天才一秒记住本站地址：[乐阅读]
https://www.leduxs.org/最快更新！无广告！
These extreme ways are extremely on, on all scales. One on one, we bsp;be pushy or flibsp;averse. At work, we bsp;be bossy or "go along to get along." In our unities, we bsp;set things up so that they are the way we want them to be, or we bsp;abdicate. In national affairs, we bsp;make deals to get our way, or we bsp;let others have their way. In iional relationswhether the challenge is climate ge or trade rules or peabsp;in the Middle Eastwe bsp;try to impose our solutions on everyone else, or we bsp;iate endlessly. These extreme, on ways of trying to address our toughest social challenges usually fail, leaving us stubsp;and in pain. There are many exceptions to these generalizations about the prevalenbsp;of these extreme ways, but the fabsp;that these are exceptions proves the general rule. We needand many people are w on developingdifferent, unon ways of addressing social challenges: ways beyond these degeive forms of war and peace.
A character in Rent, Jonathan Larson's Broadway musibsp;about struggling artists and musis in New York City, says, "The opposite of war isn't peabsp;it's creation!"[1] To address our toughest social challenges, we need a way that is her war nor peabsp;but collective creation. How bsp;we cocreate new social realities?
TWO FUAL DRIVES
To cocreate new social realities, we have to work with two distinbsp;fual forbsp;that are in tension: power and love. This assertion requires an explanation because the words "power" and "love" are defined by so many different people in so many different ways. In this book I use two unusual definitions of power and love suggested by theologian and philosopher Paul Tillibsp;His definitions are ontological: they deal with what and why power and love are, rather than what they enable or produbsp;I use these definitions because they ring true with my experienbsp;of what in practibsp;is required to address tough challenges at all levels: individual, group, unity, society.
Tillibsp;defines power as "the drive of everything living to realize itself, with increasing iy and extensity." So power in this sense is the drive to achieve one's purpose, to get one's job done, to grow. He defines love as "the drive towards the unity of the separated."[2] So love in this sense is the drive to reebsp;and make whole that whibsp;has bee or appears fragmented. These two ways of looking at power and love, rather than the more on ideas of oppressive power and romantibsp;love (represented on the cover by the grenade and the rose), are at the core of this book.
OUR FULL WORLD
We ot address our tough challenges only through driving towards selfrealization or only through driving towards unity. We need to do both. Often we assume that all it takes to create something newwhether in business or politibsp;or teology or artis purposefulness or power. This is because we often assume that the text in whibsp;we create is an empty world: an open frontier, a white spabsp;a blank vas. In general this assumption is incorrect.
Let's look at a historibsp;example. In 1788, British settlers arrived in Australia and entered the indigenous people who had arrived 40,000 years earlier. This history illustrates not only the ce and entrepreneurialism of people willing to travel across the globe to create a new social reality, but also the human and ecologibsp;devastation that this pi mi bsp;produbsp;For more than two turies, the flibsp;between settlers and abinal peoples in Australia was framed in terms of the doe of terra nullius, a Roman legal term that means "land belonging to no one," or "empty land." It was not until 1992 that the High Court of Australia ruled that the ti had in fabsp;never been terra nullius, and that the modernday settlers had to work out a new way of living together with the abinal people.
None of us lives in terra nullius. We bsp;pretend that our world is empty, but it is not. Our earth is increasingly full of people and buildings and cars and piles of garbage. Our atmosphere is increasingly full of carbon dioxide. Our society is increasingly full of diverse, strong, peting voibsp;and ideas and cultures. This fullness is the fual reason why, in order to address our toughest social challenges, we need to employ not only power but also love.
A challenge is tough when it is plex in three ways.[3] A challenge is dynamically plex when cause and effebsp;are interdepe and far apart in spabsp;and time; subsp;challenges ot successfully be addressed piebsp;by piebsp;but only by seeing the system as a whole. A challenge is socially plex when the actors involved have different perspectives and is; subsp;challenges ot successfully be addressed by experts or authorities, but only with the e of the actors themselves. And a challenge is geively plex when its future is fually unfamiliar and uermined; subsp;challenges ot successfully be addressed by applying "best practibsp;solutions from the past, but only by growing new, " practibsp;solutions.
The fullness of our world produbsp;this threefold plexity. We bsp;pretend that we are indepe and that what we do does not affebsp;others (and what others do does not affebsp;us), but this is not true. We bsp;pretend that everybody sees things the same way, or that our differenbsp;bsp;be resolved purely through market or politibsp;or legal petition, but this is not true. And we bsp;pretend that we bsp;do things the way we always have, or that we bsp;first figure out and then execute the correbsp;answer, but this is not true.
