On politics and ideology

Politics isn't split off from this - at those times at which we have had people who felt strongly in political ways, we have gotten from them not only what they say to everybody, but deeper more personal underpinnings of those things which could also reach people not politically attuned and agreeing. It seems better to come to be able to communicate in this way, rather than reaching only those who agree, and demonstrating our political involvement to those who agree, and only trading arguments with those who don’t.

For example, once one of these discussions began and continued as an argument - one person arguing that Changes is not political enough and only a reform trip, the other person defending everything very strongly. Others interceded to hear both people’s felt and unclear underpinnings better. Then the first person expressed his fear that if Changes isn't more political he was being in the wrong place again, which was always happening and made him fear that he couldn’t find a place for himself. The other man arrived at and expressed the inner wish to be more radical if he knew how and could find the courage. Obviously, it was then no longer difficult for them to get together, and meanwhile the group that was present learned something about how to listen, and about some life-needs which Changes could try to meet and how that could be in terms of becoming more political.

Will cultural change lead to what’s needed, or must there be straight political approaches to what keeps present power structure as it is? Enough has been said on this too. We don’t believe you can understand what makes things as they are without a political and economic analysis, but we don't believe ideas alone will change anything. Idea movements - those in which the people are together because they agree on ideas - don’t effect much, because only some few people are the type who find their living moved by trading ideas. Most people cannot be in a movement very long if they cannot live in it, therefore idea movements have a big turnover. People get experienced and tired and need to move their lives on, and to do it they can't remain in the movement so they leave. Others come. Any effective movement would have to be one in which people could remain, in which they could live, relate, work, love, and so on. Typically, however, new patterns of living haven’t been political in any major way, and that is also true of us so far. And political groups have usually not made living possible, and so have to consist of people who will give time and effort in an interlude of their living. The two must come together. Mere idea movements are the old role of political action, separated from living and the felt underpinnings of why people believe what they argue, and separated also from the other aspects of their living, which, after a while, they must pursue and thus drop the old separated form of politics.

A group that doesn’t require an ideology before you can be part of it is much better even for those who are committed to communicating their particular ideology - because people can openly say their doubts and needs for more clarity (instead of only agreeing and disagreeing). Also, one's way of being in one's ideology is more important in communicating it, than only the dead, cut-off conclusions.

The same thing is true about attitudes toward working with people. Changes had, and still has among us some who believe in hospitals, therapists, and the whole old structure. Where would they meet something different, if not with us? How would they change their attitude if not from actually working? If we kept them from it until they agreed, they would go away and miss it all. Of course, we wouldn’t and can't force them to do what we do, or anything for that matter. But in the process, they can develop their own changing and developing sense of how to work, and probably also add to ours. This isn't all as pretty as we are making it sound; there is the person who came to us for help and then was placed in the hospital because one of our group sent her there (because he got scared, we think, and didn’t feel he could call on others, as we would have liked him to feel). There are also times, we recall, when people smiled and chit-chatted in a phony way with one very upset person, while planning behind her back to take her to the hospital. Others came in and got the person and these people to talk straight with each other, and to express their fears and helped the disturbed woman say things that were also quite straight. That time everything worked out well, but it isn't an easy experience even to look back on. Still, it's better to have an open group, open to anyone, and with all roles open to anyone.

Some people come to our group verbally asking for help with finding a job or a crash place, but really, they're looking for friends, or a sexual relationship. Is that bad? In some organizations people would say, " We’re not a dating bureau. " But why should we want to separate and reject that role? It's another function we often perform - and better, I think, than where it exists alone.