{"id":75504,"date":"2016-07-18T12:00:38","date_gmt":"2016-07-18T11:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=75504"},"modified":"2016-07-18T12:28:53","modified_gmt":"2016-07-18T11:28:53","slug":"whole-systems-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/07\/whole-systems-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Whole Systems Change"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Riane<\/a>A Framework & First Steps for Social\/Economic Transformation<\/em><\/p>\n

This paper by Riane Eisler is one of many proposals for a systemic alternative<\/a>\u00a0we have published or will be publishing here at the Next System Project. We have commissioned these papers in order to facilitate an informed and comprehensive discussion of \u201cnew systems,\u201d and as part of this effort we have also created a comparative framework <\/a>which provides a basis for evaluating system proposals according to a common set of criteria.<\/em><\/p>\n

Overview <\/strong><\/p>\n

1 Mar 2016 – <\/em>Today\u2019s nuclear and biological weapons give us destructive powers once attributed only to a vengeful God. Fossil fuels combined with our species\u2019 exponential population growth are decimating our natural life-support systems. A seismic technological shift, as radical as that from foraging to farming and from agriculture to manufacturing, is hurling us into the postindustrial, knowledge-service age. Jobs are disappearing, and many more soon will be lost to robotics and artificial intelligence. The chasm between haves and have-nots is again widening both within and between nations. Religious fanaticism is resurging, promising heavenly rewards for terrorizing,\u00a0maiming, and killing.<\/p>\n

And that is only the short list of our environmental, economic, and social problems. Yet the vast majority of people, including most national leaders, academics, and mass media, remain in a kind of trance, insulated by old ways of thinking.<\/p>\n

\"heart_19201_lg-1<\/a><\/p>\n

Fortunately, a growing number of people recognize that we stand at a turning point in our human adventure on Earth. They are reexamining not only what was and is, but also what can, and must, be done.\u00a0 They understand that solving our unprecedented problems calls for more than just tinkering at the edges of failing systems\u2014that we need whole systems change, and that this, in turn, requires a fundamental cultural transformation.<\/p>\n

This article outlines key elements of such a cultural transformation. I sketch the methodology that leads to a new conceptual framework for understanding social systems, its key findings, and their implications for whole systems change. I then outline long-term actions focusing on four cornerstones, including fundamental economic changes, as foundations for a more peaceful, equitable, and sustainable future.<\/p>\n

To show how to go from proposal to action, I further include references to successful pilot programs testing such actions by the Center for Partnership Studies, a nonprofit research and education organization formed for this purpose.<\/p>\n

\"incandescent_7579_lg<\/a><\/p>\n

From Old to New Thinking <\/strong><\/p>\n

After the fall of the Soviet Union, some people contended that capitalism would bring peace and a more equitable world. But capitalism has not brought peace. Instead, it has widened the gap between those on the top and those on the bottom, and has been a major factor in accelerating environmental despoliation and destruction.<\/p>\n

\"graphic-1024x555<\/a><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t miss our interview with Riane Eisler<\/a><\/p>\n

In reaction, some again argue that socialism is the answer.\u00a0 But the two mass applications of Marx\u2019s socialist theories in the former Soviet Union and China led to enormous repression and violence, not to speak of massive environmental problems.<\/p>\n

Others say that the solution to our ills is democratic elections. But even where there are elections, oligarchies generally rule. Moreover, people often elect authoritarian regimes, as happened in the wake of the \u201cArab Spring.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still others would have us return to prescientific Western times, or alternately, replace Western secularism with Eastern religions. They ignore that the religious European Middle Ages were cruel and repressive, that Eastern religions have helped perpetuate inequality and oppression, and that today\u2019s fundamentalist religious regimes are brutally violent and oppressive.<\/p>\n

