From: "dis_course" <dis_course@yahoo.com>
To: s-acc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [s-acc] coalition and control
Date: Sat 01/29/11 04:20 PM
Hi
The PsySR OpCom asked for "collaboration" not "coalition." We are thinking to ask for "limited, exploratory coalition" in the general topic area of "peacebuilding and reconciliation," around developing "safety" in dialogue.
If the arrangement were "collaboration" two kinds of difficulties would arise. The obvious (previous post
HERE) is the "ABCD model" that's based on funded dignity opportunities. Which is not "new social roles" only another kind of "system accommodation" that aligns with "first wave" advocacy. "Roles" means there are issues of character and integrity and is intrinsically political.The alternative difficulty is reflected in the problematics that led to the creation of S-ACC some eleven [11] years ago. It's described as "cult" based protest behavior, and the networking that ensues. "Collaboration" would imply "labor competence" or "work trust." But the Boston PsySR conference showed that PsySR does "old social roles" in regards this dynamism. For instance I had a direct interaction there with Debra Sweet, the national leader of the "World Can't Wait" advocacy linked to the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). She lied in my face and walked away. PsySR let her leave RCP literature there, and also one of their [!] counselors dominated a session where Naomi was participating .. a confrontational arrangement, or power play for control. [The RCP does "community psychology" in an inverted way that controls people by hurt and causing damage/torture.]
When we offer our proposed (small-time) coalition we have to show (as I think we can) that we have sufficient "labor competence" a.k.a. activist integrity so that we can work meaningfully against these two kinds of negative dynamics. And they'd have to admit they "don't have the answer" up front. In other words, we've got to talk "roles" in some meaningful way.
Andrew