Outline of CHAPTER 7... The Syntropic Community: A Crucible for Change? Introduction Creative Politics The Syntropic Solution The Motivational Dilemma Creating a New Politics The Party of Change is NOT a Political Party The Idea of a Distributed Community The Syntropic World System Small Syntropic Systems Stages in the Evolution of Syntropic Communities Description of the Syntropic Community The Evolution of Individual Personality Co-evolution of Personality and Political System

The Syntropic Community: A Crucible for Change? Muntu is an indigenous African word meaning person, and sometimes meaning Man in the generic sense of humankind. In a sense [muntu] is the theme of humanism in Africa's philosophical and political experience, involving a major transition in perception across the centuries. There was a time for many African societies, in some cases fairly recently, when the village was the world. The myths and legends of the society focused on the immediate human community, and the people concerned sometimes visualized themselves as directly linked to the origins of humankind. The ancestry of the 'tribe' was often equated with the ancestry of human beings generally. There was a tendency to globalize the village or globalize the 'tribe'. What Africa has experienced, especially in the twentieth century, is the momentous transition from the village globalized ('my people are the world') to the world vitalized ('the people of the world are my people'). Ali A. Mazrui The Africans Introduction For those who cannot wait, or who choose not to wait, for the reforms that may ultimately be accomplished only under conditions of crisis, there is another democratic path. To find that path, however, we must enter the "shadowlands" of political creation. In the modern, liberal democracy--as opposed to more authoritarian systems--there is time and space to breathe, to create. Here we can discover new ways to address the needs of people. We can analyze our systems and propose reforms. We can experiment, try new paths, even whole new models of democratic self-government. We can create new political parties, new political movements, or completely new communities. And in this relatively open political space we can sometimes detect the signs of spontaneously emerging patterns. Or so we are led to believe. Unfortunately, there exists in these apparently open systems a set of subtle but powerful forces that inhibit change and restrict the range of thoughts in the public mind. There is, in the United States for example, a constantly repeated refrain to the effect that "we are the greatest country in the world." Our health care system may be in shambles but we still hear that "Americans have the best health care in the world." Our general mortality rate is higher; our infant mortality rate is higher; our crime and imprisonment rates are higher than most industrialized nations, but we are told in countless ways that we are "freer, healthier, happier, and living better than any other people on Earth." To say on a national network that things are otherwise is to risk being called "unpatriotic" or, at best, being dismissed as a "malcontent." We can criticize freely, but if we are within earshot of a mass audience, our criticisms must be limited. As Herman and Chomsky have demonstrated, [Herman, 1988] the serious critic is consistently denied access to the main channels of communication. We have shoved the politics of raw police force into the background only to find ourselves in a deceptively authoritarian culture within which dissent is contained. In the national media of this culture the range of political expression is extremely restricted. An anonymous caller may make "outlandish" criticisms on a national talk show, but that caller will not have time to provide a supportive explanation--and that caller's remarks will quickly be glossed over or the topic will be abruptly changed by the following caller. Even in our universities the discussion of plans for political action to improve the system is muted. One is only free to engage in meaningful discourse, it seems, if one remains outside the "national discourse." Creative Politics In this chapter, therefore, we will explore territory outside of the "normal" realm of political dialogue. We will enter a political "shadowland" where the creative imagination mixes with sober perceptions of reality in an effort to produce the next, "new world." Richard Falk describes this land and the people who live in the shadows of emerging political structures: "If...the purpose of our endeavors is to create a better world, then fantasy, whether self-deceived or self-aware, is of little help. We require instead a special sort of creativity that blends thought and imagination without neglecting to understand obstacles to change. We require, in effect, an understanding of those elements of structure that resist change, as well as a feel for the possibilities of innovation that lie within the shadowland cast by emergent, potential structures of power. Only within this shadowland, if at all, is it possible to discern 'openings' that contain significant potential for reform, including the possibility of exerting an impact on the character of emergent political realities. "This shadowland lies necessarily at the outer edge of the realm of politics, although its special emphasis is upon those political possibilities not yet evident to politicians. As such, it is dangerous intellectual work that often engenders rejection, and may even stimulate repression. Power-wielders tend to be scornful of the apparent challenge to their competence, while purists are likely to be alienated by the failure to extend the conception of reform to include structural changes. The more impressive the discernment of possibilities for change in the shadowland, the more likely it will be that those with vested interests will either co-opt the vision, or at least its rhetoric, to conform to their wishes and interests, or reject those who explore the shadowland of structural reform through some form of distortion. The relevance of the shadowland is especially great when an emergent new structure has not yet fully superseded an old structure, in times of transition when the need for bridges between the past and future is the greatest." [Falk, 1983] These shadowlands cast by emergent structures are especially relevant in this last decade of the 20th century. The Cold War Order has come to an end, and we have an opportunity to build the bridges to a new and more democratic, world system. Some steps in that direction have been taken. Some type of new world system has already begun to emerge. What it is or what it might become may be more subject to conscious human intervention than at any prior time of transition in world history. Yet for reasons related to the power of special interests and their nationalistic elites, our national governments have thus far been unable to come forth with a new vision of a better world. In the preceding chapters we have attempted to describe a view of the present workings of the world and some methods for moving toward a particular vision of a better world. We outlined a theory of the evolution of democracy, identified its presently existing stages, and even predicted its future patterns. With this theory in mind we outlined a parallel systems approach to (1) reforming old democracies while simultaneously (2) creating new democracies. In chapters four through six we described the strategies for reforming our present democracies and their components at several levels--the goal being to move us toward higher levels of democracy. In chapter seven we will examine the parallel strategy of creating an alternate set of new, more advanced democratic systems in the vicinity of the old and crumbling relics of twentieth century government. Most of us live within a powerful, already well-established political structure. These dominant political systems have dramatic effects on us, yet often they don't seem to be concerned about us--and we have little effect on them. Governments--even those that define themselves as being of, by, and for the people--have their own rather independent methods of perceiving realities and of maintaining themselves. They are particularly attentive to special interests that have the power to make or break a political or military career, and they remain more or less blind to those aspects of life which lie in shadows cast by those same special interests. In addition, those interests, operating through their control of the mass media, arrange for the rest of us to keep focused on news of crimes and scandals--and on a worldview that supports their own vision of higher profits. In addition to a self-serving mass media system, which also serves to keep the people divided against themselves, we have the problem of "demosclerosis," i.e., the accretion of a vast web of laws, regulations, and entitlements--with a huge bureaucracy to administer them--and no one who can adequately monitor the whole system. Despite such impediments, the modern "democratic" system accomplishes a relatively high quality of feedback--but only in comparison to the long history of failed governments. Our modern democratic governments inaccurately perceive much genuine feedback from their electorates, and they often generate the misleading feedback that suits the goals of special interests. As a result of these successful manipulations, the feedback loop between people and their governments is so loose that a majority of people in the U.S. don't even bother to vote. The whole governing process often appears to be directionless and, with regard to solving human problems, powerless. And without a commonly agreed upon set of values and goals against which to measure progress, it is difficult to assess the performance of elected politicians whose personal goal of re-election usually takes precedence. Nevertheless, the antics of modern governments are gradually becoming more obvious to the mass of people who find themselves only partially represented. The people and their representatives in government are becoming increasingly contemptuous of one another. And, like dying old beasts struggling to renew themselves, modern governments are becoming aware at some deep level that there is nothing they can do to stop time from eroding the framework of their existence. The public, seeing through the official masquerades, observes the failure of reform effort after reform effort. People eventually stop trusting government altogether and adjust their expectations downward, certainly an early indicator of that which democratic governments ought to fear most, i.e., the loss of legitimacy. Elected representatives, however, knowing that people are increasingly alert to the power of special interests, desperately turn even more often to the special interests for help. One or two elected officials who strive to create a "politics of meaning" is not enough. Unless the rules of the game are effectively changed, the feedback loop between people and their representatives will become ever more corrupted. As a result we have a sense being slowly cut off and abandoned by the ship of state. We are, in many respects, adrift in a sea of political turbulence, and it is little wonder that some of us strive to fashion a rudder for our lifeboat--and to seek a new direction. In other words, many of us will stop depending on the State. We will begin to find our own way, and we will create new ways to work around, or outside, the old system. On the one hand, while we see our "democratic" governments drifting away from us, inexorably falling onto the rocks of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, and "demosclerotic" rigidity, we can on the other hand begin to perceive--dimly at first--the dawn of a new world in which democracy will--by necessity--be recreated; tyrannies will be set aside, and the whole human species, acting together, will begin to govern itself with the confidence of a navigator who knows both the destination and the path to follow. The Syntropic Solution In this chapter I will describe a method of organizing communities that will give new meaning to Hazel Henderson's slogan, "Think Globally, Act Locally!" We will examine some of the features of this new type of community, and for lack of a more precise term we shall call it, after the type of democracy that it aims to create, the syntropic community. The basic idea is this: we live our lives one place at a time. We each engage in conversation, buy or sell, and directly connect with only a few people a day. Although