The Difference between Citizen Issue Groups and Citizen Committees

Date: July 14, 2008
To: Interested Parties
From: Jim Kent
RE: Email Communication
This is a response to a citizen caretaker who had a question about the difference
between Citizen Groups, that are so useful and successful in generating social capital
in a community, and what was going on in his town with his Towns formal control of
citizen participation through having to serve on formal Committees. The caretaker’s
comment: “ it looks like citizen involvement but the structure being used is not
empowering citizens in their governing process. So what is going on?”
Here was my response:
The best distinction is in the language in your email inquiry. Your reference to“a Citizen
Group”. A Citizen “Group” is formed for a short term task, highly focused,
accomplishment oriented, is solutions based and made up of citizens who have the skills
and talent for resolving a specific issue. It is a Group not a Committee. What your
Manager and Town Board are using are Committees. Committees are generally used to
support the formal policies of the Town Board and are not designed to empower or solve
specific issues of citizens, and are very long term. Most citizens do not want to serve on
such committees but are anxious in participating in action issue groups.
A Committee structure is like what happened at Charley’s first meeting with the new
Open Space and Trails “Committee”. The staff led by your Manager came in with the
program to hire a $50,000 consultant to work on designing an Open Space and Trails
program. Charley raised objection, stating that the Citizens are totally capable of
designing their own process and program. “After all the consultant will talk to the
citizens anyways and we are the citizens, so we do not need to hire a consultant.”
Charley’s model is Citizen Issue Group or Citizen Action Group where citizens are
empowered to address an issue in a “beginning and ending” time frame. So through
Charley’s effort they ended up with a Citizen Issue Group without the consultant and not
a long standing committee that often burns citizens out.
What was happening is that the Manager was trying to use his Town’s Committee
structure which in this case was a disenfranchisement of the citizens by essentially
announcing that “we” the staff are going to control this. “We just need this new
committee to rubber stamp our (the staff and council) decisions”. What generally
happens in a case like this is that the consultant meets with the Committee, does his
deliverables, reports to the Manager and the Manager to the Board. The rubber stamping
process was picked off by Charley because, as I mentioned earlier, he is from the Citizen
“Group” School of participation. The Citizen Group School is where the citizens are in
charge, they do the research and make the decisions with support (not management) from
the staff and the council facilitates the process (not regulates).
Committees are generally burn out for the participants because they work off of a generic
topic (not a specific accomplishable end product), staff controls and there is no letting the
citizens handle the problem in a holistic manner. Committees often function as an
extension of formal power.
Citizen Groups have tremendous energy throughout their issue resolution process. And at
the end are still energized. The Levinson Group for instance had complete responsibility
to negotiate the issues on the Levinson parcel now owned by the Town. The 3 person
group finished in 3 months and turned the results over to the Town Manager who had the
authority to write an ordinance for the Town Board that structured and funded the
solution. We now have a great town park and the Roaring Fork Nature Conservancy on
the site and the old mobile homes were bought out.
In a Committee structure you could not get such a focus because it is not constructed
around accomplishment and responsibility. It is generally structured around an
assumption of passivity and control by the powers that be, even though their intent seems
sincere.
The Town Manager formed the Comcast Citizen Group the same way as the Levinson
Citizens Group. Citizens who knew technology and the Comcast politics were appointed
to take on the Comcast issue. As citizens who knew land use and finances were on the
Levinson Group, financial and Internet Technology talent were on the Comcast Group.
This group took 6 months to do its work. One result of the negotiation is Basalt’s
Community Access station funded by Comcast. We are the only community in the valley
to have such a facility. This facility is a direct negation between citizens and Comcast.
The Town Council or staff would never have been able to accomplish this outcome as has
been shown in Aspen and Carbondale where the policy bodies did the negotiation.
Both were short term and needed specific, non-political, talent to resolve the complicated
issues. That is why Citizen Groups are so affective in building social capital and
Committees are generally not. Usually in appointing a Committee you are trying to
balance the politics, ethnicity, diverse interests and people with formal pro and con
positions.
This is not so with Citizen Issue Groups—this structure goes for talent and solutions
oriented process people on a specific actionable issue.
The River Master Plan (RMP) was a classic example of a Citizen Issues Group approach
even though it was longer termed. There were many well coordinated smaller citizen
groups and each worked on a real issue that aggregated to the whole body. These Groups
had specific names, like Kayak Location Group. The RMP Citizen Group was facilitated
by the staff and supported by the Council, and Council members participated as citizens
when in the Groups. JKA handled the community participation and policy develop part
of the process. It gave them tremendous insight from a citizen, social capital perspective
when it came time to implement the RMP.
To this day no citizen that worked on this (3 years) has talked of burn out.
This is very similar to the very successful Kona Community Development Plan process
just completed on the Big Island of Hawaii. The Steering Committee which was a
facilitative body for citizen participation, not a decision making body, is now out of
business. Their recommendations for an ordinance were approved by County Council on
a 9-0 vote in a very short time frame. Everyone knew what was in the findings and had
ownership of them. There were no surprises.
Having clear beginnings and endings is essential for citizens being able to maintain their
interest in further issue management work. The citizens even worked out an
implementation process that fit the culture and based their solutions on an incremental
time and sequence approach to very complex issues. The talent developed among the
Steering Committee (Group) is very valuable for future action. In addition the citizens
will be ready and have energy for their next challenges when they come. But clearly in
both examples above having a clear ending preserves the citizen energy and enthusiasm
to have new beginnings when the time arrives.
This short term, end state focus of the action enhances citizen spirit and the social capital
that that spirit generates.
Jim kent

