Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00391)

Reflections on the TSA
[A bit longer than I intended ... sorry gang -:]

Reading the letter from the Lodge Presidents the first and
perhaps most dramatic thing that struck me was the seemingly
strange contradiction: Here is a National Board and President who
are attempting a significant alteration of the By-Laws and in
the attempt itself apparently don't consider the current By-Laws
important enough to conform to.
The paradox resolves itself by focussing on the precise
*nature* of the By-Laws HQ is attempting to pass and that of
those being ignored. And the resolution is deeply disturbing
because it inadvertantly shines a terribly bright light on the
intentions operating behind the revisions. Notice: the By-Laws HQ
is trying to pass especially those that are clearly quite
upsetting to even some long-time members all concern shifting
financial and political power *from* members and Lodges and *to*
centralized control from HQ. The By-Laws being *ignored* in the
process of attempting to gain this control are precisely those
whose purpose it is to provide a *check* on the power of HQ;
those designed to provide the membership with full information in
an adequate and timely enough way to either vote with reason in
favor or organize the opposition needed to oppose; those meant
to assure that balloting is done in such a way as to make certain
that the process of balloting itself does not bias the results in
one direction or another. HQ is asking the membership to grant it
greater power and control at the same time as demonstrating it
can't be trusted to correctly use even the power it currently
has.
And I'm not sure what is more upsetting ... the thought that
these By-Laws were *purposely* avoided in an attempt to
accomplish the revisions before opposition could build or the
thought that those at HQ consider the opinion of the membership
to be of so little relevance that they didn't even think it
important to follow the By-Laws designed to protect the members'
voices.
Any institution that governs itself as a democracy or a
representative republic exists by virtue of the maintenance of
carefully balanced power. The brilliance of democracy is that it
begins with the assumption that individuals are autonomous beings
possessed of free will integrity and the right to participate
in choices affecting them while at the same time recognizing
that these individuals are imperfect beings. Democracy is now
relatively taken for granted at least in some places but we
must remember that it really is a relatively new idea or rather
an old idea whose widespread practice is relatively new that it
is a profoundly *spiritual* idea and to be an effective *leader*
in a democracy requires an integrated mature human psyche ...
capable of being *other-oriented*.
This is the case even in national democracies where the
state has the coercive power of legitimate force to impose its
will. But it is doubly the case when the organization is a
completely voluntary association of individuals who can easily
just leave the organization if they begin to feel as though they
are treated as *subjects of* rather than *participants in* the
organization.
I have worked with several public interest non-profits and
work daily to build membership and involvement in one currently
and as I was at a meeting today just after reading the post I'm
responding to here containing several Board members the
Executive Director and a project coordinator I was struck by
the fact the while we were engaged in the planning of a somewhat
large project that required us to make a series of decisions the
entire discussion was completely pervaded by the thought that *we
were acting on behalf of the membership* ... and in fact a couple
decisions that would possibly slightly alter the ideological
tenor of the organization were postponed with the agreement that
each of us would personally speak to a number of members to get a
sense of what would be acceptable to the membership as a whole.
That is as is the case with many such organizations while we
were at Headquarters and certainly had the *legal* power to do
whatever we wished we did not for a moment forget that we
existed *at the pleasure of the membership and as agents of its
will*: That our role was not to attempt to go against its wishes
but rather to focus and pragmatically express them.
Perhaps some of the *problem* with the current TSA is that
its various Trusts to some degree insulate its leadership from
needing to pay attention to the membership. Membership could drop
in half and the salaries of the staff and the heating bill at
Wheaton would still get paid. This is positive in that it permits
HQ to operate in something other than crisis mode which many
non-profits do but can easily be very negative ... as it allows
the President and Board to pursue their own personal visions
oblivious to whether they are at all in tune with the membership
and without even defining and analyzing whether they are
successful. The TSA leadership seems to operate as though the
moment it is elected it no longer even needs to reference the
membership or even in fact reference the By-Laws that
*require* it to reference the membership in some actions.
This is now so internalized that members have become
accustomed to judging by this standard which only looks strange
when compared to other organizations ... for instance several
people have lately mentioned that if serious opposition
continued and positive suggestions were made John Algeo would
be open to listening to them though none of even his supporters
have implied he would actually feel compelled to *act* on what he
heard - and this is said almost as though this listening is a
gift he would give as though he it were a thing that
distinguished him as a leader. It is not a *virtue* for the
President of a voluntary democratic organization to *listen* to
its membership its a damn *minimum requirement*.
He is *not* our king our pope or our Master ... he is our
*EMPLOYEE*.
There has recently been discussions about the TSA's abysmal
membership retention record ... in which it is the norm that a
significant majority of new members leave after their first year;
various different conflicting theories have been put forward as
to exactly why this is but it occurs to me that this is the only
organization I've ever been involved with in which such a
discussion would take place at all. Any other organization would
consider such a retention rate as a *serious* problem ... and
would not *theorize* for years as to why it was the case but
would *find out* why. Why hasn't a substantial study been done?
