Healing America’s Narratives: What’s Love Got to Do With It? Part 2

[Part of our ongoing exploration of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow, this essay continues our exploration of Chapter Twelve’s inquiry into the role of love — and its lack — in American culture. The book is available here.]

In Part 1 of this inquiry into love, we introduced Br. David Steindl-Rast’s, Dr. M. Scott Peck’s, and Marianne Williamson’s respective reflections that love is “the joyful acceptance of belonging,” “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth,” and the absence of fear.¹

With the intersection of these views of love as our starting point, let’s explore how we might observe the presence or absence of love and actually “practice” love in our own lives, and observe the presence or absence of love in others and decide how much time we want to spend being around and influenced by those whose behaviors discourage the healthy manifestation of love.

The previous post ended with these words: “With whom and what do you joyfully accept belonging? For whom are you willing to extend yourself? How does it feel — or might it feel — to live a moment, a day, a year, or lifetime in the absence of fear?” Each of these depictions of love can be observed and practiced.

To what extent do you joyfully accept belonging — to and with yourself, members of your family, your friends, colleagues, neighbors, pets, written, visual, and audible sources of information and entertainment, strangers, those you disagree with, and the natural world? How might you practice joy, acceptance, or belonging to and with any one of these?

To what extent are you willing to extend yourself in order to nurture your own growth or the growth of others? Where is the boundary beyond which you are not willing to extend? These questions are not intended to elicit guilt, shame, or inadequacy — no one can be all things for all people. Healthy boundaries are essential for a healthy life. A commitment to everyone and everything is most likely a commitment to no one and nothing.

How familiar are you with a feeling of no fear (or anxiety or worry)? What might an absence of fear feel like, and how might it manifest? Imagine a moment (or longer) during which what you habitually fear, worry, or hold anxiety about does not exist. Engage your senses — see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, and smell it — how does it look, feel, sound, taste, and smell? Is it light or heavy? Is it expansive or contracting? How might you practice letting go of fear, anxiety, or worry?

We’re not speaking here about the immediate, rational fear that comes up as the bear or large dog attacks, as the tornado or tsunami approaches, or as the gunshots ring out in the school, store, or church. We’re referring to the habitual, heavy, persistent state that arises not from an immediate threat, but from a pattern of attention to and concern about an uncertain future. How would it feel to let that go?

Love is always present. It becomes palpable when we let fear go.

My experience, ironically, is that this needs to be an ongoing practice. We must practice love — despite its pervasive presence.

_____

  1. The “joyful acceptance of belonging,” is from Br. David Steindl-Rast, Gratefulness: the Heart of Prayer, (Paulist, 1984), 167; “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth,” is from M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled, (Simon & Schuster, 1978), 81; and ‘the absence of fear’ (not a direct quote) is based on Marianne Williamson’s reflections on A Course in Miracles, (Foundation for Inner Peace, 1976, 1992) in A Return to Love, (HarperPaperbacks, 1993).

Healing America’s Narratives: What’s Love Got to Do With It?

[Part of our ongoing exploration of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow, this essay explores Chapter Twelve’s inquiry into the role of love — and its lack — in American culture. The book is available here.]

Regarding the subtitle’s question, the answer is, well, just about everything.

Over the course of some twenty years I paid attention to others’ views on love. I listened to friends and family, read fiction and nonfiction including scripture from various religions, and did my best to understand what I felt through my own direct experience. Three particular views among many spoke to me personally, and I “assembled” a working perspective on love that lives at the intersection of the three:

According to Br. David Steindl-Rast, Dr. M. Scott Peck, and Marianne Williamson’s reflections on A Course in Miracles respectively, love is “the joyful acceptance of belonging,” “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth,” and the absence of fear.¹

Throughout, amid, beneath, within, and above America’s collective national Shadow lurks a lack of love. Not that love doesn’t exist in the United States — it does — but where it is not lacking it most often manifests as an exclusive, conditional, qualified, and group-centric love.

We are willing to joyfully accept belonging with or to extend ourselves for the benefit of selected, but not all, others. Those other others we fear — sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, but fear them we do.

Where this leads, has led, and will lead us is toward a deeper, truer, more inclusive, and less conditional — if not unconditional — love. Within the developmental shorthand that points to our increasingly inclusive, balanced, comprehensive, and complex movement through it’s about me, it’s about us, it’s about all of us, and it’s about all that is perspectives, an it’s about me orientation is the earliest and least inclusive view available to us.