Wes and Jim dialogue on Steinbeck and the Occupy Wall Street phenomena

The following is an exchange between Wes Stillwagon and Jim Kent which is a continuation of my post yesterday under Deep Democracy.

START WES STILLWAGON

Here’s a virtual toast to Garry Trudeau!

Relative to Tortilla Flat, I believe the first actual forming of a phalanx among the paisanos was inspired, clarified, and verbalized by Pilon. The group’s feeling that Danny, the apparent caretaker (my opinion) was spending too much energy and time at “Sweets” (with the Sweeping Machine) and did not have time or energy to be with them. “At first his friends ignored his absence, for it is the right of every man to have these little affairs. But as the weeks went on, and as a rather violent domestic life began to make Danny listless and pale, his friends became convinced that Sweets’ gratitude for the sweeping-machine was not to Danny’s best physical interests” From Steinbeck’s Tortilla Flat. Their verbalized concern for Danny’s physical health was their logical rationalization for their call to action. Their actual value driven inspiration was that they were jealous of a situation that was holding Danny’s attention so long.* In judging group or team behavior, the logical rationalization and the value judgment are significant in analyzing group or team actions as they would require different responses.

The phalanx appeared at the group perception (value driven) of a problem that needed eliminating, “Wherefore the friends, in despair, organized a group, formed for and dedicated to her destruction.” (The objective).

Specifically, I believe the group was reacting to a vacuum created by the missing and beloved Caretaker Danny and the leader in this action was Pilon. I believe a similar reaction would have been witnessed on Cannery Row if Doc’s time and presence were dominated by Suzy. I suspect the leading role on Cannery Row in such a situation would have been filled by Fauna or Mac.

The phalanx (with the objective) was a complex of unique and to them, tacitly understood, individuals drawn together by forces in the collective unconscious (like opposite poles of magnets). It would be a big mistake to attempt to influence the illusionary mass or community. “Their campaign had called into play and taxed to the limit the pitiless logic of Pilon, the artistic ingenuousness of Pablo, and the gentleness and humanity of Jesus Maria Corcoran. Big Joe (the Portagee) had contributed nothing.” (Steinbeck) Does this not remind one of Jung’s functional types?

The OSW apparently has yet to realize this necessary quality of a successful phalanx or team effort and as a result we’ve see no tangible accomplishment beyond a show or theatrics.

The phalanx, if made up of individuals of higher adult maturity, has strength far beyond that of its apparent resources. Our society suffers tremendously by failing to realize the structure and dynamics of Steinbeck’s phalanx and Jung’s collective unconscious.

*This is, in my opinion, not unlike the feelings of the apostles, especially Peter, toward Mary Magdalene’s domination of the attention of Jesus”

START JIM KENT’S RESPONSE:

Good insights and theory application Wes. So using the Danny analysis in the OWS movement to a Phalanx here is where I think we (they) are:

“But as the weeks went on, and as a rather violent domestic life began (the 99% of neglected citizens by the system) to make Danny listless and pale (our society before OWS–remember “where’s the anger”) , his friends (the occupiers with social networking at their finger tips) became convinced that Sweets’ gratitude for the sweeping-machine (Wall Street) was not to Danny’s best physical interests (our society and the 99%ers)” From Steinbeck’s Tortilla Flat.