When we pretend that our world is empty rather than full, and that our challenges are simple rather than plex, we get stubsp;If we want to get unstubsp;we need to aowledge our interdependenbsp;cooperate, and feel our way forward. We need therefore to employ not only our power but also our love. If this sounds easy, it is not. It is difficult and dangerous.
TWO PITFALLS
Power and love are difficult to work with because eabsp;of them has two sides. Power has a geive side and a degeive side, andless obviouslylove also has a geive side and a degeive side. Feminist scholar Paola Melchiori pointed out to me that we bsp;see these two sets of two sides if we look at historically structed gender roles. The father, embodying mase power, goes out to work, to do his job. The geive side of his power is that he bsp;create something valuable in the world. The degeive side of his power is that he bsp;bee so focused on his work that he denies his e to his colleagues and family, and so bees a robot or a tyrant.
The mother, by trast, embodying feminine love, stays at home to raise the children. The geive side of her love is that she gives life, literally to her child and figuratively to her whole family. The degeive side of her love is that she bsp;bee so identified with and embrag of her child and family that she denies their and especially her own need for selfrealization, and so stunts their and her own growth.[4]
Love is what makes power geive instead of degeive. Power is what makes love geive instead of degeive. Power and love are therefore exactly plementary. In order for eabsp;to achieve its full potential, it needs the other. Just as the terra nullius perspective of fog only on power is an error, so too is the pop perspective that "all you need is love."
Psychologist Rollo May, a friend of Paul Tillibsp;warned of the dangers of diseg power (whibsp;he referred to as "will") from love. "Love and will," he wrote, "are interdepe and belong together. Both are junctive processes of beinga reag out to influenbsp;others, molding, f, creating the sciousness of the other. But this is only possible, in an inner sense, if one opens oneself at the same time to the influenbsp;of the other. Will without love bees manipulation and love without will bees seal. The bottom then drops out of the junctive emotions and processes."[5] May's junctive processes also operate on a social level, and we bsp;effebsp;nonviolent social ge only if we bsp;engage both our power and our love.
One of the greatest practitioners of nonviolent social ge, Martin Luther King Jr., was both a practibsp;activist and a spiritual leader. He demonstrated a way of addressing tough social challenges that went beyond aggressive war and submissive peabsp;thereby tributing to the creation of new social realities in the United States and around the world. In his last presidential speebsp;to the Southern Christian Leadership ferenbsp;Kingdrawing on his doctoral studies of Tillich's workemphasized the essential plementarity between power and love.[6] "Power without love is reckless and abusive," King said, "and love without power is seal and anemic."[7]
My own experienbsp;of the past twenty years entirely bears out King's analysis. Power without love is reckless and abusive. If those of us engaged in social ge absp;to realize ourselves without reizing that we and others are interdepe, the result will at best be iive and at worst, oppressive or even genocidal. And love without power is seal and anemibsp;If we reize our interdependenbsp;and absp;to unify with others, but do so in a way that hobbles our own or others' growth, the result will at best be iual and at worst, deceitfully reinf of the status quo.
Power without love produbsp;scorchedearth war that destroys everything we hold dear. Love without power produbsp;lifeless peabsp;that leaves us stubsp;in plabsp;Both of these are terrible outes. We need to find a better way.
In his speebsp;King went on to say, "This collision of immoral power with powerless morality stitutes the major crisis of our time."[8] This collision tinues because our polarization of power and love tinues. In our societies and unities and anizations, and within eabsp;of us, we usually find a "power camp," whibsp;pays attention to is and differences, and a "love camp," whibsp;pays attention to es and onalities. The collision between these two campsin the worlds of business, politibsp;and social ge, among othersimpedes our ability to make progress on our toughest social challenges.
AN IMPERATIVE
Power and love stand at right angles and delie the spabsp;of social ge. If we want to get unstubsp;and to move around this spaceif we want to address our toughest challengeswe must uand and work with both of these drives.
Rather than a choibsp;to be made one way or another, power and love stitute a perma dilemma that must be reciled tinuously and creatively. This reciliation is easy in theory but hard in practibsp;Carl Jung doubted whether it was even possible for these two drives to coexist in the same person: "Where love reigns, there is no will to power; and where the will power is paramount, love is lag. The one is but the shadow of the other."[9] His student Robert Johnson said, "Probably the most troublesome pair of opposites that we bsp;try to recile is love and power. Our modern world is torn to shreds by this diy, and one finds many more failures than successes in the attempt to recile them."[10]
I have seen many examples of reckless and abusive power without love, and many examples of seal and anemibsp;love without power. I have seen far fewer examples of power with love. Too few of us are capable of employing power with love. More of us need to learn.
If we are to succeed in cocreating new social realities, we ot choose between power and love. We must choose both. This book explores how.
章节错误,点此报送(免注册),
报送后维护人员会在两分钟内校正章节内容,请耐心等待。