Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the analyses is the part that «» play in government choices and political life generally. The power-structure of society is based in organized groups. Yet all significant change for any particular person or community is dependent on generally.
The initial assumption and final conclusion cannot be avoided: the final responsibility for the political condition of any society must rest with the people. That refers to their general level of awareness, degree of ethical maturity in society, and general strength of character. This phenomenon is examined further here by comparing the two Trees in . The process of discovering these Trees has been summarized: note that one emerges from the structure of the other.
These two similar Trees in , have been tentatively named:
Naming of Trees is rarely easyOften the best name is contingent on how the framework is being used. . We can refer to these two Trees via their structure or via their internal duality.
The Spiral Tree (CH-Tree) and
the Structural Hierarchy Tree (CsH-Tree)
are shown side by side below without Channel names.
Via Internal Duality:
The CH-Tree depicts the relations and influences between and in society.
The CsH-Tree depicts states and processes in through .
All Levels in the CH-Tree are found within each (single) Level of the CsH-Tree. This is due its origin from the structural hierarchy—review the diagram in Step #4. Probably, the whole of the CH-Tree exists within of the CsH-Tree.
To clarify my CH-Tree.and any political action I might take, it could be meaningful for me to reflect on my position and activities in terms of the
Channel names are not shown in either graphic, but they have been formally proposed for the CH-Tree. Assistance from members is requested for the nature and names of the Channels in the CsH Tree.
Assuming not too many errors, names of the Centres and the progression of Levels (shown on the side of each Tree) should help get our minds around what is being represented.
Better viewing: narrow or close left navigation column; use browser zoom if needed.
Both Trees are about « », but they handle this differently as shown by their components. The Centres may seem rather alike, but they are unequivocally different: (CH-Tree) are not the same as (CsH-Tree).
The internal duality of the CH-Tree is:
Social Life as context for Political Life i.e. The People v The Powerful
The internal duality of the CsH-Tree is:
Change as context for Participation i.e. Sources of Power v The People.
The differing positions of «the people» in these Trees—at the top of one and the bottom of the other—confirm the assumptions with which the inquiry into commenced.
Although «the people» cannot do much to influence «the powerful» in society as regard to ordinary government choices (CH-Tree), «the people» are the powerful ones when it comes to generating any significant change. They control the «sources of power» in society, if they but choose to recognize that.
seems to be primarily a matter of ( ) on the part of the people en masse to claim and assert both responsibility and power.
The CH-Tree maps what can, does and should govern choices for a society. It gives no indication how people in society can participate or what drives changes.
Bill runs a small firm and is unhappy with government policy in his industry. Should Bill become politically active (CsH Tree)?in the
When Bill reviews his situation using the CH-Tree, he notes that his -industry organization focuses on the interests of its larger members. So, there is no help from or . He also notes that many smaller firms have been driven out ( ) and that public opinion is clueless and viewless ( ).
Although the need () for Bill’s sort of service exists, there is no cultural-ethical support ( ). In sum, it seems pointless to get politically involved. Bill would do better by selling out and starting in a new area—but adding a political analysis to his usual commercial analyses to ensure he is aligned with socio-political forces.
«Power and the Powerful» form the basis. We note that the extremes of at can be progressively brought under control, more or less,
but the corrupting influence of Levels easily combine to give the powerful even more power.of on is so strong that all 3
«The People» in the CH-Tree are represented:
Given that most human needs are better managed through people acting and associating on their own behalf privately, the seem to be determined primarily by Centres in the lower half of the Tree—where individuals are directly involved ( ) and groups struggle self-interestedly ( ).
Solutions chosen by governments appear to be dominated byand , combined with parochial with corruption varying according to local norms.
Sometimes particularmanifest forcibly and «compel» a government to act. More often, government action is justified in terms of . But whenever such action displaces private activity and encourages reliance on government, moral hazards are generated.
The CsH-Tree is a picture of how political tensions need to be handled. It shows how (in principle) people can and should participate so as to determine choices and changes in society. It gives no indication of the forces that affect how people think about politics and look after themselves.
«The People» form the basis in this Tree. Everyone is or should be represented in their . However, the involvement of people in politics is quickly limited by inherent difficulties:
Nevertheless, genuine The People are ever to prevail.entails a degree of if the views of
«Power and the Sources of Power» emerge …
Within tensions emerging from discontents and action, leading (ideally) to peaceful but forceful participation. Pressures play out in part by influencing , and partly by generating greater by the people involved., conflict develops between
maturation of political institutions probably plays the dominant role in both the quality of policy proposals and the process by which proposals are appraised, adopted and implemented.often appear to be dominated by whomever can most effectively . However, the stage of
In the immature stages of political evolution, governments remain determined to be more powerful than the people, and the people acquiesce to their infantilization and subservience. A few non-co-opted intellectuals may watch in horror, but most simply accept and rationalize magical and harmful ways of thinking and acting. Because political solutions are rejected, the fervent political players come to believe that only violent mass action, i.e. revolution, will lead to change.
Originally posted: August-2009; Last updated: 15-Nov-2010