Replying to LO25159 --
Dear Organlearners,
John Dicus <jdicus@ourfuture.com> writes:
>Today I received an email from an old friend asking about
>paternalism. I wrote the following response off the top of
>my head, but as the day has moved on, I thought I'd offer
>this and ask what your thoughts are on the subject.
>
>It's made me think, and I'm eager to hear more thoughts.
>My friend's inquiry reminded of the power question has to
>awaken.
Greetings John,
I have enjoyed what you have written very much. Thank you.
Before I comment on its content, please allow me a comment beforehand on
your curious remark: "I wrote the following response off the top of my
head, ..."
Think the following advice over:
Never criticise a creative act during its emergent
phase because this would be detrimental to the
emergence.
I had to stand in for my dear wife's classes in organic chemistry during
her abscence. In one task students had to formulate at least 3 isomeres
for a compound with molecular formula C4H8O2. It means that they had to
draw a structural presentation of the molecule, showing exactly how each
of the 14 atoms involving three different kinds atoms was bonded. Here are
two examples of what I mean by isomeres:
. H H H O
. | | | ||
.H - C - C - C - C - O - H
. | | |
. H H H
(an acid)
. H H H H
. | | | |
.H - C - O - C - C - C = O
. | | |
. H H H
(an ether)
Some students had great difficulties in completing the task. On close
examination, I discovered in most of these cases that the student began to
criticise him/herself before actually completing the job. What the student
should have done, is to complete the job and only then begin to modify the
structure so as to get rid of any possible error in it. For example, an H
atom may have only one bond (indicated by a stroke | ), an O atom has two
bonds and a C atom usually has four bonds.
It was a joy to me to see how some of these students immediately overcome
their problems by following the advice
Never criticise a creative act during its emergent
phase because this would be detrimental to the
emergence.
>Primarily, it is a situation in which one person allows
>another to grow only to the extent that he/she does
>not reach or exceed the first person's level of knowledge,
>power, privilege, status.
(snip)
>You could go on and on -- but in the end, paternalism is,
>in part, grounded in the fear of being left behind.
I am glad that you have added the "in part". This deliberate keeping of
the "beneficiary under the thumb" is indeed a major part of paternalism.
It happened in many realms of life here in South Africa, especially since
1902 (the end of the British-Boer war).
But especially here in South Africa it is extremely difficult to perceive
the other major part of paternalism, the part which you have not
discussed. It is the immature Systems Thinking of the "benefactor" self
which makes both the "benefactor" (or patron if you prefer the latter
word) and the "beneficiary" (the latter more than the former) rigid. This
is not a deliberate act, but stems rather from the "benefactor"'s
ignorance to what human creativity involves. Often the ignorance itself is
deliberate, but should the "benefactor" have known what such an ignorance
would entail, the "benefactor" would certainly have cared for the
"beneficiary" in a different and more healthy manner. Ignorance to the
advice given above may also serve as an example. Many of the hearings of
the TRC (Truth and Reconcilliation Commission) after the end of apartheid
have uncovered this startling ignorance to human creativity -- or "basic
human rights" they usually would call it.
Yes, a most interesting exmaple is this ideology and policy of apartheid
with the whites as "benefactors" and the non-whites as "beneficiaries".
Apartheid had both major parts to it, although the non-white
"beneficiaries" swear high and low that it was a deliberate suppression
while (and this has to be noticed) the "benefactors" are unable to refute
these claims which are for many not true.
The reason why they are unable to refute these claims, is because they
have been themselves, even though as "whites", on the receiving end as
"beneficiaries" of paternalism!!! The "benefactors" in this case were
whites in especially Europe and the USA. ("Since you are from Africa,
white skin or not, what do you know of life outside SA?") Sometimes the
South African whites were aware of it, but their ignorance as to what it
did to their own creativity and thus by way of a chain reaction to their
own "beneficiaries" cries to heaven.
I have included apartheid as an example not to stress apartheid, but to
stress that paternalism is actually a chain with many paternalistic links
to it. Consider, for example, paternalism in the academical world. I
wonder how many fellow learners can discern a chain of paternalistic links
here too from universities to pre-primary schools! I can describe one, but
I would not like to surpise you with the cynical way in which I might do
it. Thus I would rather leave it up to you to do it where it exists in the
educational system of your country.
To correct this latter paternalism in eduaction, at least the tenet "To
learn is to create" has to be honoured knowingly.
John, you also write:
>It [... i.e paternalism...] is a closed system -- not an open system.
Does this mean that you are now beginning to understand how essential
"openness" (one of the seven essentialities) is to creativity? Please
take care -- I am just pulling your leg ;-)
Paternalism can involve any facet of creativity, for example its dynamics
or its mechanics. You have stressed that it is an over-protection of the
system by closing it. It may be deliberate (the one major part which you
stress) or ignorant (the other major part which I had to commmeny on).
Here in South Africa not only openness (a facet of creativity's mechanics)
was reduced, but also especially otherness (variety). This was done on
almost every walk of society with innumerous laws. We even had in
secondary schools (whatever the skin colour) three streams (A, B and C) so
to keep among pupils with the same skin colour those with "more or less
talents" away from each other!!!
Obviously, schools of "white" children had the most pupils in the A stream
while schools of "non-white" children (with the exemption of schools of
Indian children who was also classified as "non-white") had the least
pupils in the A stream. Perhaps the most profound thing was that many
people who ought to have known better excused themselves by attributing
the outcome to "statistics explicating natural differences".
You fellow learners know the saying that there are lies, damned lies being
worser and statistics being the worsest.
By way, the main reason why the interpretation of entropy as chaos
superseded the more than a dozen other bewildering interpretations, is
because it was in "statistical mechanics" that entropy was given the
interpretation of chaos.
The more I think about it, the more I understand how paternalism is an
adverse behaviour (deliberate or ignorant) towards the Law of Requisite
Complexity.
>Kahlil Gibran's piece from the prophet says a lot about the
>kind of attitude that promotes growth in others:
It is a beautiful poem which I have read in my last year in high school.
Thank you very much for reminding me of it again.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.