“……at the group perception (value driven) of a problem (OWS) that needed eliminating (the inequities of our system) , “Wherefore the friends, in despair, (occupiers of Wall Street and international movement) organized a group (not done yet–still in the self organizing stage–but coming), formed for and dedicated to her destruction (not decided yet-still time for reasonable equitable outcomes) (The objective).

Danny, Pilon and the boys would have never agreed to allow a “Super Committee of 12 to decide the fate of our society” not now, not ever. They were participating in, predicting and controlling their environment and would not tollerate giving their power away as this congress has done.

So among the phalanx of Steinbeck, Jungs functional types, Kent’s informal network archetypes, and Wes’s concept of the individual–we are in pretty good shape to understand this OWS phenomena in a manner that pundits cannot comprehend because they are trapped in the tapestry of the formal system of leaders, control, imposed goals, self-serving actions, and no sense of humor.

Of course from Steinbeck’s writings is where I first extracted the basic concepts of the Discovery Process—from the Moon is Down, Cannery Row, Sweet Thursday and Grapes of Wrath.

Well said Wes, how was my interpretation?? And a hardy toast to Jon Stewart who has the only real news on TV!!

JK

.

Kent’s Informal Network Archetypes

Kent’s Informal Network Archetypes:
A New Paradigm for Understanding
Individuals in Community

First Published in:
Social Ecology of Women as Transformational Leaders
By Trish Malone
2009

Eight Informal Network Archetypes

There are eight (8) Informal Network Archetypes that have been discovered over the last 30 years that are useful to formal organizations whoes mission is to interface in a productive manner with individuals, families and groups in neighborhoods and communities. These archetypes, when interacted with appropriately, create a natural system of communication and action pathways into and out of indigenous as well as geographic societies.

They bring to life a way of working with people through their own informal face-to-face networks thereby allowing for an alternative process to citizen participation that is highly reliant upon formal meetings and formal communication methods that are visual and print oriented. It is important to note that these network archetypes function on a daily 24/7 basis whether outside groups recognize them or not. Often by not knowing, the outside groups, make major mistakes in how they approach an indigenous community. As Jim Kent indicates: “These archetypes have been found in over 100 different cultures through out the world. They are universal”.

The Network Archetypes are:

1) Caretakers– Trusted by others, predictable, accessible, called on in time of stress, “Let us talk over the idea.”
These individuals are the glue that holds the culture together. They are routinely accessible to people of their networks when assistance or advice is needed, is freely given and is based on interest and predictability, i.e. that the person will use it wisely because of who gives it. Caretakers are invisible to people outside the networks and may also belong to formal groups. They are essential to high levels of social capital in society.

2) Communicators– Move information, “Have you talked with…?” “I heard that…”
These individuals move information throughout the networks. They are generally in places where they come into contact with people from various informal networks and formal groups. They are especially prevalent in gathering places such as coffee shops, bars, beauty shops, restaurants, etc. They are essential for moving information quickly throughout a community when accuracy and word-of-mouth speed is needed.
One of the major objectives is to insure that the people being impacted or that need to be involved can continue to operate from facts rather than rumors. In carrying out Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments it was discovered that information moved through certain individuals that were located at communication intersections in geographic places. Kent called them communicators since their natural function in the networks is to move information and they are relied upon by others in their networks to do exactly that.

3) Storytellers– Carry culture through their stories, “In the past we had time…” “We used to do it this way…”
These individuals carry the culture through their stories. They provide a community with the culture benchmarks that are essential to understanding how a community can grow and still maintain the good parts of its culture. They understand the importance of gathering places, and are often the “characters” in the gathering places. Their stories embody the key values in the community and reinforce a common way of looking at the world.
Kent relates that he was setting up Head Start Programs on the Navajo Reservation during the late 1960’s. He was looking for ways in which the Navajo learned, experienced life and passed on their culture. The discovery was that stories by elders and medicine people were the key mechanism. The same stories were told at different times of a person’s life and they could take from the stories what it was that they needed at this time of their life and leave the rest.