national, international, and global processes affect the lives of each of us, most of the life that each of us lives occurs within much smaller networks or communities. Even if we work for a large corporation or institution, the quality of our lives is most directly determined by our families, small groups, work teams, and communities within which we directly connect with others. We can, however, create a worldwide system of small communities that would powerfully and beneficially affect the smaller units within which we experience our lives most immediately. Large, distant governments don't know us and often don't seem to represent us or care about us. Rather, they seem to be most concerned with protecting wealthy interests and large corporations. The place to begin a transformation of the world, therefore, and the place where we will reap the benefits of change most immediately, is right around ourselves--in our own homes, in circles of friendship based on shared values, in our places of work, our neighborhoods, and our cities. Further, it is possible to establish bonds of friendship and mutually beneficial exchanges with other small units of society that organize on the basis of similar values and with whom we can work democratically to transform increasingly large parts of the world. In addition, most of the routine activities in our daily lives and in the lives of our communities could--if we organize our lives "syntropicly"--contribute to the achievement of goals at several levels of organization, including the person, family, community, nation, and world levels. The reality, unfortunately, is that most people now living are just struggling to do the best they can for themselves and their families within the existing structures. If, in the mid-1990's, we go out into our workplaces, neighborhoods, or cities to inquire, the majority of the people that we randomly encounter will not be very interested in taking action to change city hall, let alone to change the principles by which the whole world is governed. At best they may smile and say, "Someone should do it, but I don't have time!" The socio-economic forces that support the status quo, combined with the inertia in our daily lives, are seldom overcome on the basis of a constructive new social invention. Usually, only a major crisis can stimulate people to act in large numbers to change the deep structures of society. In the midst of converging future crises that impinge powerfully on our personal lives, people will undoubtedly start to move. As the problems of the 21st century begin to intrude dramatically into our children's lives, it will be even more obvious to their generation that changes need to be made. At that time more individuals--young and old--will feel themselves activated and responsible for making those changes. There are a brave few, however, a happy few who already believe in the possibility of creating a real world that more closely matches their dreams. They are the people who will seed the next world. They will create the next frame of position and direction into which large numbers will eventually begin to move. These few are the best hope, I believe, of all future generations of life on Earth. Their pioneering advances now will also keep alive the possibility that some of our great grandchildren will carry the torch of life far beyond our planetary shores. The Motivational Dilemma When attempting to organize with a plan to achieve structural changes at all social levels up to and including the world system, the issue of sustaining motivation becomes critical. This problem is seldom addressed in an adequate way by those who put forth a rational model of a better world. The reasons, I think, are primarily two in number: (1) the people who wish to change society are generally motivated against social injustice and egregious inequalities in the distribution of wealth. This motivation is based primarily on principle rather than on selfish or pecuniary interests. To organize politically on the principles of justice and equitableness usually translates into a downgrading of self-interest, or into an upgrading of self-sacrifice--a practice which is noble but in the long run self-defeating. To sustain a long drive for social change, people within the movement must remain supportive of both Other and Self--a point which leads to the second reason that social change movements tend to produce a motivational paradox: (2) their counter-establishment model of the human personality is usually as limited or one-sided as the model they wish to replace. Neither sufficiently recognizes the deep biological roots or the multiple levels of motivation that exist in human beings. That deeper understanding of the several levels of human motivation, which was poetically expressed in the following passage by D.H. Lawrence, must be fully realized if we are to create a world system that will survive the 21st century: "What man most passionately wants is his living wholeness and his living unison, not his own isolate salvation of his 'soul'. Man wants his physical fulfillment first and foremost, since now, once and once only, he is in the flesh and potent. For man, the vast marvel is to be alive. For man, as for flower and beast and bird, the supreme triumph is to be most vividly, most perfectly alive...We ought to dance with rapture that we should be alive and in the flesh, and part of the living, incarnate cosmos. I am part of the sun as my eye is part of me. That I am part of the earth my feet know perfectly, and my blood is part of the sea. My soul knows that I am part of the human race, my soul is an organic part of the great human soul..."[Lawrence, 1976] Both homo economicus and its opposite, the model of the revolutionary "new man(sic)," fail to balance the physical, emotional, cultural, and spiritual needs of human individuals. Social classes and groups, whether in or out of power, that identify with less than the interests of the whole person--or of the whole species--tend, by minimizing important elements within themselves, to weaken their own cause as well as the cause of humanity. If we use the homo syntropicus model described in chapter four, however, we will base our political organizing on the multiple levels of motivation--corresponding to each level of personality--that actually exist. We will emphasize several levels of self-interest, family interests, and ethnic or identity group interests as well as rational, altruistic, and the more abstract, or universal, values. We are inclined, in short, to create both a principled rationale and basic incentives in a way that combines with the larger, constructive forces in the movement of history. Thus we strive to create and maintain a healthy, balanced motivation that joins with, or supports, a new level of organization for this very old world in which we will always find our roots. For the next decade or two, traditional methods of political organizing will probably prevail. Progressive organizations will continue to be peopled by those who share sets of values or a strongly felt ethnic identity, who are mobilized by a single issue, or with much less frequency, by the few who hold to a vision of a possible new world system. To further complicate things, as support for the new model grows, however, a variety of imitators and competitors will undoubtedly arise. Aligning ourselves with a deep understanding of the human personality, and with real human interests, and utilizing the dynamics of both cooperation and competition--together with the adaptive intelligence that is intrinsic to the democratic process--should allow the model presented here to survive and prosper. Creating a New Politics Like love, however, individual motivation is never enough. We need new ways to organize ourselves. In this section I will outline some criteria for building political organization on the scale of a world system. In the following section, we will then begin to look at a plan for world reorganization that takes these criteria into account. 1. Simplicity There is one humanity but many levels of education. A democratic world organizing plan, and the possibilities for each person being a part of it, should be outlined in terms that are understandable to anyone with an elementary education. It should offer a clear vision of a future world system and practical steps for achieving it. For those, on the other hand, whose experience or education predisposes them toward greater complexity this plan should include a worldview, a philosophy, and a world historical perspective. The epistemological, axiological, praxeological elements of this worldview should be consistent with modern knowledge of the physical and social Universe as well as being supportive of a simple, subjective interpretation of that same Universe. 2. Universal participation A strategy for world change should offer an immediate opportunity for any individual, anywhere on Earth, to begin participating meaningfully and creatively in the building of a worldwide democracy. This grassroots criterion applies especially to children whose education must prepare them to carry on the struggle for a democratic world system and for world citizenship from those points where each previous generation leaves off. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be understood as a fundamental set of values for nations willing to allow universal participation in the development of a world democracy that will guarantee the security and democratic self-determination of each people. 3. Universalizing framework A democratic "change organization" should offer a coordinating framework within which different human systems--from individual personalities to nations and blocs--can find their separate actions supported and integrated coherently within a system that is developing toward world democracy. Within this new framework, local actions would have a universalized effect, that is, would simultaneously represent movement toward both a local and a global purpose. Re-orienting politics toward a series of purposes consistent with one another at the local, national, and global levels has the further effect of replacing (a) stale politico-legal arguments over the (intranational) constitutionality of this or that international law, (b) moribund politico-anthropological arguments over the "natural order" of human societies, and (c) anachronistic politico-economic arguments between proponents of an unimpeded free market and those who favor government regulation and the welfare state. Such arguments transcended, constructive thought will then begin to supplement science in the developing model for social decision-making, and political correctness will begin to be determined not by authoritarian pronouncements but by actually measured progress toward the fulfillment of consciously and democratically chosen goals coordinated at each level of organization. 4. Holotropic organization A good organizing strategy should include a plan for developing--in stages--new, self-reliant, local communities--and for modifying old communities. If these new, local structures were to be based on a common written, or specifically understood and spoken, covenant, namely, the model constitution presented in [Foreman, 1994] or something similar, each would embody the essentials of the other local systems and of the whole system which they aim to create. In addition, by striving to be aware of other cultures, by exchanging cross-cultural visits for work or play, by sharing an easy-to-learn universal second language (Esperanto), by maintaining communication with syntropic organizations on other continents, and so on, they can move further toward a goal-oriented holographic organization,. i.e., a "holotrope," in which each "part" of the world system would become more representative of, and would contain representations of all the elements of, the "whole system moving toward its goals." They would increasingly share a minimal set of human values, self-governing rules, and the new, multi-cultural, self-reproducing world-system. Thus a child maturing with knowledge of the economic relations, types of ownership, decision-making structures, and cultural elements in one local syntropic democracy would have a basic trust in, and an understanding of, these processes in other communities and at other levels in the world system--if they are all based on the same model. Holotropic social processes provide a solid basis for the sense of trust and for the feeling of familiarity that is so vitally important among peoples separated by distance, language, and cultural barriers. Other new methods of building trust will also be needed where a history of conflict with deeply felt, clearly remembered, and oft-repeated, stories of injustice spread through populations and perpetrate hatred between peoples. The "social holotrope" will never be, and should never aim to be, a perfect hologram. The biological, linguistic, and cultural differences among the various peoples of the Earth should be respected, preserved, and celebrated. They account for much of the fascination that each people has with other peoples. Tourism, we may recall, is the world's largest industry, and it is based on both differences in human cultures and geophysical differences. Unfortunately, modern tourism doesn't usually lead to the kind of deeper understanding and appreciation of one another that is sought by syntropic democracy. To achieve holotropic organization while preserving cultural knowledge and tradition, we may have to reinvent tourism --with higher levels of cultural and cross-cultural knowledge becoming a standard educational requirement for tour guides. The minimal set of universal values and rules, incorporated in the model constitution [Foreman, 1994], is designed to maintain the fascinating uniqueness of each people while preventing our differences from becoming sources of violent conflict--so that all cultures can truly learn from one another. Democratic rules and values can accomplish this by channeling the difference-generated interactions into constructive, and mutually beneficial, learning experiences. 