I’m reminded of the quote from the Cuba DVD where a woman says something along the lines of; it doesn’t matter what technology we have, what resources we have – if we don’t work together it won’t happen.

We have a motto here on the Sunshine Coast – we are our resources.

We don’t have to be fence sitters or just accept others people views unquestioned. What we do need to do is find some type of common ground, some similarities so we can work together and most importantly keep moving forward. Or at least a way to tolerate being in the same room.

You don’t have to personally like someone, you don’t have to be their friend, but you do need to treat them with respect and find some way to work together.

It is becoming more and more evident to me that skills in group facilitation, conflict resolution, problem solving and creating cohesion and gluing processes are the most fundamental actions of the Transition Movement.

The heart and soul of the groups.

Sonya

Real courtesy means getting your ego out of the way and simply listening to the conversation around you. Once you take the time to listen and also have some empathy (inner relating to) in your conversation partner you can begin to engage. Buddhists would call it part of loving-kindness, so would I.

It might be hard at first but it is definitely worth it. In some cases, people simply want and need to be HEARD, first and foremost.

I live in a different society (The USA) and the way we interact is likely different than you all in the UK. Its also different here depending on which state your in.

I have had profound experiences when I simply listen and present simple courtesy with people of VERY different worldviews.

Once when I was in college, I was part of a stand-out protest of sorts for Women’s Right to Choose (Our group was the Athens Rape Crisis Line – a group of trained rape crisis counselors). I had been assigned the role of watching for “problems” so I didn’t do any yelling or sign holding, I was part of the group but watchful.

After the event and many of the people had left, I was approached by a man who was clearly agitated and who was holding a bible. Some of the details are dim because this was back in the 80s but we started talking.

He was heated up but I was courteous and told him I wanted to listen. He relaxed, we looked into each other’s eyes and I listened as he presented his passionate case. He was upset that he could not reach us with his message (reaching us, it seems, must have also included convincing us – an ambitious goal for a southern Baptist fundamentalist and we liberal female college feminists).

I listened, I witnessed in their parlance. When he was done I told him I could see where he was coming from and I hoped that he might be able to see our perspective. I could see in his eyes that he was willing to but then disaster struck.

Two women from the protest, who I didn’t really know on a first name basis, walked up and yelled at this man, accusing him of being abusive towards me and to back off. Only after doing this did these women ask me if I needed any help. I felt betrayed.

The man, his eyes hardened, he got stiff, he got angry, he raised his bible, and started speaking in tongues and screaming something like “Get back, behind me oh devil”.

The moment was lost. This man, so terribly misguided, who was having a moment with an atheist feminist liberal minority woman like me, he was pushed away by a deeply rude approach.

I never underestimate the power of civility, honest rapport, compassion, empathy, and courtesy.

My perspective is different though. My challenge is how do I get businesspeople, local councillors, new age folks, liberals, conservatives, scientists and pseudoscientists to work together to try and design a way through energy descent. I’m not going to say “until you relinquish this absurd belief in dowsing you can have no part in the designing of the future of Totnes….” It is a difficult path to tread and balance to achieve, and one way to certainly not go about it would be for me to launch into anyone whose belief systems I felt to be questionable in terms of science (and in Totnes we have a fair few!). If that is tolerance, then yes, I am more tolerant. That’s not the same as actively promoting these beliefs. I’m didn’t say that the whole debate was Moore getting a kicking from yourself…just it felt to me that that section I quoted went to far. That’s just my opinion.

Tom… I agree entirely about Monbiot, he can be pretty vitriolic and catty when he chooses to be ( I seem to remember him being scathing about John thingy, the US trade secretary guy with the obvious hairpiece), I was referring just to that exchange with Scargill. In terms of chat rooms, I guess I am speaking about certain ones where I have been asked to look at entirely uninformed people who know nothing about Transition speculate and put the boot in…. horrible places. As you say, they can be great, the Transition Network’s fora (!) work very well, and as you say, if well moderated they can be great. With regards to the debate with Alanna, like you I found it fascinating, and very important and useful, but as I said above, it did feel to me like that particular part was just unnecessary. A matter of opinion ultimately… Thanks guys….

However, I’d like to leap to the defence of Graham who I believe is striking out into difficult water to ensure that the important work that needs to be done towards sustainability is based on evidence and not led astray by pseudo-science.

You say of his sarcastic comment: “It adds nothing to the debate and discussion, but it leaves the quality of the debate greatly reduced.” I disagree, Graham’s response expressed to me his exasperation with trying to engage in a debate with someone utterly unprepared to answer his questions. In essence there was no debate to degrade. Alanna had also threatened him with legal action without any warning or personal communication. It is important to remember that Alanna put herself in the public domain by publishing an article in Permaculture Magazine and also having a public website. Graham’s comments were in no way threatening and were obviously in jest.