4) Gatekeepers–Narrows entry, screens out perceived intruders. “I can hook you up” “Let me put you in contact with……….”
These individuals function as a protective device for the informal systems, screening out intrusive people especially those from formal systems. They narrow the entry to a network or community through information control. Often they are verbal people who understand both the informal and the formal networks, and these people can be found when you ask the question: who should I talk to if I want to learn about…? They will often direct you to a narrow set of choices within the person’s sphere of influence. If a caretaker is asked that same question he or she will try to match your interest with a key person in the networks that may be helpful without regarding the sphere of influence. We often get at this network by asking: “who else should I talk to?” In applying the Discovery Process the fieldworker enters the routines of the community by essentially hanging out and doing a description. As conversations were engaged it became apparent that with some of the local people our entry to the community was being narrowed. It was discovered that this natural function was a protective devise to make sure that negatively intrusive people were not let into the culture,—would not be able to meet caretakers and communicators. These people were eventually called Gatekeepers, a word taken from small group dynamics where the gatekeeper is a well-recognized phenomenon. Kurt Lewin, who was the father of organizational development and developed the field theory of group dynamics, was probably the first researcher to use the term gatekeeper. In 1946 he launched the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

5) Authenticators–knowledge and wisdom from the culture that provides cultural interpretations to technical data and information.
These people have knowledge and wisdom from the culture and often provide cultural interpretations to technical data and information generated by formal systems. This translation of technical data and information into practical cultural terms serves as a verification function that the data/information is only usable if it is in a cultural context. Often these individuals have one foot in the cultural context and another in a scientific context, understanding both and how to integrate them so that scientific data can be put into a useful local context.
This understanding became important in the Makua Beach project on Oahu completed for the US Marine Corp. The outside environmentalists and the project proponent were interpreting the world through their eyes and not through the eyes or the knowledge of the local culture that could be negatively impacted by the Marine Corp training for beach landings. Several local authenticators were found in the community and successfully brought into the decision making process.
The authenticator archetype has been used since its discovery in all of JKA’s natural resource work, especially with the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Defense in dealing with “formally educated warring or dueling scientists” from a local empowerment perspective.

6) Bridgers– Two cultures, two + languages, link people together between informal and formal networks “I know somebody from…” “This is what they’re saying…”
These individuals act to link people together. They often have one foot in the informal system and one foot in the formal. For example; the Bridger between a Hispanic network and a community members use of a bank, will not only know Spanish and English but will also have knowledge of the people in the banking system that can get things done. They will also help newcomers get absorbed into the informal caretaking networks.
Bridgers were discovered in the original work with the sub-cultures during the war on poverty (Kent, J., 1967, The Neighborhood Representative, Journal of Public Health, p. 103 to 112). They were the Working Class Poor who lived in the poverty neighborhood but went into the outside world to work. Therefore they had knowledge of how to access outside resources and how the outside world worked but they never desired to become a part of the outside world. They were often bi-lingual which was essential to be effective in some neighborhoods. Kent renamed the Working Class Poor, Bridgers, and hired them as Family Health Counselors in his Neighborhood Health Centers and were positioned to interact with the formal medical world and the informal world of their local neighborhood. This became a new career pathway for many Bridgers (Pearl, Arthur and Frank Reisman, New Careers for the Poor, 1965, p. 52-63).

7) Opportunists–Use of public setting for personal gain, “We in the community…” “My people….”
These individuals are interested in self-power and gain it through positioning themselves as spokespersons for community group. Opportunists say things like “we’ve talked it over…” and “my people…” but often they do not have the standing they claim to have. Opportunists are often the first people that one will find when entering a new community at the grass roots level. The communicators and their networks announce that new people are in the community. The opportunist will seek out the new people to check out any opportunities that they may offer for their own benefit. To agency people who are mandated to work in community this generally first contact looks like a real find. They act as though they can do anything for you, wherever and whenever you may wish. This is especially prominent in natural resource work where federal agencies must gain community participation for their programs. The opportunist attempts to block access to the other community archetypes maintaining that they are the “person you need to talk to”. The other archetypes, especially the caretaker and the communicator often use the opportunist to insure that the agency people do not get to the inside of their culture unless welcomed in by them. The opportunist, are not trusted within the culture.
Kent recognized that the opportunist really wanted out of the poverty they were trapped in so he set up a program where the opportunist could work for the system essentially removing them from the obstructive position that they often represent in the community. Once in the formal system, with some status, they became insiders for the neighborhood from which they came to get things done in the agencies where the opportunists worked (Warner, & Kent., Death of Colonialism in Health Programs for the Urban Poor, Rehabilitating the Disabled, Syracuse Medical School, 1965, p. 104-105).

