Social systems are perfectly designed and constructed to produce the results they give us. If we're not satisfied with the results we have just four options:
We can change ourselves (or our thinking) relative to our expectations, intentions, or applied design criteria
We can identify and adjust any processes that are malfunctioning and that are causing the results to be as they are
We can remodel the whole system from first principles, or
We can discard the system as too archaic and/or irrelevant in today's environment.
Within the intricate dynamics of any complex social system, whether it's an organization, a community, or a societal structure, the ability to effect meaningful change hinges crucially upon our willingness to submit to a personal metamorphosis. This principle holds true across diverse contexts, where interconnectedness of elements demands a whole-of-system approach to change.
While life in any organization typically ranges from the trivial to the meaningful, and from the inspiring to the absurd, my overriding concern these days is in the 'societal structures' we use universally for relating to one another and to nature, at individual, community and nation-state levels.
Societal structures comprise society's operating system: the organizational configurations, frameworks, methods and patterns through which our species as a whole is able to function. They encompass the various institutions, norms, laws, and relationships, functioning in default mode, that shape how we as individuals and groups interact within our overarching world-system. Examples include governments, economic agendas, cultural norms, educational institutions, and social hierarchies. It's within these structures that setbacks, challenges, disputes and conflicts arise - pretty much always because of the dynamics between people (their values, beliefs and social conditioning) and practices (what is done - or not - and how).
Any attempt to change the outcomes of a complex societal structure must focus on understanding the interconnectedness and interdependencies among its various components as well as the contextual significance of the worldview from which the world-system manifests. These higher level relationships can be influenced by numerous factors, such as historical events, cultural values, technological advances, and individual behaviours - particularly the performance exhibited by establishment figures. The term 'societal structure' thus serves to encompass an intricate and mostly ineffable web of relationships and dynamics defining, governing, and explaining our society's functioning.
In the broader discourse about whole system change, transforming societal structures often involves addressing deep-rooted issues, challenging entrenched beliefs, and fostering inclusivity and equity. It underscores the importance of considering how personal transformation can contribute to reshaping these larger systems towards more sustainable, just, and resilient outcomes.
To initiate transformative shifts within a system, we often find that altering our individual perspectives and modes of thinking is an imperative. This is not merely to do with superficial adjustments, but rather an introspective journey that challenges our deepest assumptions, biases, emotions and habitual ways of being. In other words our most fundamental feelings of identity, and belonging, and purpose.
Only by expanding our own cognitive horizons and embracing new paradigms, are we able to catalyze broader world-system evolution. Moreover, the dynamics and equilibrium of the modern world-system are inherently shaped by our collective consciousness and actions. Therefore, personal transformation serves as a catalyst, influencing the overall ethos and decision-making processes.
When we embrace change at a personal level - whether it involves adopting innovative ideas, cultivating empathy, or fostering collaboration - we are effectively contributing to a ripple effect that can permeate through the entire fabric of the world-system. If we hold positions of authority in society the ripple effect is likely to be amplified. Which explains why a critical mass of citizens, rather than the entire populace, is needed for a renascence to occur.
The process of personal transformation in the context of global change is not without its challenges. It demands resilience in the face of uncertainty, openness to feedback and cooperation, and a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation. These qualities are essential in navigating the complexities and interdependencies inherent within any system-in-transition from one state to another, or undergoing a more fundamental transfiguration.
In essence, the notion that personal change precedes systemic transformation underscores a profound truth: by redefining ourselves - our perspectives, beliefs, and behaviours - we can acquire greater agency within the communities we inhabit. This reciprocal relationship between personal and systemic change not only enhances our ability to navigate complexity but also empowers us to cultivate resilient, adaptive, and thriving systems that are reflective of our shared aspirations for a better future.
Now all of this is just a lengthy prelude to reconsidering and tackling the distressing situation that has been unfolding in the Middle East, some would say since 7th October 2023, others would assert since 1947, and a few might claim has been going on for centuries. There are numerous inextricable issues in play here. But at its crux is the unending, seemingly irresolvable battle, between one 'group' and an 'other'. This is reflected in the different languages, customs, and faiths of Jews and Arabs and the enmity between the two groups harking back centuries.