But without a healthy iteration of this view, which allows each of us to love our self and makes it possible to look in the mirror and authentically say, “I love you,” to the essence of our reflection (give it a try), self-love remains repressed as part of our Shadow — and this repression inevitably limits the fullness of our love for any other(s). In Teachings on Love, Thich Nhat Hanh made it clear that, “Until we are able to love and take care of ourselves, we cannot be of much help to others.”²

Choosing to extend one’s self in order to joyfully accept belonging as, to, and with the perfectly beautiful, blemished being each of us is strengthens our will to extend our selves on behalf of the perfectly beautiful, blemished beings you, they, all of us, and all that is are. Both the foundation of healthy self-love and the expansion beyond it are essential.

In, Outlaw Culture, bell hooks expressed being puzzled by folks who authentically confront one “domination” while often passively supporting or ignoring another. She pointed specifically to black men who fought against racial discrimination but ignored the plight of women, and to white women who were on the front lines of gender discrimination but ignored the racial discrimination against their black sisters. She observed that many activists act on behalf of self-interest, attempting to end “what we feel is hurting us,” rather than on behalf of “a collective transformation of society, an end to politics of dominations.” She concludes:

“This is why we desperately need an ethic of love to intervene in our self-centered longing for change. Fundamentally, if we are only committed to an improvement in that politic of domination that we feel leads directly to our individual exploitation or oppression, we not only remain attached to the status quo but act in complicity with it, nurturing and maintaining those very systems of domination.”³

She clearly states the necessity for a love that moves from embracing what concerns me or my particular us to the wider embrace of all of us and all that is. Sound familiar?

Consider the words of Siddhartha Gautama, passed down by many, including Gandhi and King: “For hatred can never put an end to hatred; love alone can. This is an unalterable law.”⁴ Remember the words attributed to Jesus Christ: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”⁵

In Across That Bridge, John Lewis acknowledged the roles of faith, patience, study, truth, action, peace, and reconciliation in his vision for change in the United States. He also made it clear that for those who studied, trained in, and practiced nonviolence, “not simply as a tactic, but as a way of authentically living our lives — our sole purpose was, in fact, love.”⁶

In response to a question from Krista Tippett in 2020, author Jason Reynolds defined antiracism in this way:

“…[it’s] simply the muscle that says that humans are human. That’s it. It’s the one that says, ‘I love you because you are you.’ Period. That’s all…. That element of ‘I love you because you are you’ should be the most human thing we know. It should be a natural thing to say, ‘Look, I love you, because you remind me more of myself than not.’”⁷

While simple on the surface, those last eight words are subtly sophisticated and quite challenging when engaged beyond the conceptual — in the everyday world with other human beings. The prospect that you remind me more of myself than not recalls Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s recognition that our work is not so simple as separating all the good folks from the evil. It is more complex in that each human heart — each of us — carries the potential for good and evil.⁸

With whom and what do you joyfully accept belonging? For whom are you willing to extend yourself? How does it feel — or might it feel — to live a moment, a day, a year, or lifetime in the absence of fear?

_____

  1. The “joyful acceptance of belonging,” is from Br. David Steindl-Rast, Gratefulness: the Heart of Prayer, (Paulist, 1984), 167; “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth,” is from M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled, (Simon & Schuster, 1978), 81; and ‘the absence of fear’ (not a direct quote) is based on Marianne Williamson’s reflections on A Course in Miracles, (Foundation for Inner Peace, 1976, 1992) in A Return to Love, (HarperPaperbacks, 1993).
  2. Thich Nhat Hanh, Teachings on Love. (Parallax, 1998), 21.
  3. bell hooks, Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations, (Routledge Classics, 2006/Routledge 1994), 243–44. In making her case for love, hooks also cites Peck’s “the will to extend one’s self…” view and King’s “I have decided to love,” 247.
  4. Eknath Easwaran, trans., The Dhammapada, (Nilgiri Press, 1985), 78.
  5. John 13:34, NIV Study Bible, (Zondervan, 1973, 1995).
  6. John Lewis, with Brenda Jones, Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America, (Hachette, 2012), 183.
  7. Jason Reynolds, “Imagination and Fortitude,” On Being with Krista Tippett, June 25, 2020, https://onbeing.org/programs/jason-reynolds-imagination-and-fortitude/
  8. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago. Accessed via https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/13750-if-only-it-were-all-so-simple-if-only-there

Healing America’s Narratives: The Race for Violence — 2023

Photo © by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

[Part of a series, this essay looks at some current events in the context of Healing America’s Narratives: the Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow — Now available]

The context of each of these “Healing America’s Narratives” posts is the collective national Shadow of the United States, as explored in detail in the book by that name. Briefly, America’s collective Shadow carries at least nine traits: ignorance, arrogance, fear, bigotry, violence, greed, excess, bullying, and untrustworthiness.

