[P2P-F] Fwd: A Powerful New Theory of Social Change

Sun Jan 26 03:27:56 CET 2014

very rich essay which includes a cririque of marxism as a reductionist way
of seeing the world, with explorations of the importance of mutual
recognition

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rabbi Michael Lerner <rabbilerner.tikkun at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Subject: A Powerful New Theory of Social Change
To: Michelsub2004 at gmail.com

  [image: Tikkun Banner]         [image: Tikkun Team]

Editor's Note:    Peter Gabel's article below, a powerful critique  of
Marxism and other theories of social change,  will completely change your
idea of what "spiritual" means and show you how relevant it is to
developing a strategy to change the political, economic and social
realities of the world. This is not the "first get your inner life together
and later worry about changing the world" kind of spirituality--it is an
example of how spiritual consciousness can directly contribute to social
transformation. Peter Gabel is one of the most brilliant thinkers in the
progressive world, and his article (below)  captures some of what makes him
so creative, as well as restates the spiritual progressive worldview he
helped develop in a powerful new way. If you didn't read it yet in the
print edition of *Tikkun*, you can read it here.

If you are neither a Tikkun subscriber nor a member of the NSP Network of
Spiritual Progressives, reading this will show you why you really ought to
be joining (members of the NSP get a free print subscription and your
membership helps keep our spiritual progressive movement  and our amazing
magazine going). Please join by clicking
here<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=HpQ5o3%2B5XFqoesqUjViyAb5jThmd283X>.
 Or at least Subscribe by clicking
here<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=QyuJ%2BFnJQfY%2FyEcddIuV8b5jThmd283X>.
 And if you join, you can become active with us in our campaign to GET
MONEY OUT OF POLITICS AND
ELECTIONS<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9H%2FQLhM0%2F32mLZ7fS0%2B6AL5jThmd283X>(through
our ESRA--Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution), our campaign for a GLOBAL MARSHALL
PLAN<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=16fvsJeY4VtkFPwLFneU%2B75jThmd283X>based
on the supposition that it is generosity, not military domination,
that will provide us with lasting security, and our campaign for an
open-hearted
reconciliation between Israel and Palestine and an end to the Occupation of
the West Bank<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=DqnJ3mi1pdvqUtlF6ljTVr5jThmd283X>.
NO--YOU CANT GET TIKKUN  AT YOUR LOCAL BOOKSTORE OR NEWSSTAND because
unless you've insisted that they carry it, they don't any more (but you do
insist, tell them to order it through Ingram Distributors). And NO IT's NOT
ON LINE. The articles in the print magazine are only accessible on line by
people who subscribe or are members of the Network of Spiritual
Progessives. So we are sending you this one so you get an idea of the
quality of discourse you are missing--and because Peter Gabel's piece gives
you an idea of the kind of thinking that you rarely hear in the Left in the
Western world!

IF you ARE a subscriber or NSP member how about buying gift subscriptions
for all your friends--even your most cynical friends will be shocked at the
sophistication of articles in Tikkun, with writers like Bill McKibben,
Harriet Fraad, Aryeh Cohen, Amy Lefy-Lyons, Gar Alperovitz, Eli Zaretsky,
Gary Dorrien, Henry Giroux, Robert Bellah, Elizabeth Schussle Fiorenza,
Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi, Brian McLaren, Rabbi Zalman Schachter Shalomi, Daniel
Boyarin, Stephen Zunes, Svi Shapirot, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Noam Chomsky,
lWalter Brueggemann, Riane Eisler, David Korten, Hans Kung, Letty Cottin
Pogrebin, Marge Pericy, Duglas Rushkoff, C.K. Williams, Jonathan Granoff,
Donna Schaper, Georgia Kelly and many many more.

*A Spiritual Way of Seeing **by Peter Gabel*

Most of the theories and narratives we use to understand social reality
assume that the material world is the main shaping influence over that
reality—economics with its emphasis on goods; evolution with its emphasis
on physical survival; or think even of the recent presidential campaign
with its emphasis on jobs as the defining issue in determining how people
will vote. I don’t deny the obvious importance of the material dimension of
existence, but I find that theories such as these are often blind to the
spiritual dimension of social life: by focusing wholly on humans’ desire
for things, they fail to perceive the power of humans’ desire for love,
community, solidarity, and connection with others, or as I will explain
shortly, for “mutual recognition” of our common humanity as authentic
Presence.

