Some reflections on OST, Bin Laden, etc.

Artur F. Silva artsilva at mail.eunet.pt
Wed Oct 17 16:35:17 PDT 2001


[This mail is related with Chris questions on Al-Qaeda as an OSO
and the messages that followed on that thread and also with Harrison's
post "A transformative moment". My post is not an answer to any of
those; only some reflections...]

1. The first idea I had immediately after I heard about the 911 was:
"Barbarians are again at the frontier of the Empire, and once again
Rome (now called USA) will inevitably create their own defeat - they
will not be defeated; they will defeat themselves - and the barbarians
will have only to wait and enter the town later..."

2. Of course I have not believed in my own thoughts, until the war
began, the reaction in Islamic countries were known and later the
Anthrax paranoia appeared.

3, But what exactly is Al Qaeda and associated groups? Before
thinking on the OSO analogy, my first reaction was to interpret them
from two models that I am aware of:

3.1. First, Al Qaeda and similar groups, and especially AFTER the
beginning of war are similar to the "birth stage of movements" as Alberoni
describes them.. Do you imagine that Christians could grow without the
persecution from Rome? I doubt. The "persecution" is the best environment
for millions of new faithful people join the movement and hundreds of new
organizations and cells flourish - in this case especially in Islamic
countries,
but not only there. Many of the points that Alberoni relates are present in
this
movement - a reformation of the ISLAM is beginning, with a clear target,
militants are "brothers" (no sisters, of course) and their ideas are strong
enough to accept the death - as many primitive Christians also did once.

3.2. Al Qaeda adapted structures that were common in communist parties
under special conditions of repression: the Directions were frequently
arrested and each cell should act on their own, following accepted principles,
until its connections would be reestablished...

4. So do we need and shall talk about OSO when referring to Al Qaeda?
Before trying to discuss that, I must make some clarifications about some
opinions I have - I am not sure of them and would like to see them
commented by all that have been thinking on OSOs:

4.1. As Harrison pointed we live in a "trasformative moment". The world is
changing dramatically. And we, as a community, will also, inevitably, need
to rethink, if not our practice, at least our theory to cope with the new
situation. Especially as there is nothing more practical than a good
theory. These accidents affected us more than other communities. And
it is probably because of it that the question is recurrent here...

4.2 the main point I think that must be reviewed is the principle "whatever
happens is the only thing that should". Applied generally it includes
one word that is self-contradictory. The word "should" presupposes that
a special order should occur on a chaos situation and that is never true.
A complex situation, an open system, can have many "strange atractors"
it is by chance that one is followed and not others.

But also, if "whatever happens is what should" this conducts to accept
irresponsibility - the attacks to the towers, or slavery, or the murder
of the Indians are no longer matter of responsability, error and crime but
"what should have happened". Even the Pope, Q. Elizabeth II or the
Japan government are assuming their responsibilities in crimes against
humanity and presenting excuses to the descendents (frequently very
few). So a better wording, as it has been discussed already, would be
"whatever happens --- is what happens!" (with no "should").

5. Harrison and others seem to think that OS foundation apply because we
live embed in open self-organizing systems. I think this is not true.

5.1 - our companies are constrained by their owners and stockholders
that impose constraints; our Public Administration bodies are constrained
by politics; and politicians themselves are constrained by big economical
interests. Even our communities are constrained to certain conditions and
situations.

5.2. All our international order (economical and political) is constrained
to the interests of the rich companies and countries and their armies.
The help that rich people give to poor, at the individual, the community
or the international level - is given to allow some conscious to be
"tranquilized" -- but they create greater dependencies than they solve.
Almost all "international help" is a fraud for not showing the reality of
exploitation.

5.3 After the end of colonialism, Occidental potencies learned
neo-colonialism: even worst exploitation, but now with the add of "local
authorities" that get corrupted to sell the interests of their countries and
peoples - or are blackmailed as they try to protect them.

5.4. This was created by European countries, not by America - but America
is now the big profiteer from those unequal relations with the third World.
Contrarily to what Harrison said, we are not only, nor mainly,  not doing
our best to alleviate the situation - we (our governments and economical
powers) are the creators of the situation. And we are now paying for that.

5.5. Hence, organizations and countries live in constrained situations, and
at the social level the self-organization of Open systems rarely apply,
because
we face closed or constrained systems.

6. So, for me, Open Space and/or OST happen only in situations where
those "normal" constraints are removed or circunvened - or where constraints
are accepted as constrains to deal with, and not as "givens" to please the
sponsors.

7. Sorry if I began by these controversial points, but they are essential
for my
conclusion. NO, Al Qaeda is NOT, imho, an OSO. First the space is not Open;
its
constrained by "givens" like "women don't participate" - not enough
diversity -,
participants are not free from medieval stereotypes; true learning (double
loop
learning) can not happen if and when it implies to question the "givens" of
the
fundamentalism, and lastly they have not a purpose and an Ethics for their own;
they replace Ethics by the "moral" (habitudes) of their society, and - like
cancer - they can't have a life of their own - they will destroy themselves if
and when they will kill the "occidental body" where they live. If they will
win
a new "feudalism" will be in place for a long time.

8. So, if my interpretation is right (and I am not sure about that) we have
to make some changes in our understanding of Open Space - things we
have taken for granted must be questioned (like some principles, the concept
of Spirit - that also apply to the talibans!- and the concept of "givens")
and, on
the contrary, things that we have overlooked may be crucial - like Ethics.

My 2 cents.

Please comment (if possible, with more than 2 cents ;-)

Regards

Artur


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011018/f9e632c0/attachment-0016.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list