These nine traits can be observed throughout history, beginning with America’s three foundational subjugations — of womenNative Americans, and African Americans — and continuing up to the present day with the Vietnam Warpost-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, expanding inequality, the power of the insurance-pharmaceutical-medical-government-financial-lobbying industry (IPMGFL), patho-adolescent political polarizations, equal opportunity “otherings” of those “we” feel are not enough like “us,” and ambivalence about the planet — which may ultimately render all the other issues moot.

Today’s post focuses on the intersection of three stories that have emerged in March and April 2023:

  1. The shooting in Kansas City, Missouri of 16-year-old Ralph Yarl, by 84-year-old Andrew D. Lester: According to the Washington PostYarl mistakenly rang the doorbell on the wrong house in an attempt to pick up his siblings, who were visiting a friend. Lester, who is white, who is described as being “visibly upset” and “concerned for” Yarl, and who is being charged, claims to have been “scared to death” when he saw Yarl at his door. Yarl, who is black, was shot twice and is now recovering.
  2. The shooting death in Hebron, New York of 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis by 65-year-old Kevin Monahan. According to the Washington Post, Gillis and her friends accidentally pulled into the wrong driveway while they were looking for a friend’s house. Gillis and her friends never got out of their vehicle and were shot by Monahan from his porch while they were backing out of the driveway. As I post this, Monahan, unlike Lester, has expressed no remorse for his action.
  3. According to the Washington PostOklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt called for the resignation of four McCurtain County officials, “county commissioner Mark Jennings, Sheriff Kevin Clardy, sheriff’s investigator Alicia Manning and county jail administrator Larry Hendrix,” who, while speaking after a public meeting without realizing a reporter’s recorder was still on, “lamented about how they could no longer yank Black people out of the jail, ‘take them down to Mud Creek and hang them up with a … rope,’ according to McCurtain Gazette-News, which later published a recording online.”

To keep this simple(ish), we’ll focus on violence, guns, and race — each of which plays a direct role in two of these three stories.

Much of the media- and lobbyist-generated rhetoric concerning the two shootings has been on “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws, which does need attention and is fine as far as it goes, albeit in a superficial, ignore-both-the-details-and-the-larger-context kind of way.

Here are some details: Kaylin Gillis was shot and killed because the car she was in mistakenly turned into the wrong driveway. Remember the days of sorry to bother you — we’re lost — can you direct us towards… Ralph Yarl was shot because he mistakenly rang the wrong doorbell — thinking it belonged to his siblings’ friends. Remember the days of hi, I’m here to pick up my brother — oh, sorry, wrong address…can you tell me where… Kaylin Gillis is dead and her family and friends will live with the trauma of her death forever. Ralph Yarl and his family and friends will live with the trauma of his shooting forever — as will, it seems, his shooter.

Here’s a larger context: Everyday violence, including, but not limited to, gun violence is America’s normal.¹ Ring the wrong doorbell, pull into the wrong driveway, walk home, go shopping, go to your place of worship, go to school, go dancing, go to a concert, go to work. Risk getting shot.

That’s the guns and violence piece.

I’m a five-foot, six-inch, white-bearded, bald-headed, Italian American. Some would reduce me to being an old white guy, but Ta-Nehisi Coates and I know better. Had I mistakenly rang Andrew Lester’s doorbell, do you think he would have shot me? While I can’t know for sure, I’m pretty sure he would not have. Next question: was it Ralph Yarl’s youth, his height, or his skin pigmentation that most scared Andrew Lester? Some well intentioned folks might actually debate that — with obviously he shot because Yarl was black on one side and because of his age, he might have shot any tall, young stranger who appeared at his door on the other. Enjoy that debate.

Here’s the question we need to explore: what is it about the United States of America, and about the specific lives of Andrew Lester, Mark Jennings, Kevin Clardy, Alicia Manning, Larry Hendrix (and “others like them”)such that Lester would shoot a young, black stranger at his door, and that Jennings, Clardy, Manning, and Hendrix would find it appropriate to share or find meaning in their racist, violent imaginings — especially in the context of their roles in local government?

We need to own our individual and collective Shadows. Land of the free? Home of the brave? A beacon of democracy? Peace loving? Toward a more perfect union? Each of these can be true, especially if followed up with a sincere question and exploration: For whom?