8) Historians–history of their geographic place, carriers of the events that have happened over the lifetime of the community. They know critical information
These individuals know the history of their geographic place and are the carriers of the events that have happened over the lifetime of the community. They know critical information about events and people that have influenced their community over time. The historian is key to benchmarking certain times in the community when events were in harmony or disharmony and what was happening at those times. The historian first appeared in the establishment of Plane de Salud de Valle, a migrant heath project established by Kent’s group in Fort Lupton, Colorado. In order to understand the positioning of the health center building, stories needed to be collected to insure that the building was in the right place physically to optimize success. While much work was done in looking at the different choices it was not until the team heard a complete history from the indigenous historian that a decision could be made to put the Health Center in the old Japanese internment camp. The historian related the internment camp history, its creation, operation and shut down and the human as well as inhuman aspects of the camp. Once the local history (culture) was understood and the need for curing this terrible community intrusion it was a matter of consensus to put the Health Center, a healing phenomena, at the Camp. It was not the preferred choice of the professionals, but the historian’s story set out a clear path to use the Health Center’s location and development to reprocess the old history while new, positive history was being made. Since the discovery of the Historian, JKA associates find them and engage them in natural settings to relate the history of the area and the processes that the new project can fit into to make its contribution. History tells you how to become grounded in the community, but it needs to be the cultural history.

The Occupy Wall Street and Social Ecology

To all Steinbeck and Social Ecology scholars and practitioners.

The attached article, miss labeled by the headline writer, is a must read for all of us. Putting politics and pundits aside this is an important happening for our social ecology and public policy program. The story it turns out is a description of “self organizing principles” being created for governance of a newly emerging phenomena of diverse community (not the threatening headline that was chosen). The description in the story shows how the “occupiers” in NYC are creating their own governance system. What is fascinating is that this is coming from many who have, I am almost certain, not participated in community creation, but have been pretty isolated in their computer worlds (taken from some of the interviews). You remember Ex President Havel”s famous speech on the Velvet Revolution: “how did our young people, raised totally all of their lives under the oppression of the Soviet Union, know about the democratic principles they so wonderfully represented to bring down 40 some years of oppression.” (see Kent’s blog for complete story under Obama and Havel).

This story is an almost pure description of how the self organizing unfolds, step by step (discovery, reflection, form creation, correction, discovery, reflection). You will note the different informal network archetypes. Also some of the guidance rules they have developed that I have never heard of before: a Paramount Objection is a show stopper and is only to be used when the community harmony is threatened. There is a Stack Keeper, a new word or function to me, that insures that the different points of view are equally heard and that one segment does not dominate. (the formal hearings on development projects from government agencies could use a Stack Keeper, to prevent one segment from un reasonably dominating a meeting).

Talk about collaboration in its pure sense, and facilitation as an emergent governance process. In our social capital writings and practices we see government as being a facilitative and reflective body for forming the policies that enhance citizen empowerment. Aristotle and Socrates would be proud of this self organizing phenomena and the Forest Service and Interior Department as well as Defense, who mouth collaboration should be encouraged to study this pure form of collaboration.

Steinbeck, the inspiration of much of our social ecology work, along with Ed Ricketts would also be proud of what is happening here. Because of the self organizing principles that have emerged, the individuals have transcended the mob phenomena and have introduced a form of governance that we call heart and soul or governance by social capital. Watch out for what Steinbeck wrote about in the Grapes of Wrath. Remember the law enforcement that sent in disruptor’s to cause a commotion at the dance so that they could rush in and destroy the government run facility that treated the migrants as human. This could happen here by threatened groups, not necessarily the police, who have already tried thier harrassment tactics and furthered the occupiers mission and numbers. Her discussion, the interviewee, of how they, the individuals in the group, know who the undercover agents are is priceless. They know by the “language” they use. An undercover agents, for instance,first question is “who are your leaders”. (real meaning so we can pick them off) her answer is really a Steinbeck type of response.

