Marlene de Beer

Seeing with a different kind of mind: Snowflakes, Crabs and the patterns that connect…

Fritjof Carpa, Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with Remarkable People (1988) raises several issues and metaphors that I find significant to my social cohesion understanding. It implies that even if we are Swimming in the same Ocean (Stanislav Grof and R.D Laing) we are Howling with the Wolves (Werner Heisenberg and J. Krishnamutri) and in The Search for Balance (Carl Simonton and Margaret Lock) we explore Alternative Futures (E.M. Schumacher and Hazel Henderson) with seemingly No Foundation (Geoffrey Chew). Though, there is The Pattern Which Connects (Gregory Bateson) that requires A Special Quality of Wisdom (Indra Gandhi).
Fritjof Carpa (1988:87) also makes the connection between Ilya Prigogine’s theory of self-organising systems, Erich Jantsch ‘The Self-organizing Universe’ (1980) and Bateson’s concept of the mind. Stanislav Grof (in Fritjof Carpa, 1988:112-113) also comments that:

The final separation … where the link with the original source appears to be completely forgotten, is often illustrated by the snowflake that has crystallized from the ocean. … (we) need … to recognise that the snowflake is the ocean and the ocean is the snowflake. And in order to reunite with the ocean, the snowflake has to give up its structure and individuality; it has to go through an ego death, as it were, to return to its source.

The words of T.S. Elliot rings true: having gone full circle…“and in the end, we arrive back at the beginning, and know the place for the first time.”
Additionally, the ‘mystical connotations’, or profound connection between ecology and spiritually, is also explored by others as David Bohm in Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980), J. H. Holland’s Hidden Order: How adaptation builds complexity (1995) and Emergence: From Chaos to Order (1998) and Michael Talbot’s The Holographic Universe (1991). It also raises the Cartesian error of duality, binary opposites and the separation of the two - matter and spirit.
I appreciate the discussion of Talja Blockland in “Unraveling three of a kind: Cohesion, Community and Solidarity” (2000); providing another angle on social cohesion and seeing it as three processes of (Talja draws on the work of Kees Schuyt) –

• 
  Wanting to take part (vs. dropping out / opting out);
  
• 
  Being allowed to take part (vs. discrimination); and
  
• 
  Being able to take part (vs. deprivation, enabling).
  

I would also argue that all three has various individual and institutional implications and interpretation of why choosing or ‘being pushed’ (or going against) to choose the one above the other (eg. dropping out vs. taking part). Their interpretations also incorporates the theoretical understanding of Ferdinand Tönnies’s Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaftv(as mentioned earlier).
Additionally, the fashion of ‘cohesion’ instead of ‘community’ might be little more than the result of mere word play. The term social cohesion sounds less normative and less old-fashioned than community. Social cohesion can therefore conceal indifference. In other words, it is not conflict and antagonism, but indifference that is the threat to cohesion although conflict, hostility and antagonism might threaten solidarity (Talja Blockland, 2000: 61-63). We should no longer eschew normality at the surface and turn to the determination of what sympathetic relations look like, and ‘to describe the political equivalent of love’ (Talja Blockland, 2000: 62). Altruism tends to disappear from the research agenda and love never entered, it might reflect much the same fear of normative concepts as of even mentioning the word ‘community’ (Talja Blockland, 2000: 64).
Gregory Bateson in Mind and Nature - a necessary unity (1979)³² declared that relationships should be the basis of all and asked: What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all four of them to me? And me to you? He continues and states that the pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns. It is that metapattern which defines the vast generalization that, indeed, it is patterns which connect.

GAIA

James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis also brought about an interdisciplinary and more holistic perspective, in that it bridges the yin-yang Cartesian gap between science and humanities. Gaia in its largest sense can be looked on simultaneously as a myth, a model, a metaphor, and a movement³³:

• 
  MYTH: The Ancient Greek name for the all-nurturing and all- consuming Earth-Mother-Goddess, the oldest of their deities; a goddess with analogues in virtually every culture on Earth, suggesting that most human cultures (at least until ours) had an intuitive sense of participating in a living, breathing ecology.
  
• 
  MODEL: Developed in the 1970's by biochemist James Lovelock and microbiologist Lynn Margulis, the Gaia hypothesis suggests that the processes of life itself have shaped, and continue to maintain, the thermal, geographic, and atmospheric conditions that sustain life. Life and the Earth have coevolved in a single closely coupled feedback system.
  