_____

¹A small sample regarding America’s normal: 2014-2019: 14,515 gun deaths/year avg. (not suicide) = 40/day avg; 23,094 suicides by gun = 63/day; 37,609 total annual gun deaths = 103/day: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ 2014–2019: 45,835 suicides/year avg. = 126*/day: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcause.html Accessed September 28, 2021. Search criteria was: 2014–2019 / all causes, races, genders and ages. *Due to rounding, the suicides per day on the two sites differ by 1. I used the lower, 125, in the text.

Neil MacFarquhar, “Murders Spiked in 2020 in Cities Across the United States,” New York Times, September 27, 2021,https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/fbi-murders-2020-cities.html

Reis Thebault and Danielle Rindler, “Shootings never stopped during the pandemic: 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in decades,” Washington Post, March 23, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/23/2020-shootings/ Accessed September 28, 2021. Gun violence ties directly to the unhealthy masculine: Mike McIntire, Glenn Thrush and Eric Lipton, “Gun Sellers’ Message to Americans: Man Up,” New York Times, June 18, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/us/firearm-gun-sales.html

Healing America’s Narratives: Thank You, Tennessee

Photo © by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

[Part of our ongoing exploration of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow, this essay focuses on a school shooting in Nashville and related events in the Tennessee State Legislature that highlight our need for healing. The book is available here.]

On March 27, 2023 a man with a gun killed three adults and three children at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee. School shootings — and shootings in general — are, as you know, a regular part of the American landscape.

On April 7, the Tennessee State Legislature voted to remove two of the three legislators who had participated in a March 30 protest at the Tennessee Capitol calling for stricter gun legislation. The two ousted legislators were Justin Jones, 27, and Justin Pearson, 29 — both of whom are black. The third lawmaker, Gloria Johnson, 60, is white.

When asked why she thought she was not removed as were Jones and Pearson, Johnson replied, “I’ll answer your question — it might have to do with the color of our skin.”

As I write this piece on the morning of April 12, Representative Jones was reinstated after the Metropolitan Nashville Council unanimously voted to temporarily appoint him until a special election is held later this year. The Shelby County Board of Commissioners in Memphis was set to consider reappointing Representative Pearson in a meeting at 1:30pm CT on April 12 (today).

The Covenant School shooting and the removal of two young black men from the Tennessee House for protesting in favor of taking action that might limit gun violence lies at the intersection of two of the issues explored in Healing America’s Narratives — our culture of violence and the enslavement and subsequent subjugation of and discrimination against blacks.

No one, anywhere — at least no one I’ve encountered — wants the next inevitable shooting — whether at a school, a dance club, a movie theater, a bank, a concert, a store, a post office, or a place of worship. Yet, enough local, state, and national elected public servants, many of whom count on NRA and gun manufacturers’ and their PACs’ campaign donations, continue to thwart attempts to ban assault weapons, among other gun-safety measures.

America’s collective national Shadow remains grounded in ignorance, arrogance, fear, bigotry, violence, greed, excess, bullying, and untrustworthiness. Ignorance, arrogance, and greed allow lawmakers to prioritize campaign funding over the health and safety of their constituents. Ignorance, arrogance, fear, bigotry, and bullying convinced two-thirds of the predominantly white, Republican Tennessee House of Representatives to remove two black Democratic lawmakers — albeit temporarily.

This is not an indictment of the people of Tennessee. Obviously, many in the state disagree with their elected officials’ ousting Representatives Jones and Pearson.

Still, thank you, Tennessee, for this particular reminder — along with many other daily reminders from states both Red and Blue — of the work we have to do as a nation.

_____

Who are the Tennessee Three? Here’s what to know.

The Republican-led Tennessee House of Representatives voted Thursday to expel two Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Justin…

www.washingtonpost.com

Healing America’s Narratives: Unequal Protection of the Laws

[Part of our ongoing exploration of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow, this essay focuses on Chapter 10 and the role that money and celebrity play in subverting the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause. The book is available here.]

Photo © by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Donald Trump turned himself in to authorities yesterday following his indictment by the Manhattan district attorney. In anticipation of turning himself in, much as he had done leading up to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Trump incited his followers on social media to come to New York City and protest his indictment. Mostly it was journalists who showed up.

Legal proceedings are a way of life for Donald Trump. As a candidate in 2016 he had already been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits — a number that has subsequently increased. His spokespeople claimed that that’s just business as usual for similarly sized companies, but USA Today reported in 2016 that contrasted with billionaires Ed DeBartolo, Donald Bren, Stephen Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein, the 45th president was “involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined.”¹

The former president is, however, just a symptom of the deeper issue — how financial wealth, influence, access, and allegedly political fundraising² subvert the equal protection of the laws clause of the 14th Amendment. If his track record holds up, he won’t be convicted, and if he is convicted, the conviction and subsequent appeals process won’t significantly impact how he behaves. We’ll return to him at the end of this essay.

