5.1 The Origin and Function of Management
Dealing with this misunderstanding may be preceded by a retrospective about the example put forward here that, to be sure, due to its sketchiness requires the aid of the reader to be completed. In spite of its simplicity, it may nevertheless not be totally unsuited to prompt the willing reader to recognize something of importance. To this end, it is stressed that by characterizing the four groups of people only the consequent and upright ones are considered and not those seeking to hide their motives from others and themselves.
The aspirations of the mostly outward as well as the mostly inward oriented groups (such coarse attributes may be forgiven in this sketch) remind one of the areas of responsibility and forces at work inside the Anthroposophical Society. Referred has been to the need for internal peace and quiet in order for the work in the world to succeed as areas of legitimate concern for those responsible. The example of an extreme situation delineated here was to make clear that thereby archetypal human and social elements are revealed. Also the attempts of the representatives of the third group will be understood in the sense of an always necessary balancing act between both polarities present everywhere that in especially powerful circumstances are also manifested in an especially powerful manner and therefore an especially urgent harmonization.
What is here of exceptional social scientific interest, however, and what makes the chosen example significant in the first place is the appearance of administrative functions and structures, thus of administration in a wider, general sense, the origin of which one can clearly envisage by bringing to mind the activity of the three groups. For then one immediately discerns an especially characteristic basic feature of administration by drawing one’s attention to the structures, facilities and measures clothed in function-based frameworks that, in the interest of the community and under obligation to it, bring together diverse needs and interests and balance out their deregulated tendencies. The administration does not need in each case to appear outwardly incrusted as a public institution and fixed regulation. It can be active alone as an inner attitude and mindset, as an individual tendency and general agreement and in this way lead to the tasking of functionaries as well as determining the executive form of their authority. It can also merely exist even by deviating views in the inner attachment to a solidarity of behavior and an agreement in view of the established administrative goal.
5.2 The Consciousness and Action Community of Free Individuals
This sketch has thereby reached its decisive point of contention. For now it can become clear that the representatives of the third and those of the fourth group have totally different priorities. The representatives of the third group want to lead the collaboration of polarities through the administration (of their facilities and regulations) in the most favorable channels or in this way even give rise to a cooperation. The representatives of the fourth group, on the other hand, aspire to give rise to everything what then in its results and ramifications can and must also be the object of administration, through the working and blending together of polarities, or, more precisely through the encounters in the realm of knowledge, sentiment and volition of individuals who are the bearers of behavior polarities. Therefore one can in the sense of the representatives of the fourth group never speak about what they aspire to as a distinctly describable social structure, because at least in a few basic characteristics it is not existent as a model. Hence everything that from this process is reflected in the administrative realm remains in a state of flux. The formation of social organs as well as their sheaths capable of being administrated also have in this sense processual character, they are constantly coming into being and passing away.
This permanent coming into being is naturally not to be understood in the sense of the changing makeup of organizational bodies and the adaption of the administrative concept and structure to the alternating social situations and requirements. That changes of this kind ever and again enter the administrative sphere does not need to be emphasized. What is meant here by processuality concerns rather the course and goal of the formation of social organs, whereby even its results (appearing within a certain spectrum of tasks) cannot leave the processual sphere for long without dying off. That is why these results exist in general only as processual occurrences and never as copies and adequacies of a formative (even changing) stamp. For all formations of communal and societal organs are in the intended sense only phases within the basic, all-determining educational process of a common consciousness. Such a common consciousness can in the modern sense of the word only be formed there where a number of independent personalities freely decide to devote themselves as cognitive and active human beings to the same archetypal realm by informing and advising each other thereabouts, experiencing each other therein and from there with tolerance and in consequence make their decisions. The occurrences and results of this consciousness raising process emerge from this common consciousness in the form of suggestions, motions, initiatives, working groups and communities etc. and their conjoining and intermingling in the course of free consultations and delegations. They do not fill a framework but determine on their part that which combines them in an ever new fashion. For the formative element in this sense does not belong to the reproductive but to the archetypal realm. Nevertheless this thorough processuality is not lacking inner, even very strict form, which is not ergon but ernergeia, not shadow but shadow-throwing light. The specific structure-creating tendencies and processes appropriate for every community need therefore in each case and in ever new approaches to be researched and put to the test. Research and practice must thereby stimulate and fructify each other.
