The Discoveries

Society and Self-Responsibility

A series of exercises and discussions held within the Fellowship during the period 1993-96 led to the formulation of certain conclusions regarding the state of society; what may be wrong with it, and whether anything could be done to put things right.

Although it had been suggested that the ailments of society could be attributed either to the inequalities in the distribution of money, or to the over-population of the world, it became increasingly apparent that the perpetuation of society's ailments, and the way we customarily seek to deal with them, rest upon a number of false perceptions, or ways of thinking.

Foremost amongst these is the way we think about (revealed by the way we talk of) 'society' in an abstract sense, as though it were an entity in its own right, existing independently of its individual members. The question was posed: 'How can we hope to solve any of "society's" problems until we acknowledge that we, personally and individually, are an integral part of "society" and therefore, personally and individually, are actually a part of the problem?'
Thus, if we wish to understand the true nature and causes of all the things that we find unacceptable in society, should we not first look to our own personal behaviour and attitudes, for what is society if not the aggregate of all that we are as individuals?

Whereas references might be made, for example, to the unequal distribution of wealth, and suggestions tendered that the introduction of appropriate legislation may remove some of the more extreme inequalities, this is clearly a superficial 'solution' and fails to address such questions as 'What personal motivations are responsible for causing some people to actually want to amass such wealth?'

It began to be realised that if these personal motivations could be identified and changed at source, then the whole issue would eventually cease to exist - dealing with them 'at source' would not require legislation, but a restructuring of the psyche. This realisation came about from a recognition that the need to amass wealth beyond one's immediate requirements may be indicative of some defect in our inner state of being. Therefore, it is the inner state of being, or psyche, that should be examined.

This approach toward the specific ailments being identified proved a fertile ground for the growth of other realisations that had been germinating within the Fellowship concerning notions of self-responsibility and self-determination; and the concept that the only legitimate or possible area of real change, for the individual, is oneself.

We began to review the ways in which we relate to, and behave toward, other people; what that behaviour can reveal to us about our own attitudes and 'inner being', and how those attitudes are reflected by society at large. This brought us to the very simple and self-evident conclusion that society's ailments cannot be separated from the perpetrators thereof and, to some extent, we are all perpetrators. Therefore, a very good starting point may be to adopt, without compromise, the approach that we should not dictate to others, by means of legislation or whatever, how they should behave, but seek to improve our own personal behaviour. If our own personal behaviour were faultless, does it not follow that the whole of society would be faultless? Utopia would be here and now!

Such reasoning may be regarded as naïve; It is readily acknowledged that the only way it could work is if we were all of an equal determination, and all equally capable of identifying and changing those personal attributes that may be defective.
It is also acknowledged that such a state of equal determination and capabilities does not prevail, and is never likely to, therefore it is unlikely that there will ever be any widespread acceptance of personal responsibility for self-change.

However, for those who agree with the 'diagnosis', there can never subsequently be any acceptable justification for not adopting the proposed 'cure', and implementing it as fully as possible. Any disinclination to do so, together with all the tortuous rationalisation and self-justification that inevitably accompanies such disinclination, has to be recognised as a part of the overall problem, and is perhaps the first thing that should be addressed in any regime of self-responsibility, self-determination, and self-change. No one, having made the 'right connections', can be exempt.

This sort of approach, to be effective, must lead to intensive self-examination, introspection, and analysis, constantly asking of oneself 'Why do I do this?' and 'Why did I feel that?' etc. To be really useful, such self-examination has to be conducted as though one were an objective observer of oneself, seeking not to justify or to rationalise, but simply to understand.
This should not be confused with that self-absorption and egoism which causes one to be oblivious to the existence, needs, and feelings of others; it must be balanced by an equally analytical observation of the behaviour of others, conducted in a non-critical, non-judgmental mode, with the sole intention of seeking to understand.

Another conclusion that derived from this was that ultimately it is futile to seek to modify human behaviour solely by legislation. If the individual does not possess the inner desire to change, then all that legislation will achieve is to create another law-breaker.

There have of course been similar ideas in the past; they are neither original or unique. But it was at this point that they were embraced within the ethos of the Fellowship, and assumed a reality, relevancy, and immediacy that they had not previously possessed.

Upon reflection, it becomes clear that many people exhibit an almost automatic reaction of avoidance (or denial) of this whole area. There appears to be a widespread innate reluctance to accept any responsibility for the state of society (which is really only an extension of the state of human relations!). It sometimes seems that the entire structure of modern life has been designed to encourage us not to accept responsibility for the consequences of our attitudes and behaviour.

For example, it seems self-evident that if each of us works hard to get human relations, on a one-to-one basis, back onto a sound and healthy footing, then the rest will follow automatically.

Although the Fellowship has developed an uncompromising approach to certain aspects of life, this does not necessarily extend to its expectations of others. That is to say, the Fellowship's attitude could be summarised by the phrase 'uncompromising of oneself, tolerant of others'. Thus, we believe that, once something has been recognised as right or true, there should be no compromise of it by one's own thoughts and actions.

However, it has to be accepted that not everyone has recognised the same things as being right or true. It would not be right to forcefully impose one's views on another, or to have an expectation of others sharing them, or even to expect others to modify their behaviour to accommodate one's own views. That is not to say that what's right for one may not be right for another but rather, that they haven't yet recognised or acknowledged that rightness, and consequently there should be no expectations of them. The expectation of this particular form of integrity should only apply once someone has recognised and acknowledged the 'right way'.

Back to The Discoveries Index

Top of Page