest of the
organization falls in behind and the 'pecking order' is 'intuitively'
established.  But without a leader the organization will remain
incoherent as it tries to speak through many voices giving mixed
messages.  Incoherence has continually been the call of the conventional
media with regard to the Seattle movement.  While this may be a somewhat
biased observation it does seem to have some validity as differing
factions protest their individual issues leaving an observer with no
clear view of what the whole thing is about.  Yet there are underlying
themes that could be woven into a 'whole' view' and presented through a
'charismatic (and respected) spokesperson.'    

Values researcher Paul Ray reveals that as many as forty-four million
people, whom he labels as 'Culture Creatives,' and whom are 'intuitively
led' and unaware of their numbers, are now 'a major and growing cultural
response to the accelerating failures of modernism' (which includes
capitalism) here in the U.S. alone. Using data from a 1990-1991 
World Values Survey, drawn from forty-three nations representing 70
percent of the world's population, Ronald Inglehart identified clear
evidence of a shift toward the values of an integral culture in a number
of societies, including Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland,
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Britain, Canada, and the United States.  
(Korten-1999.)  

Korten notes that the 'real test of a values shift is the behavior that
accompanies it.'  The Trend Institute reports that large numbers of
people are volutarily choosing to limit their consumption and reduce
their income in favor of simpler lifestyles as they become less
interested in striving for economic gain and show an increased interest
in environmental conservation and other things such as more meaningful
work and time for family. (Korten - 1999) This shift is also evidenced by
the growing numbers of people who are joining Internet Lists such as the
Center for a New American Dream (CNAD) where people share their feelings
and experiences in 'making the shift' while encouraging others to do so. 
 

With the large numbers of people involved in this movement away from
moderism rapidly approaching critical mass and ready to move forward, it
is imperative that a charismatic leader (spokesperson) emerge in short
order to bring a coherent voice to, while also uniting, the different
factions in protest if we are to successfully bring an end to
neoglobalization.  The opposition would prefer to 'divide and conquer' as
they have done in the U.S. election this year.  We cannot and must not
let this happen.

What is imperative is that we quickly identify the person best qualified
to fill the role of 'spokesperson' or 'charismatic leader' and get to
work intuitively organizing in a variety of ways so that those who are
searching for change may find an organization or 'field unit' to which
they feel comfortable joining, and which can ultimately link to the
'spokesperson.'  Ideally the Internet plays an important role here and
serves as an organizing tool which permits communication to flow in all
directions, creating what Korten refers to as a 'planetary
consciousness.'  

He writes:  'Much as capitalism uses the power of secrecy, centralized
authority, and massive financing to champion the cause of money, a
globalizing civil society is using the powers of openess, voluntary
commitment, and the ability to self-organize everywhere at once to
champion the cause of life. . . .The many physical and cyberspace forums
in which we gather serve as 'learning centers' (my quote) to help us hone
our capacities for mindful choice and participation in highly democratic
processes as we reflect, think, share, and deepen our sense of the
creative possibilities that lie ahead.  We learn as we participate,
growing in confidence in our ability to function as part of a conscious
self-organizing, life-serving planetary whole.'  

Korten continues:  'We must now learn to live as one with the planet,
taking only what we need, and discovering our place of service to life's
continuing quest.'   (This statement by Korten carries out my philosophy
of 'bioregion as the first unit of organization and that everything must
emanate from this point with the Earth (land, topsoil) being of first
consideration as it is to this that we 'owe' life. )    

(Note:  In replying to R. Hutchin's post as above, I have also gone a
little further and addressed, from Korten's perspective (which is also
mine), some recent issues discussed on the FixGov Forum as there are some
interrelated issues here.)  

marguerite 

Here is the original message from 

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: Marguerite M Hampton <ecopilgrim@juno.com>
Cc: FixGov@egroups.com, Alternateculture@egroups.com,
         wsn@csf.colorado.edu, renaissance-network@cyberjournal.org

> I suspect that 'charismatic leadership' is to the 'passionate follower'

> what 'beauty' is to the 'eye of the beholder.'

No, this is precisely my point.  There is a theory of charismatic
leadership, developed by Max Weber and others, that is both different
from, and to the extent that it overlaps with the everyday use of the
term, more specific than that usage.

Charismatic leadership, according to this more rigorous definition, is
associated with *an informal organizational structure, centered on the
charismatic leader*.  So leaders of routinized, bureaucratized
organizations cannot be charismatic by definition.

If you prefer to use a broader, everyday sense of the term, then I would
argue that effective leadership can take many forms.  There are the more
visible spokesperson sort of roles (which might be called charismatic),
and the behind-the-scenes organizational builder sort of roles, and
others, and they rarely all come together in one person.  A team of
leaders with various complementary attributes, in my experience, is
best.  It doesn't always, even usually, exist.  This "team" can be called
a critical mass, but that gets into another rigorous theory of social
movements (see Marwell and Oliver for starters).

[What I am saying about effective leadership in movements, by the way,
applies regardless of ideology -- effective leadership is just as
necessary, for instance, among anarchists as among anyone else.  I throw
this in as a response to the last post.]

RH
_________________________________________

Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@juno.com
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org
http://egroups.com/group/fixgov