Why hasn't a statistically significant sample of those who
silently left been *polled* by phone or mail ... *asked* why they
left? Obviously Theosophy still has a potent magnetic force
somewhere within it or it wouldn't attract so many in the first
place ... what then is the *equally powerful* force that then
repels so many it attracted? And why isn't this even considered
important enough to find out? Why in short do we not consider
that there is any obligation to adjust the expression of
Theosophy to the changing culture and era we live in live in
with the Humanity we are allegedly supposed to be serving.
Perhaps because it seems as though an unstated attitude
throughout HQ and held by some members as well is that TS
membership is a *gift* granted by HQ to petitioners ... almost
as though its believed that those who leave weren't ready for or
worthy of the gift.
But to be very blunt just *what is this gift*? Why should
someone join or remain a member? For the teachings? Well the
books are available or can be ordered in almost any bookstore.
I sure don't need HQ to study the Secret Doctrine. For the Quest
magazine? Also can be purchased on the newsstand. Certainly not
for the AT ... which is no longer the member's forum HQ *promised
the membership it would be* when it split from Quest but is now
an ideologically controlled platform.
To be even blunter *why should I pay HQ $30.00 a year why
should my Lodge make the effort to keep members current in their
dues for the privilege of being told by HQ what we must study if
we want to continue having the honor of giving HQ our money?*.
"Well" some might say "that's a selfish attitude ... our
ideal is an ideal of service". And this feeling keeps some from
leaving because HQ has carefully over the years cultivated the
feeling that supporting the TS is identical with supporting
*Theosophy* that somehow membership in the TSA is a *link* to a
current generated by the Masters and hence a link to the
Masters. That in essence supporting the TSA is somehow *serving
the Masters*. This *was* the case *when HPB was alive and the
Masters actively involved*. But as harsh as it is to question
this link is by no means any longer the case and IMO we must
be pragmatic about the fact that belief in this link permits the
possibility of great abuses. [The same formula that shows up far
more clearly when glimpsed on a lower curve of the spiral is
what permits people like Jim Jones and David Koresh to do what
they did to their followers: link yourself to a "higher power"
Jesus in their cases convince followers that to remain
connected to you is to remain connected to that power that to
*leave you is to break connection with the power* and you can
literally lead people to their *deaths* without causing them to
defect].
We are I believe *confusing* our spirituality with our
politics instead of *integrating* our spirituality *into* our
politics.
The confusion ... allows small groups of people to
periodically take control of HQ pursue their pet project send
friends on speaking engagements all over the country hire
friends and even relatives and engage in all sorts of behavior
that in most other organizations would cause serious drops in
membership - that is to *use the devotion to the Masters in
members for their own ends*. If for a moment we look at the
behavior of HQ separate it from Theosophy and judge it by the
standards we would judge any other non-profit service
organization it appears as though we are witnessing what is
nothing other than an outright bald-faced power-grab
deliberately planned and pursued with intensely manipulative
means that HQ has not even bothered to hide. The confusion
between politics and spirituality has permitted it to go this
far as people *want* to believe in good motives at HQ *want* to
give the actions a positive interpretation ... and some few
perhaps even wish to believe that the Masters are still guiding
the actions of HQ no doubt as the result of Radha's prayers tee
hee. And HQ offers explanations designed to satisfy. But *come
on* were spirituality and politics not confused could anyone
*really* believe that *spending a quarter of a million of our
dollars suing one of our own Lodges* was the exercise of pure
intentions in the service of Theosophy?
*Integrating* our spirituality into our politics would mean
something entirely different ... would mean that we wanted to
make our organization itself into a living practical expression
of our philosophy. It would mean we wouldn't consider it
wonderful when our leadership managed to *come up to* the
standards of the average modern non-profit but would want as an
organization to be setting an exemplary standard of
organizational conduct. To be trying to demonstrate what the
teachings of the Masters *look like in practice* ... trying to
demonstrate what a service organization would look like run
without games and manipulation by people striving to act with
genuinely pure intent ... assuming its membership to be fully
capable of self-determination at the Lodge level and composed of
souls who it is a true honor to be given the privilege to serve
seeing the membership not as a pile of unruly children that must
be coerced and can't even be trusted with "complex" information
but rather as composed of a hidden brilliance that simply needs
to be *unleashed* ... a membership that then radiates this
attitude outward into the world seeing humanity not as so many
"masses" mostly too dim to be "ready" for Theosophy but as
billions of heroic souls together beginning the long hard climb
out of the densest spiral into matter who need - not
condescension but rather living breathing *models* of
*conscious travellers of the road* who will embrace them ... with
the intention of reminding them of the star within their cores -
reminding them of that home we all left so terribly long ago.
-JRC