Manifestation 1: 'The Secret' & the ‘law of attraction'

Posted on Jun 1st, 2007 by

In my last post on how we create the future, I skirted round the controversial issue of manifestation, and promised to devote my next entry to it. It seems inevitable that whatever I write will be seen in the light of that extraordinary media phenomenon, The Secret. And so I have chosen to weave my thoughts into a critique of the film.

I must have been one of the last people in the western world to see The Secret. But one way or another, I’ve been involved with manifestation for over a decade. I believe The Secret is an important film, bringing a strong positive message to the world in a time of crisis and disorientation. But I have deep reservations about some aspects of it which I will attempt to explain.

When I started, I thought I was writing a short addition to my post on how we create the future, but it has taken on a life of its own and grown well beyond a single entry. And so I’ve divided it up into four posts in which I have attempted to give a balanced picture of the process of manifestation as I see it.

Part 1 begins by introducing the concepts of manifestation and the so-called law of attraction – a section that you may want to skip if you’re already familiar with the subject. The following two sections then examine the claims that these ideas were a big Secret, and that there is a ‘law’ of attraction.

In Part 2, I will I go on to look at evidence for the effectiveness of manifestation, and explore possible scientific mechanisms for its operation. Part 3 will cover the issues of co-creation, abundance, manifestation as a spiritual practice, and blaming the victim. Finally, the series will end with a summary of what I see as ‘right manifestation.’

What are manifestation and the law of attraction?

If you’re reasonably familiar with manifestation and the law of attraction, and/or have seen the The Secret you may want to skip this introductory section.

According to wikipedia, manifestation is “the belief that one can by force of will, desire and focused energy, make something come true on the physical level.” In other words, manifestation is influencing material reality and our lives through mental activity alone.

Similarly, wikipedia describes the law of attraction as follows:

It states people experience the corresponding manifestations of their predominant thoughts, feelings, words, and actions and that people therefore have direct control over reality and their lives through thought alone. A person's thoughts (conscious and unconscious), emotions, beliefs and actions are said to attract corresponding positive and negative experiences "through the resonance of their energetic vibration." The "law of attraction" states "you get what you think about; your thoughts determine your destiny." Many proponents of the idea claim that with practice a person can use the law of attraction to change their lives.

A more holistic but rather complex definition was given by spiritual teacher David Spangler, about whom I’ll say more later. According to him, manifestation is “the art of fashioning a co-creative, synchronistic, and mutually supportive relationship between the inner creative energies of a person's own mind and spirit and their counterpart within the larger world in order to bring a new and desirable situation into being." I hope the meaning will be clearer by the time you have read this and the next entry.

The process of manifestation is normally described as having three key steps:
•    Clearly and specifically identify and visualise what you want, and ask the universe to provide it;
•    Think, feel and act as if this desire has been fulfilled already without allowing doubt or other negative thoughts to creep in;
•    Be open to receiving what you asked for.

To these is sometimes added a profound and regular practice of gratitude for what we already have, and in anticipation of future benefits.

The process requires a consistently positive frame of mind no matter what is happening in our lives. We can’t monitor all our myriad thoughts, but our emotions act as indicators of their tone. Positive feelings of joy, peace, love and so on reflect a positive state of mind; and feelings of fear, anger, aggression, etc reflect a negative state of mind.

Hence, The Secret claims that we manifest what we’re feeling, not what we’re thinking. If we feel healthy, prosperous and loved, those things will appear in our lives. So when we’re feeling down, we should do something to change the situation, like playing music, or feeling our love for a pet. This is effectively the same strategy that William Bloom advocates in his book The Endorphin Effect as a way to promote production of feel-good brain hormones. I’ll have more to say about this important book later.

Simple as these steps may appear, they contain many challenges which may limit the effectiveness of the process, or lead to unexpected results. Believers in manifestation often say that you get what you need rather than what you want – and the two may be quite different!

The Secret was no secret

The Secret contains no secrets, and its success probably owes a lot to this packaging. As the film itself acknowledges, the idea of the law of attraction (or manifestation as I prefer to call it) has a long history stretching back to early Hinduism and the law of karma. The Buddha is quoted in the film as saying that we make the world with our thoughts.

In the western world, there are clear parallels with some forms of prayer which also have a long pedigree. For example, when a Christian asks God to do something with complete faith in its efficacy, that is manifestation. And Jesus himself said that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed (which is very tiny) you can move mountains – or heal the sick, or feed the hungry, or whatever. Notice, incidentally, that Jesus’ use of manifestation sprang from love and a desire to serve, not a quest for personal gain. I’ll return to this theme later.

In a secular context, the idea of manifestation appears in recent decades as the art of positive thinking, the power of visualization, and so on. Personal development facilitators, sports coaches, art and writing teachers, business management consultants, planners, politicians, visionaries and others all harness this power, and are convinced that it works. Many of these fields were touched upon in The Secret.

There are also similarities with the concepts of synchronicity and grace. Carl Jung coined the term synchronicity to describe situations in which two or more events occur at more or less the same time that are not connected by cause and effect but nevertheless have a meaningful relationship. Examples include meeting an old friend by chance on the day you were talking about them, or accidentally coming across a passage in a book that answers a question you have been asking. Grace, in the religious sense, is the free or unmerited favour of God. Both these imply that manifestation works through unconscious as well as conscious thoughts.

Manifestation was one of the founding principles of the Findhorn Community over 40 years ago, and is still an important part of life here today. In the early days, the community regularly manifested everything from the bag of cement that fell off a truck, to donations of money to build the meditation sanctuary that still serves us. More recent examples are described later in the section on evidence for manifestation.

One of the early leaders of the community, David Spangler, taught manifestation in the USA for decades, and wrote a wonderfully insightful little book called Everyday Miracles: The Inner Art of Manifestation. Sadly, it has been out of print for many years now, but used copies are available. His article on Spiritual Economics is still well worth reading after nearly 25 years. I owe David a great debt of gratitude for deepening my understanding this subject.

On a more personal note, my wife and I have been practising manifestation in various ways for over a decade. Looking back over these years, we can see its results very clearly but they were not always what we expected, or what The Secret might lead you to expect. I will use examples later to illustrate some of my points.

The 'Law' of Attraction is not a law

In one form or another, belief in manifestation, or the power of mind over matter, is widespread throughout human history. Could it be that so many people have believed a fantasy? Or could there be some creative power of mind and spirit at work? Is there, in fact, a law of attraction?

The idea that our conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings attract corresponding things, people and events to us in the physical world is presented by The Secret as a law of the universe. By implication, and a few side references to quantum physics, this gives the impression that it has the status of a scientific law of nature. This is untrue. In saying so, I don’t want to argue, as many scientists and critics do, that the idea is without foundation. But I want to be quite clear and open about its true status.