Here’s another example: If I had somehow found myself in the audience for the 2022 Academy Awards (unlikely), and I had made it onto the stage without being tackled by security personnel (very unlikely), and I had slapped the host in the face (extremely unlikely), I would have been arrested and convicted of battery at the very least. Both the attacker and the attacked were wealthy, accomplished entertainers and celebrities. No criminal charges were filed, and no civil action was taken.

The 14th Amendment attempts to guarantee equal protection of the laws under federal and state governments. It was passed in 1868 as a post-Civil-War attempt to prevent the states — especially the former Confederate states — from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” or denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It neither guarantees that equal access to competent legal representation is available to all regardless of financial status, nor that nongovernment actors have to treat those with lots of money and those with little or none equally.

As with most legislation, the amendment didn’t suddenly change people or things. The victims of thousands of lynchings, most of which occurred in the former slave states between 1870 and 1950, were deprived of due process, life, and liberty, often with the cooperation, and sometimes the participation, of local law enforcement.³ George Floyd’s 2020 lynching was actually perpetrated exclusively by four members of local law enforcement in Minneapolis. The equal protection clause seems to be working in that case, albeit in large part to public outcry regarding previous similar lynchings, but Mr. Floyd is still dead.

The U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and other laws do not guarantee the literal manifestation of anyone’s access, safety, or equality. Most Americans cannot afford thousands (or even tens) of lawsuits. Many Americans cannot afford one.

Wealth and title, whether earned or given, fulfill Orwell’s pig Napoleon’s revision of “all animals are equal” to “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”.

In America, that pig has it right.

Sure there are occasional exceptions — Harvey Weinstein for example — but they are just that, exceptions, and in Weinstein’s case, some of his victims, while not as wealthy as he, were wealthy, accomplished and well known.

Donald Trump’s more equal advantage is further enhanced by his past presidential status. As Richard Nixon clarified to David Frost in 1977, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Nixon was protected by his followers regarding Watergate, and Trump continues to be protected by his followers regarding the January 6 riots he incited. While he has used millions of political donor dollars to pay his own legal fees, there is no record of his providing legal or financial help for those arrested for following his direction to “stop the steal” on January 6.

Healing America’s Narratives explores the underlying issues of inequality — how the founders’ cultural givens elevated some voices and subjugated others. The elevation and subjugation continues in the third decade of the 21st century.

_____

  1. Nick Penzenstadler, and Susan Page, “Trump’s 3,500 lawsuits un-precedented for a presidential nominee,” USA Today, June 1, 2016 / updated October 23, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
  2. Maggie Haberman, “Trump Spent $10 Million From His PAC on His Legal Bills Last Year” New York Times, February 21, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/us/politics/trump-campaign-spending-pac-lawyer-bills.html#:~:text=The%20money%20that%20went%20to,and%202022%2C%20the%20filings%20show.
  3. Equal Justice Initiative, Lynching in America, 39–47. These pages provide statistics along with some narrative. The volume’s 90 pages provide a searing look into its title. It is also available online: https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report/

Healing America’s Narratives: Guns, Money, & Violence

[Part of our ongoing exploration Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow, this essay focuses on the roles violence and greed play in our collective Shadow. The book is available here.]

Tee shirt photo taken by the author.

The underlying premise in Healing America’s Narratives is that the United States we know in the third decade of the 21st century is inevitable. Viewed through the lenses of history and psychology, our violence, anxiety, depression, addiction, wealth disparity, bigotry, greed, excess, and our individual and collective trauma are anything but surprising.

America remains an experiment:

“We were conceived through the fertilization of ideas that gave voice to some and subjugated others. We were born through a bloodbath that pitted Brit against Brit on land stolen from indigenous peoples and developed by kidnapped Africans. We were raised on enslavement, land and property theft, massacre, betrayal, and peasant labor. We were reborn in an attempt to maintain the experiment through an anything-but-civil bloodbath with ourselves, from which we have yet to fully recover. And we were reborn yet again as a financial and military superpower as the result of a global bloodbath.

