Questions On the Path of Social Change
May 18, 2011
On the path to creating social change - I realize that I am not really focusing as much on creating value as on 'selling' value. For example a chunk of my day still is to write a funding proposal for a livelihoods project or raise sponsorship for our conference. And we are doing this, since that's what will make our work sustainable. I'd love to put it all to the universe but I do want to have the money not only to do great projects but to be able to compensate great people who want to solve these social problems ... so then do I just create value and hope it will get monetized, or do I market and create simultaneously or maybe just market first ...
The path that I know works like this -- create value in a way that transforms you; that inner transformation will create a field of new possibilities ranging from simplicity to social capital. Then, we won't expend as many resources on de-stressing ourselves with movies and malls, and fries offered with a McDonalds wrapper will no longer taste better. :) In general, the value creation isn't just measured by the outcome, but also by the depth of our inner transformation; hence, if a project doesn't sustain itself, that's a minor detail that you happily flex around and take whatever detour manifests. In the choices above, that approach is closest to "creating value and see if it gets monetized; if not, you run to the bank with the joy of your inner transformation". :)
In a world where trillions are used up on war and corruption, we are facing challenges being able to raise a few thousand dollars! I sometimes wonder: if such is our world, isn't the Universe actually supporting the 'darker' forces? Let alone the dangers of being good, isn't it far easier to make money dancing to mainstream tunes, fighting wars and accepting bribes? What is the one insight that keeps us from getting to the promised land? Is there even such an insight? Are we perhaps trying too hard?
Money is a man-made phenomena; the natural world doesn't work with money, and neither does the complex system of giving and receiving inside our bodies. The "bills" of currency barely started in late 18th century. This idea that money rules the world is far too simplistic -- as we just saw in the tragic events Japan, Nature always holds the veto power. So the question really is: how do we align ourselves with Nature? Famous Japanese farmer Fukuoka used to say, "I don't grow plants. Nature does. I just have to work hard to get out of the way." Similarly, for us, killing, stealing, lusting and lying keep us away from being in alignment with nature. To have the winds of nature be behind your back, you have to work hard to strip delusions and find effortless action that is in alignment. So "if you dance to mainstream tunes", you get mainstream results -- which is suffering. Intense suffering. If you dance toward effortless action, you get virtue. And joy.
A part of me wants to get into mainstream politics; not only because it has the potential to create change, but also because it has fame and power. People around me would be really proud to see me making a substantial difference from within the system. And yet is it worth spending time and energy negotiating existing power structures and dynasty politics?
I don't think there's any right or wrong here. What one ends up doing is at the intersections of one's gifts and society's demands. A while back, I got into a debate with a very high-level politician in the government administration, about the nature of politics. To the "If all good people think politics is dirty, it will always stay dirty" argument, my response was: "Gandhi didn't overtly go into politics because he never wanted to compromise principle." Some even say that these days its hard to even get an opportunity to be heard without violating one's values. It's not right or wrong, but in the realm of political office, you have to compromise because you are constantly negotiating many nuanced consequences. Is it possible to do those actions without creating a calculating mind? Probably, but I know that its certainly not for me. Vinoba chose not to go there, but Nirmala Deshpande did. So did the Dalai Lama.
In some ways, I am not being the change when I'm strategizing -- like doing small, random act of kindness. Or am I actually being the change when I am pitching projects and raising sponsorships rather than doing some hardcore grassroot stuff?
While fundraising is a common hurdle for a gift-economy and while CF opts for 'Ripe Fruits Fall Naturally' approach, I think its still possible to be-the-change as a fundraiser. One of my very good friends, Lynne Twist, is one such person -- she wrote the book "Soul of Money", lived with Mother Teresa for a year, and has raised over $900 million for nonprofits. But she would first care about the inner transformation of the person giving, than the money; many times, she has refused major donations if she felt like it wasn't right for the person giving, and similarly, one time, on her way to give a talk on fundraising, a homeless man asked her for spare change and she explained what she was doing -- and the fellow actually gave her some change! The key is to see where you are anchored; if you're anchored in the money, you'll be wading through worlds of self-interest, but if you're anchored in inner transformation, then you'll be changing the world inside-out.