5. Multi-level enhancement and motivation Any worthwhile plan for a new world order must be attractive enough to draw people to its support. This can only happen if the social organizations comprising the world democracy movement offer some immediate enhancement to the lives of individuals. What it offers to individuals it must also offer to the life of each organization, at several levels: economically, psychologically, socially, politically, ecologically, and spiritually. It must offer realistic probabilities of gains over short, intermediate, and long stretches of time. It must be appealing enough on its own merits, and it must offer practical solutions to real problems. Finally, it must resonate at some deep level with the thoughts and feelings of a substantial number of people who are themselves searching for a way to understand the world and to live meaningfully in relation to each other and to the rest of humanity. 6. Comprehensive structural reorganization The new world democracy program cannot be based on a single issue or principle, for example, on disarmament, redistribution of wealth, minority rights, women's rights, racial justice, democratization of authority structures, selected national liberation struggles, or ecology. Instead it must offer the vision of a comprehensive reorganization of the world system to profoundly embody all these and some other relevant human values as well--especially the removal of such foreseeable causes of conflict as the present gross economic inequalities between the North and South, between the "first world" and "third world," and within each society. A single child dying anywhere of hunger or of a preventable illness ought to be regarded as a crime that troubles the conscience of each of us. Further, plans for the structure of the future world economy must include the three sectors of economic activity that both history and reason support: private enterprise, cooperative enterprise, and communally owned enterprise; with market and trade relations--and the balance among the three sectors--monitored and regulated by uncorrupted and fully democratic governments that plan for the future. Economic restructuring ought to include a reorganization of production, employment practices, and job retraining such that everyone works but also has more leisure time. Human productivity already makes this possible. We need only know how to socially organize it. The outdated structures of bureaucratic administration, of monitoring, and of regulating organizations must also be transformed into goal-oriented, "organizational democracies" that perform openly and economically on behalf of the people. Bureaucracy once served its authoritarian masters well, but its time has come and gone. Structural reorganization must also include changes based on careful size-efficiency-quality of life studies that are focused on specific functions. In general, plans should include downsizing to relatively autonomous small communities and work units with explicitly defined feedback loops that periodically show progress toward goals. 7. Democratic world system A world democratization plan must include immediate, short, and long term plans for action toward a specified, democratic system of federated world government. This system must provide a "center" for coordinating action in a generally decentralized world system, and this "center" must in turn be democratically controlled by the "whole system." There are a number of models for such a system, including the World Federalist model, the "preferred model" of the World Order Models Project, and the very different model presented in this book. 8. Centralization-decentralization The new world society must, from its inception, develop a flexible and dynamic approach to the problems of the centralization-decentralization dynamic that differs with each specific subsector of economic and political process. It must incorporate strategies for quickly centralizing and/or decentralizing in accordance with the changing needs of each sector and of the whole world system. 9. Specificity and openness The plan must be sufficiently specific to create an adequate degree of unity among dispersed and relatively isolated communities--especially with regard to a minimum value set and the essential principles of social organization--yet it must be open, i.e., sufficiently unspecified, to encourage creativity and unique adaptations to local conditions. 10. Protection and security It must offer to minority groups, religions, nationalities, races, indigenous peoples, small ethnic or linguistic groups, and other self-identified peoples protection from attack by outside aggressors and from genocide perpetrated by either internal minorities or by majorities. In order that "means" remain consistent with "ends" this protection must be based, wherever possible, on non-violent strategies and on the development of conflict-prevention and conflict-resolution skills. It should be noted that this criterion overrides existing principles of "noninterference in internal affairs," i.e., national sovereignty used as a protective cover for committing crimes against any part of a nation's people. It must also provide solutions to the growing problems of crime, family decay, and random acts of violence. 11. Growth plan The new strategy for world peace must include a built-in but flexible plan for growth in popular support, organizational membership, and in capital accumulation. This capital must be partially drawn out of the old war economy and partially created within the new economy based on peace and regulated by an uncorrupted democratic process. The size of each organizational unit, however, ought to be carefully planned in order to maintain its integrity of means and ends. 12. Universal applicability The proposed social change strategy must have sufficient complexity and variety built-in to be adaptable to all forms of society--including capitalist and communist, religious and secular, agrarian and urban, traditional and technological. In other words, it must incorporate elements adaptable to all of these in a new and purposeful synthesis--and have enough unspecified or flexible structure to fit into any culture. Further, it must be based on the consideration that our evolution from each currently existing system toward a peacefully integrated world system is not just by technological or other historical cause and effect nor just by creative social and political action--but by a combination of these. And it must provide an adequate plan for coping with the unique and universal challenges presented by the nuclear dilemma and by other weapons of mass lethality. A transnational or global political party can advocate all the above, but by the usual definition of a political party, it cannot provide all of these goods. We turn, therefore, to new types of organization. The Party of Change is NOT a Political Party In previous chapters we have discussed some elements of one particular, among several possible, future worlds. We also suggested ways for moving our currently existing organizations and political systems toward that new world and its specific set of values and goals. In this chapter we will consider means of creating entirely new systems that could significantly hasten the development of that specified future world and its new democracy. These suggested new systems will be neither political parties nor organizations in the traditional sense but rather a new type of community. In the 1990's most people who are interested in the politics of change know at least one other person who is--or might become--similarly interested. That other person or persons will know one or two more, so that it is not terribly difficult for a small group of individuals to develop the experience of working together on the basis of a minimal set of shared values and beliefs. If one such group decides to organize in support of a particular plan for local, national, and/or global democratization, then surely other groups could come to the same conclusion. There is never a guarantee that one has the "right" worldview, but that is not the issue. Several different approaches might enable our species to survive the rigors of the next century. The issue at hand is whether--and how quickly--we can begin to work together, in different localities, to construct the best new world system that is possible. To expedite that construction, it seems clear that every individual and every human institution will have to begin to assume some responsibility for the world system while also protecting local interests. Can we agree on a worldview that would respect our different cultures while creating a common future? If even a few people in each of several different locations can, we could then begin to create a new type of organization, a distributed network of communities with shared interests and goals, that could immediately improve the quality of many lives and personal relationships--while also making progress toward a larger goal that embodies universally shared values. The Idea of a Distributed Community Building from the work of individuals and small groups, the simultaneous construction of syntropic communities in different parts of the world could significantly hasten progress toward world peace and democracy. But what, precisely, do we mean by the words "syntropic community?" Syntropy [syn-sn = together, tropos tropos = turning or moving toward] will be defined here as a conscious turning and moving together toward declared values and ends by pur-posefully integrat-ing all levels of human action and meaning, in-cluding such pairs of actions as may have been previously thought to be paradoxically related. By the word "community" I mean neither a territorially based, village type of "community" nor a loosely joined social or religious "community" that comes together once a week with a limited agenda. I refer specifically to a community of individuals, groups, and families who organize themselves on the basis of a written charter, who share a minimal set of values and goals, and who integrate themselves psychologically, socially, economically, culturally, and democratically in support of one another and their common goals. This implies that they also actually work together to achieve those values and goals, though supporting members may provide other means of support for the community. It does not imply, however, that the members live together in a "utopian commune"--although the members of a particular syntropic community may choose some arrangement for living together. The syntropic communities whose members choose not to live together would be difficult to spatially define, and it would be difficult to visually distinguish them from surrounding economic and political matrices. They would, in fact, be dispersed and open systems that function as parts of the ambient society while tugging it along toward a more syntropic democracy. To preclude possible dissension over any privileged status or claim of being the "center," we ought to agree