“We regularly perpetrate and perpetuate violence against others while refusing to acknowledge and address in any effective way the everyday violence we commit against ourselves…. Not yet 250 years old, we’re lost in a national adolescence, thinking we’re invincible and immortal — despite clear evidence that we are neither. Not only have we not recovered from our bloodbaths of birth and rebirth in any whole, integrated sense, we continue to choose to bathe ourselves and others in blood, literally and metaphorically, because that is the normal we know.”¹

Killing each other with guns is part of a larger legacy.

An online search today for “mass shootings in the US” returned 34,800,000 results in 0.38 seconds. A similar search, for “shootings in the US,” took more time — 0.51 seconds — and returned 2,400,000,000 results. Let’s say those numbers out loud: thirty-four million, eight hundred thousand, and two billion, four hundred million.

We are divided in our views of guns, and we debate interpretations of the Second Amendment while we kill each other and gun sales make a lot of money for a few people. All of our children, in every school district in the country practice active shooter drills. Just in case.

I don’t pretend to have solution to this problem. But as long as there is a moat filled with lobbyists around the Capitol and the protected royalty within need to fund their reelection campaigns, we will continue to sling meaningless slogans and talking points about what the founders wanted, good guys with guns, thoughts and prayers, this has to stop, not one more, and the greatest country in the world. At what?

At violence? Perhaps, yes.

_____

  1. Healing America’s Narratives, 325–26.

Healing America’s Narratives: Assumption, Fear, and Resistance to Change

[Part of our ongoing exploration of Chapter Eleven of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow, this essay explores why it often feels like we’re immune to change. The book is available here.]

Photo © by Suzanne D. Williams on Unsplash

We know that change can be unsettling, even scary, whether it’s exterior change imposed by events such as war, weather, or pandemic, or prospective interior change of beliefs, values, or view, beckoning for our attention. As we continue our exploration of Chapter Eleven’s foundational question, “So, now what?” we’ll briefly consider here a model of how and why we resist change.

For more than two decades, Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey have researched, developed, and implemented their “immunity to change” approach to understanding and overcoming individual and organizational resistance to change. In workshops and in their 2009 book, Immunity to Change, they present a nuanced four-column process that asks us to identify in column one, our goals — what we are committed to changing.¹ [e.g. I want to spend less time looking at my phone.]

In column two, we list what we do or don’t do that obstructs the path to achieving these column one goals. [I use my phone to get news, for entertainment, for being in touch with friends and family, as an alarm clock, and to search online. I always have it within arms reach. I don’t allow myself to be away from it.]

In column three, we first name what we’re afraid might happen if we stop the column two behaviors that we do engage, or actually engage the column two behaviors that we avoid; [I’m afraid I’ll miss out on something important; I’m afraid my friends and family will think I don’t care about them; I’m afraid I won’t be up to date on the news and might appear ignorant…] and then the competing commitments that underly these fears [I’m committed to not missing out on anything; I’m committed to not letting my friends and family down; I’m committed to not appearing ignorant…]

In column four, we explore the assumptions that inform the competing commitments [I assume that if I miss something important, terrible things will happen; I assume that if I don’t respond to family and friends quickly they will think I don’t care; I assume that if I’m not up to date on the latest news, others will think I’m ignorant…].

In Kegan and Lahey’s exploration of assumptions, they ask us to determine (test) whether the assumptions are true or false, and they label any assumption that was previously unconscious or that was conscious but untested, as a Big Assumption — worthy of investigation. Unconscious or unexplored assumptions have us. We have assumptions once we are aware of and have tested them.

With these steps laid out across a four-column worksheet, an “immunity to change map” depicts an immune system that is designed to keep us safe:

“…the set of big assumptions collectively makes the third-column commitments inevitable…it is clear how they sustain the immune system: The third-column commitments clearly follow from the big assumptions and generate the behaviors in column 2; these behaviors clearly under-mine the goal in column 1.”²

As with re-visioning narratives and owning and integrating Shadow, Kegan and Lahey’s immunity to change process helps us uncover what is hidden — competing commitments and big assumptions — so we might move forward in a more integrated way.

____

  1. Robert Kegan, and Lisa Laskow Lahey, Immunity to Change, (Harvard Business Press, 2009). The process is “nuanced,” detailed, and specific and unfolds most accurately and effectively through numerous conversations and drafts (i.e. rushing through it is not a skillful approach). Their chapter 9, “Diagnosing Your Own Immunity to Change” is available here: https://mindsatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Chapter9.pdf
  2. Kegan and Lahey, 250.

Healing America’s Narratives: Moving Toward Collective Healing

[Part of a series, this essay continues our turn toward the collective in our ongoing exploration of Chapter Eleven of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow. Now available.]

