The Psychology of Anarchy

                       

Mostly psychological sciences do not address social change in any great way. There’s a reason for this. Firstly, psychology as a subject is nebulous and subjective and therefore very open to derision in an overly objective world. As a result, most of the proponents of psychological thought have been very conscious of acceptability and, in my opinion, have sacrificed the potential to make a big difference to Society in order to be approved of by it. Most of the ideologies have stayed on a very individual bases and have been based on the study of the Social ‘norm’ rather than the social potential. Psychosynthesis, by its very nature looks at finding consensus. The whole idea of synthesis is the taking of opposed issues, and working towards finding a new solution that comes out of the old, but is different to it. It is unrealistic to believe that this can be done in isolation with individuals without that impact extending to the social structure within which these individuals exist.

If we take a look at the current political model, upon which all of our social interactions and policies are currently made, the premises is based on polarity. Out of that polarity comes competition and the attempt to gain power-over the ‘opposition’. This attitude then flows down into the very bowels of our attitudes towards life. Regardless of whether the system grew out of the way people were, or whether people became the way the system dictated, is irrelevant really. The overall affect is of maintenance of that division as a status quo.

The word ‘division’ itself is an interesting one. Out of the same root come the word devise and diversity. Both these words look to the process of creativity to provide new and individual opportunities. Division on the other hand, stops this creativity, demanding that there be only two options and out of those, one must predominate. Thus the whole process of diversity, and creativity on this Planet has become stymied and divided. Our ability to grow is stunted by the need to grow only in prescribed directions and that, in opposition to all other forms of creative thought.

So, Psychosynthesis, by its central philosophy of finding a consensual, workable, creative ‘other’ option, flies in the face of the current political thought. It opens up previously blocked solutions but requires a 360 degree rethink on the part of our beliefs about how things need to be.

What has this got to do with Anarchy? Everything!

Anarchy is a system of thought that places the emphasis of non-violent consensus at the centre of all political dealings. It requires that each individual be as important as the next and that a ‘new’ way be found to any issue that incorporates the individuals needs. Contrary to scare mongering by current political proponents, Anarchy is not about Chaos and Terrorism. It is about being open to the possibility that, given the freedom to do so, people would and could be self-governing in a consensual model without the need for top down power-over. It is not about ‘no’ organization. It’s about organizing without a hierarchical structure. This opens up a possibility of forming Society along the lines of small community groups, being autonomous within themselves and entering into dialogue with adjacent groups to meet their mutual concerns and find consensus. Its about choosing representatives on a case by case basis to represent our discussed needs, not electing career politicians who run the risk of being seconded by powerbrokers over time.

It could just as easily apply on a National and International level, as a local one. This way all people could have the opportunity of both putting forward their needs and representing their community at different times. Huge growth would be available to them out of these experiences. However, this does infer personal responsibility on an ongoing basis by everyone. It would not be possible to ‘farm out’ our responsibility to paid politicians which we could then blame once the power went into their heads. Once again Psychosynthesis philosophies are mirrored here. The need to listen to, and take responsibility for, our selves as adults, not stay perpetual ‘Children of the State’. The need is to listen to what isn’t working for us and causing us anger and then be willing to meet that need and find the AND rather than play the ‘Blame Game’.

As I have always been a politically active person, the implications of Psychosynthesis to politics has been an ever increasing awareness for me. “The Personal is the Political”, as the feminists used to say. What we change within, must inevitably and eventually be reflected outside of us. But as well the attempt to take responsibility for our needs, on the inner level we are so familiar with, it becomes imperative to work at changing the outer systems that make the meeting of those needs on an outer level difficult or impossible as it currently stands.