Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: "Flakey" Problem

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Werklund School of Education Werklund School of Education Research & Publications 2021-01-21 Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: "Flakey" Problem Fisher, Robert M. Fisher, R. M. (2021). Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: "Flakey" Problem. "In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute, technical paper No. 118". pp. 1-21. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112993 technical report Unless otherwise indicated, this material is protected by copyright and has been made available with authorization from the copyright owner. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: “Flakey” Problem R. Michael Fisher © 2021 Technical Paper No. 118 In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 2 Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: “Flakey” Problem Copyright 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the pub- lisher/author. No permission is necessary in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, or other educational or research purposes. For information and permission address correspond- ence to: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 920A- 5 Ave. N. E., Calgary, AB T2E 0L4 Contact author(s): [email protected] First Edition 2021 Cover and layout by R. Michael Fisher ISOF Logo (original 1989) designed by RMF Printed in Canada The In Search of Fearlessness Institute is dedicated to research and publishing on fear, fearlessness and emotions and motivational forces, in general, as well as critical reviews of such works. Preference is given to works with an integral theoretical perspective. 2 3 Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: “Flakey” Problem 1 R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D. ©2021 Technical Paper No. 118 Abstract With the recent publication by Fisher (2020) of The Marianne Williamson Presi- dential Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution in a Dangerous Time, the author has noticed patterns of critiques against Williamson and her work, of which are often exaggeratedly mis-placed, stereotypic, and dismissive. In this paper he argues there are more important lessons to learn from her work in order to undermine the critics’ formation of ‘the Other’ in regard to who she is and what she has to offer democracy today and in the future. The labelling of “flakey” is one such criticism that negatively circulates and persists. The author gives examples of this criticism and analyzes how it is oppressive in itself, that is, if there isn’t more than just that label being applied. He also shows how Williamson has responded to this criticism (the author calls, a form of intellectual supremacy) and in some ways she has fed into it. If we want to improve how we relate to each other as all having something to offer to the political sphere, while remaining critical in a healthy civil sense, this paper will demonstrate how to re-vise such labelling and its un-useful results. 1 Fisher is an Adjunct Faculty member of the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. He is an educator and fearologist and co-founder of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ) and Research Institute (1991- ) and lead initiator of the Fear- lessness Movement ning (2015- ). The Fearology Institute was created by him recently to teach international students about fearology as a legitimate field of studies and profession. He is also founder of the Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education and is Depart- ment Head at CSIIE of Integral & 'Fear' Studies. Fisher is an independent scholar, public intellectual and pedagogue, lecturer, author, consultant, researcher, coach, artist and Principal of his own company (http://loveandfearsolutions.com). He has four leading-edge books: The World’s Fearlessness Teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century (University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield), Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue (Xlibris) and Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer (Peter Lang), Fear, law and criminol- ogy: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism (Xlibris); India, a Nation of Fear and Prejudice (Xlibris); The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon (Peter Lang). Currently, he is developing The Fearology Institute to teach courses. He can be reached at: [email protected] 3 4 Following A Great Leader: Marianne D. Williamson (1952- ) Like a lot of people, I have an ‘eye’ for detecting a great leader. Well, at least, I think I do. Of course, what I think is a great leader, another may think they are ‘crap.’ However, the issue is not just what I think, feel, speak, or what another does—but more importantly, what homework they or I have done to make a reasonable case for the grounds of declaring a great leader. In parallel, the same is true for others or myself declaring a crappy leader. Who do we want to ‘vote’ for? The above sense of a praxis and discipline I am suggesting for assessment of leaders is of an investigative critical reflective method, which is more than a little challenging. Few people want to put that time and care into it. They likely use much less rigorous research to support their shallow interpretations and labels for leaders. They most typically fall into ‘projections’ as psychodynamic reaction formations in which they make “leaders” ‘good parent vs. bad parent’ (or even more unconscious choices2). I believe leadership quality is so important, that I’ve made it an ethical imperative to give leaders (of all kinds) the benefit of the doubt. That means, to give them respect as a foundation based on the reality that they have achieved a 2 Psychoanalysis (and fearanalysis) offers explanations for how “authority” figures, be they real, fictional (imagined) play out as useful ‘object’ projections of defense mechanisms (i.e., fear-based patterning of deficit, wish-fulfillment, need-seeking). At the deepest Id level, in a Freudian framework, the most primal (via unconscious body-based primary processing) of the psyche is involved in assessing whether the leader/authority figure is going to be a ‘bad breast’ vs. ‘good breast’ (i.e., following the motivation of the pleasure principle or reality principle—which, on a metaphysical level is linked with the archetypal meta-motivational binary of, respectively, Love vs. Fear). Can a leader be trusted or not? (is the affective di- mension in Eriksonian psychodynamic theory) and then Bowlby and attachment theorists would locate this tensional motivation psychodynamic within “bonding” terms with earliest caregivers. For example, ‘Am I going to be abandoned or not?’ You can see that a lot of psychic ‘baggage’ is going on when anyone comes to find a ‘leader’ to focus on, even if only for a short period. Categorizations and labeling of such leader-types is fraught with this “irrational” (says Freud), and I would say “arational” and “irrational” (says Ettinger, and Fisher & Bickel), etc. But this is too complex of a topic for this technical paper. Suffice it to say, little “rational” assessment is going on, at least, that’s the theory I would argue for. I also say this, because I have been a conscious leader in the field of education, therapy, and liberation work since the early 1980s and much of what I am discussing in this technical paper comes from the field of lived experience—both how I have been psychically projected upon and attacked and loved; and, how I have also done likewise, no doubt, to other leaders. My focus of self-critique has always been to ask myself how need, fear, woundedness within myself is involved in my relationships with leaders and my conceptualizations of what is leadership itself—what is great and what is not. This is some of the theory behind my notion (claim) in the first sentence of this technical paper: “I have an ‘eye’ for detecting a great leader.” 4 5 ‘leadership’ ambience and following, of some magnitude. That is not ordi- nary because not everyone can do so. Thus, I do not want to only make quick labels and emotional responses alone. And because I have taken on as a researcher to write and publish some major works on potent leaders in the wide-world (e.g., Ken Wilber,3 Don Trent Jacobs (aka Four Arrows)4 and most recently Marianne Williamson5), there has had to be a sufficient vetting of my own relationships with these people and their leadership. I wanted to avoid mis-guided interpretations of them and their work, and their relationship to movements of social importance. Hopefully I can por- tray some of my experience (and lessons learned) from those ventures here in this technical paper. Anytime I can find a living example of a great leader (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi is one of my top favs), and someone my age and part of my genera- tion (i.e., Boomers), then I am even more astute to follow them closely, in learning from their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to me as a professional educator to ‘see through’ what it is that they are teaching. That means sorting through their own ‘story’ of who they are and what they represent but also sorting through their critics’ views of that too. Basically, I want to support leaders who have great offerings to help hu- manity emancipate itself from its ‘chains.’ At the same time, I am always critical and unending in asking more questions of such leaders, whether they engage with me in real or not.

Load more