Brian, I appreciate the clarity and depth you’re offering here. You’re articulating something many of us are sensing—that this is a moment for coalescence, not just resistance. The turn toward coherence, relational healing, and shared practice is real. And your voice as a weaver is helping to beautifully surface that need.
That said, I want to gently name a tension I’ve been observing—not just in your piece, but across the broader movement-of-movements discourse. Much of what is being called an “indigenous worldview” is being interpreted through a progressive moral framework. It’s treated as a spiritual aesthetic or ethical upgrade to Western secularism—but still functions within an ideological container that many people don’t fit.
What if the indigenous worldview isn’t something to be performed, but something to be remembered? What if it’s a sacred pattern embedded in the structure of reality—one that transcends left and right, and includes elders, farmers, faithful conservatives, mystics, and everyday people who live in deep relational coherence but aren’t fluent in the dominant activist language?
In my work developing what we call Symbiotic Culture, we’ve seen people across the spectrum come alive—not because they’re ideologically aligned, but because they’re rooted in love, sacred purpose, and shared virtue. These aren’t abstract ideals. They function as a kind of relational protocol, encoded in everything from natural systems to spiritual traditions.
If we genuinely want a movement of movements, we need a deeper container—one that holds not just trauma and emergence, but transcendence. That’s where the real coherence lives.
Thanks for the work you’re doing. I’d love to explore this further.
Hi Richard, thanks for the comment. I think I'm in wholehearted agreement with your conclusion: I resonate with Sherri Mitchell's notion of "sacred instructions" which are another way of saying follow life's instructions for life (which is what I understand to be the core of indigenous ways of being/relating).
I'm not sure I fully understand your critique/concern. I agree that following the sacred instructions/aligning with life doesn't require a deep analysis of white supremacy and how these systems came to be (if that's what you mean by an ideological container). I do think these ways of being apply to everyone. Perhaps it's an audience question: I'm writing to those of us who are trying to build, shape, and connect social justice movements, because I think movements are the most powerful tool for social transformation. Ultimately our job is to connect to everyone, but I think we have to start with ourselves (if the choir can reach the same resonant wavelength, then we can share our song :-)
Happy to continue the dialogue; I think we're on the same page?
Hi Brian, thanks for this. I resonate with the idea of a movement of movements with a rotating Flying V structure that is powered on alignment in core principles to bring about large-scale emergent change. Like Richard, I also want to gently push back on the idea of Ethnonationalism vs. Indigeneity being the central axis on which this all turns.
Firstly, because a privileging of indigeneity is itself a form of ethnonationalism, just a “worthier” one predicated on a specific narrative of colonization and oppression, though the millennia of human history are comprised of a complex series of migrations and conquests that don’t all neatly fit into the frameworks we apply today.
Secondly, because whether one has an identifiable indigenous tradition to claim is an accident of one’s birth. Similarly to how patriarchy hurts men by denying them access to vulnerability, I think white supremacy has taken localized identities away from a lot of people, and swallowed them up into an umbrella that is based on violent exclusion instead of positive tradition and identity. A lot of nonwhite people also lose touch with traceable indigenous identities via immigration, intermarriage and cultural fluidity - things we generally think of as good. And in general, we should be wary of concepts based on incumbency — who was somewhere “first” — as they are only as good as our historical memory, and can be easily weaponized to shore up entrenched interests and power structures. This is not meant to say that Indigenous communities (as we define them today) and their concerns and marginalization aren’t essential issues deserving powerful emergent change; I would just posit that those are a length of birds, but not the whole V.
The axis I anchor my values on is on that of Abundance versus Scarcity. Scarcity is what says you have to lock those people up, cut off their aid, attack them in their homes, shut them out of work “not meant for them.” Scarcity says “we’re already here so you can’t come in” - both the antiimmigrant MAGA and the NIMBY in a Blue city. Abundance asks how we can sustainably make room for all, by building more densely in already developed areas and leaving wilderness be, by opening up more spots in medical schools to make more doctors to provide more healthcare, by structuring transportation and other resources so we can share more things instead of everyone needing one of their own. I would extend that framework to one where we tap into the abundance of our embodied realities, instead of being disconnected from our bodies and nature and told we’re never enough, so we always need to consume more and fight with others for place and recognition. It’s about saying how can we better provide the things that matter for everyone, regardless of what identity they were born into. And as a framework with the concept of “room for everyone” embedded tight at its core, it’s one that invites everyone into activism, where everyone can find their place, and in doing so gradually shed harmful views and behaviors born of Scarcity. Just my two cents.