While different in many respects, all these approaches have one thing in common: they derive from old thinking<\/em>. They look at societies from the perspective of old categories such as capitalist versus socialist, religious versus secular, Eastern versus Western, rightist versus leftist, and industrial versus pre or postindustrial. They ignore the lessons of history: societies in all these categories have been repressive, unjust, and violent, and all have failed to adequately protect our natural environment.<\/p>\n

What kind of social configuration supports the expression of our human capacities for consciousness, caring, and creativity\u2014or, alternately, our capacities for insensitivity, cruelty, and destructiveness?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Most importantly for whole systems change, none of these categories help us answer the most critical question for our future: What kind of social configuration supports the expression of our human capacities for consciousness, caring, and creativity\u2014or, alternately, our capacities for insensitivity, cruelty, and destructiveness?<\/em><\/p>\n

The multidisciplinary research briefly described below addresses this question.<\/p>\n

A New Method of Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

The study of relational dynamics<\/em> is a new method for analyzing social systems.<\/a>[1]<\/a> It focuses on two primary relational dynamics:<\/p>\n

First, <\/em>the kinds of relations\u2014from intimate to international\u2014a culture encourages or discourages;<\/p>\n

Second, <\/em>the interactive relationships among key elements of a culture that maintain its basic character.<\/p>\n

The study of relational dynamics draws from systems analysis, complexity theory, and self-organizing theory\u2014the study of how different components of living systems interact to maintain one another and the larger whole of which they are a part, and how they can change.<\/a>[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Drawing from a trans-disciplinary database, its sources include: cross-cultural anthropological and sociological surveys and studies of individual societies; writings by historians; analyses of laws, moral codes, art, and literature; scholarship from psychology, economics, education, political science, philosophy, religious studies, archeology, myths and legends; and data from more recent fields such as primatology, neuroscience, gender studies, women\u2019s studies, and men\u2019s studies.<\/a>[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

A feature of the study of relational dynamics that distinguishes it from most social analyses is that it not only focuses on political, economic, and other \u201cpublic\u201d institutions. Its integrative approach takes into account findings from biological and social science, showing the critical importance of the \u201cprivate\u201d sphere of family and other intimate relations in shaping beliefs, behaviors, and even how our brains develop.<\/a>[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

In testing the hypothesis that effective systems change must take into account an interactive dynamic that includes how a society constructs childrearing and gender roles\/relations, the two contrasting social configurations described below were identified.<\/p>\n

Two Underlying Social Configurations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The social configurations identified by the study of relational dynamics transcend familiar categories, such as religious or secular, leftist or rightist, socialist or capitalist, Eastern or Western, Northern or Southern, and industrial or pre or postindustrial, which only describe particular aspects of a society such as ideology, technology, economics, or location. While this is important information, it does not tell us anything about how a society constructs the gender and parent-child relations where children first experience, observe, and are taught what is considered normal and moral in human relations. \u00a0<\/strong>Nor does it tell us anything about what kinds of relations in all spheres\u2014from the family, education, and religion, to politics and economics\u2014a society\u2019s beliefs, guiding values, and institutions support or inhibit.<\/p>\n

Examining societies from the perspective of the study of relational dynamics reveals social configurations that are not discernible using a conventional siloed, uni-disciplinary approach. Since there were no names for these configurations, the terms domination model<\/em> and partnership model<\/em> were chosen to describe them<\/p>\n

