Absurd Heroism
By Margaret Wheatley, via Awakin.org
Consider Sisyphus. As described in both Greek and Roman mythology, Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to an eternity of futile and hopeless labor. He had to roll a rock to the top of the mountain, only to watch it tumble back down from its own weight and the natural force of gravity. Then he would roll it to the top again. Forever. The French existential philosopher Albert Camus wrote an essay about absurd heroism and the despair it caused entitled, “The Myth of Sisyphus”
(image) Dharma Comic by Leah PearlmanSisyphus had no choice — he had been condemned by the gods. But we do have a choice. We can notice the price we’re paying for our absurd heroism, for believing that it’s up to us. I hear so many people who want to take at least partial responsibility for this mess. Somewhat piously, as if summoning us to accountability, they say, “We need to accept responsibility that we created this” or “We created it, so we can change it.” No we didn’t. And no we can’t. We participated with innumerable other players and causes and this is what emerged. We can’t take credit for it, we can’t blame ourselves and we can’t put the burden of change on us. We’re not Sisyphus, condemned to a fate of absurd heroism.
If Sisyphus had been a free agent, he would have noticed that gravity was the problem. We have to notice that emergence is the problem, as unchallengeable a force as gravity.
Let’s fully face the brave new world that has emerged and put down our boulder — the energy destroying belief that we can change the world. Let us walk away from that mountain of despair-inducing failures and focus instead on people in front of us, our colleagues, communities and families. Let us work together to embody the values that we treasure, and not worry about creating successful models that will transform other people. Let us focus on transforming ourselves to be little islands of good caring people, doing right work, assisting where we can, maintaining peace and sanity, people who have learned how to be gentle, decent and brave … even as the dark ocean that has emerged continues to storm around us.
– See more at: awakin.org
“Let us work together to embody the values that we treasure, and not worry about creating successful models that will transform other people.”
This is somehow contradictory to the sentence above “Let us walk away from that mountain of despair-inducing failures”.
Why we should walk away and still try to transform others?
Sure in creating a new model we can be an example which can be attractive for others, but as long we make the change of others our goal we are still in the treadmill like Sisyphus.
Heinz – Yes, there is an internal contradiction within the author’s piece on “Absurd Heroism” and, Yes, it is worth pointing out. However, it would be a mistake (in my view) to become overly concerned or distracted from her main point.
When she speaks of “values,” she is either speaking of “qualities” (my term) or something derived from “qualities” (see my post). What she is not speaking about is the grossest level of action (march here, burn that, build this, etc.)
If we know the qualities that universally support personal well-being and collective sustainability (and most of us do not); and we know the abundant source of these qualities (and most of us do not); and we know the practical tool for cultivating these qualities of thought, intention, speech, and action directly from this source (and most of us do not), then we will invariably lead by our example and (Yes) this IS “a successful model.”
Owing to the fact that human beings are good learners but poor students (The Ancient Veda: “Knowledge can only be taken.”), The author’s assertion (and exhortation) is both correct and useful… even though it appears to contradict her initial criticism by being yet another of the things she seeks to overturn.
The author is on to something important. My wish is that we could all sit by a fire and hash this out. There is an entirely new and effective voice for REAL change (i.e. positive, lasting change; the change we really want) in here recognition that those seeking change are barking up the tree NEXT to the tree up which they should be barking. Warmly, Eric Hutchins
Thank you Eric and the others who have commented. I too agree this is a very important conversation to have. I wonder if you would be interested in developing your comments as a formal response to ‘Absurd Heroism’ in the next edition of Kosmos Online? I also feel as though my own article is counterpoint to Margaret’s and wonder what you think…http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/engaged-ecology-seven-practices-to-restore-our-harmony-with-nature/. Gratitude, RF
Confused heroism.
This piece by Margaret adds to the confusion that reigns over the term ‘responsibility’. There is a big difference between saying that we’re all responsible for all the dreadful things that happened in the past – which obviously we cannot be – and taking responsibility from here on, for the systems we consent and conform to in the future. As far as the future is concerned, it IS UP TO US, and no one else but us. Social systems do not exist in the ether, ‘out there’. They exist only in human minds. We are the system. Status quo systems will continue to exist only so long as we humans do not change our minds.
If we recognise that the systems we are consenting to are dysfunctional, it is our co-responsibility to introduce system correctives. This may even require participating in bringing forth and showcasing new system models that render the old obsolete.
I mainly agree, and chose the article exactly because it poses an alternate response to the pressing sense we must all ‘do something’. Please see my own article on this: http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/engaged-ecology-seven-practices-to-restore-our-harmony-with-nature/
And yet, the distinction for me is in the awareness of the choices we make each and every day that have consequences for people and planet, as opposed to orchestrating ‘solutions’. Is this a useful distinction in your view? Best, RF
This is the most interesting and surprising comment I have seen in a while for a number of reasons, not the least of which it is probably considered heresy by a great many in the “Activist Community.”
On the other hand, it contains a very powerful and very inconvenient piece of wisdom: “(By both accident and design,) the scope of individual influence is more limited than collective will would wish.” Exhortations to the contrary are usually calls for participation in one form of mob violence (in the name of noble ends or another).
The unholy alliance between Marxism and Sociology has always been that collective action is the only way the individual can “force-multiply” his/her individual conscience and actions. What is too often (and conveniently) left out are all the examples of how “mob mentality” leading to “mob violence” has brought about positive, lasting change… i.e. the REAL change we REALLY want. This invites the question, “What determines the difference between change that is circular and change that moves us truly forward by also moving us in the upward direction?”
Said another way, “If change ordinarily move us along two axes (personal well-being and collective sustainability), what can turn the circularity of this movement into an upward spirit along a third dimension? BRAIN TEASER: In this metaphor, what is this third dimension? As it turns out, the third dimension or axis is what may (knowingly and unknowingly) call “human nature,” “human potential,” “Inner Wholeness” (meaning inner wholeness of consciousness), etc.
All this sounds pretty sketchy until and unless we can fill in the next three terms in the causal chain. The first is, “What are the qualities of thought, intention, speech, and action by which any individual in any culture and operating under any religious, philosophical, and social doctrine may cultivate a progressively better life for themselves and, at the same time, co-cultivate a progressively more sustainable community? The second term is, “What/where is the abundant source of these critically important qualities. The third term is, “How can these qualities be cultivated easily and pleasantly directly from this abundant source by anyone, anywhere, everyday, free of charge.
In terms of Western Philosophy we might get at the same truth by asking: “What is real; of the real, what is Good; and how do we make more of the Good?
If you have read this far, then you have probably guessed the answers to these questions… as, like gravity, they are hidden in plain view of everyone. If not, I have written two unpublished manuscripts with both the questions laid out in more detail and the answers offered in terms of five very practical, proven, neuro-cognitive technologies.
Anyone interested in further conversation is welcome to contact me… Warmly, Eric Hutchins
Great article. I find it interesting that of late we seem to be collectively drowning in a sea of despair, not knowing what to do that will be effective for our family as well as mankind. But I agree it doesn’t need to be either or. To me it comes down to what it means to live a worthwhile life… And so manifest a meaningful future for everyone. I believe that Futures Philosophy can provide a way to keep our immediate focus on what is important. While Ghandi had to make national decisions, he also focused on helping to heal the leg of a small goat. We are not Ghandi but by refusing to support the creation of big picture models that may offer transformative avenues within this maze we live in, we also run the risk of having a healthy goat but a limited future.