The essential element to which this sketch wants to draw attention is based on the view of the representatives of the fourth group that the movement to ensoul the society cannot emerge from an (at least relatively speaking) stationary, static source, but rather the other way around, namely that those institutional elements that require (at least relatively speaking) tranquility must arise from a dynamic source. This is the basic difference between acting out of commonly accepted views on the one hand and the formation of a common consciousness as the – for many similar – formative source of social forms of organizations. From the point of view of this sketch, this points to the basic (exoteric as well as esoteric) mission of our epoch. To be sure, the meaning and task of this mission are, namely with respect to its execution in detail, today still difficult to apprehend. However, with the reformation of the Anthroposophical Society through the Christmas Conference 1923/24 Rudolf Steiner has clearly designated this mission by giving the union of the anthroposophical movement and the Anthroposophical Society its basis in the common anthroposophical consciousness of free individuals and by placing the Free School as a public as well as secret institution into the general life of society. Some more clarifications about this will follow.
5.3 The Basic Problem of Our Time
The view put forward here attempts the draw the attention of the reader to a problem, which according to the underlying conviction of the writer, is most characteristic of our time. This significance is claimed for the goal of transforming the administrative mentality as well as its corresponding mode of thinking and action into an understanding for an evolutionary social organic [1] event and the readiness for its advancement. Ultimately the numerous protest demonstrations and resistance movements we see today [i.e. in the 80's of the previous century] have no other goal . Although they have for the time being hardly developed any insight as yet in the character of the consciousness of modern social life, they are nevertheless guided by the largely accurate feeling for the magnitude and difficulty of the task they have in mind. And their investigative skill is continually occupied with discovering the refuges and exposing the disguises of the bourgeois worldview, the support of which (certainly justified to begin with) are formed by the administrative infrastructure and the corresponding mentality.
These indications can be better understood by further research into the relation between the two basic directions of our soul life and community life as well as their corresponding modes of behavior. For the view under discussion, inwardly directed work at one’s own soul has neither any significance as preparation for a spiritual existence nor as a life of action in earthly matters. And accordingly for this view the real value of outwardly directed action lies neither in the proof for the practical fruitfulness of its striving, which is in essence always directed inwardly, nor in the due protection of the earth, which likewise may be valid for the transition to the spiritual world. And once again, the previously mentioned upholders of a deviant view see nothing in the idea of bringing both next to each other, with of for each other to bear on the basis of facilities and agreements, thus in an administrative sense. Whoever agrees with them shall in moments of danger or urgent decisions, like any active and prudent person, of course do what is necessary and appropriate, protect those who are threatened and provide relief for those who are suffering. Yet the upholders of the conviction mentioned here are not motivated by these goals, because their own physical salvation or that of others does not appears to them as essential. Instead they do what is humanely possible and even when outer success is quite improbable and only the way inward seems to lie open. For – this is their basic conviction –only being active within the sphere of our incarnation, activity in the outer world, leads to that independence and individualization of the conscious awareness as well as to that individualized mode of communal life and action that is demanded by our times and the psychic-noetic phase of development of the human being. Such individual mental alertness is required, especially when one does not want to come together on the basis of common views and act on behalf of them that from the outset (at least in basics) are in agreement, that thus also for each specific case (at least in frame shape) are pre-determined – and that instead one sees the unifying and inspiring power in the ever new genesis of a common consciousness. And neither do the representatives of the before-mentioned group endeavor to further their inner development and to prepare their future existence for their own sake, but because through such an endeavor, when it is shared by a number of people, a consciousness community can arise that is open for the indwelling of a higher spiritual presence. One’s own inner development is thus aspired as the mental basis for the building of a spirit-community. In turn, working for the community in devotion to the outer world is done as the mental basis for one’s own individual development. By inwardly directed efforts no aspirant can therefore for himself achieve spirituality; he can on this path only truly serve the goals of the community. Whoever, on the other hand, is active in the outer world, no matter how socially minded and orientated, necessarily works (and within the context under discussion with complete justification of the times we live in) for himself, namely at the individualization of one’s own consciousness, which can be the only certain basis for modern community-building. This cross-over of the educational, formative processes is in the eyes of the representatives of the designated state of mind at the same time the salvation that proves itself in times of danger. This perhaps at first absurd sounding statement will become further understandable through what follows.