These new social categories reveal otherwise invisible connections; for example, the connection between whether or not violence is considered normal in childrearing and whether a society is warlike or peaceful; the connection between whether gender norms rank one sex over the other and whether the society is more equitable or inequitable.\u00a0 On the most basic level, these categories provide information about what kinds of social systems support our human capacities for consciousness, empathy, caring, and creativity, instead of our capacities for insensitivity, cruelty, exploitation, and destructiveness.<\/a>[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Domination Social Configuration<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hitler\u2019s Germany (a technologically advanced, Western rightist society), Stalin\u2019s USSR (a secular, leftist society), Khomeini\u2019s Iran, the Taliban of Afghanistan, ISIL in Iraq and Syria (Eastern religious societies), and Idi Amin\u2019s Uganda (a tribalist society) have been some of the most brutally violent and repressive societies of the past century. From the perspective of conventional categories, these societies seem totally different. But they share the core configuration of the four interactive, mutually supporting components of the domination model:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A structure of rigid top-down rankings in both<\/em> the family and the state or tribe, and all institutions in between;<\/li>\n
  2. The rigid ranking of the male half of humanity over the female half, and, with this, a system of gendered values<\/em> in which traits and activities culturally associated with women or the \u201cfeminine,\u201d such as caring, caregiving, and nonviolence, are devalued;<\/li>\n
  3. Culturally-accepted abuse and violence\u2014from child-and-wife-beating to pogroms, lynchings, public executions, and chronic warfare\u2014that maintain hierarchies of domination, be they man over woman, man over man, race over race, religion over religion, tribe over tribe, or nation over nation;<\/li>\n
  4. The belief that all of the above are inevitable, normal, and even moral.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Partnership Configuration<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The partnership model configuration also consists of four interactive components:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. A democratic structure in both<\/em> the family and the state or tribe, and all institutions in between;<\/li>\n
    2. Equal partnership between women and men, and with this, a high valuing in both women and men, as well as in policy, of qualities and behaviors such as nonviolence, nurturance, and caregiving denigrated as \u201csoft,\u201d feminine,\u201d and \u201cunmanly\u201d in domination systems;<\/li>\n
    3. Abuse and violence are not institutionalized or idealized since they are not needed to maintain rigid rankings of domination;<\/li>\n
    4. Beliefs about human nature support empathic and mutually respectful relations. Although insensitivity, cruelty, and violence are recognized as human possibilities, they are not considered inevitable, much less moral.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Please see Figure 1 <\/strong>for a visual representation of the configurations of the partnership model and the domination model.<\/p>\n

      Figure 1. Partnership Model and Domination Model<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \"From<\/a>

      From Riane Eisler, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics.<\/p><\/div>\n

      As with societies that orient to the domination end of the partnership\/domination continuum, societies orienting to the partnership end transcend conventional categories such as religious or secular, Eastern or Western, industrial, preindustrial, postindustrial, and so on.<\/p>\n

      To illustrate, in contrast to domination-oriented tribal societies, where family violence is customary and may include brutal rituals such as female genital cutting\/mutilation, are the forest Teduray of the Philippines studied by University of California anthropologist Stuart Schlegel. He writes:<\/p>\n

      I used to call them \u2018radically egalitarian.\u2019 But\u2026 they have the core configuration characteristic of the partnership model: they are generally egalitarian, women and men have equal status, and they are peaceful.<\/a>[6]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

      The agrarian Minagkabau, the fourth largest ethnic group in the Sumatran archipelago, also orient to the partnership side of the continuum. As among the Teduray, violence is not part of Minagkabau child raising. Women play major social roles. Stereotypically feminine values such as caring and nurturing, as University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Peggy Sanday writes, are valued in both women and men, and in their belief system nurture is a basic principle of nature.<\/a>[7]<\/a>\u00a0 Sanday writes:<\/p>\n

      The Minagkabau subordinate male dominion and competition, which we consider basic to human social ordering and evolution, to the work of maternal nurture, which they hold to be necessary for the common good and the healthy society . . . Social well-being is found in natural growth and fertility according to the dictum that the unfurling, blooming, and growth in nature is our teacher.\u201d<\/a>[8]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

      On the other side of the planet, Nordic nations such as Sweden, Finland, and Norway also orient more to the partnership side of the continuum. These technologically advanced societies are not ideal, but they have more democracy in both<\/em> the family and the state, with no huge gaps between haves and have-nots. Women hold high political offices (they are 40 to 50 percent of national )<\/a>[9]<\/a> and because the status of women is higher, the status of the \u201cfeminine\u201d is also higher. Nurturance is supported by fiscal policy through measures such as universal health care and childcare, elder care with dignity, stipends to help families care for children, generous paid parental leave, and other caring policies.<\/a>[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

