• Registered: 2005-03-07

Topic: Group Dynamics

Okay, here's a topic that's floated around this forum a few times now, but I feel it's worth discussing again...

What can a group do in order to protect itself from agents provocateurs? 

The clearest, practical answer to me seems like bottom-up management.  The "cell-based structure" has merit, too, but I don't have experience with it myself and all I see in it is the possibility of in-fighting factions.  Yet, I'm guessing it's called "cell-based" because that way of working is meant to mimic the way the physical body divides internal physiological tasks.  So it works for the body.  ...But a human being is in a different order of consciousness than a cell.

The other observation I have at this time is that groups are formed for a purpose.  People band up for security, for identification, and to leverage their control over the world.  As groups grow large, leaders are (or so we're told) required to control not the world, but to control the group controlling the world.  And leaders, at least while performing their duties, cannot share in identification--they must feel and be separate in order to discharge their duty.  Moreover, if a group deeply invests in a central leader, the leader must be protected, right?  Therefore the leader him or herself is exempted from looking after their own security--a necessary humbling experience of being human, I think.  But it is provided to them gratis. 

...In this way the leader is taught to value the feeling of security very little (since it's free to them) and to think of himself as separate.  Their chief occupation is controlling the controlling of the world.  In short, their minds are made handicapped, are re-made in the image of the ego. 

Yet the attraction of the role of leader is intense, even to those with small to medium-sized egos; being leader means being excused from toil and automatic notoriety!

So again, bottom-up organization is key in this.  But my larger point is that the motivation of control is built into the raison d'etre of a group.  ...But that isn't bad in itself.  The question, it seems, is whether that wish for control is to evolve into power-over, or a balance between power-over and power-within. 

For a balance to develop between the two, the desire for a feeling of identification must be greater than the desire for controlling events. 

Talking about individuals, it's easy to make suggestions as to how an individual can put herself on the path of power-within.  But how does a group do it?  Obviously one person at a time...but I'm looking for something more.

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • Blue
  • Thank you Tom
  • Offline
  • From: The bottom of my heart
  • Registered: 2006-07-10

Re: Group Dynamics

I quite like the democratic way that leadership is performed within small groups, on some TV 'rality' programs , whereby every member of the group takes turns to be the leader.

On a more global scale you see this happening with the EC where presidency is changed every 4 years?, between the member states.

Obviously one day is not enough and 4 years is too much, but the general idea is that you would not impose liberties on the group, if you were to be automatically deposed in any case. 

Likewise, one person would not make all the decisions, but would lead a council representating all the group members, and this council would need to revolve in similar fashion, so that all get a chance to have a say.

I don't see any valid reason why any person or group would need to control the world, just groups of self sustaining communities that would be caring enough to help neigbouring communities in times of need in a reciprocal arrangement.

If there was a need for global councils for international events, these should be called together when needed and then disbanded once the event has passed.

Blue's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-07

Re: Group Dynamics

There are examples of truly healthy democracy even here in the United States. 
For instance, in the state of New Hampshire, state legislators salaries are capped at $100 per year--so that their primary motivation must be serving. 

http://www.freestateproject.org/

...Does anyone have links or resources on the subject of bottom-up leadership?

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Group Dynamics

Brian Glick has been writing about COINTELPRO for some time. Here is an article that addresses countermeasures to agent provocateurs, informants, infiltrators, harassment, and so on:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCH … thods.html

dreamosis wrote:

The clearest, practical answer to me seems like bottom-up management.

Yeah, that would be ideal. Another possibility would be a mature majority among the bottom working with a mature and capable leadership at the top. This would allow inevitable corruption to manifest only within the minority at the bottom, a minority small enough to be expunged or overridden.

The question is not only how to deal with agents, but how to deal with those who are bound to get suckered or provoked by the agents. Because as much as we can control ourselves to not get taken in, we cannot safeguard against the weakest links in the group being targeted and used, so another set of countermeasures is needed to deal with them after the fact. And like I said, this would require an uncorrupted majority and leadership to squash the corrupted elements.

The more mature and responsible the bottom, the less power needs to be given to the leader. That is the way to go. But if corruption of the leadership is inevitable, then the cell structure would be necessary, whereby instead of people leading the movement it would be ideals striven for in common by each cell.

Maybe power needs to be invested in something that cannot become corrupted, so that when the rest does go downhill, there is still something pure and strong enough that can step in and set things straight. You know, like a "in case of emergency break glass" type of thing. It might be something invisible or untouchable to enemies within and outside the group, like a secret circle or some intangible higher ideal.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-07

Re: Group Dynamics

An intangible higher ideal is more appealing to me than a secret circle.  The secret circle idea--perhaps a small group whose job it is to monitor and help to balance the energy dynamics of a group--is appealing to me too, though. 