In view of the objections that may be raised here that the designated objectives are null and void, because they are without any concrete results for the course of human consciousness, one may feel oneself in agreement with the teaching of Rudolf Steiner about the essence of the development of world and Man. Because his humanities [also known as spiritual science] are based on the fact that the evolution of the world and mankind is equally evolution of consciousness. Nevertheless it cannot escape one that for the present day habits of thinking, feeling and willing, even when they would be prepared to take note of these theoretical considerations, nothing could be further from the truth than to draw consequences from them for life in society.
Member of a working and consciousness community of the sort described here can accordingly only be someone who, on the one hand, by creating earthly values and overcoming earthly resistance is continually concerned about the alertness and autonomy of his own consciousness – and who on the other hand by a soul-transforming development of spiritual contents cooperates in the formation of a common consciousness. According to this view there is a danger for the proponents of a largely outwards directed activity to become ghosts of themselves, while for the proponents of a largely inward directed activity the danger in nurturing of commonly shared values and the lookout for role models lies in developing a largely sentimental consciousness of ancestor worship. For the administrative synthesizers both can be applied according to their concept. These for many ears certainly severe sounding descriptions pertain less to the actual modes of appearance of certain ways of behavior than their inherent tendencies, the significance of which can only be justly estimated if it is recognized what goal they must reach what for consequences they would have in the end. The recognition of these consequences and their dangers, however, although one ought not to overlook these misgivings, does not at all exclude the acknowledgement that on both paths as well as on the path of their administrative union valuable progress could be and is continually being made.
________________________________
[1] The idea of social organics, which in the course of this treatise will be clarified, was for first developed in detail by Rudolf Steiner in his book The Threefold Social Order. It was presented at that time [in 1919] in a contemporary form, which cannot be applied in an unmodified way to different circumstances. At that time (after World War I) it was conceived as a popular based process of national revitalization after the collapse; later on, it was presented by Rudolf Steiner as the organizing principle of cooperatives and factories. This occurred in an archetypal way for our epoch at the reformation of the Anthroposophical Society. The living educational or formative process as opposed to the rigid administrative principle, that was asserted there and then, is typified by interrelating and intertwining organic structures and processes that like a living organism are not a ready-made artefact but an event that permanently renews and evolves itself. The following deliberations aim to make Rudolf Steiner archetypal idea of the social organic process in its general significance, in no way limited to the constitution of the Anthroposophical Society, understandable.
5.4 The Evolutionary Nature of Modern Community-Building and Some Objections Raised Against It
The permanent consciousness event [2] of communality, continually renewing itself from the source of individuality, is the main concern of the representatives of the last-mentioned group with respect to their activities, experiences and knowledge. This event belongs neither to the earthly nor to the spiritual world, nor to some sort of interconnection between the two, but to a new world which is not yet existent but always in status nascendi at the place where humans beings share their individuality, developed through succeeding incarnations, with a higher spiritual presence. This higher presence replaces the administrative one, it occurs entirely within the human realm, but is in this realm at the same time individual and super-individual, free autonomy and spiritual community, it signifies that the task of the human being lies neither in the earthly nor the spiritual world but in an emerging world through which earth and cosmos attain a new significance. This is exactly what it means to be human, something that can only be created by the human being and in which the human being at the same time also creates himself.