from the start, in keeping with the model constitution presented in [Foreman, 1995], that any small group anywhere can utilize the universal model for a democratic constitution and take upon itself the task of initiating a syntropic community--and of stimulating the creation of other syntropic communities. In short, there will be no "center" except that which is democratically elected by all the members of all the syntropic communities. Nor will there be any rigidly impersonal bureaucratic hierarchies since all organizations within the syntropic network would be "organizationally democratized" as described in chapter five and in the model constitution. The value of a model constitution rests chiefly in the fact that it can provide a universal template for organizing on the basis of a minimal set of shared values, goals, and decision-making rules. Utilizing the same or similar models, communities which originate in widely different settings can then know with whom in the world they share a common purpose. Much time would thus be saved by any community that chooses to relate to the larger world in a way that is purposeful at national, regional, and world levels. A written constitution implies social structure and rules for interaction. Communitarian anarchists will not likely be interested, therefore, in a syntropic community system. The principle rationale for having a written social contract is that (1) it reduces the probability that democracy will eventually be subverted by power struggles, (2) it provides a clear framework for the relationships and roles of self-government together with methods of resolving conflicts, and (3) it specifies a method for succession of power and/or responsibility. As each new community appears it can, if its members wish, join the network of other syntropic communities, then gradually integrate itself with the others on a step by step basis in accordance with the model constitution. The model constitution itself could be revised by a democratic process involving the whole syntropic system. If, in the event that a split occurs among different syntropic communities, it would most probably be a peaceful split, meaning that any competition for ideas or resources would occur within a democratic framework. It could even be accompanied by parallel processes of mutual support between the disputing communities. Conflicts could be resolved with help from trained conflict-resolution experts and by democratic decision-making with the full participation of all concerned. If necessary, the dispute could be referred to higher levels of democratic representation within the network or resolved by other nonviolent methods. So long as the competition for new members, or for support from the same human resources, remains consistent with such broadly defined values as world peace, social justice, economic well-being, ecological balance, democratization, North-South cooperation, and nonviolence the existence of several syntropic networks can only further enhance the overall movement toward realization of those values. There are, once again, several ways to organize a worldwide democratic system, and the people of the world will, in any case, make their own decisions--if the nonviolent struggle for a world democracy succeeds. Further, the result of more than one syntropic world organization would be no worse than a welcome extension of the present, uncoordinated, "segmented polycephalous network" of organizations moving toward democracy. The Syntropic World System The development of a distributed organization, consisting of syntropic communities that are geographically scattered but economically and politically interconnected, could have a catalyzing and unifying effect on democratization in the rest of the world. Any one or several groups of communities could open "information centers" which could also contribute significantly to the task of bringing new life to the reform process by which humans rid ourselves of authoritarianism, resolve the nuclear dilemma, and promote the further evolution of democracy. In consultation with existing syntropic democracies around the world, any such "information hub" could facilitate, among other things, the following: 1. The promotion of the model constitution for a new, democratic world system. 2. The articulation and distribution of practical plans for achieving that model. 3. The initiation and/or support of local initiatives to create new syntropic democracies. This should be on a worldwide basis and in accordance with the model constitution. In this schema, the progress of an individual community toward higher degrees of economic self-sufficiency would culminate in a cluster of syntropic communities as described below. The network of syntropic democracies would represent the economic and political infrastructure of an expanding new world system that would exist in "parallel" with the current system of cities, national sovereignties, and the United Nations--though necessarily interwoven with it--until a transition to the new world order could take place. 4. Communication and economic exchanges among existing syntropic democracies--providing support when possible. Also, a study of the structure of existing syntropic democracies, of peace economics, military to civilian conversion plans, conversion of bureaucracy to organizational democracy; transformation of the welfare state economy with its outdated dynamic of corporate and nation-state competition into the new world system of syntropic economies with cooperation for mutual benefit as the principle dynamic; nonviolent conflict resolution strategies, and the further understanding and improvement of these processes. 5. The establishment of democratic cluster and network governments for coordinating all of the voluntarily participating syntropic democracies. These subglobal clusters would integrate their functions with each other through one overall network until a democratically elected world government assumes responsibility for coordinating a new, whole world system. The new world government would receive a transfer of resources from the United Nations. It would then have the capacity to guarantee the safety and security of all peoples and all syntropic communities. This would finally achieve the ageless dream of making war improbable and mutually beneficial relations among all peoples the norm. Beginning anywhere with any core group of individuals acting as a "seed," the new, democratic world organization can recruit participants, or members, and other forms of support from an initially small but growing number of individuals and groups around the world. As this world organization develops on the basis of the accepted and carefully specified set of values, plans, and organizational principles, a sufficiently coherent consensus within the organization will enable democratic self-government of the whole network. Its relations with governments, nonmember peace activists, and with other groups, parties, and organizations must be cordial, mutually supportive whenever possible, and unambiguously nonviolent. Several organizations, for example the World Federalists, have attempted to establish a movement toward world peace. None of them have been based on the plans or criteria outlined above. Most significantly, perhaps, none of them have begun the process of creating new communities that would form a widely based, holotropically structured, grassroots economic foundation for a new world system--as alluded to in criteria four, five, and eleven in the above section on creating a new politics. In the future, if and when the people of the world are ready for an alternative world design, the pieces must be ready to put into place. The syntropic community members, the design, all working units, and supportive elements must have experience, and a credible, indeed, a proven method--even if at a subtotal level--of world organization. It must already be functioning so that people can turn to it in the midst of a chaotic, or rapid, deterioration of the old world order. The new organization must have a plan and the potential for replacing the competitive war system in each region and for each continent before it slides into chaos. The first syntropic world network or organization should model its structure on the basis of the anti-corruption, anti-bureaucracy constitution presented in [Foreman, 1995], with the initial qualification, of course, that it recognizes its provisional jurisdiction as only the voluntarily accepted association of those individuals, organizations, and communities who choose to join the provisional world system. Other differences will necessarily derive, mutatis mutandis, from the world organization's function as a social change agent rather than as an already accepted and fully legitimized world democracy. The syntropic world network would be wise to derive its income primarily from its own active and supportive membership. This income should be used initially to put forth literature, personnel assistance, and some economic support for fledgling, syntropic democracies that need help toward building their economic foundations, and which in turn, could make appropriate contributions back to the crediting organization or directly to the initiation and development of more new, syntropic democracies. Immediately after its creation, any syntropic democracy could begin the distribution of literature describing its organization, its values, its purposes, and its model of worldwide democracy. Once enough members join, or enough support is flowing in, or sufficient funds are acquired, it could move to the implementation of the syntropic economic system. Small Syntropic Systems All levels of action are important, but the new communities will have to focus their efforts not primarily on reforming national political parties, nation-state policies, or bloc strategies but on developing their own global organization, their own transnational institutions, and most importantly, their own local constituencies at the "grass roots" level. Few political reform movements produce the material means of their members' own subsistence. Most depend on volunteers, grants, and/or donations. Few of them, with the notable exceptions of the intentional communities, offer their members the full richness of a human community as exemplified by the villages and cities wherein most of us live. People could join syntropic communities without moving from their homes or sacrificing the lifestyles they currently enjoy. These non-territorial communities could be constructed--de novo or by the self-modification of existing communities--with or without help from other syntropic democracies. As noted earlier these communities could then provide the grass roots economic and cultural foundations that would hasten the world democratization movement while, simultaneously, offering immediate and significant advantages to the individuals and families that join them. In the long run it is primarily at these levels of personality, family, and community--where each of us lives and where each of us can know everyone else in the community--that the future world system will be experienced, and it is only here that we as individuals can begin immediately to create the kind of world in which we wish to live. Small systems linked together can retain all the advantages of small size while doing big jobs. Keeping our new communities at a human size, however, may be a challenging task. Stages in the Evolution of Syntropic Communities According to the theory of democracy described in chapter three, the origins and evolution of syntropic democracies will probably occur--given time and "political shadowspace"--whether we initiate them now or not. When the quality of life deteriorates to unacceptable levels, and reforms are repeatedly stymied by special interests, when societies evolve too slowly to cope with new problems and with rapidly changing conditions, then some people will follow their impulse to reconstruct the political framework from the ground up. If this theory is accurate, syntropic communities--or something like them--will begin to appear with increasing frequency. They will evolve through the same deep organizational principles as outlined in Appendix 1, though probably with shortened early stages. A simple association of friends that develops on the basis of shared values, for example, may first discuss among themselves a new living arrangement, or they may undertake a re-evaluation of democracy: its present defects and its real possibilities. Later some of these small groups of associates