Sublime

quagmire.

When members of a leadership team feel a stronger sense of commitment and loyalty to the team they lead than the one they’re a member of, then the team they’re a member of becomes like the U.S. Congress or the United Nations: it’s just a place where people come together to lobby for their constituents.

Pour essayer de comprendre et juger les dilemmes moraux de cette ampleur, les gens choisissent souvent parmi quatre méthodes. La première consiste à réduire le problème : à aborder la guerre civile en Syrie comme si elle opposait deux chasseurs-cueilleurs, à imaginer le régime d’Assad comme une personne seule face aux rebelles, eux aussi appréhendé

Je le répète, il n’y a pas beaucoup de différence entre la capacité à détruire et à semer le désordre et la force de caractère. C’est l’une des leçons de vie les plus difficiles.

We deploy knowledge and ideas that carry indubitable prestige to stand guard against the emergence of more humble but essential knowledge from our emotional past. We bury our personal stories beneath an avalanche of expertise. The possibility of a deeply consequential intimate enquiry is deliberately left to seem feeble and superfluous next to the

In some of them, new recruits are trained in Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication and in effective ways to give feedback.

But the really interesting thing is that the choice between trust and control is seldom debated on a rational level. It’s a choice that gets made based on deeply held, often unconscious assumptions we hold about people and their motivations.

When we do, we assume the politicians are clients in a patron–client relationship, and we assume their obligations will cloud their impartial judgment.

Pluralistic-Green strives for bottom-up processes, gathering input from all and trying to bring opposing points of view to eventual consensus.