[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
