THE PREVIOUS POST OUTLINED the way in which the priest/king spirituality builds communities—as a top-down structure in which each level serves the level above.
By contrast, the emergent, natural spirituality tends to build communities from the bottom up.
Where the priest/king model is hierarchical and authoritarian, the emergent, natural model is egalitarian and democratic.
It tends to see community as something that emerges, rather than something that is enforced.
Remember, for the purposes of this series the communities I'm describing are pure theoretical types—in real life almost all communities are a mixture of the two.
So if you try to apply these criteria to a community that actually exists in the twenty-first century, you'll have to resort to one of my favorite phrases: "insofar as".
Insofar as a community is based on the hierarchical priest/king model, it will be structured according to the outline in the previous post.
Insofar as a community is based on the emerging natural model it will be structured like this:
- The leaders in such a community, if they exist at all, lead by enabling the community to find a consensus and a way to act on it.
That is, they act as servants and representatives of the will of the community, rather than dictators to the community.
The community is not seen as an extension of its leaders; rather the leaders are seen as an extension of the community, but only in a very limited sense. - If a leader makes the mistake of giving orders, or of acting as though leadership has either authority of privileges, he or she quickly loses all influence.
Depending on the seriousness of such behavior, the leader's orders may simply be ignored or laughed at, or more severe measures may be taken.
If the individual in question is making a very serious effort to control decision making, or to give themselves a privileged position, and won't desist, he or she may be kicked out of the community.
In some hunter-gatherer societies, a community member who forces his or her authority on other members of the the group, and who refuses to leave, may even be killed in extreme cases. - Many times, even most of the time, community decisions are made without a "leader" of any sort involved.
The process used is one or another form of consensus building. Often this involves conversations among individual members of the community, until a consensus begins to emerge.
Sometimes it involves group meetings or conversations, in which all or a large segment of the community grapple with the problem. - The overall process is informed by a lot of listening, one to another, and by empathy.
There's a sincere desire to make sure that everyone is on board, and that everyone's needs have been factored into the decision.
Individual needs are factored into the decision making process.
If at all possible, a solution is found that meets everyone's needs. If that's not possible, then there is an attempt to minimize the difficulties the decision causes any one person. - But most decisions are not made at the community level at all.
Natural, emergent, egalitarian communities put a great emphasis on freedom and equality.
Every attempt is made to keep any one person, or even the group from telling any individual what to do.
Whenever possible, individuals are allowed to go their own way, unless that infringes on the rights of other members, or threatens the survival of the community as a whole.
Cooperation emerges, rather than being enforced.
This is because an egalitarian community has a different structure than a hierarchical community.
Which I'll get to with number 6 in the list...