It's worth mentioning that the concept of the 'other' has very real philosophical, social, and cultural dimensions which explain how individuals and groups perceive, define, and relate to those who are different or perceived as being outside of their own identity or group. The term originated from the work of philosophers like Hegel and further developed by thinkers such as Simone de Beauvoir, Jacques Lacan, and Emmanuel Levinas. Just the perception of difference can lead to discrimination and marginalization, as individuals and groups project their fears, stereotypes, and prejudices onto the 'other.' But intuition of any profound difference, taken and interpreted as a real and present danger, will inevitably lead to the kind of hostilities we have today in Israel and Gaza.
In social and cultural contexts, the 'other' can encompass ostracized or minority groups whose identities and experiences are often defined in opposition to dominant societal norms or values. This can include racial or ethnic minorities, immigrants, religious minorities, and other groups whose identities are constructed in relation to prevailing power structures or cultural norms. This has been the case in Israel and Gaza for decades where interactions between three profoundly differing traditions from Christians, Jews, and Arabs occupying the same land has generated inherent tensions that are thought impossible to untangle. It is this history that has led to the implosion of hatred and bloodshed we're witnessing today.
The issue of what is to be done under these circumstances has not been systematically explored or even given the gravitas and attention that it demands. Instead we have tried a series of bandaids that were never destined to work, if peaceful co-existence had been the genuine objective from all parties. Previous attempts at peace-making have consequently fallen by the wayside and will continue to do so while this central issue of untangling the inherent tensions between Jews and Arabs remains unresolved.
Understanding how the concept of the 'other' has been influencing action on the ground is fundamental for exploring potential solutions for issues related to identity, power, empathy, and social justice. By recognizing and challenging the dynamics of 'othering' individuals and societies in the Middle East might be able to work towards greater inclusivity, understanding, and solidarity across diverse identities and experiences. Exploring this is quite possibly a critical pre-requisite for achieving peace in the region, and particularly in the ancient land of Israel-Palestine.
There are a few drawbacks. Little desire has been shown by either party in terms of coming together to heal festering wounds of ingrained intergenerational hatred, finding ways to forgive the most repulsive and brutal crimes that are so deeply etched into the souls of these communities, helping to resolve the trauma or even to sit down and talk to one another. With one group openly referring to the other as animals, and the other group pledging to annihilate their sworn enemy, perhaps we're already past any point of accommodation.
If that is the case it means other strategies, inconceivable and unacceptable, including the dismantling of the Jewish state on that land, will eventually come to be considered as diplomacy replaces warfare.
But that's not the really bad news. For even if a willingness to resolve tensions, put differences aside in order to achieve an enduring peace, and cooperation at scale to achieve that, were to emerge, there's simply no acceptable extant method that could assist in such a process of metamorphosis. Standard negotiation practices are simply inadequate to deal with this level of complexity. Besides, there is no language, no facilitative practice, and no conditions so easily created, that can remotely stand a chance of success in the circumstances.
On an historic day of May 14th 1948, amidst the rumbling echoes of conflict, David Ben-Gurion, Chairman of the Jewish Agency, boldly declared the establishment of the State of Israel in Tel Aviv. His proclamation marked a watershed moment, heralding the resurgence of a Jewish state after a span of two millennia. However, the proclamation was met with immediate challenges as skirmishes erupted between Jewish and Arab forces following the British army's withdrawal earlier in the day. The sound of gunfire echoed in the background as Egypt launched an air assault against the fledgling nation that very evening.
Despite the looming threat of invasion and a blackout shrouding Tel Aviv, the Jewish populace rejoiced in the birth of their long-awaited nation - a promised sanctuary for all Jews. Their jubilation heightened with the news that the United States had formally recognized Israel. At the stroke of midnight, amidst these tumultuous circumstances, the State of Israel formally emerged, marking the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the beginning of a new chapter in the region's history.
But today that jubilation is eroding, flawed decisions playing out in front of our eyes like a Greek tragedy. That fateful resolution made in 1948 has since contributed to the mass slaughter and animosity we see today. There are other ways of looking at this problem, but possibly none so valid. We must act with caution, wisdom and foresight when making decisions today about what should come next. Everyone deserves better than this. The Jewish people merit sanctuary, dignity, empathy and appreciation. All forms of antisemitism are repulsive, a blight on our common humanity, and must be condemned. But the Palestinian people, too, need to be treated with respect and love. We cannot choose to care for one group of humans and consign others to the ghetto, as we should have learned from history.