      These more partnership-oriented societies support activities that model and promote empathy and caring. So they tend to be more empathic, as shown by their large investment in caring for their own people, as well as in NGOs that care for people in far-away places. They have many cooperative economic enterprises, and have been leaders in environmental sustainability. Also, not coincidentally, these more partnership-oriented nations have been at the forefront of the movement to leave behind traditions of violence and domination. They have a strong men\u2019s movement to decouple \u201cmasculinity\u201d from its association with domination and violence, pioneered peace studies programs, and introduced the first laws against physical discipline of children in families.<\/a>[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

      It has been argued that the reason for these advances toward greater democracy, equity, and reduced violence is that these are small, homogenous nations. But other small, homogeneous nations, for example, Saudi Arabia, are undemocratic and rigidly male-dominated, with wealth and power concentrated in a small elite, and violence, such as \u201chonor\u201d murders and public beheadings, used to maintain top-down control in both family and state.\u00a0 So the difference is not a matter of size or homogeneity, but whether a culture orients to the partnership or domination model.<\/p>\n

      Moreover, these Nordic nations are not \u201cdemocratic socialist,\u201d as they are sometimes called. They have healthy market economies. What distinguishes them are not socialist tenets such as centralized state control or the abolition of private property, but their more caring character. Indeed, they often call themselves \u201ccaring societies\u201d\u2014another way of describing partnership-oriented cultures.<\/p>\n

      Caveats<\/strong><\/p>\n

      This takes us to further clarifications about the partnership model.<\/p>\n

      To begin with, when searching for a name to describe the social configuration that supports relations of mutual respect, accountability, and benefit, \u201cpartnership\u201d was chosen because mutuality is, at least in theory, the basis for relations among business partners. At that time, the term was not yet a popular synonym for working together. I therefore want to emphasize that the distinction between the partnership and domination model is no<\/em>t that there is cooperation in the former and not the latter. People cooperate all the time in domination-oriented systems. Members of monopolies, invading armies, criminal gangs, and terrorist groups all work together.<\/p>\n

      A second caveat is that partnership structures are not flat. Every society requires parents, teachers, managers, and leaders\u2014so there are hierarchies. But instead of hierarchies of domination, <\/em>they are hierarchies of actualization:<\/em> more flexible structures where the ideal norm is not power over<\/em> but power to<\/em> and power with<\/em> (the kind of power described in today\u2019s progressive management literature as empowering rather than disempowering, and in progressive parenting literature as authoritative rather than authoritarian).<\/p>\n

      A third caveat is that the difference between domination and partnership systems is not that there is no competition in the latter. There is competition in both, but rather than dog-eat-dog competition aimed at destroying or putting competitors out of business, in partnership systems, achievement by others are spurs to striving for excellence.<\/p>\n

      Another caveat is that while a major difference between domination and partnership systems is whether both genders are equally valued or men and \u201cmasculinity\u201d are ranked over women and \u201cfemininity,\u201d this is not about anything inherent in women or men.\u00a0 As shown today by men embracing \u201cfeminine\u201d roles, feeding and diapering babies, and women entering positions of leadership once considered an exclusive male preserve, gender roles become more fluid with the move toward the partnership model and so-called \u201cfeminine\u201d traits and activities such as caring, caregiving, and nonviolence are valued in both men and women.<\/p>\n

      Neither are partnership systems conflict-free. But in domination systems, conflict is suppressed until it explodes in violence, and violent struggle is idealized. In partnership systems, whenever possible, conflict is nonviolent, and the normative ideal for handling it is as an opportunity to find creative solutions.<\/p>\n

      This leads to another point related to the use of violence: that to be successful, the shift to the partnership side of the continuum must be global. A lesson from history is that more partnership-oriented nations must have the capacity to protect themselves from societies that are still on the domination end of the continuum. Otherwise, they will be overrun, as almost happened when the Nazis built up their military capacity while the Allies, including the United States, did not.<\/p>\n