What constitutes good and bad manners is not set in stone. Cultural norms are of course important, as are the circumstances. Within the ‘debate’ between Alanna and Graham, I feel that the sarcasm was justified.

We also don’t always follow exactly the codes we claim to ascribe to. You mention “the apologies we encounter that really don’t actually mean it”, but then go on to apologise twice for your comments about music from mobile phones on trains and for not using the word fora. Surely in the written word you could have simply deleted the offending phrases? Why be so rude and offend me with your pet hates and poor grammar? (I am of course trying to be funny – I hope noone finds this rude…)

You hold up George Monbiot as an example of politeness but he refers to people who took the 9/11 conspiracy movie ‘Loose Change’ seriously as ‘gibbering idiots’. (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/12/short-changed/)

I’d also like to defend online forums (fuck the pedantic Latin)! They can be wonderfully civil and enlightening places. There are some outstanding gardening discussion groups where you will find polite people who go out of their way to answer your questions – invaluable resources for those seeking to grow more of their own food. There are some links to some that I find useful (and polite) on my blog. Good forums have good moderators who oversee discussions and work hard to keep things relevant and civil. They can be a valuable tool in the transition toolkit.

“our current lurch into recession [that ]will generate crime, disorder and a plumetting of civility on an unprecedented scale.”

Surely the rising influence of pseudoscience and its toleration by influential people like yourself; the constant attempt in society to curtail serious debate by hiding behind a screen of the demand to “respect other beliefs”; and the general sinking into an age of ignorance and endarkenment, superstition and credulity, is a much bigger issue.

You neglect to mention that the context was that I was being threatened with legal action- not exactly a polite thing to do considering my extensive efforts to be civil, to stick to the facts, to avoid ad hominem comments, to be “respectful” throughout the debate hitherto.

Also in Moore’s comments are the rather disrespectful comments that everyone who challenges her beliefs are “ignorant” and “know little of what they are talking about”. Her whole post is extraordinarily pompous and basically is saying:

“I am a very important person! I write books and make films!! Therefore you cannot touch me!! I must, by the sheer force of my fame and celebratory status be right!”

It is the hubris of this position that is the problem Rob, not my sarcasm, which was very mild.
There are many who think I am far too respectful of these beliefs.

The response by Moore to my evidence-based challenges of seeking legal action is an example of another serious problem in society- why have you not picked up on that and commented on it?

The subsequent comments by Moore represent a degeneration of civility and common decency an order of magnitude beyond anything I have said- while at the same time vindicating my position( her beliefs are religious; there is no science behind them).

Why have you not commented on this? You seem to actually be defending here histrionic response- poor little Ms. Moore, the innocent victim of Mr. Sprouts’ horrible and vicious attacks!

The idea that insisting constantly on mutual respect for different beliefs should always take precedence over the actual beliefs themselves is just another insidious way of suppressing honest debate- another example of post-modern madness, itself a far, far bigger threat to civility than a little bit of sarcasm in a debate about trolls and fairies.

I’ve posted 2-3 pieces on my blog on civility over the past year. I recognized that it will play a central role in making things work more smoothly in difficult times. Additionally, those who are rude today will be remembered as such. It may not be a good survival trait. Finally, have you seen P.M. Forni’s book entitled “Choosing Civility” ? Quite good.

Thanks.

I would argue that this attitude runs even more deeply, to the very core of modern Western thought.

Existentialism announced that ‘existence precedes essence’ – that we simply exist, and that any meaning we might then attribute to this ‘blank slate’ existence is solely created by ourselves and our own choices – and we assumed that the ‘we’ in question must be our individual selves.

This leads to the pervasive notion that while some individuals might find their meaning and fulfilment in trying to assure the future of endangered species, or civilisation, or even life itself, others find theirs in greed, gluttony and destructiveness. For the true believer there is no contradiction here because there is no underlying meaning to seek – only individual choices.

I discussed this in the context of climate change on my blog recently: http://tinyurl.com/5tqd63

I believe that addressing these deeply-rooted cultural stories is a key aspect of Transition.

“A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future”

“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

I doubt she’d consider anyone has an entitlement to throw litter from their car but the overriding maxim of the ’80s was, as Gordon Gekko didn’t say, “Greed is Good”. It’s not obvious that the very successful people we look up to got where they are today by looking after their neighbour. The story is that if we neglect everyone else we will do better for ourselves.