Where we place our emphasis in interpreting the world is critical to being
able to act together to influence historical events in a positive way and
help to create a better world—a world more capable of realizing the
yearnings of the human soul. Or in other words, our “social theory” is
central to our capacity for effective and meaningful social action, in the
sense that social theory is really nothing more than a way of seeing, and
in order to do the right thing, to devote our energies in the time that we
are here to worthwhile projects that are most likely to improve our
collective lives and the world that we collectively inhabit, we must learn
to see what is going on in front of us in a way that allows us to interpret
its social meaning as accurately as possible.

*Freud and Melancholia*

The stakes involved in choosing between different social theories and
narratives can be illustrated by a discussion of Lars von Trier’s
*Melancholia*—a movie that has received a great deal of attention from
critics and moviegoers. In this remarkable film, a woman named Justine,
played by Kirsten Dunst, gets married in a wedding ceremony that is both
extraordinarily opulent (vast sums of money are spent by her brother-in-law
to assure that this is the happiest day of her life) and yet profoundly
alienating in the sense that virtually all the characters, including
Justine’s parents and other family members, are represented as unhappy,
selfish, and preoccupied with the details of the wedding ritual over the
substance of any profound human bond.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to most of the guests but somewhat mystically
understood by Justine and less mystically and more scientifically so by her
brother-in-law, a planet that has been hidden behind the sun has somehow
shifted in its alignment and is rapidly heading toward earth. Although
Justine is obviously deeply disturbed and disengaged while enduring the
experience of her own wedding, she becomes more centered and present in the
days following the wedding as the danger of collision with the errant
planet—named Melancholia—becomes more likely. In the final scene, as
Justine sits holding hands with her frightened sister and innocent young
nephew in a hastily constructed “magic cave” that Justine has told the boy
will protect them all, it is Justine who seems spiritually prepared for the
apocalyptic end that awaits them and all of the world. While during the
early part of the film, Justine appeared to be the one doomed to
disorientation and debilitating melancholia, at the end it is she who
becomes at one with the profound and sudden ending of both the collective
life and the collective history and culture of the human experience, of
human existence itself.

The theory that has informed most of the reviews of *Melancholia* has been
quite explicitly Freudian, perhaps because Freud wrote a very famous book
called *Mourning and Melancholia *that addressed the way that loss—in
particular unmourned loss—can create a pathological attachment to the lost
object that leads one to become in-dwelling and withdrawn, to lose all
interest in life, and to become quite literally vitiated of human vitality.
This meaning of the word “melancholia,” drawn from Freud’s good work on the
subject, has then been projected into the movie, so that Justine is
identified as deeply “depressed” by the disturbed nature of her conditioned
upbringing, which reaches a kind of apotheosis in the dysfunctional and
dysphoric wedding ceremony. This depression is interpreted as a
manifestation of her melancholia, her loss of vitality and interest in
life. In Freud’s analysis, the failure to work through the experience of
loss through the process of mourning both expresses and reinforces an
infantile belief on the part of the sufferer that he or she is responsible
for the loss of the loved object, and this guilt not only becomes a primary
cause of the sufferer’s unrelenting attachment to the lost object, but also
engenders an unconscious need for punishment to partially expiate the
guilt, or better, to satisfy the guilt fixation.

For the critics who adapt the Freudian way of seeing to the movie, Justine
improves at the movie’s climactic ending because that long-deserved
punishment has finally arrived in the form of the planetary collision.
While the brother-in-law commits suicide and the sister cries, Justine is
fully present emotionally and awaits the end with equanimity and perhaps
even joy. While not all critics adopt all of the components of the Freudian
theory in analyzing the film, there is a consensus that the film is
“depressing,” that the characters are dreadful human beings, that Justine
is a deeply disturbed woman, and that it portends one eccentric but
talented director’s vision of the end of the world.

While the Freudian interpretation is true to the facts of the movie in the
sense that the existing facts can be “seen” in a way that makes them
consistent with the theory, the interpretation is in my opinion completely
wrong. To my way of seeing, Justine’s reactions to the alienation and
dehumanization of her social environment are understandable and even
courageous, although because she is presented to us as socially absorbed
into this world—as a kind of passively willing participant in her dreadful
wedding ceremony—she is far more isolated and far crazier as a result than
she would have been had she instead, say, joined the women’s movement or
Occupy Wall Street. But considering the pathological social place in which
she found herself as a thoroughly isolated woman, it was obvious to me that
she was throwing all of herself into her resistance to what was being made
of her from the outside. Her recovery during the course of the movie as a
result of the approach of the planet, to my eyes, manifested her emergence
into mental health, because the arrival of the errant planet would liberate
both her and also all of humanity from the social alienation, brutality,
and inauthenticity into which our world had fallen. In a beautiful final
scene, it is Justine who can reassure her little nephew of his security in
the magic cave they construct out of sticks, because this magic cave, in
which Justine, her nephew, and her sister hold hands as the end approaches,
is a new little world of authenticity and love and spiritual recovery of
their simple common humanity. I left the theater with a full heart and a
smile that I could not get off of my face, and I felt that my true self—the
authentic longings of my soul—had been recognized and confirmed by
Justine’s final beauty and presence in the face of death and of the limits
of existence itself. We really are here together if only we will embrace
one another.