To qualify as a valid theory or law, any hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to devise and carry out experiments that will reveal whether or not the hypothesis works in practice. This is not possible with the ‘law’ of attraction. Imagine a person tries to manifest a new car. If the car duly arrives, their reaction may be “Wow! This really works.” If, on the other hand, the car fails to arrive, they may think: “There must have been something wrong with what I did. Perhaps the vision of what I wanted wasn’t clear enough, or some negativity crept in, or I wasn’t really open to receiving it.” As we can’t observe our own subconscious thoughts, let alone those of other people, this conclusion can never be tested.

In other words, the evidence in favour of the ‘law of attraction’ is anecdotal. The ‘law’ is a generalisation from the many stories of successful manifestation, and remains a belief rather than an established theory. However, this does not necessarily mean that manifestation does not happen.

*******

In my next entry, I'll examine the evidence for manifestation, and possible scientific explanations of how it works.

Access: Public 3 Comments Print views (787)

Manifestation 2: Evidence and mechanisms

Posted on Jun 5th, 2007 by

Malcolm

In my last entry, I argued that the so-called ‘law of attraction’ is not a law in the normal sense of the word. However, this does not necessarily mean that the process of manifestation is not real. In this post, I examine the evidence for the effectiveness of manifestation, and some possible scientific mechanisms for its operation.

Evidence for manifestation

As noted, the support for manifestation is largely anecdotal, but there are at least a couple of strands of more solid evidence. One is research on prayer, particularly healing prayer. The results are controversial, but there is some evidence for its effectiveness. A brief review by Dr Peter Fenwick, written in 2004, can be found on the website of the UK’s Royal Society of Pyschiatrists.

A second area of relevant research concerns the production and effects of endorphins in the brain as described by William Bloom in The Endorphin Effect. Endorphins are a family of natural opiates produced in the cells of all living things. They produce feelings of physical pleasure and well-being, kill pain, reduce tension, help wounds and diseased tissue to heal, and boost the immune system. It has been scientifically demonstrated that positive feelings and thoughts increase production of endorphins, thus making us feel good, reducing our stress and improving our physical, psychological and emotional health. Because we feel better our behaviour changes, and we become better at handling life’s challenges, envisaging what we want and achieving our goals. Sound familiar? From here, William develops practical exercises for boosting a positive frame of mind and endorphin production.

The other evidence for manifestation that I am aware of is all anecdotal or comes from personal experience and must be treated with caution. People are naturally more inclined to tell of their successes than their failures, thus potentially giving a false impression of the success rate. But, as philosopher Dale Jamieson was quoted in New Scientist as saying in a different context: “The evidence of a single anecdote may not be very scientific but the plural of anecdote is data.” In other words, if there are enough extraordinary stories of manifestation, this suggests that something is going on.

Psychologist Stanislav Grof and mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote dramatic accounts of successful shamanic rain-making ceremonies in which they participated (See Grof The Holotropic Mind). As Grof noted, it is highly unlikely that so many cultures would have continued to use rain ceremonies if they never worked, and shamans would soon lose their credibility if they often failed.

In my time here in the Findhorn Community, I have seen quite a few remarkable examples of manifestation which incline me to believe there is something in it. One is the almost-complete Art Centre. Randy Klinger has persistently and consistently applied the principles of manifestation to this Centre for a decade, and has been a shining example of the practice of heartfelt gratitude for even the tiniest contribution. In the process, he has gained the support of many eminent people from the UK arts scene, raised the equivalent of over US$1m, and been gifted state-of-the-art energy and lighting equipment. This is a remarkable achievement for someone who was virtually unknown and living in a New Age community in the remote north of Scotland. A similar example is Thomas Warrior who held the vision of a Buddhist retreat centre here. When a suitable large house came on the market, someone turned up who was willing to lend a large part of the US$3m purchase price. At a more personal level are many stories of individuals who have manifested cars, jobs, travel funds, relationships and other things.

Scientific explanations of manifestation

One of the reasons that manifestation is so strongly criticised is that there is no known physical mechanism by which it could work. However, there are some theoretical perspectives that shed light on the process.

The Secret alludes to a basis in quantum physics but doesn’t explain what this is. It is commonly believed in New Age circles that quantum physics proves the influence of mind over matter at the sub-atomic level. However, this is only one interpretation of quantum physics, and is far from being accepted by all physicists. The search continues for ways to get around this effect and find alternative explanations. Very few physicists believe that consciousness affects matter at the macro-scale of everyday life at which manifestation takes place. And many physicists complain about the distortions promulgated by New Age believers.

The process of manifestation described by the film actually fits the classical scientific model of an atomistic universe better than it does systems sciences, or quantum and relativity physics. In essence, The Secret portrays us as isolated beings who experience a sense of lack which we try to fill. Our thoughts and desires then act like magnets drawing corresponding but separate things, beings and events towards us through space and time.

But rather than a universe of isolated objects and independent events, modern science sees all existence as one interconnected and interactive whole. From this perspective, whatever I do or manifest has effects that ripple outwards to those around me and my environment. Ultimately, my actions may affect the whole universe, like ripples from a stone spreading across the whole surface of a still pond. And I in turn am affected by the ripples from manifestation by myriad other sentient beings.

This sense of connection and oneness arises in both quantum and relativity physics. It has been experimentally demonstrated that after sub-atomic particles have become entangled by interacting, they respond instantly to each other’s changes of state no matter how far apart they may be. And quantum theory suggests that particles of matter continuously emerge from and disappear back into an underlying field. Similarly, relativity sees matter as nothing more than locations at which spacetime is tightly curved.

David Bohm is often cited for his idea that the quantum field contains an ‘implicate order’, or hidden blueprint, that unfolds into the ‘explicate order’ that we experience as the material universe. Ervin Laszlo similarly suggested that the psi field, as he called it, contains a memory of everything that has ever happened encoded in its complex wave patterns – a scientific version of the akashic record. And in my book, The Science of Oneness, I argued that the fundamental stuff of existence is cosmic Consciousness rather than matter or energy. Collectively, these ideas sketch the unproven outlines of ways by which mind may influence matter in the process of manifestation.

Very similar ideas arise from systems sciences at normal spatial scales. These have revealed that ‘everything is connected to everything else’, although the number and strength of connections varies enormously. Importantly, self-organising systems – which are common - are often very sensitive to small disturbances which may trigger an avalanche of unpredictable change that transforms the system. The most popular illustration of this is the story of the butterfly that flapped its wings in Beijing one day, thus causing a storm in Washington a week later. Again, this provides a possible, explanation for the effectiveness of manifestation. Our thoughts and consequent behaviours may unleash creative changes within the systems of which we are part. And positive thoughts and actions are more likely to push the system in the desired direction than are negative ones. The Secret did not even hint at this mechanism.

The endorphin effect described in the last section is another illustration of the fact that explanations for manifestation need not necessarily invoke abstruse physics or esoteric spiritual phenomena. In my last post on how we create the future, I gave many examples of how mind interacts with matter. I believe that most of what we create in our lives that is often attributed to the magical powers of manifestation and the law of attraction may have quite mundane explanations. For instance, when we are healthy and feel positive about ourselves and life, our body language and interpersonal behaviour reflect that vitality and self-confidence. Quite naturally people respond accordingly. Just imagine how you react to a person who is depressed compared to a cheerful extrovert. And these positive experiences snowball just as The Secret claims – not for esoteric reasons but because other peoples’ responses make us feel even better, so they respond even more positively, and so it goes on.