I think this whole phenomena of the Occupy Wall Street needs our analytical and writing attention. No matter what happens this is a profound moment in our emerging democracy and game changer of power shifting from formal to informal systems, while the society is redefined that will create a more human, just and eqitable alignment. It had to happen as did the Arab Spring and the Velvet Revolution. When formal systems no longer connect to the people, the masses so to speak, the people eventually figure out that this is not what a democracy (or a dictatorship, or olegarchy) is about and self organize to correct on a massive scale. The non-violent commitment is key and reminds me of the six years of work that we did with President Corizon Aquino when she was elected president of the Philippines. As Havel said: “How did they know”.

Jim
P.S. Erik,Kevin, Trish let’s consider posting this to the web site on social ecology ths Erik put up if it is appropriate

Here is an excerp form my op.ed. piece written in 2009 using V’aclav Havel’s Velvet Revolution as he makes a profound point in how communism was driven out of Czechloslavakia. Note the informal word of mouth communication recognition imbedded in his speech.

START PASSAGE:

KENT: In 1989, Presidential candidate V’aclav Havel spoke to the people of Czechoslovakia about principles and core values. Havel started talking about these principles and that precedent spread across Czechoslovakia and became known as the “Velvet Revolution.” This revolution saw the relinquishment of political power by the communists and it set the stage for the first free elections since 1946.

As a social ecologist concerned with how public policy is formed, I followed the Velvet Revolution very closely. Literally overnight Czechoslovakia moved from a oppressive centralized society to a vibrant, free, enterprise-centered culture seemingly overnight. By l992 the individual vendors in Prague lined the Charles Bridge, and churches were well on their way to complete historic restoration. Private business ventures flourished throughout the city and countryside. By all indications from an outside observer, one would have expected the conversion from totalitarianism to freedom to take many years. It did not. This shift to democracy that energized the civic order occurred in three short years. I believe there are two main causal factors for this rapid return to democracy.

The first factor is the observation that whatever culture is in place when oppression sets in is by-in-large the culture that will emerge when the oppression is overcome. Czechoslovakia before oppression had a high degree of civic culture and order.

The second factor recognizes the cultural mechanisms that function when oppression is in place. These are the informal communication and caretaker networks that become invisible to the oppressors, but also become stronger in order for the people to survive. These networks operate within natural gathering places and are concerned with preserving the heart and soul of their civic order. Gathering places—coffee shops, barbershops, beauty parlors, bars, restaurants, public areas, and the like—provide the opportunity to see the everyday real faces of society. Personal relationships are the key outcome made possible through gathering places. Informal caretaker and communication networks are tied to gathering places and provide the element of trust in communities. It is in these informal networks that the beliefs, traditions, stories, values are preserved out of sight of formal systems. The power of these societal elements occurring within the gathering places and informal networks held together the Czech culture pre-1989 and thus offered a foundation for survival during those many years of occupation.

To give context and insight to what happened in Czechoslovakia during this period the following is quoted directly from President V’aclav Havel’s speech made on January 1, 1990, as a New Years Address to the Nation in Prague. HAVEL said:

“Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own. And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all. If we realize this, then all the horrors that the new Czechoslovak democracy inherited will cease to appear so terrible. If we realize this, hope will return to our hearts..

“In an effort to rectify matters of common concern, we have something to lean on. The recent period—and in particular the last six weeks of our peaceful revolution—has shown the enormous human, moral and spiritual potential, and the civic culture that slumbered in our society under the enforced mask of apathy. Whenever someone categorically claimed that we were this or that, I always objected that society is a very mysterious creature and that it is unwise to trust only the face it presents to you…………………Everywhere in the world people wonder where those meek, humiliated, skeptical and seemingly cynical citizens of Czechoslovakia found the marvelous strength to shake the totalitarian yoke from their shoulders in several weeks, and in a decent and peaceful way. And let us ask:

· Where did the young people who never knew another system get their desire for truth, their love of free
thought, their political ideas, their civic courage and civic prudence?
· How did it happen that their parents—the very generation that had been lost—joined them?

· How is it that so many people immediately knew what to do and none needed any advice or instruction?

“I think there are two main reasons……….

· First of all, people are never just a product of the external world; they are also able to relate themselves to something superior, however systematically the external world tries to kill that ability in them.

· Secondly, the humanistic and democratic traditions, about which there had been so much idle talk, did after all slumber in the unconsciousness of our nations and ethnic minorities, and were inconspicuously passed from one generation to another, so that each of us could discover them at the right time and transform them into deeds.”

END OF QUOTE