Now, as I say, there is nothing wrong with the Freudian theory, or the
related “the movie-is-depressing” theory, on its use of the facts. Exactly
the problem of all mistaken but well-articulated theories about the meaning
of social events is that they express a way of seeing that *fits the
facts.*What is wrong with these theories is not that they cannot
explain things,
but rather that they *can* explain them and that they do so incorrectly.
The error in these incorrect or faulty or too-limited ways of seeing is
that rather than illuminate the meaning of social events as they actually
are, they impose upon these events an order that renders this true meaning
invisible.

*Marxism as a Way of Seeing*

For example, Marxism does a brilliant job of presenting historical events
through a theory, a way of seeing, that fits the facts of these events. In
Marx’s own works and the many works that have followed in his tradition, we
see the myths of various historical periods penetrated by a critical way of
seeing that shows the shaping power of underlying economic factors, the
hidden organization of society adapted in each epoch to the production and
distribution of material goods under conditions of material scarcity. As
soon as this organization produces a surplus, it is appropriated by the
class of people that has gained power within a particular means of
production, generating a struggle for survival between classes that is
obscured by universal myths and rationalizations—ideologies—that legitimize
the status quo and cover up what’s really going on. In the Marxist
framework, its way of seeing, everything is accounted for: economics, law,
religion, culture, gender roles, racism, conquest and domination of other
cultures, everything.

But Marxism is nevertheless wrong, not because it cannot explain events,
but because the superimposition of this way of seeing on historical events
is not true to what we might call the social being of the events as they
really are, in their being. Yes, there is a formation of classes, there is
a competitive division of labor, there is appropriation of the economic
surplus in unjust ways, there are masking ideologies that rationalize
unjust social relations and transform might into right… but this turns out
not to be taking place because of the material struggle for survival but
because of a Fear of the Other that has been injected into history and
reproduced across generations in ways not reducible to material factors
alone, or even primarily. Yet if you come to believe in the Marxist way of
seeing, if you are understandably seduced by how brilliantly it fits the
facts while appealing to your instinctive sense that the world, as it is,
is profoundly unjust, then you will be led in wrong directions by it—for
example, you may think that an economic revolution that reorganizes
productive relations is the key element to overcoming injustice and
fulfilling human possibilities. Since coercion may be involved in such a
process, that mistaken way of seeing—adopted with the best of
intentions—may lead to tragic and even terrible consequences.

Nothing that I say should be understood to minimize the human suffering
manifested in the history of class society—the suffering from poverty,
material inequality, exploitation of economic resources and human labor,
and the illegitimate hierarchies through which rulers in each historical
period have dominated the ruled. Nor do I mean to minimize the human need
for food, shelter, and other elements of basic material survival which
continue to cause suffering for much of the world’s population—for example,
the 2.5 billion people who cannot obtain enough food to receive adequate
nutrition each day, according to United Nations estimates. Rather what I am
saying is that these forms of material suffering and injustice are
manifestations of our historical legacy of our alienation from one
another—that the “cause” is to be found in the social-spiritual separation
expressive of an underlying failure of mutual recognition that expresses
itself existentially as Fear of the Other.

*The Worldview of Liberal Democracy*

Or consider Marxism’s main historical competitor in the last two hundred
years and its at least temporary conqueror on the historical stage, liberal
individualism and its political corollary, liberal democracy. In
liberalism, we are given a way of seeing in which the social world in front
of us is perceived as a vast collection of individuals, each pursuing his
or her own chosen destiny, each free and equal to all the others, who
combine to form collective life through private agreements and through one
great public agreement, the social contract that is formed and realized
through the act of voting in public elections. Within the liberal
worldview, it’s acknowledged that we are each born into families and must
be nurtured properly through contact with others in order to achieve our
individuation, our unique and sane and mature stature as individual
participants in the liberal social order; but the outcome of good-enough
child-rearing is self-evidently the production of the separate and free
actor, who can believe whatever he or she wishes and do whatever he or she
wants, as long as this free action does not involve improper interference
with others through improper deception or duress or other forms of
coercion. Material inequalities are explained by variations in ability or
the luck of the draw, but the main point here is that whatever aspects of
social life might be considered unfulfilling or unjust in liberal society
can eventually be solved by the system itself: because it is the free
choice of the collection of individuals themselves that will determine the
existence of this lack of fulfillment or injustice, if they want to they
will eventually—actually as soon as possible considering the commonsense
challenges that confront human life with limited knowledge—do something
about it. If we destroy the planet through nuclear war or environmental
destruction, this would not invalidate the liberal worldview—it would
simply reveal, with pathos, that human individuals are too burdened with
inherent limitations, understood as expressions of evil or ignorance or
simply biological or psychological frailties, to make a success of our own
destiny as individual beings. The result of the liberal calculus would be
simply that we tried and failed, but not that we had the wrong theory, that
we were blinded by an incorrect way of seeing what has been going on.