*********

In my next post, I will look at manifestation as a co-creative rather than individual process, the meaning of abundance, manifestation as a spiritual practice, and the danger of blaming the victim.

Access: Public 1 Comment Print views (1,131)

Manifestation 3: Co-creation and abundance

Posted on Jun 9th, 2007 by

Malcolm

In my last entry, I outlined evidence for the effectiveness of manifestation and possible scientific explanations of it. In this post, I explore the idea that manifestation is a collective rather than an individual activity, the nature of abundance, and the danger of blaming the victim.

Manifestation is collective not individual

Towards the end, The Secret proclaims that we are all connected. Unfortunately, this message gets lost in the dominant focus on the satisfaction of personal desires for material wealth, relationships, health, happiness and so on. Importantly, the possible scientific explanations discussed in the last entry reveal that manifestation is not simply about drawing the abundant resources of the universe to ourselves. Rather, our desires and those of all sentient beings co-create our collective reality.

Our thoughts and desires interact in a seething ocean of potential, continuously shaping and reshaping the energy patterns of the quantum field from which material existence crystallizes. And at the macro-scale, we collectively influence the development of the systems of which we’re parts. It’s as if we live in a spider’s web. Pluck one strand and the whole web vibrates and adjusts to the new pattern of tensions. And we are all plucking away simultaneously, playing a collective tune, whether consciously or not.

From this image it is clear that individuals can’t manipulate reality for their own benefit in isolation from the rest of humanity, other beings, Gaia and the universe. Whatever we manifest is the co-creative product of all those with whom we’re connected, and our efforts likewise have repercussions for the whole. Hence, as David Spangler expressed it, we are all manifestations for each other. If I want to manifest a beautiful environment for myself, I need to be willing to be manifested as a protector of it; if I want a perfect partner, I must be willing to manifest as a perfect partner in return.

Let’s make this clearer with an example. Imagine you manifest the house of your dreams. That house requires resources of brick, concrete, timber and metals to build, and energy to run. Hence, when you manifest it, you also manifest environmental destruction, resource depletion, pollution and greenhouse gases. Building and running your house provides work for local people, which may be part of what they wish to manifest. But in our global economy, we may also manifest exploitation of workers in the majority world, and contribute to the extinction of other species.

It seems to me that we cannot morally ignore this interconnected reality, and that this must shape our understanding of abundance.

The nature of abundance

Abundance is a key word in relation to manifestation. The Secret claims that the universe is infinitely abundant, and has more than enough resources to meet everyone’s desires. It argues that the idea of lack is a lie that leads to greed, fear and stinginess; that the diversity of our desires limits the strain on any resource; that when a resource runs out, we will always find replacements; and that there are more than enough creative ideas, power, love and joy to go round. Is this true? Yes, and no.

Certainly some things are truly abundant. There does not appear to be any limit to human creativity, or the experience of joy, love and other positive emotions. As William Bloom put it in The Endorphin Effect: “People need to feel happiness and success, not own it.” And this can be achieved without material resources through the stimulation of endorphin production.

Further, we are living in an emerging information economy, and information has no limits. Rather than being exhausted by use, it grows and is enriched by being shared. Abundance in this context is not about how much we have, but about the richness of our connections and relationships. This opens up a vision of a sustainable society based on the infinite potential of human knowledge, love and wisdom.

The picture is different when we consider physical resources. For all practical human purposes, the material and energetic resources of the universe are boundless. But we live on a small planet largely physically isolated from the rest of the universe apart from a limited flow of energy from the sun. In effect, therefore, we inhabit a closed box, and share its limited resources. Even the information economy is driven by hardware which is energy hungry and heavily dependent on rare minerals which we are depleting rapidly.

The only way out of this sense of limitation seems to be to believe that God or some other cosmic entity magically creates more planetary resources from nothing upon request and does not simply realign the flow of existing resources. To the best of my knowledge, no-one to date has detected increases in the Earth’s mass, or in the abundance of particular elements, or unexpected increases in energy flows or any other objective evidence for such a process.

What is very clear is that our collective needs and greeds are stressing the Earth’s ability to provide beyond endurance. So if I ‘manifest’ material abundance beyond simple needs, I am inevitably depriving some other beings, whether plants, animals or humans of needed resources. In other words, I am also manifesting poverty, exploitation, environmental destruction and the conflicts which inevitably flow from these. It is simply not possible from this perspective for us all to manifest material abundance. As Gandhi said, the Earth has enough for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed.

From a slightly different perspective, critics of manifestation ask: If the universe manifests abundance in response to thought, why is there so much poverty? Why are billions of people barely surviving when they could manifest themselves abundant new lives? In response, we need to ask ourselves: Are we in danger of blaming the victims for their plight? Could it be that manifestation as promoted by The Secret can flourish only in the freedom granted by affluence, education, democracy, and tolerance of difference? Could it be that the power of manifestation is severely limited for sex slaves, exploited workers, refugees, illegal immigrants, the ignorant, the starving, political prisoners, citizens of oppressive states ...?

It seems to me that we all face boundaries to the probable, if not the possible, that are set by our genes and environment. It would take an unbelievable realignment of planetary energy for a Darfur refugee to manifest a Hollywood mansion and the income to go with it. Similarly, we can’t all be Olympic sprinters because our bodies are not designed for that; and we can’t all be Einsteins because our brains don’t work that way. The more probable our vision, the more likely it is that we will successfully manifest it.

In discussing spiritual economics, David Spangler argued that a sustainable society must be based on economic justice. This doesn’t mean material equality but that: “everyone needs an opportunity in which their unique gifts and talents can be developed and contributed to society. It means that the needs of survival and growth must be met, where growth is not the simple aggrandizement of the individual or the group but the honing of the skills of communion and empowerment.” This is a form of abundance we can all help to manifest.

Over the years, I have come to realize that abundance is more an attitude of mind than a state of material wealth; an attitude that is nurtured by the practice of gratitude. My partner and I lost a large percentage of our life’s savings in an ill-advised ‘ethical’ investment that we felt guided to make. As a result, we had to let go of the house of our dreams, and settle for a very modest lifestyle. The pain took years to work through, but we didn’t fall into anger and blame, and we now feel more abundant, more blessed on many levels, than we ever have before. Perhaps we manifested what we needed rather than what we wanted?

Blaming the victim

The secret claims that manifestation always works for everyone all the time; that we draw to ourselves everything that happens to us. But this belief not only opens up liberating vistas of creating our own futures, but also carries with it a dark shadow. It is hard not to use it as a yardstick for judging others, potentially leading us to blame the victims for their plight. The poor and sick and lonely are seen as having failed through their own negativity. The sufferers of famine, war, oppression, wrongful imprisonment and torture stand subtly accused of being architects of their own fate. And so our empathy, compassion and desire to serve our fellow humans are weakened, and selfish individualism is encouraged.