Hi KTT, thanks for taking the time to reflect and respond. I very much agree and resonate with your thoughts, and realize I haven't been clear in my intention here; perhaps I need another term than "indigenous." I don't mean "indigenous" in the sense of a people, or an identity, or a claim to ancestry: I mean it as a way of encapsulating a cosmology rooted in right relationship.
I'm very open to other ways to name this zeitgeist: at its core I think it's about domination vs right relationship, worldviews/cosmologies which I have called authoritarian and indigenous. I don't feel attached to the name: if these aren't resonating, it feels important to find shorthand labels that do.
I think all of us can (and need to!) re-indigenize: that is, to re-cultivate a relationship to land and each other that honors our interdependence. The shift from scarcity to abundance is a core part of that. I wrote here about how I understand this work, which I think applies to all of us: https://citizenstout.substack.com/p/belonging-to-ourselves-each-other
I appreciate the invitation to be in shared inquiry, and welcome other thoughts.
Thanks for the context and the link to the other post. The word I’m arriving at for the important concept you’re building there is “rootedness.” Being rooted in our bodies, in nature, in each other, being immersed in that plane vs above it and exploiting it. Being part of something and in relationship with it versus in dominion over it. All great compasses for the Flying V.
With the concept of rootedness is the question of uprooting and re-rooting. In general, the idea that uprooting of any kind = colonization = oppression is, in my view, a reductive construct that harms our ability to connect and organize. Humans have migrated for millennia - “indigenous” people around the world got to where they are because predecessors on the African continent left. Civilizations were created and abandoned as geological changes and their resulting effects on food availability waxed and waned. Animals migrate for similar reasons - surely they are not colonizers?
I agree that rooting in land, with connection and respect instead of disconnection and dominion, is important. Where I diverge is the idea that if your ancestors ever left the land they were rooted in to better grow somewhere else (in recent historical memory…), that is villainous colonization. I think the capacity for migration and forging of new communities and identities in new land is a complicated but not “wrong” part of the human story. Many “colonizers” fled oppression and scarcity, and many also caused their own oppression and scarcity where they arrived. I would argue that the thing we need to oppose are the mechanisms of oppression and scarcity, not of uprooting and rerooting.
In general, I think we will make more strides at the scale needed for emergence if we don’t anchor ourselves in words that allude to identities as things to be for or against, as heroes or villains. Words like colonialism and patriarchy are useful for deconstructing the harmful mechanisms that got us here, but I don’t think they are our strongest tools in the toolbox for building a movement to somewhere better.
I wrestle with this a lot: the need for words to accurately describe a thing (patriarchy, e.g.), and the need for words that can resonate with an audience and help invite them toward transformation (patriarchy probably not ideal). I write primarily for the first purpose... and trust/hope that others will translate insights to communicate them to broader audiences.
I long for that elusive simplicity on the other side of complexity, and to find easy ways communicate complex ideas without watering them down: an ongoing search. I do think getting clear really matters to those of us in the design/strategy work; then I agree we likely need different tools to communicate/connect outside of our silos. Where my comms professionals at?
Thanks, Brian. I really value this dialogue, and I want to go a level deeper—because I think we’re approaching transformation from two different starting points.
You mention that movements are the most powerful tool for change, and that we first need to align the progressive “choir” before inviting others in. I get the logic—but I want to challenge the assumption beneath it.
The progressive worldview often sees society through the lens of systems of oppression—white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism—that must be named and dismantled. It centers lived experience—especially of the marginalized—and sees justice, trauma healing, and decolonization as the moral path forward. Even spirituality is often welcomed only if it aligns with that lens.
And whether stated or not, there’s often a sense that this worldview is more evolved than others.
I’ve seen how this alienates the very people who often live in deep coherence—elders, farmers, main street businesses and charities, independents, conservatives, traditional faith communities who believe in a theistic God—people who don’t share progressive language, but live with sacred purpose and relational integrity.
When we say “we’ll invite them in after we unify ourselves,” it often lands as: we already know what’s right—come be transformed by us.
That’s not inclusion. It’s conversion. And in practice, it doesn’t work. It creates a bigger progressive silo—just more networked and spiritualized.
What if the deeper coherence we seek doesn’t begin by aligning political movements—but by remembering the sacred pattern beneath them? A pattern rooted in Love, Virtue, and mutual belonging—what I call the Ancient Blueprint. It already lives in thousands of places—across worldviews, geographies, and generations. The task isn’t to endlessly deconstruct the Western worldview and replace it with another “colonizing” progressive ideology, but to reweave the deeper sacred pattern that has always been alive beneath them all.