Like Marxism, liberalism fits the facts perfectly; it can account for the
feeling of personhood, social formations, economic life, the existence of
law and government, the justifications for collective actions of all kinds,
including war and environmental destruction, criminal conduct, personal
unhappiness, and so on ad infinitum. The problem with liberalism is not
that it doesn’t fit the facts, but rather that it does fit the facts, and
by doing just this obscures the true reality of the totality of phenomena
that it projects itself onto.

We are not actually each individuals thrown amidst a vast collection of
other individuals that as a mere collection comprise the social world, the
world of social existence, but are rather mutually constituting social
beings perpetually knitting each other together through the
inter-experience of mutual recognition into a fabric of interrelatedness
that is social through and through. The reason that we feel so much like
individualized entities is that we have inherited from prior generations a
Fear of the Other, a fear of one another, that envelops us in the illusion
of separation at a distance. While we can be grateful to liberalism and
those who helped to build a world based on it for helping us to overcome
the limitations of other earlier ways of seeing that caused often terrible
human suffering and social injustice—ways of seeing such as the Divine
Right of Kings, the natural superiority of the aristocracy, the superiority
of the white race, the superiority of men over women, or of straights over
gays—it is important to see that its very completeness as a social theory
functions to render invisible the cause of our isolation and despair, our
pathological destruction of the natural world, our infliction of starvation
on the 25,000 people (many of them children) who die on the planet from
lack of food every day, our imminent danger of obliterating each other with
nuclear weapons that persists each day, all as if these were inevitable
consequences of the way things are and have to be.

*A Social-Spiritual Way of Seeing*

In this article, as well as in my new book, *Another Way of Seeing: Essays
on Transforming Law, Politics, and Culture (Quid Pro Books)*, from which
this piece is adapted, I am offering one expression of a worldwide effort
now taking place to bring another theory, another way of seeing, to the
forefront of human life. The central aspect of this new postliberal,
post-Marxist way of seeing is to begin from the interior of our awareness
to grasp the “within” of the intersubjective life-world into which we have
been thrown and into which we are, in the words of philosopher Martin
Heidegger, always already in-mixed. What we find by this
interior-to-interior method—from beginning inside ourselves and from that
interior self-transparency going forward by intuition and understanding to
the inside of the world we are trying to see—is that human beings actually
exist in a psycho-spiritual world in which they seek not primarily food,
shelter, or the satisfaction of material needs, but rather the love and
recognition of other human beings, and the sense of elevated meaning and
purpose that comes from bringing that world of intersubjective connection
into being. Of course the satisfaction of material needs is indispensable
to our physical survival, but please see that our survival is different
from our *existence*—our survival is the background, the indispensable
precondition of our existence, and if it is threatened we can be driven to
whatever extreme is necessary to preserve this existence. But our existence
itself is a manifestation of our social being that a) is fully present to
itself and others, and b) exists only by virtue of our relation to the
presence of others as the source of our completion. When I say that we are
social beings, therefore, I mean that we do not really exist as individuals
except to the extent that our individuality is one pole of our existence in
relation to others, and the central longing of our life, immanent within
our very existence as social beings, is to be fully recognized by the other
in an embrace of love and to recognize that other with the same grace.
Insofar as we must maintain the preconditions of our existence, we are
motivated by the material need for survival, but our existence itself is
animated by the desire to realize ourselves as social beings through
connection with others, through the grace of love and mutual recognition.

Taken to the level of an overall social theory, this way of seeing—a way
of seeing that bridges the interior of the social person to the interior of
that person’s surrounding (or historical) group—produces some core insights
about social life that shape the perspective in the essays in *Another Way
of Seeing *on law, politics, public policy, and culture. Let me summarize
the first two of these insights here.