Similarly, if we are not fully successful at manifesting our desires, we may well blame ourselves rather than being grateful for what we do have, and looking for the gifts and lessons in our disappointments. Hence, our thoughts and feelings may become more negative, and we may suffer a drop in self-esteem and confidence. As we are more inclined to share our success stories than our failures, I suspect there are a lot of people in the world who have tried manifestation without apparent success.

Manifestation is not always easy. There are many reasons why it may not work, and efforts to overcome these challenges may lead to unforeseen side effects. Creating a clear, precise image of what we want can be difficult because of conflicting desires, unconscious motivations and emotional blocks. The visualisation process also can lead us to focus on things that are familiar, and hence to miss significant opportunities that are beyond our current experience. Similarly, we may fail to recognise what we’ve actually manifested when it arrives. Many of the good things that have happened to me have been unexpected, unsought, and only appreciated in hindsight. And others have arrived years after I’ve forgotten I asked for them.

Feeling and acting as if our requests have already been met is also easier said than done. Most of us have at least niggling little doubts which, we may fear, will be enough to block the process. Certainly I do. Many people try to force the issue by programming their minds with positive affirmations but this may push the doubts into the unconscious or bring up resistances rather than remove them. It also may result in suppression of aspects of ourselves, such as our shadows, that we need to understand and deal with.

Finally, at some level, many of us do not feel we deserve what we’ve asked for. And so we may turn away the manifested object or opportunity when it does arrive. “Oh, I couldn’t accept that as a gift ...” “Who am I to ...” And so it goes on.

There is little doubt that sometimes people can turn around their own negative thinking and become successful in life. But sometimes their external circumstances are just too strong and overwhelming. Or there may be causes of negativity that are not so easily switched off. Perhaps your gene for endorphin production is only weakly expressed so it is hard to feel good. Perhaps you suffered a severe trauma in the womb or at birth that is unconsciously triggered by events in your life. This may lead to repeated patterns of financial loss, failed relationships and stress-related illness until that trauma can be identified and healed.

********

The practice of manifestation is all too often distorted by individualism, materialism, egoism and greed. In my next post I will summarise what I see as the qualities of right manifestation.

Access: Public 3 Comments Print views (482)

Right Manifestation

Posted on Jun 15th, 2007 by

Malcolm

In this post, I have attempted to draw together the threads from the last two posts and weave them into a coherent picture of what I have called ‘right manifestation.’

Manifestation as a spiritual practice

The Secret talks about the importance of health, relationships and happiness as compared to wealth. But, sadly, these messages tend to be submerged in repeated stories and images of manifesting mansions, fast cars and other possessions. This materialist bias is common in modern writings about manifestation, and serves to foster addictive consumerism, greed, egoism and narcissism at the expense of deeper values such as compassion and service. Many people think the alchemists were seeking wealth through turning base metals into gold. But their real quest was to transmute the dross of ordinary human consciousness into spiritual gold. The true Secret is the manifestation of higher states of consciousness and spiritual wisdom.

In my view, right manifestation focuses primarily on personal and spiritual growth whilst enabling us to meet our basic material needs. From this perspective, it is a path of service, love and sharing, as these short quotes from manifestation teacher David Spangler reveal:

Often lacking in these descriptions is the idea of the manifestation of qualities rather than just things and of manifestation as an act of giving, as well as of receiving. Yet, manifestation is not the magical appearance of something from nothing. It is fundamentally the act of sharing. It depends on the willingness to be open to be a manifestation for someone else, as well as on the faith that our own needs and desires will be met. ...

... many men and women have found their most creative and empowering moments during times of severest physical limitation, such as being in prison. One need only think of Gandhi .... The number of his possessions could be counted on the fingers of both hands, but he was a source of richness for humanity. ...

In a sustainable society, abundance may manifest in physical ways as part of a material economy, but it is rooted in a spiritual reality. It is based on our ability to develop a sense of accomplishment, to develop skills that honor our individual creativity and allow us to give to our world. Abundance and love are reinforcing commodities; as Shakespeare put it, the more we give, the more we have. Abundance exists as a function of community; to pursue an isolated, individual abundance is ultimately to pursue a mirage. ...

What I set out to find was something like an ‘aikido of desire.’ I wanted a way to use the energy of my desires to take me to a deeper part of my own being that was in touch with the holistic or spiritual side of the world’s being.... I have opted for a technique in which our desires become potential points of reflection and invocation.... Manifestation is a way of using any desire as a starting point for a spiritual journey. ...

Of course, there is much more to a spiritual practice than manifestation. ... However, it can be an opportunity, no matter how trivial the desire, to explore connections, patterns, alignments, and the flow of both material and spiritual energy through your life. When you make manifestation a spiritual practice, then the perspectives it brings overflow into other aspects of your life. You begin naturally seeing yourself and your world in terms of interconnected and co-incarnational patterns. The reality of the community in which we all live becomes more apparent. The vision of your incarnation becomes broader, more ecological, more compassionate. Your attitudes and actions reflect a larger, more complete humanity.

Manifestation from this perspective becomes a quality of being rather than a process of acquisition. As David Spangler expressed it: “We do not acquire that which we desire; we become it.”

Characteristics of this way of being include:
•    Consciousness of the Oneness of all existence and all beings;
•    An unflinching intention to align our lives and manifestation requests with the flow of the cosmos, or the will of God or Spirit;
•    Recognition that our ability to manifest lies not in ourselves but in the energy patterns of the quantum field, the sensitivity of systems to small disturbances and other properties of the cosmos;
•    Acknowledgement that manifestation is co-creative with each other and Spirit (or God), and that we are manifestations for each other;
•    A willingness to share and a desire to be of service to all beings;
•    Requests based on true needs for a modest but fulfilling lifestyle;
•    Acceptance with gratitude of whatever life brings, even when what we requested does not manifest;
•    Looking for the lessons and higher good that flow from disappointment and ‘negative’ experiences;
•    Refusal to accept or foster war, injustice and exploitation, and dedication to supporting positive campaigns for peace, justice and equity for all;
•    Willingness to go through the fire of personal transformation in order to serve more effectively.

Some of these points are elaborated in the rest of this entry.

Attunement to the cosmos

The Secret talks about tuning in to our genie, higher self or guardian angel who says: “your wish is my command.” But what if our wish is not in alignment with the flow of the universe, or the will of Spirit? Our true higher self embodies and expresses values that go beyond greed, selfishness and egoism to love, compassion, generosity and service.

Right manifestation is not about bending the universe to our will. Rather, it is a process of aligning our will to that of the cosmos and working in co-creative harmony with it. It’s as if we’re adrift on a wild river. The best way to stay afloat and reach shore is not to battle against the waves and currents, but to allow ourselves to be carried by them, simply steering around rocks and whirlpools. When we are in harmony with the song of the universe, our lives flow abundantly and easily.

