cell913blog.com #10

 One of the most intriguing aspects   of a ‘freedom movement’ is, not only the profound commitment of its leaders to the ‘cause,’ but also the dynamic development of how the movement is seeded, formed, inaugurated, sustained in that it eventually reaches a ‘tipping point’ at which the force of its energy, rather than slowly and incrementally struggling ‘up a mountain of opposition,’ seems to begin to slide into fulfilment or fruition. Theories of history, put reductionistically, and posit the notion of ‘the heroic man makes it happen’ over against the ‘circumstances make the leader(s) of the historic movement, deploy a different lens from that of the sociologist, social critic/observer, in the emphasis each places on the significance of the individual compared with the significance of the group.

Marketers, especially, survey, document, curate analyse and then apply the graphs of consumer actions (purchases, inquiries, calls, opinions) over a period of both time and space. Indeed, such information becomes so ‘treasured’ among the marketing departments of our corporations that those whose proclivity is to scan the ‘wind’ and the consumer horizons generally, (apart from the specific product or service in which they are engaged) come to be regarded as the ‘guru’ of marketing ‘trends’ in their office. One of the ‘guru’s’ of the social market is a Canadian, now living in the U.S., whose mind and research scans various issues from a lens unique to his world view. And we are the beneficiaries of his intuition and his research. Indeed, the joining of both, intuition and data, provide him with a unique perspective, one that would not have been available to Mandela and his cohorts.

In his book, The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, writes:

The Tipping Point is the biography of an idea, and the idea is very simple. It is that the best way to understand the emergence of fashion trends, the ebb and flow of crime waves, or, for that matter, the transf0ormation of unknown books into best sellers, or the rise of teenage smoking, or the phenomena of word of mouth, or any number of the other mysterious changes that mark every day life is to think of them as epidemics. Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do. …(These) three characteristics, one contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment- are the same principles that define how measles moves through a grade-school classroom or the flu attacks every winter. Of the three, the third trait-the idea that epidemics can rise or fall in one dramatic moment- is the most important, because it is the principle that makes sense of the first two and that permits the greatest insight into why modern change happens the way it does. The name given to that one dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change all at once is the Tipping Point. (Gladwell, The Tipping Point, p. 7)

One of the significant differences between a ‘social epidemic’ and a policy like apartheid, the deliberate, willful, toxic and historic suppression and repression of black Africans by a government steeped in racism, is that the ‘tipping point’ from the perspective of black Africans, Afrikaners, Indians, including Mandela and his cohorts, had already occurred decades before these most men came onto the scene and into the full consciousness of their oppression. And conversely, as we are living in a culture that responds to the ‘stock-market’ model of the rolling rise and fall of the daily/hourly changes in the market, for the purpose of investors’ trading opportunities, (and the application of such a model to many of our other social issues, (call them social epidemics), we have become inured to the depth, the seriousness and the suppression and repression of those forces like slavery, racism, bigotry, white supremacy that have imprisoned millions of men, women and children for centuries. 

The ’establishment’ while not appearing in such graphic dimensions generally, as the apartheid governments of South Africa, have effectively shielded themselves from the kind of rebellion and determination of those ‘suffering’. Collectively, in the developed West, we have come to regard ‘stability’ and order and predictability in the proper functioning of our government institutions, our schools, our hospitals, our universities and our churches. Whether living under the pages and script of a constitution, or whether our governance relies more on the unwritten, traditional, protocol guideposts, sanctions, social embarrassments, rejections and shamings, we generally tolerate things as ‘normal’ and become exercised only if and when something deeply unsettling disturbs our comfort level, and indeed, our complacency.

For various public-interest advocates, their issues all have a ‘tipping point’. Amnesty International advocates for a world in which political prisoners no longer face unjust and illegitimate incarceration at the hands of their political masters. For ICAN, the elimination of nuclear weapons is a long-sought-after goal that justifies both their existence and the ‘progress’ along that road, through national signatories to the ban on nuclear weapons. For those concerned with the continuing health of the oceans, rivers, lakes and waterways, pollution that impedes both the levels of oxygen and the preservation of various nutritional components must be restrained, if not curtailed and eliminated.
For many corporates, engaged in the production and distribution of goods, such processes as fossil fuel emissions from ships, planes and transports become a target for reduction, as do carbon dioxide emission from coal mines and refineries of gas and oil products. Similarly, the components of various products, like lithium batteries, now required for electric-powered vehicles, and their recycling become a focus of their participation in the ‘reduction’ of the potential ravages of global warming and climate change. All of these initiatives, including purported treaties that ‘eliminate’ and ‘prohibit’ the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, while useful and necessary, are rarely if ever enforced, sanctioned and thereby really effective. Much talk and debate over the ‘limits’ to carbon emissions in the various conferences have not resulted in provisions of an agreement that holds the various world powers/polluters/bankers/corporates/governments accountable, transparent, and thereby committed to the goals of a survivable planet.