In the previous essay, we introduced M. Scott Peck’s stages of community-making: pseudocommunity, chaos, emptiness, and community.

Here, as we continue our turn toward the collective, we’ll look briefly at Theory U, a book and methodology by MIT professor and founder of the Presencing Institute, Otto Scharmer, who invites leaders — that’s all of us at some level — to explore their “blind spot” — the “inner place” and “quality of intention and attention” from which they operate.

Scharmer engages a developmental approach that navigates individual, group, institutional, and global dynamics and structures, with a focus on the collective. “Presencing, the blending of sensing and presence, means to connect with the Source of the highest future possibility and to bring it into the now.”¹

The process invites leaders to connect “to the deepest source, from which the field of the future begins to arise — viewing from source,” by first recognizing habits and patterns (compare with Peck’s pseudocommunity and chaos) and then seeing with fresh eyes, letting go of preconceptions, connecting with the stillness of source, and “letting come” what is yet to emerge (compare with Peck’s emptiness).²

Theory U engages open minds, hearts, and wills, deeply explores self and work, and embraces the collective energies of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-presencing, co-creating, and co-evolving. Scharmer is playing an infinite game³ at organizational, institutional, and global levels: “The real battle in the world today is…among the different evolutionary futures that are possible for us…right now. What is at stake is…the choice of who we are, who we want to be, and where we want to take the world… The real question, then, is “What are we here for?”⁴

In Healing Collective Trauma: A Process for Integrating Our Intergenerational and Cultural Wounds, Thomas Hübl, after several decades of engaging large groups in collective trauma integration and healing, works through what is now known as the Collective Trauma Integration Process (CTIP).

The process includes three stages: Cohering the Group, Inducing the Collective Wave, and Meta-Reflection. The second stage unfolds through four waves: processing group denial, group eruption, discerning the collective voice, and group clearing and integration.⁵ Hübl’s work also includes Trauma Integration Processes for individual trauma (ITIP) and Ancestral/inter-generational trauma (ATIP).

These two synopses, along with Peck’s in the previous essay, just scratch the surface of Peck’s, Scharmer’s, and Hübl’s respective offerings, which differ in content, context, scope, scale, and intent. Amid these differences, however, they share a trajectory that moves generally from old or current ways of being, making believe, and denial, through chaos, resistance, and disruption, then through emptiness, presence, stillness, and openness, and into true community, co-evolution, integration, and healing — these last four being ongoing processes, not static end points.

Peck, Scharmer, and Hübl all emphasize the importance of the collective; the need for each member therein to do individual work as well; and the need for those who lead or facilitate community, presencing, or healing to embody the energetic, spiritual, psychological, and mental competence and clarity to guide others.

Our American polarizations have us stuck in denial, disruption, chaos, and resistance to growth. Until enough of us engage the will and the available means to move collectively into emptiness, stillness, and deep listening, we’ll neither own and integrate our national Shadow nor heal our individual, ancestral, and collective traumas. Such owning, integrating, and healing won’t be legislated, trickled down, or magically cast upon us. Peck, Scharmer, and Hübl present opportunities for intentional engagement, practice, love, and discipline.

_____

  1. Otto Scharmer, Theory U: The Social Technology of Presencing, (Berrett-Koehler, 2009), 163.
  2. Ibid., 38–39.
  3. James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility (Free Press-MacMillan, 1986), 3. According to Carse, a finite game is played with a limited number of players whose intentions are to win and bring the game to an end (i.e. conventional American history); an infinite game is played by an unlimited number of players whose intentions are to invite more players to play and to keep the game going (i.e. what we need to do if we are to survive).
  4. Scharmer, Theory U, 20.
  5. Thomas Hübl, Healing Collective Trauma: A Process for Integrating Our Intergenerational and Cultural Wounds, (Sounds True, 2020), 119-42.

Healing America’s Narratives: Moving Toward Community

[Part of a series, this essay turns toward the collective as we continue our exploration of Chapter Eleven of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow. Now available.]

Photo © by Rita Vicari on Unsplash

As we continue to explore America’s narratives and collective Shadow, it’s essential to remember and pay attention to the interrelationships among individuals, groups, and systems — with systems, as used here, including all of our natural and human-made environments — from the planet itself to big cities, to belief systems, to the technology you’re using right now to read or listen to this essay.

From among those abundant possibilities, we’ll focus here on individual human beings as they come together in search of, or because of, community. One deceptively simple and wonderfully useful approach to community emerged through M. Scott Peck’s work after the publication of his groundbreaking book, The Road Less Traveled, in 1978. He and some colleagues set out to explore what they called community-making, and after some years of experience-based practice — convening groups of individuals to make community — he published The Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace in 1987.

