sharing

It appears the Board of Governors of the Cosanti Foundation is attempting to position the Foundation, and Arcosanti, as an elite quality academic institution, or, I should say, to extend its capacities as such, which is, I think, a good thing. But there's an inherent contradiction which I also think could cause problems, if it isn't addressed. The Foundation and Arcosanti are positioned, essentially by design, and as a function of their heritage, in opposition to some aspects of what Elite Academia represents.

The very word, Elite, might be a useful reference point, here. It is, often enough, a pejorative, but that does not concern me. Hierarchies work, and are the underpinning for much that is good. Good and bad are always intermixed. Improperly managed hierarchies lead to trouble, and everything is improperly managed, but properly managed hierarchical environments can manage these problems, and be enduring sources of good in the world.An exploration of this dynamic was, I think, perhaps in a somewhat unconscious way, but, at the same time, quite overtly, even in an exceptional way (like a kind of theater) central to Paolo Soleri's work and thought. Where do we stand?

Extending Arcosanti's presence as an Elite institution is consistent with its heritage, and its mission, but what about its heritage and mission of inclusion? A group of many hundreds of persons was attracted, over the passing years, by that ethic. They were not the rare types who become elites in hierarchies, but they had aspirations, and Arcosanti gave them a unique opportunity, even if only fleetingly, to pursue those aspirations. So, they devoted themselves to Arcosanti with unique fervor. Because of that, Arcosanti now owes them a kind of debt. It is difficult for Arcosanti and the Cosanti Foundation to ignore them. And yet, not ignoring them is also problematic.

Let's analyze the psychology of these people a little. They are not particularly interested in the mechanics of hierarchical organizations. They may even be particularly disinterested. Tact is a key technology in politics - and we are talking about politics. They may not be as tactful as one would desire. They often make unreasonable demands. They may simply demand that Arcosanti (i.e., The Foundation) implement their ideas, and provide them with opportunities, and resources. This, Arcosanti is under no obligation to do, and cannot be reasonably expected to do. But Arcosanti does owe them a debt, a fact which Arcosanti is, somewhat painfully, aware of. What is the true nature of this debt, and how can Arcosanti fulfill it? I propose that the true nature of this debt is listening, and that this is something Arcosanti can do.

Listening may sound simple, but, of course, it is not. But, what people don't understand is, you don't need to act on someone's suggestion to qualify as a "listener". All you really need to do is let them know they have been "heard". Well, that, too, is not as simple as it sounds. When you are trying to adjust, you swing between adjusting too far one way, and then too far the other way. You can't just say "we hear you". That might help, but it's kind of like nothing. What can you do that isn't, like, dropping everything to do what they say, and that isn't, at the same time, just saying you heard them? You can act as a kind of forum. That's what we - this is very much "we", it's very much "me" - really, truly, want. The foundation has an audience, and also, it has a certain kind of expertise. An expert can act as a kind of editor. Maybe the foundation doesn't need to share every stupid comment it receives, but, if it tries to responsibly select what's important, and share that with its resource, its audience ... ... ....