How true it was then, and now
A free and open society is an ongoing conflict, interrupted periodically by compromises – which then become the start for the continuation of conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum.
…
A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be “compromise”.
– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (1972)
This is spot on. This is why I’m unafraid of conflict. Its not only important, but necessary if we have to move forward in any direction as a society.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, History
hey sunny
this is one of my favourite books… was only just reading from it today , funnily enough. you know some of the best community organising I’ve seen in Europe and US has been inspired by Alinsky.
and yes, you don’t have to even be a radical to realise conflict and difference is what drives societies forward.. negotiated and managed, it’s natural. Those that go on about a soceity one time where there was no difference are deluding themselves – into some nostalgia of a perfect time where there was no conflict and every one helped nice old ladies and now they don’t.
Only got to look at conflicts in interpersonal relations and families to see it’s a natural part of human dynamics.
Conflict by itself does not lead to compromise. One my main criticisms to the current political mood – something which I am afraid PP engages on – is being part of the noise machine, where the Left and Right keep on shouting and playing gotcha games, but no resolution is ever achieved.
Compromise requires maturity, listening and understanding what motivates the other part in order to build a common platform where rational discourse can flourish, even though differences may always persist.
10 odd years ago, I critiqued Alinsky’s work for one of my course modules. Since then I haven’t looked at his work.
“interrupted periodically by compromises – which then become the start for the continuation of conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum.” This always reminds me of the trichotomy of “thesis”, “antithesis”, and “synthesis” of German Idealism (I include Marx).
If your idea of this conflict/compromise paradigm is to create conflict until the other side compromises then brother you can count me out.
I think Inders has got the wrong end of the stick here. What is being argued is that conflicts occur naturally in any situation involving human beings. It isn’t a matter of creating a conflict in order to get a compromise, the conflicts will arise whatever happens.
This model is also totally different to the German one which, in its final stage with Marx, teaches that the final synthesis is the disappearance of capitalist society and the arrival of a socialist utopia. He got that bit wrong didn’t he?
I second what Ravi says.
I think you may just have inspired a blog post, Sunny… thanks!
Ravi said:
“One my main criticisms to the current political mood – something which I am afraid PP engages on – is being part of the noise machine, where the Left and Right keep on shouting and playing gotcha games, but no resolution is ever achieved.”
This is, surely, simply yet another inevitable product of an unrepresentative electoral system, and hardly something “current” (e.g. Disraeli & Gladstone) ?
Very little difference between the key policy goals (or, indeed, policies) of the two monolithic-yet-masking-enormous-internal-variation parties who can actually “win” via first-past-the-post, uninspiring representatives [I'm sorry, but anyone who finds "MC Dave C in da trust fund" genuinely exciting should contact their GP immediately to have their dopamine levels checked...
], and simplistic media coverage of complex issues.
Ho hum.
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “conflict” is. Disagreement ? Kicking someone’s head in ?
billericaydicky
Thats not what the post says to me. The quote is being used to define conflict as necessary by Sunny. In fact conflict is being painted as more then necessary, but an actual desired state.
There’s also little being said about compromise. If the compromise is all one sided, then what compromise is that ? Thats just trying to use conflict to defeat the opponent.
I’m all for compromise being used as a tool to diffuse disagreement. I’m against using conflict as a tool to bring about ideological victory.
It’s amusing on one level a liberal that is comfortable with conflict being needed for change. That’s typically a revolutionary view…
Halima – Alinsky’s book has become my bible! I absolutely love it. Though, a lto fo what he says I’ve been thinking about it anyway recently. He just articulates it better.
Ravi:
One my main criticisms to the current political mood – something which I am afraid PP engages on – is being part of the noise machine, where the Left and Right keep on shouting and playing gotcha games, but no resolution is ever achieved.
Well, yes and no. You seem to think change takes place very fast, but it doesn’t. Some ideas gain traction, some people get politically assassinated, some organisations succeed in changing the mood – its a long process. PP is part of the process…
Is it part of the noise machine? Sometimes. But I don’t always use it for point scoring but its fun. And sometimes the point-scoring works. The same way the attacks against Obama, which are subtly racist, work.
You know what Alinsky said: Its not a matter of whether the means justify the end. Its always a matter of whether a particular means justifies a particular end.
Inders:
If your idea of this conflict/compromise paradigm is to create conflict until the other side compromises then brother you can count me out.
First, it depends on whether you want to be part of the change too, and whether you share the same vision on a particular issue. In some cases you may do, in other cases you may not.
Just because you’re brown won’t mean you share the same vision of the future on, say, environmentalism
In those cases I don’t expect you to be on my side in my conflict.
Andy – yup.
Laban – depends on the situation.
I’m against using conflict as a tool to bring about ideological victory.
If you want ideilogical victory or any compromise, you have to fight first, to get at least half-way.
If you’re going to roll over and avoid conflict at the first sign of trouble, then why should anyone compromise with you? They’ll just ignore you.
Leon – I’m a pragmatic revolutionary
Heh.
. . . if we have to move forward in any direction as a society.
Forward . . . in any direction? (e.g forwards, backwards, sideways, upwards, downwards).
Brilliant! Fuzzy language is a manifestation of fuzzy thinking. Must do better.