I was hooked on your response until the third paragraph: “Do you understand..?” That sounds like you’re questioning my intellectual capabilities. We hadn’t really met when you wrote it so it’s ok.

We did hash this out last night but you wanted a response. (For those of you who weren’t there, I had just arrived, purse in hand, no drink, when Scotty says with slightly narrowed eyes, “So Beth W did you read my response?” And it was on.) Basically, I agree with you that the group is more powerful than the individual. And we agreed that there are extraordinary individuals who can inspire change in the group (right, we agreed on that?).

I was about to disagree with you on something in your response but I had misunderstood and I think I’m jumping on your bandwagon. More people need to be inspired to participate in the group to enact change. So often people say, I’m just one person I feel powerless. But people aren’t often participating (myself included). People need to believe that small actions for the greater goal are important and worthwhile, such as donating money to a political campaign like Annie.

I’m reminded of the charity works of organized religion. For better or worse, they realize the importance of working together and actually do it. Perhaps it’s faith in a higher being that instills the idea that they are part of the group.

Much love to all! Beth W

These are powerful ideas, but they, in many ways, impede group organization, which is a much more powerful tool for change. I give you the question that has been placed in our heads when it is suggested that we change our actions for the betterment of the group: “what’s in it for me?”

Do you understand that humans are, by nature, social creatures, and that (unnatural) collective selfishness is what leads to things like global warming (why shouldn’t I drive an SUV when everyone else does), water shortages (why shouldn’t I water my lawn every day and make it look nice and green), and vast wealth disparity (why shouldn’t I make as much as I can without regard for the social consequences?).

The point that I’m trying to make isn’t that we are not all worthy people; it is that we’re not as individually special as we like to think we are. We affect others through our actions, and perhaps we should take some responsibility for this.

We are not meant to be a bunch of electrons bouncing off of each other. We are all part of a larger community. I understand that the idea of individual worth is deeply embedded in all of us, and it’s a little weird and scary to question it. And shit, I may be completely wrong about all of this mumbo jumbo anyway.

As for your example of a whistle-blower: yes, it is courageous to stand up against the machine (whatever it is) and put yourself on the line. However, this lone actor needs the power of a larger body for their “righteous” act to have any teeth. In other words, why would they blow their whistle if not to get the attention of others?

And of course groups can do all sorts of horrific things, but my point was never that when more than three people get together there’s always a positive outcome.

In response to #1 are you saying that you don’t think individuals have power or just that groups have more power? I’m sure it all depends on the circumstance, but individuals are just as capable of creating change as a group. For example, a whistleblower is a lone individual standing up for the righteous, usually against a group of powerful people. Groups can do as much bad as they can good and it’s much more difficult for a person to stand alone.

Scott–I really appreciate your vigorous and thoughtful response. My own beliefs are probably something along the lines of the Margaret Mead quote “Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world…” You rightly draw attention to the “group” aspect of what Mead is discussing and that was also present in my post. Still, the idea of individuals with clear visions who get those groups started holds something for me, too (I am thinking right now of Lech Walesa and a conversation I had over the weekend with my nephews about labor unions and the role they played in changing governments in Eastern Europe). I am equally troubled when the leader and group go wrong. And I think my real question right now is about personal responsibility: as a thinking person, what am I responsible to do when I see things going wrong, or when I simply want change? Thanks to cinthia and Marleyfan for fleshing out this conversation.

Miller–I think you’re onto something about crowds being pessimistic because our hope has been exploited. Perhaps, if anything good has come from the Bush administration it may be that the American people aren’t such a cheap date. In this way, some skepticism about what we’re hearing from politicians may be a very healthy thing.

Dave, Sheldon, Mike N– Although I didn’t mean this post to be an out-right endorsement of Obama, I think he is definitely worth paying attention to–and I feel even more strongly about this after having made the trip to hear him speak. He just may be doing the (mostly) the right things for (mostly) the right reasons. I would be happy to see his campaign continue to pick up speed.

Richard Hugo–if you’re out there, and if you’re another fine (but much younger) poet from the northwest: the local politician I write about was once your upstairs and my downstairs neighbor.

I always find it hard to respond to comments on my own posts. I’d much rather respond to someone elses. Nevertheless, one of the things that I have really appreciated about TGW is the chance to see how other thinking people are making sense of the complicated world we live in. Thanks for furthering my thinking about this stuff, today.