That’s what Symbiotic Culture is about. Not a more evolved activism, but a different protocol entirely. One that begins not in trauma, but in transcendence. Not in ideology, but in sacred structure.
I share this with deep respect. I just hope we can keep exploring what it might mean to build a container where no one has to be converted in order to belong.
Mmm, I too appreciate this conversation. I think we're mostly in agreement. Yes to identifying "the sacred pattern/ancient blueprint": that to me is the work of coalescence.
And yes to a pluralism of tactics/strategies for how we invite people back to that remembering: I particularly love the "re-villaging" approach at the heart of Symbiotic culture. Two points of possible differentiation between us:
1) We may disagree on leverage points for transformation, and that's okay. I'm invested in social movements because my understanding of history is that social movements are the most effective mechanism for changing hearts and minds at scale. Which means we do first have to preach to the choir, who can then invite in the congregation. Not because the choir is more evolved, but because they are committed to the work of movement-building and organizing: I think people need to be actively invited into transformation. And to be clear: I see "movements" as expansive and capacious. The "movements" I'm interested in supporting and building include everyone committed to building this better world: I see you as in this movement as well. There is space for everyone... as long as we're willing to fly in the same direction and follow the same principles.
2) Belonging requires transformation. There's a paradox here. We're perfect as you are (we belong!)... and we have to change. I believe we all have unlearning and re-learning work to do; I don't see a way around it. Not everyone has to share an analysis of the origins of patriarchy in order to follow the sacred instructions... but ultimately people do need to be willing to let go of capitalism. I don't think it'll be an ideological path for everyone: I think as the new system emerges people will gravitate toward it because they'll recognize that it's more aligned with life and their own longings... not because of an academic understanding of the limits of growth on a finite planet.
I see our work as complementary, and targeting different audiences (though ultimately I suspect we both want to reach everyone :-)
I'm glad to be part of this dialogue, as I believe it reflects a much larger and increasingly urgent conversation happening across many domains right now.
Just one clarification I’d like to offer:
There’s a fundamental difference between movements that view transformation primarily through a national or global progressive lens and those that are shaped by the realities of local communities. Many solidarity economy efforts, for example, still operate within a progressive frame that—however well-intentioned—struggles to connect beyond a particular subculture.
I say this from experience.
Over the years, I’ve had to unlearn many assumptions I carried from my progressive background. When I started working directly with real-world communities—building local food systems, organizing local living economy networks, and creating trust across unlikely alliances—I realized how out of sync many movement frameworks were with the actual needs and values of local people.
I had to confront the ways I was unconsciously skeptical of business, religion, and conservative voices. And I had to move beyond that—because I wanted to unify my entire community around an all-hands-on-deck moment. That meant listening first, building relational trust, and honoring what was already alive on the ground.
In most communities, the issues people care about are things like:
Can they afford to rent or own a home? Is a neighborhood safe? Do I belong somewhere? Can me and my kids find meaning, employment, or healing from anxiety and deppresion? Who actually shows up when there's a crisis? How to deal with th extraction of funding and capital from local communities?
Transformative work must meet people here. That means relational before ideological, and grounded in shared needs before national and global alignment.
Thanks for continuing the dialogue, Richard. I'm curious about this statement:
"There’s a fundamental difference between movements that view transformation primarily through a national or global progressive lens and those that are shaped by the realities of local communities."
As always, I find myself wanting to integrate the polarity: there is wisdom in grassroots community-based organizing that starts with local issues (what I might call the Alinsky model), and there is wisdom in national and global organizing that seeks to respond to broad patterns and systems.
I see you choosing to emphasize the local: that's great. And essential. Most movements (maybe all movements?) I'm aware of have emerged precisely from that place: Black Lives Matter and MeToo as direct responses to the lived experiences of people.
And I hear you skeptical (opposed?) to frameworks that you see privileging a national/international lens. I'm interested in connecting the levels, finding through-lines that link action at the local, national, and global level (I, We, World!) And I think you are too... that's how I understand Symbiotic Culture, a fractal way of organizing that offers global/universal principles to be operationalized at a local level.
Which is to say: I'm not quite sure who/what you're arguing with :-)
Brian, first let me say how much I respect your heart and passion for change and willingness to be in dialogue. It’s clear you care deeply, and I want you to know that my comments are not personal. I offer them in the realm of strategy, because the “how” matters as much as the “why.”
Here’s where I see the critical distinction:
Most national/global progressive movements are framed around political categories—equity as redistribution, oppressor/oppressed, patriarchy, climate justice, etc. These frames matter, but they reflect a specific worldview. When imposed downward, they tend to alienate business owners, traditional faith communities, independents, conservatives—the very people who already live with deep coherence but don’t speak in progressive language. The effect is that only the already-progressive feel included.