      Still another important point, as shown by the growing control of politics by powerful US moneyed interests, is that democratic elections alone are not sufficient to counter regressions to the domination model. Certainly partnership systems are democratic. But here, democracy is defined more broadly than just elections, starting with respect for human rights in all relations\u2014from intimate to international.<\/p>\n

      In short, these models do not support simplistic notions such as \u201call would be well if people only cooperate\u201d or \u201cwe must avoid conflict.\u201d What they describe are social configurations that support two different kinds of relations, beliefs, and institutions\u2014from the family, education, and religion to politics and economics\u2014providing information vital for cultural transformation.<\/p>\n

      \"berenice-butterfly_1_lg<\/a><\/p>\n

      Cultural Transformation <\/strong><\/p>\n

      The domination model has always caused terrible damage to people and nature. But at our level of technological development, it is not sustainable. The mix of high technology and an ethos of domination and conquest\u2014be it of people or nature\u2014threatens our survival.<\/p>\n

      The mix of high technology and an ethos of domination and conquest\u2014be it of people or nature\u2014threatens our survival.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      It is therefore essential that we accelerate a whole-systems shift. \u00a0I say \u201caccelerate\u201d because there is already movement in this direction. With the disequilibrium brought by the Industrial Revolution and, more recently, by the rapid move into the knowledge-service era, old beliefs and institutions were destabilized, opening up the possibility of fundamental change.<\/p>\n

      This takes us to another outcome from the study of relational dynamics: cultural transformation theory<\/em>.<\/a>[12]<\/a> Like chaos theory,<\/a>[13]<\/a> cultural transformation theory holds that living systems can undergo transformative change during times of great disequilibrium. This nonlinear theory also traces the tension between the partnership model and the domination model through the course of our cultural evolution. Introduced to a general readership in The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future<\/em>, this theory drew primarily from Western data, but has been confirmed by scholars in other world regions, including China.<\/a>[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Cultural transformation theory holds that most gathering-hunting cultures oriented more to the partnership side of the continuum, as also shown by studies of contemporary gathering-hunting societies.<\/a>[15]<\/a> Evidence from archeology and myth indicates this was the primary direction for most cultures in the early Neolithic or farming age, a direction that continued in some places as late as the Bronze Age.<\/a>[16]<\/a> Then, with the imposition of domination systems during a period of disequilibrium, brought by massive climate changes, mass migrations, and other dislocations, there was a shift in the mainstream of cultural evolution.<\/a>[17]<\/a> Thereafter, the domination model became the norm for much of recorded history, despite periodic movement in a partnership direction. But during another period of great disequilibrium brought by the gradual shift from the agrarian to the industrial and now postindustrial age, the partnership movement has been gaining momentum, as, at least in some world regions, one social movement after another challenged traditions of domination .<\/p>\n

      The seventeenth and eighteenth-century Enlightenment \u201crights of man\u201d movement challenged the so-called divinely ordained right of kings to rule. The eighteenth and nineteenth-century feminist movement challenged the supposedly divinely ordained right of men to rule the women and children in the \u201ccastles\u201d of their homes. The nineteenth and twentieth-century abolitionist, civil rights, and anticolonial movements challenged another \u201cdivinely-ordained\u201d right: that of \u201csuperior\u201d races to rule over \u201cinferior\u201d ones. The movement for economic justice challenges traditions of top-down economic rule. The peace movement, and, more recently, the movement to end traditions of domination and violence against women and children, challenge the use of violence to impose one\u2019s will on others. The environmental movement challenges the once hallowed conquest and domination of nature.<\/a>[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

      However, progress toward partnership has not been linear. It can best be imaged as an upward spiral countered by dips or periodic regressions.<\/a>[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

