Knitting Circles to Unions

Sameness is traditionally used to define group formation because of the way that addressing problems must involve system wide solutions. Group formation usually involves a class of individuals identifying a certain thing or idea as important and they organize for the sake of having a stronger voice or making that idea a reality. For instance, fatal medical epidemics require huge amounts of money and awareness to be successful, especially when success means saving the lives of giant populations. Other examples may implicate a more narrow range of individuals but by and large organizations from knitting circles to unions depend upon this basic idea.

However, I think it is worth noting how concepts such as work, membership, choice or exchange use difference as a source of energy and development. In fact, these internal differences are hugely important to the idea that each member of a community finds acceptance by way of their unique contribution to the whole. For instance variations in stature and prominence within the membership define an internal hierarchy where some members are more connected to external facilities or projects and other members serve to power the group’s ideology.

In fact the way that groups are constituted through difference allows better organization via this process of specialization. Eventually the group—in the United States at least—has to make decisions on how they can develop their organization because of the way that this specialization affects the membership. For instance, it can combine with the speed of information to provide opportunities for corruption or abuse. Of course society has instituted many safeguards on this process and continues to do so but it only shows that individuals cannot always operate on the same platform though they may have shared values.

This is to say that individuals rely upon an implied understanding of shared values and objectives as they rise up the chain of command within their group and this is why I find it amazing that people are able to work together at all. I have always wondered at how people can trust politicians or union representatives since they don’t always have to make decisions dependent upon their constituents.

Turning to my own experiences with group formation and development, I remember that I was always rather naïve in my teens. I believed that those around me only had my best interest in mind and it took me a long time to understand what it meant to contribute to a community. However, even when I did manage to make a significant contribution I still didn’t feel like I was necessarily accepted as a member.

Moving on from those experiences I slowly learned the role that power and money plays in the process of organization and it happened then that I was longer so naïve. I tried to avoid the pitfalls of participation, crafting agendas that were relevant and using each experience for my own benefit. In time I found that I not only was a part of the process but driving it. I now know that there is no way to avoid organization. People must work together to get things done or else failure is inevitable.

This understanding of difference has always driven my interaction with others. However, I lately have been struck by how valuable my naïveté can be. While I cannot return to my early years, my reflections on past experience and how I intend to move forward in life have indicated that my current attitude towards organization isn’t too far off from my attitude then. I think this is because I have come to realize that thought is action too.

I like to contemplate the question: “What is the relationship between same and different?” because it helps to keep my reasons for organizing in perspective. It stands to reason that we can never actually solve our differences. We can only internalize them. Meanwhile, we have more in common with those around us than we know. I find that simply listening helps and once we know what is going on around us we may then move on.

While there may always issues to attend to, I think that the stories of what makes each issue what it is are what matters most. After all if you don’t know what the issue is then how are you ever going to tackle it? I have found that this method of engagement can often be as difficult as any other if not more. Meanwhile, those in power often misinterpret this perspective as being ignorance. It may even draw the attention of nefarious personages. However, this isn’t so bad if it identifies the weakest link in the chain of organization.

I started writing this on 092912.

This is an occasional series chronicling my life. This Notebook Analysis series is meant to be contemporaneous piece developed as an agglomeration of my notebook pages. In each of these posts I used my notes to develop my recent thoughts.