From my 40 years of experience, I don’t believe progressive resistance movements—however well-intentioned—can succeed if they keep fighting on this same battlefield. They’re still caught in the polarity defined by the system itself. That’s why we need a breakthrough: a new playing field altogether.
Symbiotic Culture starts elsewhere. It’s not defined by political battlefields, but by sacred design: trust, virtue, reciprocity, and mutual care practiced in small circles that grow into local societies. These address 12 shared community needs—local economy, food, energy, education, water, health, ecology, faith/spirituality in service, art, culture, governance, and mutual security. From there, circles weave into networks, then into a commons, then into a parallel polis and dual-power structure that is both independent from and interoperable with the existing system.
And this isn’t untested theory. For over two thousand years, we’ve seen movements emerge on this pattern—early Christians, Gandhi’s satyagraha, Sarvodaya in Sri Lanka, Benda’s Parallel Polis. I’ve also seen it firsthand in local communities: when we re-anchor in sacred design, coherence emerges across divides.
I’m realistic - most movement leaders won’t change course—they’re too invested in their frameworks. But the millions of ordinary people drawn into these movements by a longing for justice are not as locked in. That’s where the breakthrough can come.
Imagine if some of those millions redirected their energy into building new systems—starting right where they live: in families, streets, neighborhoods, local organizations, networks, economies, and systems of parallel governance.
The punchline: to get off the battlefield of “divide and rule” between dueling oligarchies on the Left and Right, we have to build a new playing field.
Not resistance movements that impose ideology, but grassroots cultural renewal grounded in a transcendent Source of Love—and scaled upward from local to global.
Thank you for this thoughtful reflection Brian. I am with you that we are in time ripe for coalescence. And I like the metaphor of a Flying V structure to describe how a leader-full movement-of-movements evolves.
I suspect if you step back and look at what we are ultimately weaving, it is a network. Or, more likely, a network of networks. As Thomas Kuhn suggested when he coined the term "paradigm shift" in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, how humans organize tends to follow the emerging science of the times. With the scientific method that fueled the industrial age, hierarchies became the dominant organizational form. As we enter an era informed by complexity and quantum physics, it makes sense that we are embracing networks as a more flexible approach to organizing.
Networks are fundamentally composed of hubs - perhaps NGOs that champion different aspects of the movement -- and links - the weavers, both individuals and organizations, who connect hubs to each other.
Should we coalesce towards a way of organizing rooted in right relationship with ourselves, each other, the land, and all beings, I see us shifting how humans organize from hierarchies to networks. You've noted new roles. At least two forms of leadership emerge for networks to coalesce:
Stewards of hubs. This role may look like traditional organizational leadership from the outside but to stay vibrant, stewards attend to ensuring clarity of purpose and a spirit of invitation to attract people who choose to serve that purpose.
"Link leaders." These are the connectors, the weavers, who may never feel at home in one system but bring tremendous value by making connections between hubs. While they exist, they tend to be invisible and undervalued in hierarchies. And they often feel they don't belong in any one place.
Spot on. I'm working on the marketing campaign / cultural transformation end, disrupting our collective narrative. We have performed experiments and they work. Now time to scale.
Current neeeds are more people willing to do the networking/outreach and become influencers (top down and bottom up pincer move lol).
Know anyone who would be interested in helping or being on an advisory board?
yes! my sister @trinastout (https://www.trinastout.com/) is doing some quiet weaving to try to bring some coherence to the narrative/comms field around these principles/ideas...
Alice Bailey (channeling The Tibetan Master, Djwahl Khul), wrote the book Serving Humanity which was first printed in 1972. She called "murmuring starlings" the New Group of World Servers (NGWS), an emerging and increasing number of individuals, who though not necessarily familiar with one another, are connected in their vision for a interconnected and socially just world. Your article today affirms and supports her writings.
Thank you, especially, for noting the essential work of those in the interstitial spaces who are sometimes acting as Disruptors, sometimes as Weavers, often as edge-walkers (tho' surrounded by islands of coherence). I've been calling myself a "Free Radical" lol. The image of the geese brought to mind the film The Wild Robot. For so many reasons, the story told in that movie (and the WAY it's told, both technically and poetically/narratively) feel encompassing of much of what you observe here. Thank you, as always, for distilling and reflecting so that more of us can work with the reflection of where we're at and see what more is possible... and go there. Deep bow....
