Elephants in the room

In response to jominglau's comment I thought I'd throw out some thoughts on group ideologies and dysfuntional dynamics that arise in collectives and movements. In my view, genuine engagement in social change or social upliftment is much more than a process, or a set of rules of engagement, or a list of acceptable behaviours - consuming behaviours, purchasing behaviours, etc.

Eventually the mentality of 'walking the talk' - of adhering to the code - doesn't address the whole picture anymore. You do all the things right - buy local, organic, recycle, consume less, but eventually you realize that, while important and nourishing in some ways, there is a difference between living by "how well I do the group's prescribed 'right thing'?" and "who am I, actually, in all of this?".

In my experience of the sustainability movement, generally speaking, I've seen an overemphasis on the former. (Which is why in the previous post, I suggested a comparison between the eco-sustainability movement and fundamentalist religion.)

That move toward self discovery is necessary and healthy but it might mean taking some energy away from walking the talk in order to re-examine who's doing the walking. It might also require breaking a bit of an addiction to the energy of the group. But any kind of functional group must consist of functional individuals, who think and feel for themselves and choose to serve ideas that resonate with their deep internal knowings.

So in order to balance those seemingly diametrically opposed forces, we just have to remember that bringing our individual realizations to question the group's ideology - even ideas that one might find (disconcertingly) in opposition to that ideology - is actually in service to the group's evolution, and is what keeps the movement relevant.

And if you get ostracized for unrelentingly pointing out the elephants in the room (or the holes in the theories) - congratulations! You know it's time to cut ties and move on - however difficult that might be.