• 
  METAPHOR: Based on the Lovelock/Margulis hypothesis and on the cybernetic thinking that spawned it, "Gaia" has become a widely used metaphor for the emerging philosophical and ethical perspective that emphasizes humanity's embeddedness in, and dependence upon, the natural world. It denotes a systemic, cross-disciplinary, ecological approach to thinking about human culture as a part of nature, rather than apart from it.
  
• 
  MOVEMENT: What used to be called the "environmental movement" is rapidly evolving into a Gaia movement, global in scope, that includes but transcends traditional environmentalism. The Gaia movement calls for a fundamental shift in the priorities of western (and now global) culture from a relentlessly parasitic civilization based on endless, nonsustainable economic "growth" at the expense of nature towards a sustainable world order based on ecological principles and respect for both natural and cultural diversity.
  

The above sections provided a kaleidoscope on perspective on social cohesion by means of several metaphors that explored the conceptual development and faultlines & critique on social cohesion. So, what do we know about social cohesion?

I argue, that in spite of the high profile attention and research funding that social cohesion receives it is still conceptually very vague. Social cohesion is rarely defined explicitly, but there have been some efforts to develop working definition (‘conceptual unclarity reigns supreme.’ Talja Blockland, 2000: 67). There is still a need to develop a more precise conceptual model of social cohesion and how to ‘measure’ it (‘indicators’). Where conceptual attempts are made, like those provided in this article, identified dimensions and categories are often not explained and therefore open for individual interpretation and speculation of what is actually meant by words like trust, hope, legitimacy, etc. However, recognising that this may be difficult, I recommend that contextualisation and examples should be considered, though realising that it may not necessarily be transferable (and therefore avoided). Thinking has therefore not developed to a point where it can be aligned /synchronised and codified as a common understanding among all (and might never take place because of the plurality of interpretations of what and how social cohesion should be).

Social cohesion is conceptually fused, and get confused, with social capital, social exclusion, inclusion, community, solidarity, diversity, multi-culturalism, citizenship, human rights, discrimination, democracy, etc. As there is no consensus on social cohesion at policy and political level, how can we install some clarity and confidence at ground level where real change and difference is needed in the lives of people?

In the light of the above presentation, I also argue that social cohesion is in fact nothing new; it only packaged differently and presented with a new label. However, the thinking and research that is going into it and the dimensions and categories emerging provides us with a new angle to look at how society structures and processes affect us and how we respond and might engage and change policies and practices for a better and common sustainable future enhancing the well-being of all. As a quasi-concept, social cohesion is therefore contested, though it has a utility as a framing concept for thinking through the complexity of socio-political issues (Caroline Beauvais and Jane Jenson, 2002). I therefore foresee that social cohesion is here to stay and serve (and evolve) policy (and hopefully practice) well into the future.
I will now continue to provide a brief discussion of broad educational models and pose some social cohesion relationship questions.
BROAD EDUCATION MODELS

Sohail Inayatullah (1996) outlined to following broad education models in “The Multi-Cultural Challenge to the Future of Education”³⁴

Religious model	Education should be about teaching the Truth of God as defined by "our" tradition. Discipline is a prerequisite to Godliness. The teacher must be obeyed and honoured. There is a central text that must be memorized. Other texts and perspectives are rarely important except as anthropology.
National / Social Control	Education is about keeping children and young adults off the streets. Education helps prepare individuals to be responsible members of the community and nation. Education helps create a productive labour force so that one's nation can better compete in the world economy.
Bureaucratic Model	This is based on the industrial factory model: "Ship them in and ship them out". Efficiency, effectiveness and accountability are the code words. Strategic plans often focus on reorganization.
Market Model	Universities must meet the changing needs of the customer and the customer is always right. Students should be trained for the capitalist market. Technical skills for the real world is the guiding mission.
Humanistic Model	The university is about the enlightenment ideas of progress and reason. Teachers should bring out the best and noblest qualities (reason) in students. The ancient classics of all cultures, but especially Greek culture, should be taught. Schools can be improved by improving the teacher/student ratio.
Electronic Information model	Pedagogy should be individually-tailored and delivered through the new technologies such as the Web. Interaction should be between student-student; student-author, and student-teacher. Teachers are primarily guides. Education is life-long based and placeless. Information can rid us of our narrow minds. Technology can and will liberate us.
Spiritual model	Education is about remembering who we really are, our deeper most selves. Teachers should not only be facilitators but moral, inspiring examples as well. They must nurture students' idealism and help them discover their true mission in life. Education is about learning about the inner self so as to transform society; inner and outer transformation. Technical, classical and spiritual knowledge are important in helping create the balanced person.