Wholeness, love and compassion

It may be possible to manifest material wealth for ourselves, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily right to do so. I discussed in my last entry how the interconnected wholeness of everything means that what we manifest inevitably has consequences for others. Hence, we cannot escape the ethical implications of our requests.

Love is the highest value of life and the universe. Hence alignment with the Spirit of the cosmos means acting out of love. Love does not seek riches in ways that exploit or harm other beings, or damage the Earth. Nor will it accept riches while others remain destitute. Love seeks material sufficiency for all beings.

In The 15-Minute Miracle Revealed, Jacquelyn Aldana presents her version of the manifestation process. Step 4 includes the following sentence: “If it is in the highest good for me and for All Life Everywhere, please DIVINELY ORCHESTRATE the following in just the perfect time: ...” What a difference from the approach of The Secret with its emphasis on self.

In my first post on manifestation, I noted that Jesus’ use of the power of prayer sprang from love and a desire to serve, not a quest for personal gain. I also mentioned that manifestation has been a core principle of the Findhorn Community for over 40 years. It has not been used as a tool for acquiring wealth – indeed, the community remains financially poor to this day. Rather, manifestation has been used in support of personal transformation and service to the world – what we call ‘work as love in action.’

The blessings of pain, loss and mistakes

Mistakes, pain, loss, and, ultimately, death are unavoidable parts of life. And they bring blessings if only we can accept them and learn their lessons. Looking back, many people realise cancer or other life-threatening situations were a blessing in disguise. Similarly, when Christine and I lost our savings and the house of our dreams, it helped to transform our attitudes to money, abundance and security.

Part of the secret of life and manifestation, which The Secret neglects, is to cultivate an attitude of acceptance, and gratitude for what is, for whatever comes; and to avoid falling into anger, blame and other negative emotions when ‘bad’ things happen or we fail to manifest our visions. The true gift of abundance is contentment no matter what happens, rather than focusing on what we think will make us happy at some time in the future. This is the gift of living in the present, or what Eckhart Tolle calls The Power of Now. This is the gift of personal transformation and the spiritual life.

Access: Public 2 Comments Print views (417)

Why is it so hard to change the world?

Posted on Jun 21st, 2007 by

Malcolm

As I look back over my last 5 entries, I am amazed and awestruck by the immense power we humans have to create the future. Exciting as this power is, it’s also scary. We have the potential to create heaven on Earth, or a living hell. What a huge responsibility that places on our shoulders – individually and collectively – to use our power with wisdom, for the good of all people, all beings, and our planetary home. At present, the world seems to be balanced on a knife’s edge and could tip either way. Lots of good things are happening (including Zaadz!), but other factors could set us sliding down the slippery slope to destruction of our civilization, and perhaps even to extinction of our species.

I’m well aware of the dangers of exaggeration. A little adrenalin is a good thing to wake us up and stimulate action. But too much can paralyse us like rabbits caught in the headlights. So I don’t want to create yet another catalogue of doom and despair, but to look honestly and clearly at our situation, and to delve deeply into its causes and potential cures. In particular, in my next few entries I want to explore why change seems so slow and difficult to achieve, and how we can more effectively work towards a better future. So please stay with me if I go into some dark places. I promise that my overall message is one of hope.

Challenges and opportunities

If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably very aware of the challenges we face. In short:
•   Earth’s climate is changing, bringing rising sea levels, ever-harsher droughts, fiercer storms and more devastating floods.
•   Oceans are becoming more acidic, and forests are disappearing, pushing myriad species into oblivion.
•   New diseases are bursting forth, and old ones are resurgent.
•   The price of energy is soaring as readily available sources of oil and gas are depleted.
•   Key minerals on which high technology depends are running out.
•   More and more people are crammed into cities, breathing dirty air, and totally dependent for their very survival on the services that provide their food, water, energy and waste disposal.
•   Many millions suffer from acts of terrorism, war, civil violence and crime.
•   Poverty, exploitation and injustice are ever-present.
•   Science and technology create new challenges as fast as they solve old ones.
•   Life for many is meaningless and purposeless, leading to soaring use of mood-altering substances, and rising suicide rates.
•   More and more people are retreating from the real world of relationship and community into computerised virtual worlds and electronic communications.
•   Economic globalization and the growing power of corporations is increasing exploitation, environmental destruction and resource conflicts.
•   And so I could continue.

Many people deny that these challenges constitute a crisis, arguing either that their seriousness is exaggerated, or that we’ll find creative solutions to them just as we have when faced with other challenges in the past. But I think our situation is unique in at least two ways. First, civilizations have fallen in the past due to invasion, resource depletion and environmental destruction (eg in Mesopotamia and North Africa), but always there have been other lands where a new civilization could arise. Today, the destruction is global; we have nowhere else to go. Second, our challenges may not appear too daunting when we look at them one by one. But when taken collectively, and when we acknowledge the many links between them, the prospect becomes far less rosy.

When our situation threatens to become overwhelming, it’s good to remember that a crisis is also a time of opportunity for constructive change. And lots of positive changes are happening right now, including:
•   Growing global awareness and interconnection fuelled by transport and communications technologies.
•   The rising tide of NGOs campaigning on every conceivable issue from climate change and globalization to peace and development, from gender issues and child-rearing, to healthy food and conservation.
•   The mushrooming number of people and organisations seeking sustainable and more meaningful ways of life.
•   Increasing interest in personal development, new forms of spirituality, and universal values such as love and compassion.
•   The rapid growth of socially responsible businesses and ethical investment opportunities.
•   The advance of science and technology, opening up new possibilities and solving old problems.
•   The emergence of alternative media focused on positive news and activities.
•   Success stories in conserving and restoring the natural environment.
•   And so on.

Nevertheless, change seems frustratingly slow compared to the urgency of the situation. Why is this? Why are people and institutions so blinkered and resistant to change? What are the most effective strategies for a peaceful revolution and creation of a better future?

Taking responsibility

Before going further, it’s important to be clear about the prime cause of our predicament. To me, there is an unequivocal answer: we have only ourselves, humanity, to blame. To paraphrase Shakespeare (very inelegantly), the fault, dear friends, is not in our stars, with God, or in our planet, but in ourselves that we are endangered.

Gaia has looked after herself for billions of years. Over that time she has maintained conditions suitable for life and evolved ever more complex, intelligent and conscious organisms. True, she has been through large fluctuations in climate, asteroid impacts, periods of volcanism and rearrangement of the continents. And some of these events led to mass extinctions. But on a cosmic scale, Earth has been incredibly stable and an amazing womb of life and consciousness. I hold no fears for Gaia’s survival, but she may just shrug off humanity in the process.