However, it's my intuition that a group has a better chance of maintaining integrity if everything is in the open.

Secret societies, say like the Masons, are manipulable because of their secrecy.  If anyone could log onto the 'net and look up the names of Masons members, then it would be stupidly dangerous to be a member (if your intent was to exploit the network for financial or political gain).  If the society weren't secret, much less dedicated journalists could expose the pattern of exploitation by connecting a few dots.  Secrecy has, in a sense, facilitated the corruption.

Yet the intangible higher ideal could lead to empty religiosity, and I bet more easily than a secret circle could be infiltrated.  Is that pessimistic? 

Currently I'm toying with the idea of a "designated conscience."  (A break in case of glass person).  This person, whether elected or chosen by a commitee, would have the job of reminding the group of the higher intangible ideal.  While others might be occupied with doing more ordinary tasks, the task of this person, would be purification.  Not to be pure.  Not that.  But to...try.  ...A kind of democratic shaman.

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: Group Dynamics

No matter how well you can calculate, plan, and build something, sooner or later some unforeseen incalculable factor creeps in and changes things. Freewill causes problems sometimes. For instance, if you indeed were part of an inner circle duty bound to guard knowledge against improper use, a member still has the freewill to split off and abuse that knowledge for himself.

So maybe the wisest groups know that nothing is permanent, and that things inevitably must go through cycles and changes. In other words, I'm not sure that a single brilliant plan could be executed that would be guaranteed to keep the group free permanently, but rather that any plan comes with knowledge and acceptance of its own eventual demise, and it's a matter of choosing the least painful and most delayed demise so that overall there is maximum positive net effect. There could be laid plans for getting things back on track, which then gives rise to the cycles.

Maybe considering the cycles of buildups and demise that mankind has gone through over the countless millennia, there already is some sort of system in place. We can only speculate of what that system is like. Maybe secret societies that keep the flame lit through the dark ages of recovery. Maybe buried relics containing crucial knowledge and technology to be used by bloodlines with reincarnating souls duty bound to turn the wheel back into the light. I don't know, but that's another angle to approach this, to look at what was/is already in place.

Democratic shaman... good idea. Someone to be the spiritual eyes and hands of a group whose membership is not so well developed in that area. I think they would be essential to communal living, because they are plugged into something that transcends secular ideals. Beyond ideals, maybe perception is another key. If everyone in a community had etheric vision and could scan others for false motives, I doubt it would crumble as easily.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-07

Re: Group Dynamics

The Brian Glick article is exactly what I was looking for--thank you, Montalk. 

I found this sentence to be, perhaps, the most helpful:

B. Glick wrote:

Deal openly and directly with the form and content of what anyone says and does, whether the person is a suspected agent, has emotional problems, or is simply a sincere, but naive or confused person new to the work.

Even from group work in an environment like an office I've noticed that the effectiveness of a group deteriorates when direct criticism is not allowed.  In an environment wherein groups members only feel free to criticize privately behind others' backs, or only by arranging a meeting with the leader/boss, the chance of a system breakdown is much higher.

This pattern is partly an effect of top-down (vertical) systems, but mostly a result of timidity from members.
So I think bottom-up management is strengthened by a general knowing that criticism is okay, especially of the decision-makers.

...Remember in Babylon 5 (I only saw a few episodes), the telepaths that were used to ensure fair business dealing?  Only if. 

There is no foolproof group dynamic, no, but there are good ideas here.   

**

I'm thinking now of archetypes again.  There's the Ruler, the Magician, the Sage, and the Fool--an archetypal court.  I'm also reminded of "Twelfth Nights."  In Twelfth Night celebrations, the master becomes the servant and the servant becomes the master for a short time (twelve days?)  Imagine that in our society!  What if a welfare mother became town mayor for two weeks?   

Spiritual principles, applied to groups, might take us a long way here, too.  Obviously, rhythm is a major truth that must be respected in managing even a group of ten people. 

A group could accede to the principle of rhythm by periodically, or spontaneously, deciding to re-write its policies--starting from close to scratch.  The spiritual principles, the essential teachings that change only in inflection but rarely become unrecognizable to the older ones, would be the group's bedrock.  Institutionalizing a re-interpretation of them might be defeatus, but a majority attitude of acceptance for the change is what would keep the system from becoming brittle.  The attitude could be more important than the actual operation. 

...The Fool character, I suspect, is very important in bottom-up groups, too.  For the devil cannot stand to be mocked.  Where there is mockery, there is less likely to be STS unexposed.

You can't change a tiger's stripes,
but you can avoid its teeth.