It is not my intention to provide any critique in the boundaries of a conference paper (these will be deliberated in the thesis). I am though wondering where would the whole movement of Citizenship Education (CE) resort, or will it become a model of its own? Also wondering where might other developments and phrases, for example, Peace Education; Human Rights Education; Multi-cultural Education; Anti-Oppressive, -Racist (etc.) Education; Personal, Social, Health and Moral Education ‘fit’. Might many of these fall under a (Personal and) Social Justice Model? And what does it say to our western society and us when personal, social and moral (‘soft’) issues has been submerged by a CE ideology just because they are not seen as a politically correct phrase? Has the Citizenship education wave put forward a more globalised, human rights, legal and social responsible face to ensure the socialisation of good citizens? I though ask in accordance to who’s mainframe and worldview? It could be argued that citizenship education language is already ‘alienating’ in the sense that it has a particular ideological agenda; that maybe some of those who are using it are unaware off. It may even seem as if part of the citizenship agenda is to diminish the role that religion play in education. Therefore, we should become more critical about the baggage of Citizenship Education.

Novels and films as the Lord of the flies³⁵, Animal Farm³⁶, Dead Poets Society³⁷, A Beautiful Mind³⁸, Dangerous Minds³⁹ etc may indicate the need, difficulty and danger of education. Education is politically and ideologically driven from the top to ensure a particular view of socialisation, social order and control. From the bottom there may be voices for education to liberate (conscientizaçâo of Paulo Freire, 1970) and from the margins there may be voices towards holistic or spiritual education (e.g. Ron Best, 1996; Marcus Bussey, 1998 & 2002) or to transgress (bell hooks, 1994) and to address educational hegemony (Antonio Gramsci). Is it that it all depends on a selective few that decides what the purpose of education should be and how it should be delivered, often on the basis on their own preferred and selective views on the world? We therefore see that the ebb and flow of educational fashion statements e.g. Education for All, Peace Education, Multicultural Education, Anti Racial Education, Diversity Education, Education for sustainable development, Citizenship Education, Holistic Education, Personal Social and Health Education has been determined and dominated by who is in political power.
One of the central roles of education is ‘preparing students for the future’.⁴⁰ What does this mean? What kind of future(s) do we envisage (developed by whom and for whom?) and through which mediums / methods / approaches of education and learning might we achieve this? Does it all depend on the current ideological and political educational model reigning? Henryk Skolimowski (1990) in Education For The Real World⁴¹ refers to the words of Plato that "The direction in which education sets a man will determine his future life." This is as true now as it was in Plato's times. He continues asking what kind or direction is our present education setting for our young people? How are they being guided and led? To what ends and to what purposes? Are they not per chance so socialized and programmed as to be good consumers and work for the glory of the consumerist ideology and the bottom line economics? Education as a social and civilisational enterprise must ultimately serve the quality of life. If education ignores or neglects this vital criterion it is not an adequate education and may indeed be a misguided one.
For example, looking at most of today's universities, Marcus Bussey in Homo Tantricus: Tantra as an Episteme for Future Generations⁴², rightfully indicates that we live at a time when universities have become large corporations producing and selling knowledge. He continuous by referring to the postmodern philosopher Jean-Francois words: "Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorised in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange." Marcus Bussey (1998:706) views this is a natural development that reflects our culture's commercial obsession with capital:

The knoweldge-power nexus transforms information into a commodity that can be exchanged in the university market place in the form of bundles of 'information'. Knowledge is exchanged for power and vice versa. In this system knowing, and its product knowledge, that does not translate into information that can be observed, measured, controlled and easily exchanged is excluded in favour of docile forms of knowledge that are more amenable to transaction.

What is significant about this development is that as power has shifted from the hands of those with an investment in culture, the liberal elite, to those who create capital, the managerial elite, the emphasis of the university has shifted to reflect these changes. Thus the university acts as a repository of socially valued knowledge forms and we can track the fortunes of ideologies by following the appearance, popularity and disappearance of subjects on the timetable.
Therefore I support the Preamble of the World Declaration on Higher Education for the twenty-first Century: Visions and Actions, adopted by the World Conference on Higher Education (9 October 1998)⁴³ urge us as follows:

“Higher education itself is confronted therefore with formidable challenges and must proceed to the most radical change and renewal it has ever been required to undertake, so that our society, which is currently undergoing a profound crisis of values, can transcend mere economic considerations and incorporate deeper dimensions of morality and spirituality.”

