-ism

-ism

-ism examples:

• We should do something about the war - let's demonstrate! The world is in massive danger, no more driving!
• The global South has been exploited by colonialism long enough, this must finally stop. The street names, statues and murals must disappear from the streetscape!
• Women are still being oppressed. The patriarchy must finally end. Anyone who is old and white has nothing more to say; then we won't let them have their say at all. We have to cancel these people!

There are a few more examples, I'm sure you can think of some too.

To be clear: Each of these four examples is a concern that I also harbour. They are relevant and important topics for me, but at the same time they are not. That's why we should take a closer look at the -isms.

Without being cynical, in all seriousness: I am glad that young people in particular are often so enthusiastic and stand up for causes that are important to them. Yes, not just for themselves, but also for society! I would really like to see more of this willingness to change among older people, of which I am already one. I would be even happier if there were fewer judgemental generalisations and demands, more specifics and exceptions were taken into account and others were included. After all, demands based on judgements are met with resistance and the whole issue becomes even more inflated.
I am now deliberately moving away from individual words or statements. Because that also leads to splitting hairs and dogmatism. I'm taking a general look at what lies behind it - behind actionism or activism or simply any -ism.

Marshall Rosenberg, the founder of NVC, said: "Every ism has nothing to do with CSF." What do I see in it?

If the ism is a fight against something, the first thing that happens is a strong judgement, which in turn legitimises any demand for change. With the new paradigm, NVC, everyone talks about themselves, about their needs, does not judge others, but about the level of their own needs. Then you look for a way to satisfy your own needs and the needs of others.

It gets interesting when my needs now take precedence over yours, because I have an overview and you don't. We fall back into projection (listen to the podcast in question and read the blog in question).

It also gets interesting when my concern becomes bigger than me, when I find like-minded people. Then we are supposedly more right, we all see "it" that way. Once again, we fall into projection, but also into generalisation; alliances form and thus exclusion.

This makes it really challenging to bring a major concern to the attention of others and thus bring about change.

I see democracy as a form of coexistence in which people consciously engage with other points of view and try to find a common path. Ideally, that's how it works. Not always in reality. But being more right and demanding to be better than others, not allowing other opinions in the first place, is not helpful in my opinion, on the contrary: it divides society deeply and sustainably, spreads mistrust and creates compartmentalisation and polarity.

So if it's about being right about the behaviour and not about the issue itself (in NVC: strategy instead of need), then for me it's an -ism. If the personal needs are clear, including those of the supposed other party, if we look for a way forward together, then we are in the new paradigm.

After Mahatma Gandhi had organised and carried out the first passive resistance against the British colonial power (e.g. taking salt from the sea, spinning yarn himself and weaving cloth for himself), he was forced to react because of his own laws. Taking salt from the sea, spinning yarn and weaving cloth for himself (note: no other people were harmed by these actions, only the colonial power had to react because of its own laws)) he was sent to prison. After a few months - the protest continued in the meantime - the viceroy summoned him. In the film "Gandhi" (by Richard Attenborough from 1982, with Ben Kingsley as Gandhi) there is this scene in which Gandhi comes to the viceroy. The first thing he says is "I'm sorry to have caused you so much inconvenience and pressure; it must be quite terrible for you - and I'm glad we can talk about our concerns". Whether it really was like that or just a good story, for me it's an excellent example: seeing others with their concerns and needs, having genuine empathy with them and starting a dialogue, not in demand and dismissive condemnation.
Whether I, or our institute Fokus Empathie, am now vegan, or "woke", or old, wise, male and rich (in the judgement of others), is one thing.

Whether it wants to and can have a curious exchange, to really want to grasp the others, is another matter.

In my sphere of influence, I bring the attitude of the new paradigm to the leaders of large corporations, the executives with a lot of influence, throughout Europe and partly worldwide - for me I have a lot of influence on change and peace there.

I am committed to sustainability in various forms, for example in the operation of our institute with quasi self-sufficient electricity and heat.

I endeavour to be on an equal footing with colleagues, employees and clients, regardless of their role and rank, and I always like to listen to what this triggers in the other person. Mostly judgements ...

Every moment in which I can see someone with what is currently alive and will also experience with mine, I feel connected. It gives me confidence for a better future together.

Because change becomes possible when we are really heard.

So check for yourself:

Where is your influence, specifically (see Circles of Influence)?
Is your strategy also conducive to your needs and within your sphere of influence?
Are these your needs? Or are you simply adopting a hidden strategy as an introject?
Are you curious about the other person and their point of view? Or do you prefer to make judgements?

Do you see your counterpart as an object or as a person?