may form a co-housing cooperative. Some will maintain separate residences. Gradually they will integrate various aspects of their lives into more fully organized, self-reliant communities. Sooner or later they will discover that decision-making is a difficult and time-consuming process, and that a carefully thought through democratic process, together with a clearly defined set of shared values and goals, offers the best hope for adaptively intelligent social organization. Some of these groups may go on to participate in larger networks, perhaps some to membership in a nonsyntropic world organization--or to other transnational organizations and then to a syntropic world system. Evolutionary stages in the organizational development of syntropic democracies are likely to include the following types of structure, beginning with the least well-organized forms: spontaneous encounters and discussions, associations of friends and families who wish to experiment with new social forms or learn more about democracy, perhaps to study--among other materials--the model constitution described by Foreman [Foreman, 1995]. In the process that follows, democratic decision-making, or some limited analogue of a more complete democracy, will likely be practiced--with individual personalities playing a significant role. Then a set of steps may be planned. A schematic organizational structure, with rules for decision-making, will lead, for example, to the setting up of a savings account with regular dues paid by members, to the study and consideration of a constitution, and then if the model syntropic constitution is chosen, to a small syntropic democracy. At first with limited purposes, then perhaps with gradually increasing growth that incorporates universal values and mutually supportive contacts with other communities, these new syntropic democracies will work toward higher degrees of self-sufficiency. As they begin producing surplus values in a nonexploitive syntropic economic system, and supporting the growth of other syntropic democracies in a larger network--a dialectical or whole system structure will emerge. When a syntropic world network, composed of existing smaller syntropic units, finally makes the transition to a global system of democratic representation with the power to govern based on the syntropic model, we will then have the first syntropic world system. No particular organization will go through these stages in exactly the same way that another organization goes through them, of course, and the latter stages, especially, will require intermediate forms, creative new constructs, and innovative exchanges with the routine structures of the old world system. In the general progression of these stages, however, the evolution of syntropic organization will follow and extend the general or deep pattern of evolution common to all negentropic systems. The ability of systems in an early stage of syntropic evolution to move from a simple association on the basis of shared ideas or values toward more fully developed, self-reliant communities will depend in part on the environmental context. Under the conditions of a "dictatorship of the proletariat," or under any other kind of authority based on violence, observable or even suspected manifestations of an alternative political movement could endanger its members. It is primarily in relation to such organized and violent opposition to democracy that we can see the importance of the invisible elements, i.e., the subjectively shared but intangible human values, beliefs, and goals as the real foundation of a world democracy movement. Democracy and secrecy mix like water and oil, but a carefully insulated democratic organization can survive as the foundation of an underground movement. Theoretically, syntropic democracies can flourish as a strategy for change in any totalitarian religious or political environment, but only if that environment and the obstacles in it are fully understood--and if the adaptively appropriate syntropic structures are carefully chosen and developed. Description of the Syntropic Community Beginnings. A syntropic community could be initiated anywhere by any group of individuals or by any organization that declares itself in support of the values, models, and strategies advocated by the syntropic model constitution. Two or more individuals can get together, study the literature, adopt the proposed covenant with changes and amendments as they see fit, and agree to form a syntropic community that would uphold their covenant together with their values and beliefs. They could also, at any time, enter into a dialogue with other individuals or organizations in an effort to improve either their communal processes or the model constitution. Membership. In joining a local syntropic community that retains the prototypical membership categories, any individual would be able to choose among three types of participation: active-employed, active-participating but employed outside the community, and non-voting supportive. These categories reflect the type and importance of political and economic participation by active members. Both types of active participation are essential to syntropic democracies--as is support from those who share their values and goals but cannot give as much time or financial support as active members. Active-employed members would work for community owned units or enterprises and receive a salary. Initially, there would probably be few members in this category. Active-participating members may work within the individual or private ownership sector, within independent labor-owned and managed enterprises, for the external system's government, or hold any type of job that is outside the community. Active participants will probably form the largest category of membership during the community's initial and intermediate phases. All active members would participate in the political life of the community and would have voting privileges. Active members could vote to assess themselves appropriate monthly membership fees based on a locally determined, wealth or graduated income, basis. Supportive members would contract to make self-determined, voluntary contributions of time or money on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. In return they would receive community business, a syntropic community newsletter, invitations to community social and cultural events, or various kinds of social support. They could attend most political meetings as observers or nonvoting participants, and would in other ways benefit from their mutually supportive relationship with the syntropic community. As an example of one aspect of this mutual support pattern, syntropic community representatives could approach a small business owner with the following proposal: "We have an organized community with (x, y, z) values, goals, purposes, and needs. You offer a product that partially meets those needs" (or simply) "a product that our members would like to buy from you. If you are in agreement with our values and goals, perhaps you would be willing to support us by giving us (q) volume discounts. In return, our community, and all our members, will buy primarily from you, or we will purchase (p) volume of goods from you. In addition, our publications will offer advertising to you for a discount, and we will send you a newsletter to help keep you informed of our activities. And you can enjoy other benefits by becoming a supportive member, that is, by pledging a regular contribution to our community, which is to say, toward our vision of a free and just system of world peace with an anti-corruption, anti-bureaucratic, democratic government." With regard to the development of a syntropic community and of a democratic world organization, it is worth recalling that when we undertake the task of changing either our individual selves or the whole world system, we have little foreknowledge of the length of time that might be needed to accomplish our objectives. Creating democracy takes time, but we can learn to do it faster. Creating democracy in time is the issue, because external limits--even the death of our species--can be imposed by anti-democratic authorities in a most untimely fashion. Reaching our goals of resolving the nuclear dilemma, guaranteeing the security of each people, ending the population crisis, living within ecological limits; and the feeding, clothing, sheltering, delivering health care, and offering meaningful work to every human being may take decades. Each personal moment devoted to those goals is precious--a goal in and of itself. Our educational systems should teach these values above all else. Human evolution, hopefully, will be a continuous process that will flow like an increasingly beautiful tapestry over thousands or millions of years to come. Every conscious contribution from each of us becomes a part of the magic loom with which we weave human destiny. We may one day create a "paradise on Earth." We will almost certainly carry the seeds of our species to other worlds in the galaxy. One whole lifetime--the briefest of events--is the most that one person can give to that process. Fortunately, it is not necessary that any one give more than a little. If we can organize ourselves syntropicly, our routine daily activities will add up to enough. Neoclassical Western ideology, however, is based on the idea that we make every decision out of self-interest. From Adam Smith through Sigmund Freud to modern public choice theory and sociobiology, and in countless ways, Western culture is saturated with the idea that the individual is primary. The freedom to pursue self-interests appears to have priority over all other values. Love and altruism are redefined as ultimately selfish behavior. There is not only no psychological room to question this conception of individualism: one who gives generously to others is considered a pathological fool, weak-willed, a deviant, a religious extremist, or even worse, those who give are made into heroes or heroines, mythical figures who are then separated from the character and logic of ordinary people. In Western culture there has until recently been a thoroughly successful process of ensuring that each person's cognitive space will be bounded and invaded by the ubiquitous logic of individual self-interest. To suggest, therefore, that each of us could give a little more to the "commons," to the "public interest," or to the "whole system" was to incur an attack from the faithful ideologue of individualism to the effect that one is proposing a "totalitarian state" within which individual and self-interests presumably cannot exist at all. Such was the sorry state of affairs in the West, and in the actual totalitarian states the situation was the mirror-image with every personal wish denounced as "selfish bourgeois individualism." Only since the end of the Cold War have we been able to talk about "communitarianism" in the West or in China to mouth the slogan, "To be rich is glorious!" The next step on our longer journey toward a more perfect being, as described in chapter two, will be the making a conscious decision to develop new, more meaningful democracies. This will require that we give up both extremes of the individualist and totalitarian conceptions. We can then blend a more appropriate new ideology that perceives self-interests and group interests as mutually interpenetrating--as each necessary to the other--and survival as dependent on our ability to flexibly change the balance between self-interest and the common interest over time. This changing balance, of course, will have to be adaptive in relation to the changing forces of natural selection. The projected crises that will endanger human survival in the 21st century are based in large part on the idea that the West and North will continue to reproduce and consume out of self-interest. If, as we see conditions changing around us, we can shift to quickly to behavior based on shared interests and goals, then we can prevent the collective ensemble of individually selfish acts from driving the human species, like proverbial lemmings, into the sea. Time, both subjectively and objectively, is critical. We don't know exactly how long we have nor how long it will take us to reorganize. In relation to the complexity of our task and the time it will take us to adapt, the words of anthropologist Edward Shils--although spoken in a different context--are especially valuable for their sobering effect: "The development of a modern polity calls for a redefinition of the image of the self, a redirection of the