The result, as shared in the book, was the observation, facilitation, and refinement of four stages of community-making—pseudocommunity, chaos, emptiness, and community — during six years of intentional experiments.¹

Briefly, in pseudocommunity, individuals are nice, friendly, and polite — as they try to fake community.

When the facade falls apart, chaos emerges, characterized by attempts to control and fix each other; chaos feels frustrating, exhausting, and further from community.

Eventually, a facilitator suggests the possibility of emptiness, which Peck describes as the hardest, “most crucial stage” — “the bridge between chaos and com-munity” — that requires participants to “empty themselves of barriers to communication,” many of which they have just experienced in chaos. The barriers include expectations, preconceptions, ideology, and attempts to fix, solve, or control.² It is common for individuals to ignore the initial invitation to emptiness, unwilling to let go of what they know and to surrender to the process.

Emptiness requires both the “little deaths” and rebirths of each individual and the larger death of the initial group. “When its death has been completed, open and empty, the group enters community. In this final stage a soft quietness descends. It is a kind of peace. The room is bathed in peace.”³ Peck is clear that true community is not magically permanent; it must be maintained.

Consider your own current relationships and “communities” — in the more common meaning of the word. What stage — pseudocommunity, chaos, emptiness, or true community — characterizes your experience of each? To what extent do the stages emerge and disappear and reemerge during the days, weeks, months, and years of your life?

In light of your, my, and our discrete experiences, how, then, in the name of all that is good (and possible), might we scale such an approach to affect a nation — or even effect a new version of a nation? No easy task, that amid our current chaos.

As we’ll explore in coming essays, large groups of people around the world are already convening and building community, albeit using different language and with very specific focuses. Readers familiar with the work of Otto Scharmer and Thomas Hübl might already see the parallels with Peck’s four stages.

We’ll explore all of this further in coming essays. For now, your homework is to notice the comings and goings of pseudocommunity, chaos, emptiness, and true community in your own life.

Be kind to yourself and others.

  1. M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace, (Touchstone-Simon & Schuster, 1987), 86–135.
  2. Ibid., 95–98. For more on barriers to communication, see also, Marra, Enough with the Talking Points, (2020).
  3. Ibid., 102–03.

Healing America’s Narratives: Playing Whack-a-Mole in Politics and Celebrity Performance News

[Part of a series, this essay continues our exploration of Healing America’s Narratives: The Feminine, the Masculine, & Our Collective National Shadow. Now available.]

Photo © by ahmad kanbar on Unsplash

The previous posts in this series provide evidence that the problems and mood of the United States of America in the third decade of the twenty-first century are not surprising and are inevitable when history and current events are viewed through a trans-partisan, developmental lens.

A significant number of elected officials, including those I vote for and those I would never vote for, and a significant number of paid performance news commenters either do not know this (ignorance), do know it but avoid telling the truth due either to partisan agendas (arrogance) or to their concerns with not being re-elected or losing their jobs and careers (fear). Ignorance, arrogance, and fear are not mutually exclusive.

Instead, both groups play whack-a-mole.

They never seem to consider the hidden network of mole passages that are below the surface and that allow the moles to appear, avoid the whack, and reappear later through a different hole. The moles escape and reappear through a new hole because the whackers’ views tend to be so far from whole.

Each day, faced with the enormities of the consequences of the violence, depression, suicide, inequality, intolerance, ambivalence about the planet, lack of health and caring, greed, and excess that inform American history and current society, they try to whack a mole a day — or talk about whacking a particular mole. Again, they do not, cannot, or refuse to recognize the existence of the vast underground mole network that makes their whacking so frustrating or the interrelatedness of the various moles (or the same mole) that pop(s) up at different times and places.

Mole-whacking provides the appearance of busy-ness and hard work while very few, if any, moles actually get whacked. More importantly, whacking any particular mole will never get to the foundational, historical elements of the collective American Shadow (ignorance, arrogance, fear, bigotry, violence, greed, excess, bullying, untrustworthiness) that helped build the mole network and that keep it hidden.

These mole-whacking elected officials and paid performance news commenters will continue to whack moles as long as American citizens are willing to encourage, tolerate, or ignore this idiocy. What about you? Are you encouraging, tolerating, or ignoring this mole cruelty?

And yes, there are some elected officials and paid performance news commenters who try to point to the history of mole whacking and the mole network and keep their own whacking activities to a minimum.

Were Sisyphus real, he would probably admire them.