Brian, I appreciate the clarity and depth you’re offering here. You’re articulating something many of us are sensing—that this is a moment for coalescence, not just resistance. The turn toward coherence, relational healing, and shared practice is real. And your voice as a weaver is helping to beautifully surface that need.
That said, I want to gently name a tension I’ve been observing—not just in your piece, but across the broader movement-of-movements discourse. Much of what is being called an “indigenous worldview” is being interpreted through a progressive moral framework. It’s treated as a spiritual aesthetic or ethical upgrade to Western secularism—but still functions within an ideological container that many people don’t fit.
What if the indigenous worldview isn’t something to be performed, but something to be remembered? What if it’s a sacred pattern embedded in the structure of reality—one that transcends left and right, and includes elders, farmers, faithful conservatives, mystics, and everyday people who live in deep relational coherence but aren’t fluent in the dominant activist language?
In my work developing what we call Symbiotic Culture, we’ve seen people across the spectrum come alive—not because they’re ideologically aligned, but because they’re rooted in love, sacred purpose, and shared virtue. These aren’t abstract ideals. They function as a kind of relational protocol, encoded in everything from natural systems to spiritual traditions.
If we genuinely want a movement of movements, we need a deeper container—one that holds not just trauma and emergence, but transcendence. That’s where the real coherence lives.
Thanks for the work you’re doing. I’d love to explore this further.
Hi Richard, thanks for the comment. I think I'm in wholehearted agreement with your conclusion: I resonate with Sherri Mitchell's notion of "sacred instructions" which are another way of saying follow life's instructions for life (which is what I understand to be the core of indigenous ways of being/relating).
I'm not sure I fully understand your critique/concern. I agree that following the sacred instructions/aligning with life doesn't require a deep analysis of white supremacy and how these systems came to be (if that's what you mean by an ideological container). I do think these ways of being apply to everyone. Perhaps it's an audience question: I'm writing to those of us who are trying to build, shape, and connect social justice movements, because I think movements are the most powerful tool for social transformation. Ultimately our job is to connect to everyone, but I think we have to start with ourselves (if the choir can reach the same resonant wavelength, then we can share our song :-)
Happy to continue the dialogue; I think we're on the same page?
Hi Brian, thanks for this. I resonate with the idea of a movement of movements with a rotating Flying V structure that is powered on alignment in core principles to bring about large-scale emergent change. Like Richard, I also want to gently push back on the idea of Ethnonationalism vs. Indigeneity being the central axis on which this all turns.
Firstly, because a privileging of indigeneity is itself a form of ethnonationalism, just a “worthier” one predicated on a specific narrative of colonization and oppression, though the millennia of human history are comprised of a complex series of migrations and conquests that don’t all neatly fit into the frameworks we apply today.
Secondly, because whether one has an identifiable indigenous tradition to claim is an accident of one’s birth. Similarly to how patriarchy hurts men by denying them access to vulnerability, I think white supremacy has taken localized identities away from a lot of people, and swallowed them up into an umbrella that is based on violent exclusion instead of positive tradition and identity. A lot of nonwhite people also lose touch with traceable indigenous identities via immigration, intermarriage and cultural fluidity - things we generally think of as good. And in general, we should be wary of concepts based on incumbency — who was somewhere “first” — as they are only as good as our historical memory, and can be easily weaponized to shore up entrenched interests and power structures. This is not meant to say that Indigenous communities (as we define them today) and their concerns and marginalization aren’t essential issues deserving powerful emergent change; I would just posit that those are a length of birds, but not the whole V.
The axis I anchor my values on is on that of Abundance versus Scarcity. Scarcity is what says you have to lock those people up, cut off their aid, attack them in their homes, shut them out of work “not meant for them.” Scarcity says “we’re already here so you can’t come in” - both the antiimmigrant MAGA and the NIMBY in a Blue city. Abundance asks how we can sustainably make room for all, by building more densely in already developed areas and leaving wilderness be, by opening up more spots in medical schools to make more doctors to provide more healthcare, by structuring transportation and other resources so we can share more things instead of everyone needing one of their own. I would extend that framework to one where we tap into the abundance of our embodied realities, instead of being disconnected from our bodies and nature and told we’re never enough, so we always need to consume more and fight with others for place and recognition. It’s about saying how can we better provide the things that matter for everyone, regardless of what identity they were born into. And as a framework with the concept of “room for everyone” embedded tight at its core, it’s one that invites everyone into activism, where everyone can find their place, and in doing so gradually shed harmful views and behaviors born of Scarcity. Just my two cents.
Hi KTT, thanks for taking the time to reflect and respond. I very much agree and resonate with your thoughts, and realize I haven't been clear in my intention here; perhaps I need another term than "indigenous." I don't mean "indigenous" in the sense of a people, or an identity, or a claim to ancestry: I mean it as a way of encapsulating a cosmology rooted in right relationship.