cognitive categories, new capacities in relation to time and task. These constitute opinion of a deeper sort. They must first be firmly developed in the minority on whose initiative and persistent action...development depends in the first instance. The development of integrity and skill in administrative judgment; the development of cadres of reasonably punctual, reasonably honest, reasonably dutiful persons; and the growth within a small circle of people of a standpoint which regards the entire...community as the first object of its public solicitude--all these take time. They take time because they depend on the formation of fundamental dispositions and of traditions of institutions, of traditions within families, educational bodies, business enterprises, and government departments. Even though they do not have to be created in the majority of the population, they cannot be created quickly, for they are formed only through study, practice, and personal interaction, processes which require years..." These comments by Shils were made in relation to the development of nationhood, but in the postmodern nuclear age they can be usefully applied to the development of syntropic democracies, syntropic community networks, and a democratic world polity. Economics. The syntropic system should strive to develop and balance three economic sectors: (1) communally-owned and operated economic units, (2) labor-owned and managed units, and (3) individually or corporate owned and operated units. The relations among these sectors should be based on a "guided market" system, i.e., a mixture of community planning and free market relations designed to achieve meaningful and purposefully selected goals at several levels of organization. The members of each community or community network can decide on the proportions among these three sectors according to their unique circumstances. There are a number of advantages to this tripartite economic structure. The first is that it takes into account basic differences in individual personality types and in the preferences of individuals. With integrated levels of purposeful activity, each of the economic sectors would liberate particular human energies and other human qualities in a complementary manner for the benefit of both the individual and the "whole community." This economic trinity recognizes yet depoliticizes, indeed it depotentiates, the species threatening dispute between capitalist and communist or neocommunist idealogues. In effect, it microminiaturizes--and "holograms"--the current division of the world's economic system into communist, market socialist, cooperative, and capitalist sectors. In building successful communities on the basis of syntropic economics, the syntropic community can reveal more clearly that sociopolitical structure is no longer simply determined by economic practice, if in fact, it ever was. Actually, a superordinate system of political beliefs, values, and laws can quite resolutely determine, under most conditions, economic practice. Since each of the three sectors would be composed of membership that has already accepted the superordinate values and goals of the syntropic community, there can be mutual respect and cooperation among those who prefer working under different principles of ownership and management. The differing advantages of communal organization, worker self-organization, and individual entrepreneurship would all be incorporated by the community into a whole system with a purpose. The agreed upon values already include a satisfaction of basic human needs and a more equitable distribution of surplus value such that the centrifugal force of individual self-aggrandizement will be balanced by the centripetal force of communal values. In the model for a syntropic constitution the profit motive in economic relations is largely replaced by syntropic motivation based on incentives, disincentives, mutual benefit, and progress toward community goals. The profit motive is not--and could not be--outlawed by a constitutional or legislative fiat. Whether we intend them or not, incentives and disincentives will be present at every level of human organization. If we can organize the incentive-disincentive structure into a pattern that helps to maintain a coherent, multi-leveled movement toward survival of ourselves as individuals, as communities, and as a species--so much the better. Since large corporations, governmental institutions, and other large organizations still dominate our social, economic, and political landscapes, it is important here to consider the relationship of syntropic communities to these mammoth structures and their economic power. In the current system of modern capitalist "democracies," large corporate interests are constantly working behind the scenes to introduce regressive legislation or to prevent progressive legislation. They often succeed, because they can work with representatives who were elected with the help of corporate campaign contributions. So long as the powerful magnet of corporate money so warps the space within which legislative decisions are made, it is difficult to imagine a future in which cool and dispassionate problem-solving can occur on behalf of the public interest. All the members of a particular syntropic community, however, could be employed by just one of those large economic units. Or half of the members could be employees of one large corporation and the other half employees of a rival corporation. In such situations the members must push for further democratic reforms within the large corporations, but it would also be essential to keep a separate focus on their efforts to create an independent community whose decision-making is not dominated by any large corporation's push for ever increasing profit margins. Offering gradations in community-paid salaries provides a system of incentives, but great differences in wealth tend to produce class structures; gross inequalities in political, health care, and legal spheres; widespread resentment and alienation with acts of vandalism and criminal violence, ethnic and racial conflicts, and a loss of focus on other human goals. The model constitution takes these and other factors as well as some historical experience into account when--within the community--it limits the range between the highest and lowest community-paid salaries to a multiple of five, that is, the highest salary cannot be more than five times the lowest salary. A salary ratio of five to one has been practiced successfully--even in a few corporations in the U.S.A.--a country where greed and executive salaries know few limits. The 5:1 figure remains arbitrary, of course, but no more arbitrary than, say, a market-determined ratio of one thousand to one. The choice of the word "arbitrary" itself is arbitrary and depends on one's constructed scale of references. It's arbitrary in the sense that no airtight logical argument can justify a ratio of five to one rather than seven to one, but the five to one ratio is less arbitrary than the logic of market relations if we arrive at the figure by way of conscious reference to other human values and goals. In any case, an individual can be an active member of a syntropic community and own a business or be employed outside of the community and there receive much higher levels of income. This would be a perfectly acceptable choice for the individual and should be respected by the community, but it should not replicated within the community's own pay scales. If the syntropic system is implemented on a worldwide basis, then a tax structure could be implemented that would discourage large private corporations from offering excessive salaries to some individuals. This would level the playing field for all corporations and communities and leave them with more capital for investment or for employee benefits--but the tax incentives and disincentives would have to be in effect on a worldwide basis. Otherwise, private corporations would simply move to a country that did not tax them. An excessively selfish individual, however, could by a variety of related means offend the rest of the community. Such a person could be informed of his or her indiscretions. If the community feels that despite advisements the offensive behavior persists, and that the person no longer represents the community's values, then the case may be referred to an "membership committee." This group could democratically decide to give the individual a clearly worded reminder regarding the values of the syntropic community. The processes of "exit, voice, and loyalty" could then interact fairly to sustain the identity and cohesiveness of the community. Exit is an option, of course, that is open to any member in accordance with the constitutionally based contractual agreement that protects both the individual and the community. "Exit," in this context, means to leave the previous relationship. "Voice" means to remain in the relationship and abide by its rules in order to have a voice in its decision-making, and "loyalty" refers to support of the community and its values as it is. [Hirschman, 1970] A balanced mixture of communal planning and market exchange, and of members entering and leaving, would result--theoretically at least--in a dynamic and purposeful movement. The process would be analogous to a nation having a market economy yet planning and carrying out a purposeful exploration of the solar system. By carefully incorporating values and goals in its organizational rules, the syntropic community can modulate the effects of individual differences in wealth on political processes. The campaign financing laws, media laws, regular reports on the financial and travel records of elected representatives, and other procedures included in the model constitution would effectively minimize the effects of an unequal distribution of wealth on political decision-making. This can happen just as fairly and efficiently as when the truly democratic community modulates the effects on political process of differences in gender, race, ethnicity, and religion. As mentioned above, the differences between democratic capitalists and democratic socialists would be disarmed and "microminiaturized" to the community level where they and the sentiments behind them could interact nonviolently, democratically, and on the basis of practical experimentation. These forces would then interact within an evolutionary framework consciously directed by communities on the basis of shared values and goals. The syntropic community could thereby provide a socioeconomic and political framework that would be a vehicle for transforming individual actions into an organized political power that serves the values and goals held by the community on behalf of its members and increasingly also on behalf of the whole human species. Syntropic communities would be, among other things, capital accumulation systems, as are to some degree all personalities and social entities. New communities cannot expect to attract membership or achieve other successes by consistently requiring material sacrifice or economic hardship from its members. Except where its revolutions have been successful, the Left has generally made the mistake of choosing to remain unencumbered by the possession of capital in order to retain its identity as champion of the working class. This strategy has the unintended effect of leaving capital accumulation almost entirely to the capitalists who use it to attract commitment from those who must sell their labor or skills, to empower representatives of the status quo--or to finance regressive public legislation. Syntropic communities must accumulate capital nonexploitively for use in support of their alternative vision. Even at the earliest level of organization, that of a small syntropic association, the accumulation of capital can begin with the pooling of membership dues and donations. These aggregated funds can go into savings or investment, the initiation of a community-owned business enterprise, the development of a credit system based on the Grameen Bank idea, or any other component of a capital growth plan decided on by the community. A small monthly dues assessment from only one hundred--or even five--members would result in a steady cash inflow of a noticeable sum per month plus interest and income derived from savings or investment. Private investment funds could be combined with community funds so long as the project is consistent with community values. Vanek's criterion that external sources of investment capital be predominant for the optimal functioning