Marcus Bussey (1996) in The Quest for Truth: Redefining Education⁴⁴, recommends making a break with a misguided education is to move from the utilitarian view of the human as a cog in the economy, beyond the humanist sense of the human as potent individual to a Neo-humanist view of the human being as an interactive agent embedded in a world of mystery and power. This sense of individuality is very potent as it draws on our interconnectedness for power rather than on our ability to dominate and control. He continues stating that this means a lot when we start thinking about education. If education is about realising our potential, and our potential is defined and measured by our sense of the truth of what it is to be human, then by acknowledging and celebrating our interconnectedness with the world we inhabit - the world that is a threefold phenomenon being material, psychic and spiritual - we are greatly expanding the domain of education and its function in our society.
SPIRITUALITY, CONSCIOUSNESS AND ALTERNATIVE HUMAN POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT / EVOLUTION

As I view spirituality, consciousness and human potential development / evolution as one of the main social cohesion themes⁴⁵ which is often marginalized, silenced and identified as minorstream, I would like to provide more background regarding this theme by presenting some of my explorations (data collection, analysis and interpretations) obtained through literature-, web-, documentation searches, interviews, observations and own experience of meditation (Buddhist, visualisation, guided, transcendental), yoga, T’ai Chi, QiGong, pagan and New Age practices, ABLE Technologies, etc.

I would also like to place this theme within a Critical Spirituality and Neo-Humanism perspective, which may be interpreted as follow:
Critical Spirituality

According to Marcus Bussey (2002:306, 308) critical spirituality is concerned with the application of neo-humanist methods to the analysis of ‘consciousness’ and offer a layered description of consciousness. The critical spiritual perspective, as advocated by Marcus Bussey, has developed from four main areas (2002:303-204) that I also embrace in emerging and different ways in my own study:

• 
  Post modernist and post structuralist thinkers;
  
• 
  Feminist empowering postmodern discourse with value laden analysis of power;
  
• 
  Post colonial thinkers with a dept to neo-Marxist and critical theorists;
  
• 
  Neo-humanist thinkers with an investment in all three of the above (who work from a critically spiritual perspective).
  

He argues that a Neo-Humanist (NH) vision can engage the human potential by activating a critically spiritual methodology that hold the less analytical, more visionary process of ‘futures building’ by actively involving individuals in this act. In this emerging space we find “imaginative and creative processes that break down the intellectual prudery of those who are attached to their own discipline and have little capacity to envision beyond narrow and self imposed confines. Thus we find music and song, poetry and story, art and theatre effective vehicles for work on deeper forms of consciousness. … Meditation and other reflective practices – the spiritual quest – seeking to plumb the depth of the human soul become relevant when seen within a broadened definition of rationality and research” (2002:304). Critical spirituality also focuses on the connection between individual consciousness and personal and collective action and “points to the fact that it will go no where if not within, to that place – the spiritual core of humanity – that many in academia fear” (Marcus Bussey, 2002:314).
Neo-Humanism (NH) and Neo-Humanist Education (NHE)⁴⁶

Marcus Bussey states that NH is a process of becoming consciously, self consciously, human. Essentially it is a term both general and specific, covering as it does all the 'holisms' that have sprung up in the humanities, sciences, and social movements in recent decades, while more specifically being a set of principles for living based on the ethic of universal love. As an ethical approach to life, it has as it leading exponent the Indian philosopher, political activist and mystic, Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and also known and furthered in the West by the Ánanda Márga. movement. NH recognizes that there are a variety of ways of knowing and experiencing the world that are steeped in valid and integrated knowledge systems, each with its own particular form of logic and expression, with no one way of knowing holding priority over any other.

Marcus Bussey continuous by stating that NH has a clear structure and form, combining ethical observations about the role of humanity in the maintenance of life and the evolution of consciousness on this planet, and a deep understanding about the way the human mind functions and learns both as a culturally constructed entity and as a multi-layered consciousness. Thus learning becomes both a cultural experience and an introduction into the broader and deeper issues of our humanity and its rootedness in a vibrant universe.
NH is a spiritual force because it acknowledges and actively promotes spiritual practice as one of the more authentic ways to achieve a sense of belonging in the universe. This sense of belonging cannot come from simple assertions that we belong: the rhetoric of belonging. Love, reverence and responsibility will not magically appear within us as transformative forces simply because we think they should. Nor will the authority to teach and guide others burst forth in our lives without some real effort being made to plumb the depths of ourselves in a contemplative and disciplined way.
NH is therefore understood as an ecological, holistic, comprehensive philosophy, drawing upon ancient teachings on the levels of consciousness (e.g. yogic and tantric), and includes a neo-humanistic approach to education that seeks to develop the more subtle capacities of the human mind.
NHE is consequently viewed as a Trans-Disciplinary Approach that honors the multiplicity that is the sum of human consciousness. Traditional education has involved an attempt to strip learning down to its discrete parts and demystify knowledge. Neo-Humanism seeks to put the mystery back into learning by weaving the disciplines back into an holistic world view that engages the whole of the child's spirit, mind and body in a quest of wonder and adventure. NHE unleashes infinite learning potential into our lives by expanding our understanding of our potential and ourselves. Spirituality, creativity and love are at the center of this new force.
So what is ‘wrong’ according to the NHE? NHE seeks to redefine the human experience. Current educational practice works on a model of the individual as a singular entity pitted against the forces of the universe. Competition and the need to dominate and control are the hallmarks of this system. The NHE agenda draws upon both western and eastern principles as it develops a basis for a complete and transformative learning experience. Western educators have concentrated their attention on the cognitive, social and affective domains of learning but have shown little understanding of the role or nature of consciousness as a synthesizing guide to learning. Eastern education has a deeper appreciation of the spiritual dimension of learning and of the role of spirit in the child's life, the focus of such a perspective has been moral and ethical, and consciousness has been treated as the phenomenal expression of the spiritual domain. In bringing these two powerful traditions together, Neo-Humanism can provide an alternative basis for education that seems both instrumentally useful and profoundly meaningful.
Some of the main NHE educational objectives include developing / facilitating:

• 
  the full potential of the whole child including the physical, emotional, intellectual, creative, intuitive and spiritual capacities;
  
• 
  physical well-being and mental capabilities through yoga, meditation, sports, play and other activities;
  
• 
  personal growth in areas such as morality, integrity, self-confidence, self-discipline and co-operation;
  
• 
  a sense of aesthetics and appreciation of culture and to infuse the curriculum with literature, art, drama, music and dance;
  
• 
  a universal outlook, free from discrimination based on religion, race, creed or sex, and to foster a respect for all cultures;
  
• 
  an awareness of ecology in its broadest sense - the realization of the inter-relatedness of all things - and to encourage respect,  care and universal love for all;
  

and to –

• 
  apply what is learned to practical life and to encourage students to become active and responsible members of society;
  
• 
  recognize the importance of teachers and parents in setting an example;
  
• 
  awaken a thirst for knowledge and love of learning;
  
• 
  equip students / learners with academic and practical skills necessary for life and for higher / further education.
  

NH / NHE therefore seem to embrace (amongst other things) layers of mystery, awe, creativity, reflection, meditation, silence, consciousness and critical spirituality. I also place this within the broad spiritual model of education. Other approaches (not to be discussed in this paper) that may fall within this spiritual model may include the influence of, for example, Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, the Theosophical society, The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University⁴⁷, The Bahá'í International Community⁴⁸; The World Faith Development Dialogue (WFDD)⁴⁹; Temple of Understanding⁵⁰; The UN Spiritual Forum & UN Earth Values Caucus⁵¹ ;Home to All Campaign and the Reconciliation Labyrinth and it’s use in schools⁵².

I also salute and support presenters at this conference, for example:

• 
  Ulcca Joshi-Hansen on the holistic education movement that include the work of thinkers such as Rudolf Steiner, Maria Montessori and others (Wednesday, 10 September, 11:00-12:30),
  
• 
  Barbara Ridley on the Rainbow bridge alternative education programme that provide enjoyable opportunities for so-called ‘Indigo’ children and those diagnosed by ADD/ADHD (Thursday 11 Sept, 16:30 – 18:00), and
  

• 
  Judy Davidson on “when being gifted is not enough” (Friday, 12 September, 16:30 – 18:00).
  

We need more people like them exploring the edges and as Marcus Bussey (2002:314) states: “It is from such places that our tomorrows will arise. The ‘centre’ is shifting, but where will it go?”
Some of the above mentioned, and other initiatives may be identified to have some religious connections and could be interpreted as ‘faith-based’ in a non-traditional use, but definitely not falling in the religious model. Therefore, not dominated by any particular ‘cult’ or ‘dogma’ and they appear to have a more open and holistic approach to consciousness, human and spiritual development. William Sims Bainbridge (e.g. 1993) often also refers to these alternative approaches as being new social - or semi-cult / religious movements. Though, in a previous paper⁵³ that focused on the work of

• 
  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s Consciousness Based Education (CBE) based on Transcendental Meditation (TM) and the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), and
  
• 
  L. Ron Hubbard’s applied technology, social betterment activities and secular organisations under the Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE International),
  

I have put forward and experienced these as non-denominational and the two approaches have got no association / connection (in any shape, form or intention) and are in no means even remotely similar⁵⁴. Therefore showing that these alternative and spiritually inclined educational approaches can be extremely diverse in their approach to develop social cohesion and consciousness, though not without critique from the mainstream.