Don't Let Them Change Us

I’ve used this space frequently in the past to talk about my vision for alternative forms of power in the nonprofit sector.  I want US civil society not only to advance ideas for a better world through advocacy and by meeting needs, but to show us that better world inside their doors.  I want people all over the organization to be able to use their gifts to create and inspire without taking on so much responsibility that they flame out, and I want everyone, regardless of role, to have freedom to make choices, design flexible responses, and be a responsible part of the organization’s learning.  I want our decision-making processes to effectively integrate many different perspectives.  I want power-with instead of power-over, and I want this because I believe it creates conditions for people and other species to thrive.

In the news we’re seeing daily unvarnished exhibitions of the opposite kind of power.  I don’t need to provide examples; I’m sure you can come up with plenty.  Many of us who are devoted to power-with approaches are wrestling with whether power-with is appropriate in this environment, when so much of what we value and hold dear is under ferocious attack.  Perhaps the current urgency pushes us towards more centralized control and decision-making? Maybe the severity of the situation requires us to regularly push past our limits?  What does power-with truly mean when you feel besieged by enemies?

I heard a story recently of a man who stood alone outside of Congress with a protest sign year after year while the Vietnam War was underway.  Finally a regular passer-by approached him and asked him if he really thought he was going to change the minds of anyone inside.  “I’m not here to change them” he replied.  “I’m here so that they don’t change me.” 

Walter Wink, the theologian, describes how easily we are both changed and fail to achieve our noble goals when we revert to power-over tactics.  The heartbreaking dynamic of decades of Israeli/Palestinian conflict is only one example, but we can see it echo even in medicine (antibiotic-resistant disease) or agriculture (the use of pesticides). Needless to say, it can happen in our organizations, as well.

The obvious challenge to the protestor’s admirable stance, however, is that while the protester was unchanged, the war continued.  Can’t we aspire to both integrity and results?  Wink argues – and I also believe – that the answer lies in rejecting traditional notions of dominance, and answering the powers-that-be with creative, assertive, nonviolent tactics that persistently demonstrate the world we want to build and reclaim everyone's humanity.  This could be interpersonal  (the Black woman under South African apartheid, spit on by a policeman as she was walking with her family, who calmly says “Thank you, and now for the children”) or on a national scale (Chinese students, forbidden to protest, who carried posters reading “support inflation” and “support Martial Law”). The narrative shifts. Dominance is lost.

Let’s take these lessons into civil society.  We can fight fire not with fire, but with a better vision – one that is resilient, inclusive, caring, emergent – and effective.