of the "participatory economy" (a labor-managed market economy) could thereby be honored. When the issue of control over such a project is decided, representatives of the small syntropic system must retain adequate control over the use of their capital to ensure that their values and purposes are being served. No syntropic community would want to invest in a corporation, for example, that employs unfair labor practices, supports racism or sexism, or exploits indigenous peoples. Each community would develop an economic growth plan that includes each of the three economic sectors. Each new economic unit can be integrated with the others in a mutually beneficial relationship. For example, if the community owns a grocery store, then the next two economic enterprises to be added may be a bakery and a small dairy or a truck farm. They can integrate their business plans to make some of their purchases in bulk to reduce costs, and they can guarantee one another a certain volume of sales--perhaps at a discount. Each of these economic units, however, must have its separate accounting books, must strive for economic autonomy, and must avoid monopolizing local markets. Naturally, most community-owned enterprises will have community members as part of their customer base. This part of its economic foundation, being guaranteed by the community, offers the syntropic community enterprise the advantage of greater economic stability. The other part of its customer base, possibly the larger part, will consist of nonmembers who are attracted either by convenience, the market values, or by the philosophy and political practices of the community. Thus each community-owned enterprise would function to draw capital in from both the community and the noncommunity environment for the purpose of accumulating capital to serve syntropic community values and purposes. A number of other nontraditional economic processes, such as tool sharing, skill sharing, informal credit associations, and time-currency accounts, are described under Sec.5, Art.11 in [Foreman,1995]. Politics. The community decision-making and self-governing processes ought to be based on essentially the same core structure advocated by the community for the new, democratic world system. By utilizing essentially the same self-governing structures at every level from local to world system the process of governing is not only demystified, it also serves to make each level of self-government a training ground for every other level. Of course, decision-making becomes more complex in larger systems, but this can be minimized by decentralizing controls--whenever possible--to decision-making by those persons who are primarily affected by the decisions being made. Some political decisions, such as those regarding the worldwide distribution of energy and scarce resources, affect almost everyone. These decisions should, therefore, be made by representatives of everyone, i.e., by a democratic world government. A particular oil refinery, however, produces oil for everyone, but it creates toxic wastes primarily in the local environment. Local communities, therefore, would have considerable interest in plant decisions and should be part of plant decision-making insofar as its decisions affect the local environs. Needless to say, control over large scale energy resources is not likely to be a problem that local syntropic communities will have to decide in their first decade--so this is just an example to illustrate a point. The structure of syntropic community government would consist of both a House and an Assembly--predicated respectively on the principles of organizational representation and on proportional representation. There would be an Presidential Council, with a rotating Chairperson, and a Cabinet with several departments. If the community is new and very small, the Assembly could include everyone, and a direct democracy would exist--at least for awhile. After further development, the community could include proportional representation for each Identity or Affinity Group which is recognized by the community. According to the model constitution, the Assembly, Presidential Council, and Cabinet would have a composition consisting of about equal numbers of each gender and a representative proportion of each racial or ethnic group in the community. To guarantee freedom of individual choice against the pressures of group process, election of representatives would have to be by secret ballot. Decision-making by elected representatives, however, must be by open ballot. Ordinary parliamentary procedure has the advantage of structuring discussion and, if filibuster is ruled out, of reasonably efficient decision-making. Alternative parliamentary procedures, such as concurrent majorities, cumulative voting, minority veto, or supermajority can be invoked when a pattern of dominance by a prejudiced majority is detected. Decision-making in the community-owned workplace can include the above forms of decision-making and if deemed necessary, a management hierarchy--democratically controlled by the community, or if its a labor-managed firm, directly by the workers. Organizational democracy is discussed more fully in chapter five. Again, participation in a decision by everyone who is affected by that decision will produce wiser decisions with greater subsequent support. This would necessitate temporary boundaries based on spheres of interest. And of course, all decision-making must include feedback loops that fully inform both the people and their elected representatives of the ongoing, actual results of organizational decisions. The syntropic community's political relations with large corporations or institutions and with other governments are of major importance and may determine the success or failure of the syntropic strategy. By seeking mutually constructive relations with other political and economic systems, by inviting them to witness or participate in community decision-making, and by encouraging other systems to democratize themselves further, the syntropic system will not only serve its own purposes but will also serve the long range interests of the larger society. Cultural. The cultural aspects of syntropic community life may be defined to include intrapersonal living skills, interpersonal relationship skills, socializing activity, education, the arts, sciences, and literature--especially as these relate to the enhancement of human systems at every level and to the development of peaceful and adaptively intelligent, learning organizations. Every field of human knowledge is important to the development and evolution of syntropic communities. New discoveries occur ever more rapidly in each field, and each field draws on metaphors taken from every other field. This cross fertilization of knowledge leads to a dense matrix of cause-effect relationships among the cognitive processes of people in all walks of life. The language and concepts of general system theory, as applied in the syntropic systems approach, can further ease the flow of concepts from one field to another. No human community can afford to neglect these realities of the Information Age--least of all communities of the syntropic type. The concept of modularity, which is prominent in cognitive science and in systems thinking, can be applied to the formation of syntropic communities and to the new world system structure. The democratic world order will function best if it is relatively decentralized into small, semi-autonomous units. The organization of the cultural and social life of the community, too, ought to include smaller units or groups that meet regularly with a frequency that is agreeable to their members. Meeting too often may produce a feeling of resistance to community; too infrequently deprives members of the benefits of community. Even the meetings may be divided into "modules" of time for group decision-making, study, cultural activities, and informal social time. A rationale for the creation of small groups was discussed in chapter four. The theory and philosophy of syntropic communities in their current world context, their meaning as components of the projected world system, and their relations with other organizations could be studied and discussed in these weekly, biweekly, or monthly small-group meetings. Community finances, organization, and social life will undoubtedly find their into small group meetings. Personal living skills can be shared. Individual and group meditative skills, cognitive self-structuring, the arts of relationship and of community interaction, ceremonies that enhance community spirit, a variety of other personal and group abilities--all can be shared or acquired in small group meetings. Music, song, and dancing encourages the participatory spirit. The artistic talents of individual members can be stimulated and shared to enrich the evening. These small groups have a potential for becoming significant incubators of both personal and community growth. Schools for the education of syntropic community children are a matter of central importance. These can be established on the basis of new principles that encourage creativity, the joy of learning, the ability to distinguish different types and system levels of human knowledge, practical competence in managing one's own thoughts and emotions, conflict resolution skills, syntropic community values, the habit of lifelong learning, and other important topics usually neglected in traditional schools. New methods of syntropic teaching and learning could be developed. Innovative approaches to community child care could support parents while integrating the lives of parents and children in new and more meaningful ways. Day to day living arrangements should remain a matter of choice each local community's membership. The social and cultural patterns of the surrounding society, the community's stage of development, individual relationships, and personal preferences are all part of the process of organizing one's daily life and of choosing a lifestyle. The freedom to live communally or privately in one's own home--or somewhere among the many choices in between--is a fundamental human freedom. Recall here that a "syntropic community" is not territorially bounded. Members may live in residences scattered over a territory of almost any size--depending on the technologies of communication and transportation available to them. Three other fundamental human concerns are involved in the choice of where to live. Each of these involve trade-offs with individual freedom. One is the local ecosystem's carrying capacity. The cities and communities of the future will have to produce more of their own basic necessities, including food. In a world that is three times more crowded than today's world, the supply of clean water and air--as well as the disposal of human, manufacturing, and transportation wastes will be major factors to be considered when deciding where to live. The second is a matter of information flow. Since information input tends to structure individual personality as well as the organization of socially shared belief and action, it is wise to adopt some intelligent guidelines with regard to one's surroundings. Living in extreme isolation from one's syntropic community would make it more difficult to maintain the enhanced personal development that may be expected if one is bodily present in the creatively evolving syntropic community. Being subjected night and day to the perceptions and values of the corporate-dominated mass media does not lead to constructive views of the world either. When individuals have selective control over the information that flows into and out of their homes over "information superhighways," and more leisure time because of higher productivity rates and better social organization, then more individuals will be able to work, play, and create in their own homes. Thirdly, since the syntropic community aims not just for a sharing of human values and goals but also for material sharing and capital accumulation--with appropriate constraints--the members of the community will discover certain social and economic advantages accrue when they live closer together. These have to do with the revivifying effects of face to face exchanges as well as the cost of moving or storing material goods and information. The Evolution of Individual Personality It would be prudent to ask, "How would living in a syntropic community shape my personal life? How would it affect the development of my children or the personalities of my friends and loved ones? How will it affect our minds? How might it affect the evolution of our species?" We think differently now, in many ways, than humans did thousands or even hundreds of years ago. How will humans think one hundred years in the future? Life, and the life of the mind, has a fragile and tenuous existence, and we must admit that there are forces in the world right now that could rob us of our basic sense of humanity if we are not careful. One of the ideas basic to the concept of the syntropic community is that we have an ability to consciously interact with our changing technologies, with changing environmental conditions, and with our own unconscious processes in a way that makes it possible to evolve purposefully. That does not mean that we can consciously control everything. It does mean that we, each of us and all of us together, can work with the unconscious as well as with the unknown to become more of the person who we each want to be, i.e., more consciously self-organizing, even more "self-creative." The syntropic community is partially designed to assist us in doing just that while ensuring that as we "self-create," we preserve and sensitively enhance that which is essentially human and authentically "self." There is no common, irreducible personality or "basic building block" of society but rather a network of mutual-causal interactions that results in a co-evolution of our personalities with all the elements of society. One naturally identifiable element in human systems, however, is the individual personality--bound in time and space, on the one hand, by a living membrane, and on the other hand, freed from those bounds by an active participation in the universal flow of information. However, all the elements of the ecosystemic information flow in which we humans find ourselves are not of equal value. Humans must value human life first, because without ourselves we cannot value anything else. Yet if we do not value anything else, we ourselves cannot survive! And to make things slightly more complicated, our values are constantly changing--as Warren McCulloch elegantly demonstrated in his article on the heterarchy of values. [McCulloch, 1965] The simple challenge is that individuals and syntropic communities alike must face these paradoxes in all their varieties, then transcend these peculiarities of rational thought in order to create themselves and their world in the image of that which we choose to be! Chapter two elaborates on this "quest for meaning" and direction in our lives. Practical considerations require that we consider the evolution of the individual--and of the world system--together. The human personality cannot be fully understood apart from the context within which the individual grows and lives. Likewise, individual acts of delinquency and of crime that increasingly plague modern societies cannot be understood apart from the structures and values of those societies. As syntropic democracies evolve, they will need to address the theoretical and practical issues involved in all these relationships among individual, community, and global system. In particular, there will be the issue of a universalization of the self-creative personality as we relate to the future organization of a democratic world system. I'm using the term "universalization" here in reference to two closely related processes: (1) the influence of a globally shared information set on the uniqueness of individuals, groups, and cultures; and (2) the progressive expansion of individual and group identity. With regard to the first process, it seems clear that when a number of individuals share the same sources of information, they tend to become more alike. By the term "progressive expansion of identity" I mean that individuals and groups will progressively identify themselves with larger portions of humanity and of the biosphere until at some time in the future most persons will identify with--and will find primary meaning in relation to--the whole system of life in the Universe. That moment in the future, toward which we will move asymptotically, is reminiscent of the "Omega point" described by Teilhard de Chardin [Chardin, 1964] The human personality, of course, is prone to reflect on many levels of identity and meaning. With regard to the meanings which individuals can find in relation themselves, to society, or to something larger--and in relation to the universalization of personality--the reader may wish to review chapter two on the quest for meaning and chapter four on the theory of the individual. The essential messages to be found there and here are (1) that we individuals carry the potential to evolve through the same deep, structural processes as do our communities and our world system, and (2) that syntropic communities can protect and enhance the evolution of individuals toward their own higher levels of self-realization. Let us reflect here, however, on some of the more visible benefits and the sense of meaning that may be enjoyed at several levels by the individual who participates in a syntropic community: 1. The economic aspects of individual life will be enhanced and made more secure by joining the pool of material exchanges that "bootstrap" the economic life of the individual and the community upwards in an ecologically harmonious process. This would include, as a central theme, achieving more material benefit with fewer waste products--and less expenditure of matter, energy, and time. 2. The individual's right to a sense of meaning and purpose within the context of a purposeful evolution of the human race will be consciously promoted. Within a syntropic organization, there is--by definition--a conscious attempt to consider each individual act, and every aspect of one's own personal enhancement, in relation to its possible effects on the development of the community and on the progress toward world democracy. Even the routine shopping, eating, and work of the individual assume a new meaning in relation to the evolution of a socio-economic organization that inherently produces peace, justice, and democracy rather than profit-making, violence, and military defense. 3. One's personal values can be continually reinforced and creatively renewed by participation in the community's shared value system. Along with this comes the sense that one is contributing to the evolution of that shared value system. When people identify with a community in which there is both justice and mutual respect, everyone's moral behavior is reinforced by everyone else. Children feel loved and valued. Vandalism and crime are significantly reduced. Behavior which is inconsistent with the consciously selected value system is noted early, and the individual's needs are more quickly and affectionately met. This can only happen, of course, in a community that treasures its shared values and its individual members--especially its children. The reinforcement of values and the strong message of support from the community results in a deep sense of personal security within individual members. 4. One's political contributions to the development of nonviolent conflict resolution in other systems, and to the enhancement of individuals who live outside the community, will be sustained and amplified by the moral, political, and economic power of the growing, syntropic community system. The loss and frustration that individuals often feel when their isolated communities or single-issue groups are swept away by larger social forces will be much less likely to occur when a network of mutually-supportive communities can stand together and cope with the "old world." 5. Culturally, syntropic constitutional law requires that individual talents and personal skill improvement be encouraged and supported. Life-long learning, social and political skills, and personal creativity, too, are specifically promoted by the syntropic constitution. 6. The biological, psychological, and social health of the individual will be further and significantly enhanced by the general reduction in stress as one leaves the coldly competitive "war system." The alienation and anonymity of randomly acquired city populations will stand in sharp contrast to the new, mutually supportive life of the purposeful, syntropic community. Some of this mutual support will be directed toward helping each individual achieve the type of healthy relationship with the inner self, developing autogenic capabilities for autonomic self-healing, cognitive self-improvement skills, and habits that promote inner peace, mental clarity, loving acceptance of others, and in general, constructive intra- and inter- personal abilities. Chapter four discusses these factors in more detail. 7. The individual, while enjoying the community's multiplier effect on personal contributions to the evolution of an authentic democracy, will also have the opportunity within the context of the syntropic community to witness a creative flowering of loved ones. They, like oneself, will no longer be so easily battered about by the chaotic forces of a society which is a slave to the logic of the marketplace and which does not seem to know what it is doing or where it is going. This flowering, of course, will undoubtedly include a more wholesome development of the ability to love, to love one's friends and family as well as to experience the deeply romantic love that so colors and enhances all other connections with the Universe. By virtue of the constitutional clauses in support of children, the syntropic community will also likely promote in adults a feeling of love for all children--something which children in most modern societies desperately need--as the whole community is brought to life in the context of a purposeful and creative evolution toward a world that, if syntropic theory and practice are correct, will be more peaceful, more bountiful in its variety, and more gracious towards its individual citizens. Individual members and invited nonmembers will have many opportunities to contribute to, and benefit from, their local syntropic community. The framework of the syntropic community is, after all, based on a deep theory of personality as well as a deep theory of the evolution of society. The syntropic community is designed to create a level of wholeness and meaning in individual lives that has never previously been sustained in human history. For a review of the syntropic theory of personality the reader may wish to turn to chapter four. Here it is enough to add that a considerate respect for the rich complexity and uniqueness of the individual personality and for the social milieu of support and freedom that is necessary for the full development of individual potential, and especially of individual creativity, may not be achieved overnight, but the time to begin working on it is always now. Co-evolution of Personality and Political System We began this chapter with a brief description of the "shadowland" of political creativity. We will close with these comments from C. B. MacPherson who relates the changing structures of political systems to the consciousness that people have of themselves: Most, though not all, political theorists of all persuasions--conservative traditionalists, liberal individualists, radical reformists, and revolutionaries--have understood very well that the workability of any political system depends largely on how all the other institutions, social and economic, have shaped, or might shape, the people with whom and by whom the political system must operate...And it has generally been seen, at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that the most important way in which the whole bundle of social institutions and social relations shapes people as political actors is in the way they shape people's consciousness of themselves. For instance, when, as in the Middle Ages and for some time after, the prevailing social arrangements have induced virtually everyone to accept an image of the human being as human by virtue of his accepting the obligations of his rank or his 'station in life', a traditional hierarchical political system will work. When a commercial and an industrial revolution have so altered things that that image is no longer accepted, a different image is required. If it is an image of man as essentially a maximizing consumer and appropriator we get a new consciousness, which permits and requires a quite different political system. If, later, in revulsion against the results of this, people come to think of themselves in some other way, some other political system becomes possible and even needed." (italics added for emphasis) [Macpherson, 1977]