First, we are all animated by the desire for mutual recognition, for a
transparent connection to others in which we become fully present to each
other, anchored in each other’s gaze in much the way that the German
theologian Martin Buber described in his book *I and Thou.* I aspire to see
you and to exist in relation to you not as a mere “you over there,” as a
mere passing or glancing presence going by, but as a full presence both
there and here, the very completion of myself insofar as we emerge into a
We that is neither fleeting nor in danger of dissolving back into
reciprocal solitudes corroded by mistrust and fear. The We is not a fusion
or erasure of the individual person, but a realization or completion of the
social person in authentic reciprocity.

Second, the world that we have been born into and have inherited is
primarily characterized by the denial of this desire for mutual
recognition, in the sense that we are primarily in flight from each other
and experience each other as a threat. But the threat that we experience is
not of “destruction” in the Darwinian or even Marxist sense of a struggle
for material resources, but rather the threat of nonrecognition or
ontological humiliation. When we pass each other with blank gazes on the
street, punctuated by furtive steals of a passing look, our entire
existential state as social beings is revealed to us—namely, that we are
each, or both, encapsulated in solitude because we are pulled outward and
toward each other by the desire for mutual recognition (the furtive glances
*toward* each other that we each experience as compulsory), and at the same
time feel compelled to deny this desire and look away, “keep our distance,”
because of the immanent anxiety that the other will not reciprocate this
desire for mutual recognition. This denial of our core need and desire as
social beings for essential authentic reciprocity, for love in its deepest
sense of essential affirmation and sight, is actually what creates the
massive material injustice that Marxism and its allied ways of seeing
correctly name and analyze—it is our social alienation taken as a
collective totality that creates and reproduces the worldwide socioeconomic
system.

Were the populations of the world not infected with this legacy of fear of
nonrecognition and humiliation by the Other, we would really without great
difficulty solve the material problems that generate so much unnecessary
suffering and pain. In other words, the world is the way it is not because
people want power or wealth or control over material things, but because
they cannot experience their deeper longing for love, for authentic
vulnerability and recognition, and for the coming-into-presence that would
be the healing of this legacy and the transcendence of it. It is our
alienation that causes material injustice rather than the converse, and it
is in giving birth to a new politics that overcomes our alienation that we
will overcome material inequality and injustice. But such a new form of
politics can emerge only from a new way of seeing that makes our
social-spiritual alienation visible in perception, thought, and reflection.

*The Divided Self*

Take a moment to consider the roles and masks that we feel compelled first
to don and then to permanently inhabit—think of the newscaster, the
weatherman, the president of the United States, this man dressed in one
uniform or that woman dressed in another, the father, the therapist, the
lawyer, and so forth. Although of course we can embody these roles in a way
that is infused with our authentic presence, insofar as we are alienated
from each other, or in a kind of flight from each other’s recognition,
these roles become artificial holograms of being, pseudo-manifestations of
our sociality in which we seek to master and deflect the other’s presence
by “playing the role” from a conditioned outside that we are continually
monitoring from within with an anxiety signal when we veer from it. In this
mode of what the psychiatrist R.D. Laing called the “divided self,” we deny
our own desire for authentic intersubjective connection by throwing up the
role or mask that we have been over a lifetime coerced into identifying
with on pain of loss of what social connection there is, while threatening
the other with a comparable erasure should he or she seek to become present
as a Thou. Why do we constantly threaten each other so? Because any other
course of action requires a vulnerability to the other that risks the
ontological humiliation of not being recognized, of not being loved and
accepted and affirmed in our existence when we are utterly laid bare as
longing for that recognition and love and affirmation before the other’s
power to grant it or withhold it.

This leads me to five additional core insights produced by the spiritual
way of seeing that I am proposing:

1)    The denial of the desire for mutual recognition is not merely
something that is transmitted between two persons—between you and me as we
pass each other on the street—but is rather a vast, rotating social field,
in which every furtive glance and blank gaze and nonpresent (elusive)
role-performance is taken as what’s real by each of us as we experience it.
Or to put this slightly differently, every such act of flight from each
other, every false way of being designed to conceal our true longing, is
coupled with an implicit meta-statement that “this is who I really am” and
“this is who you must recognize me as and who you really should and must be
yourself.” Pre-reflectively and more or less instantly, we are each
perpetually internalizing the social reality and necessity of what the
other is transmitting to us, and we then—in what I am calling a “rotating”
fashion—re-externalize toward others as real what we have internalized from
the others passing us or surrounding us emerging in and out of our social
field, from infancy forward, because the social field of the whole of
existence, of the life-world in which we coexist, forms a mutually
influencing circle that is our conditioning. I call this aspect of our
social reality the “circle of collective denial” that keeps us spiritually
imprisoned in our separation, a circle that each of us co-creates because
as social beings actually constituted by each other, we cannot but
externalize what we have internalized even as we long to and struggle to
transcend it.