Today, we are presenting Gaia with new challenges. One is our unwillingness to accept the natural and inevitable oscillations of a self-regulating planet. We look at the history of the last few hundred years, and expect future climate to be similar despite the evidence of longer-term fluctuations, and despite unlocking gases sequestered by Gaia over millions of years in her relentless quest for stability. Similarly, we turn normal planetary processes into natural disasters by building major cities on flood-plains and earthquake faults, and by deforesting watersheds. And rather than adapting flexibly to Gaia’s rhythms, we seek stability through human control, thus risking unexpected and violent side effects.

We have multiplied into a plague species that is monopolising the planet’s resources at the expense of basic life-support systems and other species. When coupled with the restless movement of people and goods around the world, this over-population creates ideal conditions for the evolution of pests and diseases, and the loss of valuable biodiversity. And in our emotional, psychological and spiritual immaturity, from our fear, anger and greed, we unleash violence and weapons of mass destruction upon the planet and other species as well as each other.

In short, we are grossly misusing our incredible ability to create the future. We have become clever almost beyond belief, but have failed to learn the wisdom to handle these explosive powers. In our hubris, we see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution, masters of the Earth and of our own destiny. But we reap what our parents and grandparents sowed, and we leave our legacy for our children and grandchildren. Again, I don’t want to lay a heavy guilt trip on us all, but to be clear about cause and responsibility so that we may look in the right place for the solutions to our problems. They lie with us, each one of us individually and collectively.

Why do we seem so incapable of acting wisely? Why don’t we learn from history and our past mistakes? Why, so often, do we seem incapable of acting at all? Why can’t we create peace and harmony, relationship and family, community and cooperation, sufficiency and fulfilment, and a beautiful, clean and bountiful environment? Why, instead, do we so often create violence and conflict, social breakdown and competition, exploitation, pollution, ugliness, and a life without meaning?

There are many answers to these questions, from many perspectives and at many levels. I intend to explore quite a few of them within the context of an overarching theory. This is a work in progress. There may be gaps in my posts when I need time to sort out the next part. And my ideas may not always be clear and consistent. Please bear with me, and give me your feedback. I feel sure new understandings will arise and creative ways forward will emerge from this process.

The cause of human dysfunction

I’ll end this entry with a very brief outline of my overarching theory, and will expand on it in future entries.

Riane Eisler, in her classic book The Chalice and the Blade, argued that there are two fundamentally different forms of human society and relationships. These are the dominator and partnership models which I’ll describe in my next post. Early human cultures in many places followed the partnership model, and were egalitarian, cooperative and peaceful. But about 5,000 years ago they were over-run by violent, hierarchical dominator peoples. Many of our problems arise from this dominator culture, its forms of organisation and ways of relating.

Most of Eisler’s work in the last 20 years has been devoted to elaborating the benefits of the partnership model, and encouraging a transition back towards it. But there are three key questions that, to my mind, she does not adequately address. Why did the dominator model arise in the first place? Why did it sweep aside partnership cultures that had been stable for many millennia? And why is it so difficult to move back towards the partnership model?

My answer, in a word, is trauma, both individual and collective. Trauma causes emotional and behavioural responses to situations that are inappropriate and lead to more trauma for both the individual concerned and for those with whom they interact. There is thus a circular, reinforcing feedback loop that is hard to break in which trauma creates more trauma. Easily recognised examples include abuse in infancy which may lead the victims to traumatise their own children in adulthood; war-traumatised men who react with anger and violence to family stress; and collective memories of historical atrocities that often fuel modern conflicts. Other relevant traumas include famine and natural disasters, enslavement and exploitation, torture and imprisonment, rape, and accidents.

This theory provides a clear vision and goal: development of a partnership culture at all levels from the personal to the global. And it also provides clear strategies for achieving it. We need to campaign for changes in social, political and economic institutions that will move us towards a partnership culture and thus minimize the creation of fresh traumas. And we need to heal our own traumas, and those of our families, communities, nations and planet. Fortunately, we live in a time when effective ways to heal trauma and enter higher states of consciousness are becoming more and more available, as illustrated by the work of The Institute for the Study of Peak States, and others.

I will elaborate these ideas in the next few entries.

Access: Public 1 Comment Print views (369)

Tagged with: trauma, Riane Eisler, the Chalice and the Blade, creating the future, sustainability, healing, climate change, global warming, wisdom, Gaia, change, domination, partnership, consciousness

Postscript on Manifestation

Posted on Jun 23rd, 2007 by

Malcolm

In my series of entries on manifestation I briefly mentioned the importance of attitude to creating our reality. I’m reading The Vision by Tom Brown Jr at the moment, in which he describes his training from a child by a Native American shaman whom he called Grandfather. I was very struck by the following passage and its relevance to manifestation. I hope it resonates for you too.

Grandfather also taught us that we create our own reality. Our mental attitude is the only thing that decides how we will feel about something, about some situation, or some person. ... Anytime I found myself upset about something or looking at something in a negative way, Grandfather would ask me why I chose to feel that way. That question would lead to a deep introspection, and I would find that my perceptions and understandings would change when I looked at them differently. Thus the first thing we learned about creating our own reality was the ability to be flexible and to change when necessary. It is flexibility and change in the world of nature that prevents extinction. I began to ask myself why I chose to feel a certain way whenever something negative was encountered. I then could change that feeling at will, thus controlling my mind and emotion.

I remember one of my first lessons in creating my own reality. It was during one of my first full survival camp outs, and my skills were not yet up to par. It was in the late fall; the winds were bitter cold and the rain heavy, soaking everything. I had spent all night and most of the next day in the debris hut. I was soaked to the bone, cold, and depressed about the conditions. I had been looking forward to exploring the lower swamps, and now the whole day was wasted, boring, and rather debilitating. I lacked energy and drive to do anything and chose to lie down and bemoan my imprisonment. All at once, I caught myself being a critic, and without another thought, I jumped out of the hut and built a fire. The fire began to warm me, and I felt good again. I began thinking about how I looked at this day and how I chose to feel about the situation. I decided to try to change my debilitating perception and to look at it as an adventure and a challenge.

I sprang into action. The challenge of making my camp the most warm and comfortable one ever filled me with a boundless energy. Within a few hours I had created a masterpiece in survival living. ... I chose happiness and energy, and though the day remained the same in external conditions, my internal representations had changed and my spirit soared. From these basic truths I began to reach out further, creating my own reality. I found that there was no such thing as a good or bad day; there is only the kind of day we choose to look at. If we learn something, even from what we consider bad or a failure, then it is good. It is always our choice.

Access: Public What do you think? Print views (273)

Tagged with: manifestation, attitude, creating reality, reality, Tom Brown Jr

Some Personal Reflections

Posted on Jun 27th, 2007 by

Malcolm

Flowers in the Highlands

I’ve been blogging for a couple of months now. Hard work but rewarding. I’m feeling the need of a bit of a break – perhaps stretch my posts to one a week for the moment. Today, I simply want to share a few things about me and my life.

First, a big thank you to all my readers. Without you there would be no blog. And I particularly want to thank those of you who’ve taken the time and trouble to comment, send me a message, or invite me to be a friend. This feedback is really important. It reassures me that my effort is worthwhile; that I’m not just talking to myself; and that I really do have something useful to say.