It is easy to imagine what the response to this could be. Probably one would be inclined, in spite of what already has been established in this regard, to keep looking for a contradiction between common views and individual insights and decisions. Above all, one will not be able and willing to keenly envisage the difference, which is most emphatically stressed here, between shared opinions (that in most cases bear the character of unindividualized group formation) and common consciousness. One will most likely reject it as an imposition of an incompatibility when the writer speaks at the same time about the views of the supporters of a group and the behavior based on individual knowledge of its members. However, the necessary simplifications of linguistic expression should not be able to turn attention away from the fact presented here. For when is spoken here about the view of members of a group, it means after all nothing else than that some essential features of the social archetype are described to which the members of this group together look up to. In the spirit of such an act of looking up to an archetype every human being, as already mentioned, thinks and acts more or less consciously. Innumerable people can in this way as thinking and acting human beings belong to same archetype and live according to it, whereby it remains completely open to which degree of realization and consciousness, in which way and in what context with other archetypes the individual human being brings this membership to expression.
The objection that communality of consciousness is incompatible with the individual uniqueness of the act of knowledge is complimentary to the other retort that sees in all group formation a contradiction to the universal principle of modern culture. However, the here characterized “group formation” through community of consciousness overcomes in principle all one-sided segregation, because it is based on the union of greatest differentiation with most encompassing generalization. A community of cognizant human beings can only then become sidelined, marginalized when it is forced into isolation by the unilateral recalcitrant actions of other more powerful groups – and only under the viewpoint of such repression and rejection can the constant objection of remoteness against it be made, because its representatives themselves have caused the situation of remoteness of those struck by their rebuke. But just according to their innermost conviction these thus defamed representatives are open to every sort of agreement, if it is not to come about under unworthy conditions; are prepared to all forms of cooperation that is not contrary to their convictions and do they also lend a helping hand to their opponents, provided they do not thereby support the conduct through which the former do damage to themselves and others.
For the members of the third group it will especially be difficult to consider the view presented here of the representatives of the fourth group. They will often feel themselves confronted with the choice of either dismissing it as fantastical or out of touch with everyday life, or maintaining that they do not need such instructions since they were long ago already thinking and acting along these lines, or somewhat contradictory now putting forth the one reaction, now the other.
Further objections may be as follows: what is said is in essence true, yet unattainable in the near future, it happens, in so far it is at all possible, by itself, if one but directs one’s efforts outwardly and inwardly energetically enough – or somewhat less friendly: what is said is mystical, confused, theoretical, dogmatic etc. all words for which no content remains when the disparagement is detracted as they are meant. However, the author has already said twice that he does not contradict such judgments, if they are prompted by the necessarily inherent shortcomings of a sketch such as this, of which he himself is all too aware. Indeed, he is reminded of a note by the young [German Hegelian philosopher] Friedrich Schlegel: “The evidence that Christianity is true is admittedly not complete if it were so then Christianity would be complete and bygone.”
An additional objection put forward in many nuances is based on life experience. The latter cannot be deceived by whatever beautiful assertions and a cleverly conceived rationale as brought forward here. It only questions how much success one achieves in carrying out one’s intentions and what sort of circles this draws. Powerful words of this sort always have an astounding effect, even though there is hardly anything less foolish and frivolous. Because after all, what on a long term basis and in a greater context is to be judged as having a beneficial effect, can in view of so-called success be questioned. And nothing is just in the case of intensively and extensively prominent effects more important that to possess the power of discrimination that separates that which is truly beneficial from what is detrimental. Every glance in the events of the present time should teach us that “successes” are not able to legitimatize themselves , however great the changes may be that they brought about with respect the past. Was it not by insisting on so-called practical life experience that chemical pesticides, insecticides and much more were elevated to the rank of great accomplishments and is this not, although with some reservations, still done today? Not success that is achieved by its own measure while simultaneously disparaging conceptual exertion is something that those truly responsible can strive for, but only the knowledge that lays bare the inner coherencies of the object at hand, and the overview that accords the essential and the non-essential the place they deserve. If it is a question of measuring success by its own size without properly assessing its inner contents and its importance for the totality of things, then the Australian farmer, who through the introduction of a couple rabbits conjured up an intolerable breeding plague in that part of the world, should be called the winner. To deepen the insight that success in the sense of bringing about intolerable situations cannot be the highest goal but rather the “efficacy of the idea” (Durchgreifende der Idee), that is what these remarks set out to do.
___________________________
[2] See Robert K. C. Forman on Wikipedia for his term “Pure consciousness event”.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten