The starting point for this post was a previous entry suggesting the duties of the Chief Officer of the Theosophical Society in America be divided into two functions, a General Manager and a President. I continue to maintain that this is a necessary step; however, it is only a first step.
The Theosophical Society was for a time on the cutting edge of thought. I’d like it to be so again. I now wonder if a radical change in structure isn’t necessary for the openness that such innovation would require.
I did a lecture last winter at Olcott on postmodernism. It was a very bad lecture, but a few of the ideas were important. One of the slides presented laid out several of the shifts occurring in structural elements from modernization to post- or late modernity (Modern / Post-Modern Chart).
One that may be of particular significance for us is from ‘bureaucracies and hierarchies’ to ‘networks and flattened levels of authority’.
Both aspects of each side of this dichotomy are intertwined. A successful bureaucracy depends on a hierarchical flow of power; a network flourishes under relatively anarchic conditions. Good examples are the the military and the internet, and obviously both have their place.
Can we take the best of both parts? That is, bureaucracies can no longer compete with well organized networks, at least anything less than a very large scale. They were once paragons of efficiency, the worldly manifestation of an emergent rationalism. Today they are most immediately associated with a lack of responsibility and empowerment, marked inefficiency, and even dystopian visions (see Brazil). However, hierarchies, natural healthy ones, are an essential part of most theosophical schemata (Great Chain of Being, Aurobindo and Wilber, etc.).
Likewise, networks are proving remarkably capable of responding to the demands of increasingly instantaneous information driven market, and group-sourcing has proved reliable in areas once dominated top-down structures (witness Wikipedia’s encroaching on the venerable Encylopaedia Britannica). Nonetheless, a total flattening of levels of authority isn’t necessarily conducive to spiritual growth. As anti-authoritarian as I am (note: I have sun, moon and rising in Aquarius and a retrograde Saturn), I will readily defer to those whose wisdom I recognize as greater.
The question is then how can the T.S.A., as an organization, take advantage of the growing importance of networking, both in terms of information sharing, power distribution and community building, and yet retain any healthy hierarchical structures essential to spiritual unfolding?
Let’s talk.
Ananya, the timing of your comment couldn’t be more auspicious. We are pretty much doing exactly what you recommend.
As you know, I have been active on a Strategic Visioning Committee. We met two weeks ago to discuss four questions: Where are we? What is our purpose? Where are we going? How do we get there. For the third question we settled on 17 goals, visions of what we could and should be doing. The committee presented the paper to the Board and it was enthusiastically received.
We will continue to refine the report with feedback from other active members. In fact, I would very, very much like the input of anyone who actively reads this blog (please email me for further details).
Once the document is completed, we will then take it on the road for the input of the membership. We want every group, center, lodge, branch, federation and camp to have their voice heard. We’ll spend the next year in dialogue with as many people as possible, at every level of the organization. We’ll then incorporate everything we learn into a final document, a statement of our values and visions and concrete plans that will go out to every member and beyond to the general public and will inform the activities of the TSA for years to come.
It really is the most exciting thing I have ever been involved with at the Theosophical Society.
Enjoy your trip!
Chris, So glad to hear that a Strategic Visioning Committee has been formed and that members will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the 17 goals. I anticipate that the goals are unitive, inspiring, and practical (smile).
As others have mentioned it is important to encourage open and fearless communication for the stability of an organization; in particular, those committed to supporting one’s spiritual path. As we all know it is also a gesture of respect and trust. To be grounded in a common purpose and committment can be a beautiful thing. Thanks for the work you’re doing.
It is interesting to note that we have this discussion online about unity, communication, solidarity, etc. while the head of the American section, along with an officer of the international section are fighting with the present administration over changing the rules and regulations of the process of voting. I had thought the election was over, but it does seem that the final vote did not please some people and the bitterness continues.
I think we were on track when we were discussing that the TS needs to be a platform to allow people to express their views and at that there needs to be open communication. Here we have an international vice president working with the head of the American section to change the voting process so that a member’s individual vote does not matter. The vote of the section, according to the proposed amendment, will be done by the GC of that section.
This seems entirely wrong considering we are a membership organization based on freedom of thought. The idea behind this amendment is that most members around the world do not even know who they are voting for so it should be up to the General Council member to vote on behalf of the section.
If we are doing what we need to do in this organization and truly fulfilling our duties and the objectives of the TS, how can members not know who they are voting for?
This all comes back to getting people involved, empowering members, open communication, and creating a worldwide community. It is a pity that there are people holding office that members “look up to” who believe they hold the power and can influence members because of their positions. So much for democracy. It would be nice to think the TS can rise above the level of American politics.