2)    Seen in this light, all of social life as we have inherited it thus
far is a legacy of social alienation that separates us, rotating through
the circle of collective denial and manifested in an infinite number of
historical forms, but that we are constantly simultaneously seeking to
transcend in the fullness of mutual recognition, in the simple completion
of love that every newborn child anticipates at birth and manifests in the
pure joyful, anticipatory presence in his or her eyes. History is,
therefore, not a straight developmental process, but rather a spiral of
social being, in which up to this time the desire for mutual recognition
has occasionally broken through the constraints of denial of that desire
that seek to contain it, erupting into social movements that ricochet
across the globe often very rapidly in a great spirit of hope and optimism.
At these moments the spiral whirls upward and forward and a true revolution
of our social existence becomes possible, the word “revolve” referring in
reality to the turning outward of our withdrawn state toward finally
grounding each other in the fullness of our reciprocal presence. And at
every moment, in every interaction and social encounter, this breakthrough
subtends the moment as a potentiality. But the weight of the past, and its
claim on our loyalty to past patterns of safer and more impoverished forms
of recognition, also at every moment work to keep us sealed in what I
elsewhere have called “The Pact of the Withdrawn Selves.” We have formed
vast hierarchies of disciplinary control of our social presence that we
call the class system, or the legal system, or family values, or an
infinity of other macro and micro examples from the schools to
corporations, whose limiting, unconscious spiritual aim is to contain the
impulse toward the social fulfillment of mutual recognition and the
vulnerability and threat of humiliation attendant to it.

3)    Insofar as we each experience this internal conflict between the
desire for mutual recognition and the need to deny this very desire, for
fear of nonrecognition by the other and the vulnerability attendant to it,
we collectively conspire to form imaginary group identities that
simultaneously provide us with a sense of substitute connection or
community and serve to reinforce our collective denial—or better, to seal
off our longing for the authentic mutuality of I and Thou in community by
an allegiance to an imaginary community that both substitutes for and
encloses/represses that authentic longing. Here I am speaking of the
“inflated balloon” variety of patriotism, nationalism, ethnic purity,
sexual or gender identity, profession-ism—really any form of imaginary
group cohesion that conceals—or more accurately, *reveals by concealing*—an
inner absence of presence, a hole at the center of the imaginary group’s
collective being.

In my book *The Bank Teller and Other Essays on the Politics of Meaning*,
in the essay entitled “The Meaning of the Holocaust: Social Alienation and
the Infliction of Human Suffering,” I show the way this type of imaginary
identity emerged within Nazi Germany as an inflation of an illusory imago
of community concealing an inner terror of humiliation, the goal of which
was precisely to conceal the vulnerability to that anticipated threat that
existed *inside *the puffed-up, grandiose Nazi imago of unity and
connection. And I show in historical context how each person given over to
the illusory bond of the imago makes allegiance to this false unity
compulsory on all others, in the service of sealing off the deeper longing
for and fear of true recognition—in such a manner that no one is allowed to
see the bond’s illusory nature because it is manifested as “real.” Even
more, when the collective imago is inflated to this extent, it is also
manifested as “perfect” to prevent any challenge to it—not to maintain the
validity of the imago as such, but to seal off the vulnerability to the
longing that underlies it. While the Nazi situation was the extreme and
perhaps limiting example of what I am describing, this impoverishment of
social being is manifested also in the way, say, boys in my childhood
behaved in the locker room in aspiring to their male identities, or the way
the corporate lawyer carries his briefcase and speaks too loud at the
meeting (“We lawyers” speak as if we’re in charge)—in other words, in all
forms of false social unity in which we as social persons co-construct a
carapace or shell of ungrounded or artificial social connection that both
covers over and seals off the true being that underlies and also
unconsciously observes and monitors it.

4)    Accompanying the giving over of our social being, in alienation, to
the false group is always what is commonly called the demonization of the
Other, in which the always-experienced threat of dissolution of the false
group, which is at every moment unstable because it is in fact illusory and
sustained by the requirement of compulsory allegiance only, is channeled
into a projection out on to some Other that supposedly is the true source
of the threat to the group’s artificial unity. Whether it is the Jews, the
gays, the blacks, the women, the students, the unions, or, to use the Dr.
Seuss example that I use in one of the essays in my book, the people who
butter their toast on the bottom instead of the top, these Others are
sacrificed not because they are actual human beings who are rejected and
expelled for their true nature, but because they are turned into carriers
of the threat that inhabits and corrodes the false group itself, the threat
of its own unmasking. The false group, an illusory unity of communion,
always defends itself against exposure by pretending that some projected
Other is a threat to its solidity and infinite continuation, when the true
threat is exposure of the underlying vulnerability to a longing too painful
to acknowledge. The choice of the particular carrier of this threat is
always shaped by historical conditions—like the legacy of anti-Semitism in
Germany in the case of the Nazis—but the underlying dynamic is a
characteristic of social alienation itself: an imaginary group cannot
sustain itself without a demonized Other because it must by its very nature
as imaginary, as illusory, as false, have a projected outlet to enable it
to continually master and conceal its own artificiality.

5)    Finally, and this is of central importance to the optimism and moral
direction—let me call it the moral optimism—that I hope comes through in
what I write here, this entire description of the process of social
alienation that accounts for so much human suffering is at every moment
countered by the desire to transcend it, by the inherent goodness of every
human being that codetermines and transcends the way each of us manifests
our presence in every moment of our existence. Here again please recall the
presence of every newborn child during the first years of life, the full
presence of the child’s radiance and life-force as it is manifested in the
child’s whole way of being, in the full eyes, in the spontaneity of its
gestures and reaching out, in the search for the other’s loving gaze and
embrace and its willingness to make whatever meaningful sounds we make
(“language”) to be *with* us. This new-born being we always remain,
underneath the legacy of our alienated conditioning. What my friend Michael
Lerner and I (and now many others) call “spiritual activism” is collective
activism for social change that seeks through practical, present-day
actions to make manifest our deep longing for spiritual connection and to
partially realize that connection through a new form of spiritual politics.
For example, the Network of Spiritual Progressives that I am a part of
aspires to and presses for universal health care not simply because we need
doctors to care for our bodies, but because universal health care is a
necessary manifestation of our universal longing to recognize and care for
each other’s well-being and that of each other’s families and loved ones,
as well as to be similarly cared for ourselves: health care means *caring
about each other’s health*. Social Security is important not simply because
older people need financial help as they age, but as a manifestation of
intergenerational love and solidarity that elevates the communal
self-presence of the entire society. In these senses, as I say in the early
essays on law in *Another Way of Seeing*, I embrace Martin Luther King’s
definition of justice as “love correcting that which revolts against love.”

As I hope the last two brief examples demonstrate, the theory of social
being and social existence that I am summarizing here is therefore not a
theory that is “merely psychological” and divorced from the real world’s
problems and struggles. It is as fully engaged with the socio-economic and
political struggles of the world as, say, Marxism itself. What is different
about it is that it is based on a way of seeing human reality—in every
social interaction between two people and in the unfolding and development
of human groups as a whole—that places the spiritual dimension of social
existence at the center of our understanding of social phenomena and at the
center of our effort to transcend the problems that continue to limit and
constrain us. While these problems certainly also have a material and
economic dimension to them—the reality of children dying of starvation
around the world, the lack of adequate food and housing for so many in the
United States and around the world, and the vulnerability of the large
majority of the world’s population to having to face such material and
economic difficulties mean that it is obvious that the material dimension
of existence and the risk of scarcity impinges immensely on human life—this
material, economic dimension is a context of the body rather than an
essence of the consciousness-in-action that is social-being-in-the-world.
Social existence is constituted out of the spirituality of social
consciousness-in-the world, within the intersubjective flow of recognition,
of love and the denial of love; and as much as the survival and well-being
of the physical body is central to the context of the unfolding of this
social inter-experience, across history and in the present moment, any
theory or way of seeing that focuses primarily on this material element as
the central descriptive or explanatory factor is missing the essence of
social being itself as a manifestation of the human spirit and its struggle
to fully realize itself, always in social form.

*Real-Life Applications of Spiritual-Political Theory*

In my upcoming book, which will be published this May, I expand on how the
theories I have just laid out can be applied to particular circumstances:
law and justice; politics as the human co-creation of the world through
elections and other forms of group formation; public policy in the context
of how to think about war and peace, gay rights and sexual identity, the
labor movement and social change, and the spiritual foundations of science;
and finally the meaning of cultural phenomena, from the work of one great
philosopher influential to me (Jean-Paul Sartre), to baseball, to
photography, to living with illness as a cultural reality. The essays, in
other words, are applications of the theory to a wide variety of real-life
examples rather than explications of the theory itself. It is in the nature
of the intersubjective, spiritual-political theory that I am proposing that
its truth-value to you depends upon whether you can recognize it as true
rather than any analytical proof or capacity to explain diverse facts that
is the measure of the truth of more scientific ways of seeing and thinking.