Similarly, when military conflict erupts, (or brews on the back burner for decades while the world looks away), the world (meaning the leaders of the world’s more influential nations) rushes into the breach, in order to play mediator, moderator, ‘placator’ or even peace-maker. In the envisioning of any potential military conflict, (think Taiwan), the media concentrate on the preparations for war, in the presumed hope and aspiration that the conflict will never take place. The United Nations, for its part, from the perspective of too many of the most powerful nations, as reached a different ‘tipping point’ in that its demonstrated historic usefulness, in preventing disasters, whether of a military, a health, or a drug-trafficking ‘epidemic’ has become so tepid, so much a word salad of ideas, without muscle, without any element of enforcement, as to be rendered in their view, as dismissable. Clearly in desperate need of revision, especially both in the enlargement of the Security Council and the removal of the veto from the five super powers, the capacity and willingness of nations to surrender a modicum of national ‘power’ and influence, for the benefit of the whole, is an obstruction akin to a cancer for which there is neither a political surgery, nor a pharmaceutical remediation.

No single sentient human being is really unaware of the complexity of the forces under which the world is currently attempting to breath, to feed itself, to find and engage in work with dignity, to access quality health care and education for all in all countries, to drink clean water and to participate in forming and protecting families and various traditions, both secular and spiritual. And while there are individuals, both in the for-profit and the not-for-profit sectors, as well as governments of all political stripes, engaged in various ‘projects’ that seek to address, and even to remedy some of the many forces that impede, or thwart the basic needs of millions, the picture that we are all ‘in this together’ and we each (that means all of  us) face a shared tipping point, not only on the climate change/global warming issue, but also on many other human-ignited fires.

Epidemics, themselves, are literally only going to continue to confront us from a health perspective; rising temperatures are only going to confront us from a climatological perspective; refugees and migrants, all of them attempting to ‘seek life’ away from the various oppressive forces that ensnare their bodies, their minds and their children, are only going to continue to haunt our borders seeking compassion, empathy and a legal right to a legitimate and free and secure life with dignity within our borders. Wars, and the people charged with the execution of wars, whether on a massive scale or a more skirmish-like dimension, are only going to continue to confront us as the depth and prevalence of personal and political insecurities continue to dominate the perspectives and motivations of many leaders and their followers.

Is it merely dreaming in the darkest, most dismal and bleakest of colours to conceive of the convergence of so many factors and forces onto a generation? At a time when the instruments of global instant communication, sharing of insights and plans around the world, as well as the availability of relevant, cogent and significant information about the risks we all face, (and the collective impact of those risks, anxieties, and failures), and when the fundamental knowledge and desire of all human beings offers both a potential force and an energy and a creativity to begin to see from a perspective that embraces the whole, in addition to the various unique and relevant and worthwhile initiatives already underway, can we envision and aspire for a new perspective? And can that perspective embrace a wholistic view of our shared past, our shared predicament, not merely as an irritant, or an impediment to a peaceful and contented and full life, but as a serious threat to human existence itself, and finally a shared future that welcomes us, as various tribes, in a serious and committed pursuit of a shared peace.

The Great Law of Peace reads these words from the depths of the history of what were previously waring and feuding tribes:

The Great Peace emerged from a time of bloodshed and feuding, in which vengeance and confrontation were often the first means of resolving any issue. The processes of structures of the Kayanerenko:wa changed that. They make confrontation and violence a last resort, by placing deliberate, considered steps in the path of possible confrontations. As a matter of principle, in councils and negotiations, the easiest matters are dealt with first, and the most difficult (and therefore most potentially explosive) issues are approached last, though the commitment remains that what John Mohawk called ‘ the rock hard things’ must be dealt with.

The Peacemaked placed Thadadaho towards the end of his work since he knew this would be the most difficult task and would require actual confrontation. He also made sure that, when the confrontation occurred, the forces of peace had become so overwhelming in their physical and spiritual power that there could be no effective response. Thadadaho was not killed; he was transformed.

Another example of slowing the path to anger is the three requests that are made before any extreme action is taken. An errant chief is asked formally to return to the proper path, and the requests escalate, becoming gradually more public and more urgent., Only after repeated requests is the chief removed. In the same way foreign nations are gently and repeatedly asked to join the Confederacy.

The law requires not only a good mind and deliberate thought, but also the taking of specific steps in any situation that could result in confrontation or anger. These steps deliberately slow the people down, compel careful thought, and prevent hasty or passionate actions…..Deliberate avoidance of internal conflict cuts both ways; it creates a legal system that avoids internal aggression, but it also makes for a slow process that sometimes avoid difficult divisive issues. One needs to be reminded of the commitment to deal with the rock-hard things. (The Great Law of Peace, pps. 140-141)

Have we reached a tipping point in our avoidance of the ‘rock hard things’ that is only coming home to roost, as such avoidance will always incur?