      There are many factors behind these regressions. But a major factor is that most progressive movements have paid almost exclusive attention to the so-called public sphere of economic and political relations: the \u201cmen\u2019s world\u201d from which women and children are excluded in domination systems. \u00a0Changing parent-child and woman-man relations in the so-called private sphere received far less attention. Consequently, traditions of domination in these relations remained in place, providing foundations on which domination systems kept rebuilding themselves.<\/p>\n

      Consider that for the most repressive modern regimes\u2014from Hitler\u2019s Germany and Stalin\u2019s Soviet Union to Khomeini\u2019s Iran to the Taliban of Afghanistan and ISIL in Iraq and Syria\u2014a top priority has been maintaining or reinstating family relations based on domination and submission. Today\u2019s so-called religious fundamentalists\u2014be they Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Christian\u2014focus on returning to a \u201ctraditional family\u201d in which men dominate women, and children learn never to question orders, no matter how painful or unjust. This domination-based family structure provides the foundation for the repressive theocratic system these regimes want to impose.<\/p>\n

      In addition, despite the fact that our global population explosion is a major driver behind resources depletion, pollution, and other environmental crises, fundamentalist leaders fiercely oppose reproductive freedom for women. \u00a0Indeed, male control over women is characteristic of rigid domination systems, whether secular or religious. For example, when Stalin came to power, the small earlier steps toward gender equity in families halted, abortion was again severely criminalized, and while some women gained lower level positions, the top leadership was again exclusively male.<\/a>[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Regressive leaders are also extremely hostile to acknowledging the full spectrum of sexual orientations. One root cause is that they assume that a household, headed by a male head who controls women and children is the God-given order that may not be abrogated.<\/p>\n

      It is also not coincidental that these leaders promulgate parenting that inculcates absolute obedience to authority. For instance, some religious guides in the US instruct parents that spanking and other forms of violence avoid \u201cspoiling,\u201d and urge parents to force eight-month old babies to sit still with their hands on their high-chair trays\u2014effectively terrorizing them so they automatically submit to domination as adults.<\/a>[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Neither is it coincidental that those who fiercely oppose government regulations that would limit the power of mega-corporations and the super-rich, are also bent on denying women reproductive freedom, equal employment protection, and an equal say in families.\u00a0 They, too, viscerally recognize that the ranking of one half of humanity over the other is integral to the top-down economic system they support.<\/p>\n

      \"coldframe_20629_lg<\/a><\/p>\n

      Foundations for Whole Systems Change <\/strong><\/p>\n

      Viewed through the lens of the new conceptual framework sketched above, it is evident that there are today many important efforts to accelerate the shift toward the partnership side of the continuum worldwide. However, regressions will continue, with disastrous effects, unless we build the missing foundations for a partnership future.<\/p>\n

      What follows is a quick overview of four cornerstones for these foundations. I pay particular attention to one of them, economics, both because economic transformation is key to whole systems change, and because a new economic paradigm, and policies that support it, is the focus of a major program of the Center for Partnership Studies.<\/p>\n

      The First Cornerstone: Childhood Relations<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Although people can change throughout life, early experiences and relations are critical. Neuroscience shows that the neural pathways of our brains are not set at birth: they are largely formed in interaction with a child\u2019s early experiences and observations.<\/a>[22]<\/a> When family relations based on chronic violations of human rights are considered normal and moral, they provide mental and emotional models for condoning such violations in other relations.\u00a0 If these relations are violent, children learn that violence from those who are more powerful toward those who are less powerful is an acceptable way of dealing with conflicts and problems. Fortunately, some people reject these teachings.\u00a0 But, unfortunately, many replicate them, not only in intimate relations but in all<\/em> relations\u2014including national and international ones.<\/a>[23]<\/a> Coercive, inequitable, and violent childrearing is therefore foundational to the imposition and maintenance of a coercive, inequitable, and chronically violent social organization.<\/p>\n

      This calls for a global campaign against abuse and violence in childhood relations.<\/a>[24]<\/a> Key elements include:<\/p>\n