All phenomenological or descriptive theory depends not upon a theory’s
ability to explain facts from premises or theoretical postulates, but
rather upon its self-evidence, upon its capacity to produce an experience
of recognition in the reader. Since the theory itself begins with a
social-spiritual understanding of the very thing that the theory is
addressing and talking about, the only claim to validity that it can make
upon the reader is the extent to which the reader can recognize it as
adequate to fully *reveal* what is being described. While a descriptive
theory can be true even if nobody understands it or recognizes it as true,
it can become a valid form of social knowledge only through its capacity to
generate an experience of recognition in a reader who him- or herself
shares the very being of the “object of the investigation,” of the thing
being talked about.

That is why, in both *The Bank Teller and Other Essays on the Politics of
Meaning *and *Another Way of Seeing: Essays on Transforming Law, Politics,
and Culture*, I have written essays about very practical matters like (in
the former) a bank teller caught in a corporate hierarchy, the relationship
between imaginary forms of community and the holocaust, the limitations of
Darwin’s theory of evolution, the relationship of the 60s to the rise of
Ronald Reagan, the meaning of a Maalox commercial—and in *Spiritual
Activism*, the constitution and the legal system, John Kerry’s and Barack
Obama’s “presence” (or the lack of it), the war in Iraq, sexual fear and
gay marriage, opening day at a Giants-Dodgers game. Each essay is meant to
illuminate a world that I “see” through the lens of the theory—the way of
perceiving and then thinking and describing—that I have presented in
summary form above.

In the two books taken together, I am seeking to trace the historical
development of the vicissitudes of mutual recognition—its social flow and
blockage in the context of a quite volatile, ongoing, historically specific
struggle of hope against fear—as this struggle has unfolded from the 1950s
through the present moment in 2012, from JFK through Barack Obama as
embodied expressions of precisely these spiritual-political
flows-in-tension as they have been manifested through political leaders,
and in the area of public policy from, for example, the rise of creationism
as part of the New Right to the emergence of other more emancipatory
spiritual approaches to science some twenty years later and the
relationship of both (as reaction-formation in the case of creationism, as
continuation of the liberatory impulse in the case of the sacred
biologists) to the breakthrough of recognition that actually was the 1960s.

In my lifetime, it has been primarily the movements of the 1960s that have
generated the upward spiral of hope and authentic mutual recognition in the
historical process, just as the 1930s did so for the generation that
preceded mine. During the period from roughly 1965-1974, a parallel
awareness emerged in the United States and ricocheted across the world very
rapidly, a propulsion of spiritual presence that provided people like me
with a new ground to stand our lives on. For precisely this reason, because
of the threat posed to traditional and more alienated forms of connection
that nevertheless were also conditions of social membership and spiritual
safety, the 1960s and the parallel ontological universe it gave birth to
also have generated a powerful defensive social reaction—in Freudian terms,
the reaction that the superego, in defense of the ego, always has to the
transcendent longings of the id. Within the social-spiritual way of seeing
the world, the upward movement of history is carried forward by such
breakthroughs, or to recall the Doors, by breaking on through to the other
side of the system of blocked connection. And these breakthroughs are never
fully forgotten in historical consciousness, even as they are resisted
through coerced deference to artificial conditioning, disciplinary
observation, cooptation, flight into irony, and direct violence, among
other expressions of the legacy of our alienation from our true loving
selves.

My work is an effort to help preserve the spiritual insight afforded to my
generation by an upsurge of the human spirit more powerful than the force,
existing not in Them but within each of us, that is trying to contain it.
One expression of that spiritual upsurge, that outbreak of social
connection, is the way of seeing social being and historical social life
that I try to give voice to here. Like Marxism and liberalism, I believe
that the descriptions in my work fit the facts of the realities they
describe, but in a way that I hope is truer to the social reality that they
describe because of the inclusion of the spiritual-political dimension that
the 1960s made visible in my lifetime and that may prefigure the kind of
seeing and thinking that will provide a basis for the next movement upward
to change the world.

###

Peter Gabel is editor at large of *Tikkun* and the author of *The Bank
Teller and Other Essays on the Politics of Meaning **and* *Spiritual
Activism: Essays on Transforming Law, Politics, and Culture *(available at
quidprobooks.com<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=U2LTdC1QUkQRqg7DlfaNZ75jThmd283X>and
tikkun.org/store).

        Click here to
unsubscribe<http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5fp8VFBqpCgi9su2y6YXxb5jThmd283X>

Contents Copyright 2012 Tikkun Magazine
2342 Shattuck Ave. #1200, Berkeley , CA 94704 Phone: (510)-644-1200 Fax:
(510)-644-1255
Email: magazine at tikkun.org Web: www.tikkun.org

[image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ ver
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/p2p-foundation/attachments/20140125/4a31f919/attachment-0001.htm 