Great piece, Shannon. Brings to mind a couple of things.
What you call “agency” is, in Landmartian, “being cause in the matter,” being “at cause,” “taking a stand,” and acting “consistently with that stand.”
This is distinguished from being caught in a “racket,” defined as a persistent complaint combined with a fixed way of being. Someone caught in a racket does not take responsibility for things as they are, but rather sets up stories that express being a victim of circumstances or others. The generic alternative is to accept responsibility, as a stand, not as a “truth.”
That’s been oft-misunderstood. I am responsible for, say, the WTC attack, as a stand, not as a fact. If I’m responsible, it means that I can look at my life as missing something that might make a difference, as full of possibilities.
In any case, most people, most of the time, are not at cause, we are simply reacting.
Then, if we actually take responsibility, beyond merely saying a few words, we act in accordance with that, which includes making mistakes, picking ourselves up and acting again, varying behavior as necessary to find a path to fulfillment.
A conversation I’ve had is “How many people does it take to transform society?”
The answer I’ve generally come up with is two. It’s amazingly difficult to find two. Maybe that’s just my racket, but your story shows how two can sometimes find more, if more are required to realize a stand. Two is where it starts. At least one of the two must be willing to be at cause, and able to stand there.
Okay, it starts with a declaration, with an assumption of responsibility, with taking a stand, but creating structures for fulfillment, they are called, is something that is strengthened with practice.
Great piece, Shannon. Brings to mind a couple of things.
What you call “agency” is, in Landmartian, “being cause in the matter,” being “at cause,” “taking a stand,” and acting “consistently with that stand.”
This is distinguished from being caught in a “racket,” defined as a persistent complaint combined with a fixed way of being. Someone caught in a racket does not take responsibility for things as they are, but rather sets up stories that express being a victim of circumstances or others. The generic alternative is to accept responsibility, as a stand, not as a “truth.”
That’s been oft-misunderstood. I am responsible for, say, the WTC attack, as a stand, not as a fact. If I’m responsible, it means that I can look at my life as missing something that might make a difference, as full of possibilities.
In any case, most people, most of the time, are not at cause, we are simply reacting.
Then, if we actually take responsibility, beyond merely saying a few words, we act in accordance with that, which includes making mistakes, picking ourselves up and acting again, varying behavior as necessary to find a path to fulfillment.
A conversation I’ve had is “How many people does it take to transform society?”
The answer I’ve generally come up with is two. It’s amazingly difficult to find two. Maybe that’s just my racket, but your story shows how two can sometimes find more, if more are required to realize a stand. Two is where it starts. At least one of the two must be willing to be at cause, and able to stand there.
I think that being “agenty” includes being good at making the sort of changes you want as well as working on making those changes.
Okay, it starts with a declaration, with an assumption of responsibility, with taking a stand, but creating structures for fulfillment, they are called, is something that is strengthened with practice.
Took me a while to sort out the background for this. I take it your “Landmartian” indicates the parlance of Landmark Education?
Yes. I made that up, but Landmartians immediately recognize it.