I'm very open to other ways to name this zeitgeist: at its core I think it's about domination vs right relationship, worldviews/cosmologies which I have called authoritarian and indigenous. I don't feel attached to the name: if these aren't resonating, it feels important to find shorthand labels that do.
I think all of us can (and need to!) re-indigenize: that is, to re-cultivate a relationship to land and each other that honors our interdependence. The shift from scarcity to abundance is a core part of that. I wrote here about how I understand this work, which I think applies to all of us: https://citizenstout.substack.com/p/belonging-to-ourselves-each-other
I appreciate the invitation to be in shared inquiry, and welcome other thoughts.
Thanks for the context and the link to the other post. The word I’m arriving at for the important concept you’re building there is “rootedness.” Being rooted in our bodies, in nature, in each other, being immersed in that plane vs above it and exploiting it. Being part of something and in relationship with it versus in dominion over it. All great compasses for the Flying V.
With the concept of rootedness is the question of uprooting and re-rooting. In general, the idea that uprooting of any kind = colonization = oppression is, in my view, a reductive construct that harms our ability to connect and organize. Humans have migrated for millennia - “indigenous” people around the world got to where they are because predecessors on the African continent left. Civilizations were created and abandoned as geological changes and their resulting effects on food availability waxed and waned. Animals migrate for similar reasons - surely they are not colonizers?
I agree that rooting in land, with connection and respect instead of disconnection and dominion, is important. Where I diverge is the idea that if your ancestors ever left the land they were rooted in to better grow somewhere else (in recent historical memory…), that is villainous colonization. I think the capacity for migration and forging of new communities and identities in new land is a complicated but not “wrong” part of the human story. Many “colonizers” fled oppression and scarcity, and many also caused their own oppression and scarcity where they arrived. I would argue that the thing we need to oppose are the mechanisms of oppression and scarcity, not of uprooting and rerooting.
In general, I think we will make more strides at the scale needed for emergence if we don’t anchor ourselves in words that allude to identities as things to be for or against, as heroes or villains. Words like colonialism and patriarchy are useful for deconstructing the harmful mechanisms that got us here, but I don’t think they are our strongest tools in the toolbox for building a movement to somewhere better.
I wrestle with this a lot: the need for words to accurately describe a thing (patriarchy, e.g.), and the need for words that can resonate with an audience and help invite them toward transformation (patriarchy probably not ideal). I write primarily for the first purpose... and trust/hope that others will translate insights to communicate them to broader audiences.
I long for that elusive simplicity on the other side of complexity, and to find easy ways communicate complex ideas without watering them down: an ongoing search. I do think getting clear really matters to those of us in the design/strategy work; then I agree we likely need different tools to communicate/connect outside of our silos. Where my comms professionals at?
Thanks, Brian. I really value this dialogue, and I want to go a level deeper—because I think we’re approaching transformation from two different starting points.
You mention that movements are the most powerful tool for change, and that we first need to align the progressive “choir” before inviting others in. I get the logic—but I want to challenge the assumption beneath it.
The progressive worldview often sees society through the lens of systems of oppression—white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism—that must be named and dismantled. It centers lived experience—especially of the marginalized—and sees justice, trauma healing, and decolonization as the moral path forward. Even spirituality is often welcomed only if it aligns with that lens.
And whether stated or not, there’s often a sense that this worldview is more evolved than others.
I’ve seen how this alienates the very people who often live in deep coherence—elders, farmers, main street businesses and charities, independents, conservatives, traditional faith communities who believe in a theistic God—people who don’t share progressive language, but live with sacred purpose and relational integrity.
When we say “we’ll invite them in after we unify ourselves,” it often lands as: we already know what’s right—come be transformed by us.
That’s not inclusion. It’s conversion. And in practice, it doesn’t work. It creates a bigger progressive silo—just more networked and spiritualized.
What if the deeper coherence we seek doesn’t begin by aligning political movements—but by remembering the sacred pattern beneath them? A pattern rooted in Love, Virtue, and mutual belonging—what I call the Ancient Blueprint. It already lives in thousands of places—across worldviews, geographies, and generations. The task isn’t to endlessly deconstruct the Western worldview and replace it with another “colonizing” progressive ideology, but to reweave the deeper sacred pattern that has always been alive beneath them all.
That’s what Symbiotic Culture is about. Not a more evolved activism, but a different protocol entirely. One that begins not in trauma, but in transcendence. Not in ideology, but in sacred structure.