It’s also good to feel so at home, welcome and accepted on Zaadz, and to know that there are so many wonderful people in the world. A measure of this feeling is that I’m confident enough to write more personal reflections now.

Here’s the ad break in case you want to fast-forward. If you like my blog, please tell your friends. The more readers I have, the wider my small wisdom can spread, and the more worthwhile the effort becomes. You may be interested to know that some of my entries are being ‘re-published’ elsewhere. And some of them began life as articles for other media. The Global Intelligencer is a new monthly on-line news magazine that will be carrying one of my essays in each issue. Their companion site, The Bleeping Herald (inspired by What the Bleep) has just run an article on Evolution and Spirituality that has not yet appeared on my blog. The Findhorn Foundation’s Global Network site is going to run regular copies of some of my entries, and their print magazine Network News has already re-run my article on death.

I began this blog partly to get myself writing again after publishing The Science of Oneness. And it’s worked better even than I hoped. I always have so many ideas and so much information buzzing round my head that it’s really hard to knock it into coherent shape. A big advantage of blogging is that I can write short pieces as the inspiration arises. They only need to be loosely connected, and don’t need to be in any particular sequence. And the use of tags and links can create a dynamic network of ideas. Very liberating compared to the linear logical structure of a book. And at the end of the day, I’m sure a book will emerge, either as a collection of essays, or edited into a coherent text.

Apple blossom, NewBold House

I last wrote about nature in springtime. Now it’s mid-summer. Here in the north of Scotland it never gets really dark, and the birds seldom sleep. We’ve had plenty of rain in the last month or so (yes, in the north-east of Scotland summer can be very dry!) and the woods and fields are bursting with vitality. Our garden has large trees and backs onto woods, so it’s like a green cave outside my window. When I’m not sitting here at my computer, I’m often communing with the plants in our semi-wild garden – removing immigrants that are a bit too vigorous, encouraging those that will thrive without taking over, trimming back shrubs that get too big. Or I’m wandering the woods talking to the trees. And Friday mornings Christine and I work as volunteers in an old walled garden at NewBold House, helping to bring more than 100 fruit trees back to healthy production - some over a century old.

Life is very full. And that’s how it should be. As I approach ‘retirement’ age (horrible concept), what I fear is emptiness rather than fullness.

Summer flowers, Cotswolds

Most mornings I spend on the computer, and many days Christine works in her studio in the garden on a textile art exhibition in support of trees. I help her with carpentry and other DIY skills when necessary, and some of my photos of tree creatures will be included in the exhibition. I’ve put a few of them in my Zaadz album and also made a DVD slideshow with sound track. We’re both flat out now to get ready for her first major exhibition at Brodie Castle in early September (a National Trust for Scotland property). A lot to do, and a lot to work out about how to display everything in a lovely rustic old stables building. Christine will be there for the 5 days of the exhibition as ‘artist in residence’ to talk about her work and demonstrate some of her techniques. All very exciting.

And then there is our involvement with the Institute for the Study of Peak States. In May, Christine did their healers’ training, here at NewBold House. And we’ll both be doing it in October. It’s really exciting stuff, and I’ll be having quite a lot to say about it in upcoming entries on why it’s so hard to change the world.

Finally, looking forward quite a way, I’ve been awarded a Fellowship to visit my old University of Western Australia for 4 months from mid-March next year to work on issues to do with sustainability. Apart from meeting old colleagues and new students, this will give me access to a first-class library for the first time in a decade. That should fuel the blog!

Thanks for listening. Normal blog service will be resumed in the next few days.

Blessings to you all,

Malcolm

Access: Public 1 Comment Print views (261)

Tagged with: reflections, friends, comments, blog, feedback, Zaadz, The Global Intelligencer, The Bleeping Herald, Findhorn, Findhorn Community, The Science of Oneness, nature, photos, textile art, trees, Peak States

Dominator v partnership societies and relationships

Posted on Jun 30th, 2007 by

Malcolm

On 21 June I posted some thoughts on why it is so hard to change the world. At the end, I outlined a theory that I’m developing that our human predicament can be explained by combining Riane Eisler’s partnership and dominator models of culture and relationships with theories of trauma and peak states of consciousness. This has got me really excited. I still have lots of unresolved questions and inconsistencies, and connections to other ideas are springing up all over. It’s going to be hard to keep blogging without drawing you, my readers, into my creative chaos. Today I’ll step back from the bubbling cauldron and start by summarizing Riane Eisler’s theories.

Eisler claims that there are two fundamentally different ways that society and relationships can be organised that form opposite poles of a spectrum. One extreme is a hierarchy of power in which those on top dominate those below through systems of belief (it’s human nature or God’s will), up-bringing, and force. Such societies are male dominated, not only because men are stronger and naturally more inclined to be aggressive, but also because they are not constrained by menstruation, pregnancy and nursing babies. The other extreme social form is one of trust, cooperation and partnership; of empowerment of the individual and community rather than power over them; a system that values individual differences rather than uniform equality.

In her study of human prehistory, The Chalice and the Blade (published in1987), Riane Eisler argues cogently that people lived in peaceful ‘partnership’ societies for many thousands of years until they were overwhelmed by ‘dominator’ cultures of warlike nomadic tribes. Ever since then, the pendulum has swung back and forth, but has always been biased towards hierarchical, authoritarian structures, and violent relationships. In the last 20 years, Eisler has researched and written extensively about these two models, and ways to encourage a transition back to a partnership culture. You can find more about her ideas on her website and in more recent books, including The Power of Partnership (2002) and The Real Wealth of Nations (2007).

The dominator model

In Eisler’s words (The Power of Partnership, p.xv):

In the domination model, somebody has to be on top and somebody has to be on the bottom. Those on top control those below them. People learn to carry a harsh voice in their heads telling them they’re no good, they don’t deserve love, they need to be punished. Families and societies are based on control that is explicitly or implicitly backed up by guilt, fear, and force. The world is divided into in-groups and out-groups, with those who are different seen as enemies to be conquered or destroyed.

Sound familiar? Eisler goes on (p.5):

One core element of this dominator blueprint is authoritarianism – a strong-man rule in both the family and the state or tribe. A second is rigid male dominance – the ranking of one half of humanity over the other half. A third is socially accepted violence, from child and wife beating to chronic warfare. A fourth core element is a set of teachings and beliefs that dominator relations are inevitable, even moral – that it’s honorable and moral to kill and enslave neighboring nations or tribes, stone women to death, stand by while ‘inferior’ races are put in ovens and gassed, or beat children to impose one’s will.