I share this with deep respect. I just hope we can keep exploring what it might mean to build a container where no one has to be converted in order to belong.
Mmm, I too appreciate this conversation. I think we're mostly in agreement. Yes to identifying "the sacred pattern/ancient blueprint": that to me is the work of coalescence.
And yes to a pluralism of tactics/strategies for how we invite people back to that remembering: I particularly love the "re-villaging" approach at the heart of Symbiotic culture. Two points of possible differentiation between us:
1) We may disagree on leverage points for transformation, and that's okay. I'm invested in social movements because my understanding of history is that social movements are the most effective mechanism for changing hearts and minds at scale. Which means we do first have to preach to the choir, who can then invite in the congregation. Not because the choir is more evolved, but because they are committed to the work of movement-building and organizing: I think people need to be actively invited into transformation. And to be clear: I see "movements" as expansive and capacious. The "movements" I'm interested in supporting and building include everyone committed to building this better world: I see you as in this movement as well. There is space for everyone... as long as we're willing to fly in the same direction and follow the same principles.
2) Belonging requires transformation. There's a paradox here. We're perfect as you are (we belong!)... and we have to change. I believe we all have unlearning and re-learning work to do; I don't see a way around it. Not everyone has to share an analysis of the origins of patriarchy in order to follow the sacred instructions... but ultimately people do need to be willing to let go of capitalism. I don't think it'll be an ideological path for everyone: I think as the new system emerges people will gravitate toward it because they'll recognize that it's more aligned with life and their own longings... not because of an academic understanding of the limits of growth on a finite planet.
I see our work as complementary, and targeting different audiences (though ultimately I suspect we both want to reach everyone :-)
How does that land for you?
I'm glad to be part of this dialogue, as I believe it reflects a much larger and increasingly urgent conversation happening across many domains right now.
Just one clarification I’d like to offer:
There’s a fundamental difference between movements that view transformation primarily through a national or global progressive lens and those that are shaped by the realities of local communities. Many solidarity economy efforts, for example, still operate within a progressive frame that—however well-intentioned—struggles to connect beyond a particular subculture.
I say this from experience.
Over the years, I’ve had to unlearn many assumptions I carried from my progressive background. When I started working directly with real-world communities—building local food systems, organizing local living economy networks, and creating trust across unlikely alliances—I realized how out of sync many movement frameworks were with the actual needs and values of local people.
I had to confront the ways I was unconsciously skeptical of business, religion, and conservative voices. And I had to move beyond that—because I wanted to unify my entire community around an all-hands-on-deck moment. That meant listening first, building relational trust, and honoring what was already alive on the ground.
In most communities, the issues people care about are things like:
Can they afford to rent or own a home? Is a neighborhood safe? Do I belong somewhere? Can me and my kids find meaning, employment, or healing from anxiety and deppresion? Who actually shows up when there's a crisis? How to deal with th extraction of funding and capital from local communities?
Transformative work must meet people here. That means relational before ideological, and grounded in shared needs before national and global alignment.
Happy to keep building this bridge together.
Thanks for continuing the dialogue, Richard. I'm curious about this statement:
"There’s a fundamental difference between movements that view transformation primarily through a national or global progressive lens and those that are shaped by the realities of local communities."
As always, I find myself wanting to integrate the polarity: there is wisdom in grassroots community-based organizing that starts with local issues (what I might call the Alinsky model), and there is wisdom in national and global organizing that seeks to respond to broad patterns and systems.
I see you choosing to emphasize the local: that's great. And essential. Most movements (maybe all movements?) I'm aware of have emerged precisely from that place: Black Lives Matter and MeToo as direct responses to the lived experiences of people.
And I hear you skeptical (opposed?) to frameworks that you see privileging a national/international lens. I'm interested in connecting the levels, finding through-lines that link action at the local, national, and global level (I, We, World!) And I think you are too... that's how I understand Symbiotic Culture, a fractal way of organizing that offers global/universal principles to be operationalized at a local level.
Which is to say: I'm not quite sure who/what you're arguing with :-)
Brian, first let me say how much I respect your heart and passion for change and willingness to be in dialogue. It’s clear you care deeply, and I want you to know that my comments are not personal. I offer them in the realm of strategy, because the “how” matters as much as the “why.”
Here’s where I see the critical distinction:
Most national/global progressive movements are framed around political categories—equity as redistribution, oppressor/oppressed, patriarchy, climate justice, etc. These frames matter, but they reflect a specific worldview. When imposed downward, they tend to alienate business owners, traditional faith communities, independents, conservatives—the very people who already live with deep coherence but don’t speak in progressive language. The effect is that only the already-progressive feel included.
From my 40 years of experience, I don’t believe progressive resistance movements—however well-intentioned—can succeed if they keep fighting on this same battlefield. They’re still caught in the polarity defined by the system itself. That’s why we need a breakthrough: a new playing field altogether.
Symbiotic Culture starts elsewhere. It’s not defined by political battlefields, but by sacred design: trust, virtue, reciprocity, and mutual care practiced in small circles that grow into local societies. These address 12 shared community needs—local economy, food, energy, education, water, health, ecology, faith/spirituality in service, art, culture, governance, and mutual security. From there, circles weave into networks, then into a commons, then into a parallel polis and dual-power structure that is both independent from and interoperable with the existing system.
And this isn’t untested theory. For over two thousand years, we’ve seen movements emerge on this pattern—early Christians, Gandhi’s satyagraha, Sarvodaya in Sri Lanka, Benda’s Parallel Polis. I’ve also seen it firsthand in local communities: when we re-anchor in sacred design, coherence emerges across divides.
I’m realistic - most movement leaders won’t change course—they’re too invested in their frameworks. But the millions of ordinary people drawn into these movements by a longing for justice are not as locked in. That’s where the breakthrough can come.
Imagine if some of those millions redirected their energy into building new systems—starting right where they live: in families, streets, neighborhoods, local organizations, networks, economies, and systems of parallel governance.
The punchline: to get off the battlefield of “divide and rule” between dueling oligarchies on the Left and Right, we have to build a new playing field.
Not resistance movements that impose ideology, but grassroots cultural renewal grounded in a transcendent Source of Love—and scaled upward from local to global.
Thank you for this thoughtful reflection Brian. I am with you that we are in time ripe for coalescence. And I like the metaphor of a Flying V structure to describe how a leader-full movement-of-movements evolves.
I suspect if you step back and look at what we are ultimately weaving, it is a network. Or, more likely, a network of networks. As Thomas Kuhn suggested when he coined the term "paradigm shift" in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, how humans organize tends to follow the emerging science of the times. With the scientific method that fueled the industrial age, hierarchies became the dominant organizational form. As we enter an era informed by complexity and quantum physics, it makes sense that we are embracing networks as a more flexible approach to organizing.
Networks are fundamentally composed of hubs - perhaps NGOs that champion different aspects of the movement -- and links - the weavers, both individuals and organizations, who connect hubs to each other.
Should we coalesce towards a way of organizing rooted in right relationship with ourselves, each other, the land, and all beings, I see us shifting how humans organize from hierarchies to networks. You've noted new roles. At least two forms of leadership emerge for networks to coalesce:
Stewards of hubs. This role may look like traditional organizational leadership from the outside but to stay vibrant, stewards attend to ensuring clarity of purpose and a spirit of invitation to attract people who choose to serve that purpose.
"Link leaders." These are the connectors, the weavers, who may never feel at home in one system but bring tremendous value by making connections between hubs. While they exist, they tend to be invisible and undervalued in hierarchies. And they often feel they don't belong in any one place.
I wrote about these ideas in 2010 shortly after Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity came out: https://peggyholman.com/leadership-in-a-networked-world. Seems even more relevant today.
Spot on. I'm working on the marketing campaign / cultural transformation end, disrupting our collective narrative. We have performed experiments and they work. Now time to scale.
Current neeeds are more people willing to do the networking/outreach and become influencers (top down and bottom up pincer move lol).
Know anyone who would be interested in helping or being on an advisory board?
yes! my sister @trinastout (https://www.trinastout.com/) is doing some quiet weaving to try to bring some coherence to the narrative/comms field around these principles/ideas...
Alice Bailey (channeling The Tibetan Master, Djwahl Khul), wrote the book Serving Humanity which was first printed in 1972. She called "murmuring starlings" the New Group of World Servers (NGWS), an emerging and increasing number of individuals, who though not necessarily familiar with one another, are connected in their vision for a interconnected and socially just world. Your article today affirms and supports her writings.
Thank you, especially, for noting the essential work of those in the interstitial spaces who are sometimes acting as Disruptors, sometimes as Weavers, often as edge-walkers (tho' surrounded by islands of coherence). I've been calling myself a "Free Radical" lol. The image of the geese brought to mind the film The Wild Robot. For so many reasons, the story told in that movie (and the WAY it's told, both technically and poetically/narratively) feel encompassing of much of what you observe here. Thank you, as always, for distilling and reflecting so that more of us can work with the reflection of where we're at and see what more is possible... and go there. Deep bow....
https://www.reimaginingunconference.com/