In summary, the characteristics of the dominator model include:

•    An authoritarian social structure of rigid rankings and hierarchies based on fear of pain and/or force.
•    Ranking the male half of humanity over the female half, and highly valuing so-called ‘masculine’ traits and activities such as control and conquest of people and nature.
•    A high degree of fear and socially accepted violence and abuse – from wife and child beating, rape, and warfare, to emotional abuse by ‘superiors’ in families, workplaces, and society at large.
•    Relations of control and domination presented as normal, desirable and moral.
•    Reflection of these characteristics in our relationship with ourselves: the ‘inner critic’ that is always judging and finding fault with what we do and telling us we’re not good enough; anxiety about getting things right, or about things that may go wrong; repression of anger, fear and associated guilt.

Extreme examples of dominator societies in modern times include Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Islamic fundamentalist states. However, many of its features are easily identifiable in democratic western countries. Despite its longevity, the dominator model is becoming increasingly dangerous due to the power of modern technology to create weapons of mass destruction, and cause climate change.

The partnership model

As far as the partnership model is concerned, Eisler writes (p.xv):

In contrast, the partnership model supports mutually respectful and caring relations. Because there is no built-in need to maintain rigid rankings of control, there is also no built-in need for abuse or violence. Partnership relations free our innate capacity to feel joy, to play. They enable us to grow mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. This is true for individuals, families, and whole societies. Conflict is an opportunity to learn and to be creative, and power is exercised in ways that empower rather than disempower others.

Again, there is an air of familiarity here for those of us who are involved with personal development, healing, conscious relationships, or some of the more enlightened work-place practices. Eisler continues (p.5):

In the partnership model, you find a democratic and egalitarian social structure, equal partnership between women and men, and less socially accepted violence in all relations – from intimate to international – because violence is not needed to maintain rigid rankings of domination. You also find beliefs about human nature that support empathic and mutually respectful relations. And you see that qualities denigrated as ‘feminine’ in the domination model, such as caring and non-violence, are valued in men and women, and guide social policy.

Again, in summary, the partnership model is based on:

•    Egalitarian social structures of linking, and ‘hierarchies of actualization’ where leadership and management are empowering, and the goal is higher levels of functioning.
•    Equal ranking of the female and male halves of humanity, and a high valuation of traits and activities such as empathy, non-violence, and caring in women, men and social policy.
•    Mutual trust, respect and a low degree of fear and social violence.
•    Presentation of partnership relationships as normal, desirable and moral.
•    Relationships with ourselves that are loving, compassionate, and accepting; awareness of our emotions and ability to express them openly; attunement to our bodies and their needs; self-confidence and self-esteem.

Many features of the partnership model are evident and growing in the modern western world, but it is difficult to find fully-fledged examples. The Scandinavian countries are often held up as leading in this direction, but we have to look to traditional societies such as the Inuit and bushmen for more complete examples.

The struggle for partnership

The partnership and dominator models represent extreme polarities, and all cultures are a mixture in practice. In each case, the characteristics listed in the dot points above form interactive, self-reinforcing loops as shown in the diagrams. Hence, once in place, each system is likely to be stable and resistant to change. This certainly appears to be the case historically. Whilst concrete proof is lacking, Eisler argues strongly that humans lived in partnership societies from 20-30,000 years ago until about 6-8,000 years ago when dominator cultures took over. Since then, there have been oscillations, but domination has remained the commonest cultural form, and shifts towards partnership have been fiercely resisted as they are to this day.

Despite this resistance, the western world has moved a long way in the last few centuries towards the partnership model. We are no longer at the mercy of despotic kings, infallible religious authorities or the Inquisition. We no longer risk execution or burning at the stake for daring to speak out or for writing articles such as this. Slavery, torture and rape are increasingly repugnant to us. We no longer exclude women from political participation and education, and reject domestic violence as wrong. We take for granted the vote, freedom of speech, safe working conditions, free education, desegregation, gay rights and other gains. And our relationship with nature is becoming less abusive.

Unfortunately, these moves towards a partnership model are not universal, and there is a strong backlash even in the west. In many countries, girls are sold into sex-slavery or forced marriages and may suffer genital mutilation; women are confined to the home and shapeless cover-all robes, wife-beating is still regarded as a husband’s right, and a woman may be stoned to death for adultery. Child labour and gross exploitation of poor workers continue against a backdrop of pollution and environmental destruction. And imprisonment, torture and even death are common for those brave enough to speak out.

Closer to home for most readers of this blog, the wars against terror, drugs and crime are weakening the freedoms we have learned to take for granted. Imprisonment without trial, solitary confinement and even torture have become acceptable in the USA. Globalization is being used as a weapon to cut wages and working conditions whilst managers and the rich grab ever more for themselves. Democratic politics, the media and regulatory controls are increasingly corrupted by the power of corporate finance and the drive for profit at any cost. The religious right is urging a return to ‘traditional family values’ that include the unquestioned authority of males, beating of wayward children, denying women the right to control their fertility, and forcing them back into the home and out of the workplace. And the gains in self-esteem made by the personal development movement are counterbalanced by the emphasis on sin by fundamentalists.

The battle for hearts and minds, and a more humane world continues. And each of us must play our part if we want a different future. As Eisler writes, in The Power of Partnership (p.91):

If popular culture continues to glorify physical and emotional violence, if hate and scapegoating continue to be justified as moral and right, if the gap between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen, if the protection of our natural environment continues to be weakened, if our government continues to arm repressive regimes and would-be regimes – in short, if regression to the domination model continues – no matter how hard you work and save, much that you hold dear will remain threatened.

And in our ever-shrinking global village, it is not enough to promote partnership at home. The shift must be worldwide.

Eisler has developed an impressive agenda for practical action at the personal, family, community, workplace, national and international levels. (See The Partnership Way, The Real Wealth of Nations and other sources). But she leaves some questions unanswered that indicate there may be deeper causes at work:

If early, pre-historic human societies were based on partnership and this system is inherently stable, why did the dominator model arise, and why has it dominated human history? And if the partnership model is an attractive and powerful alternative, why is resistance so strong, and why has partnership never replaced dominator relationships in the last 6,000 years?

I believe the answer to all these questions may be trauma – both individual and collective. But to justify this conclusion will take a few more entries. I need to explain what I mean by trauma, and then explore its possible role in human history. To help with this, I will seek insights from recent research on the relationship between climate and civilisation, including the history of the Sahel region of Africa over the last century. Then, I need to look at how well this and other possible models explain the human condition. And finally, I need to discuss recent work on healing trauma and peak states of human consciousness.

Please stick with me. The ride will be rough in places, but I expect the view at the end will make it worthwhile!

Access: Public What do you think? Print views (330)

Tagged with: Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade, partnership, dominator, culture, civilization, history, relationships, hierarchy, gender, feminine, masculine, violence, conflict, equality, trauma, fear

Search

Browse Posts

Tag Browser

Archives

Manifestation 1: 'The Secret' & the ‘law of attraction'

Manifestation 2: Evidence and mechanisms

Manifestation 3: Co-creation and abundance

Right Manifestation

Why is it so hard to change the world?

Postscript on Manifestation

Some Personal Reflections

Dominator v partnership societies and relationships

Gaia Community

Explore

Inspire

The Gaiam Network