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

Technical Paper No. 118

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

Interpreting the Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: “Flakey” Problem

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.

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 generation (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 humanity 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. That’s why I write. To put out my views and let the world decide how it wants to engage my questions and points of view. That’s a big part of my professional work as an educational philosopher, who has specialized in “leadership” for many decades.

Looking for “Fearless Leadership”

Okay, I want to stop and assess my own statement (above): “I want to support leaders who have great offerings to help humanity”... etc. That sounds nice. I sound like a good person wanting to do that because it seems so obviously a good thing, right? Do I have a lurking unquenched need to ‘be

3 See Fisher (1997). This study of Ken Wilber and his critics specifically, was a great foundation of learning for me. In the genre of intellectual history/biography, I continue to be fascinated with leaders and their critics, and that back n’ forth relationship they create—as a “phenomenon” of social importance. 4 See, for e.g., Fisher (2018). 5 See for e.g., Fisher (2020).

5 6 good.’ To prove I am ‘good.’ Proving that I (‘hey look at me’) ought to be popular, successful, and great like those I study?

These are (necessary) troubling questions that my own critical praxis of leadership and scholarship have to engage. I am categorizing thus, my work as always (so far) to do with ‘great offerings’ from great, or even good, leaders. Am I attempting a ‘golden shadow’ identity-attachment and positive self-esteem imaginary here, as I take on these great leaders as a subject of study? That all sounds pretty biased ‘cherry picking’ doesn’t it? I have some doubts about my own integrity (in part) in re: to how I have gone about this research on “leadership” and my campaign for how to advance “fearless leadership.”6 For what is striking me in this moment, as perhaps a glaring weakness or ‘sign’ (or symptom), is that I have chosen (or unconsciously proceeded to) not to study ‘crappy’ or ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ leaders—that is, bad as in my value-estimation or the estimation of others. Some historians and analysts have focused a lot of their research on study- ing such bad leaders. With good merits, in order to caution us all against what happens in history when we under-estimate a ‘bad’ leader in the early stages of their rise to power. Anyways, that’s not yet been part of my work focus per se. Albeit, my work on leadership does point out the great need for developing a critical literacy on fear and fearlessness, an expanded vo- cabulary, and net theorizing. My aim with that agenda is to provide people with ‘better tools’ to detect fear-based anything—including, parents, teach- ers, therapists, ministers—and, yes, I am talking about ‘leaders.’ We don’t need more fear-based leaders in this world! Regarding, the study of such ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ leaders—hmmm.. Maybe it should now interest me more, or at least, I ought to consider it.7 But, for now, I’ll move on.

Predominant in my interest, and in particular, I study good-to-great leaders, utilizing a specialist arm of fearanalysis, fearology, etc.—that is, with an acute and unique lens and purpose (I’ve also called it a fearlessness perspective or paradigm or theory—or “fearless standpoint theory”8), as I wrote in my dissertation (Fisher, 2003),

6 Since founding of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ), my dominant mo- dus operandi was to discover how to become a “fearless leader” and how to support that development for myself as well as for others who could become such. In Fisher (2003), I write an entire doctorate dissertation devoted to this. I am still on this mission. 7 The one exception (in part, see a few Chapters), is my including Donald Trump’s leadership as 45th President of the USA, in my book on Marianne Williamson (Fisher, 2020). 8 For e.g., see Fisher (2008, 2019e).

6 7

Abstract: There are many types of leaders and leadership but rare is it to find leaders operating from a fearless standpoint, like that of the sacred warrior traditions, where the very con- struct of ‘fear’ is seen as the “first enemy” and is thoroughly critiqued. If we are living in a ‘Fear’ Matrix where ‘fear’ rules and shapes our personalities, organizations, leadership and pedagogy, then a new kind of leadership in education is required—especially, in a post-September 11th context with a cancerous “culture of fear” and violence (terrorism). (p. ii)

Recently, I found a quick way to summarize “fearlessness” and why I think it is a better (or at least, more strategic to this moment in history) approach than “love.” That’s a long battle I have been in since late-1989. But to be short, I came up with a couple phrases to capture my critique:

Love is letting go of fear... However, Fearlessness is learning from fear.

I have only begun to ferret out this whole contradistinction here and will not pursue it further at this point. I think you can somewhat grasp my view of fearlessness, contra love, from this short set of phrasing.

Indeed, I am always looking for “fearless” leaders. The difference I have with most people however who are also looking for such fearless great leaders, is that I give an awful lot of attention as to how to best define what “fearless” (and/or fearlessness) means. I ask how is it possible to accurately determine what is fearless and what is a faux fearlessness, that latter more based on bravado (as counterphobic reaction formation defense). I ask how intelligent is the fearless leader, the great leader—when it comes to a thor- ough and wise and compassionate understanding of the nature and role of fear (and ‘fear’) in our history as a species and in our everyday lives today? Yes, you could say I have a rather unique ethical (and political) high-bar I hold for great leaders. I do all this because I see we as a species have a great Fear Problem, that we are not yet willing fully to commit to and try to solve. We do need great leaders to take us into that territory, guide us when we get lost, and we need to be able to trust that they know (somewhat) what they are doing. They need to be experts in fear and its ways. I guess I have self-appointed my scholarly-self to research this all and be a vigilant ‘informer’ to the public on just how well the ‘leaders’ in our world are fair- ing?

7 8

To my delight, one such living ‘expert’ (exemplar) is Marianne William- son (Figure 1). At least, that is a case I make. She is a phenomenal 20-21st century new kind of leader, as seen from the therapeutic and spiritual realm as most obvious for most of her career—but has migrated into the political realm. She ran for the leadership of the Democratic Party in 2020 (for e.g., among a few other overt political campaigns, going back to 2014). She is gaining a reputation of international exposure; and to me, she has to be historically and politically acknowledged as someone (a woman) who stood up and ran for President of the United States of America—and, faced-off head-to-head (metaphorically) against President Donald Trump and all he represents. No small feat. Of course, she didn’t make through the Primaries in early 2020, before she had to drop out for many reasons.

“There is a groundswell of people in America who are seeking higher wisdom.... -Marianne 2020 website

In this chaotic world, we need leaders. But we don’t need bosses. We need leaders to help us develop the clear identity that lights the dark moments of confusion. -(Sanders, 2019)

Figure 1: Marianne Williamson (book cover image) early 1990s.

I particularly collected this photo of Williamson to reprint here, because it is so not the typical kind of image of a philosopher, person, educator, activist, rebel, and (r)evolutionary that I tend to follow, and certainly it is not typical of the kind of radical people I like to research and write about. To be blunt, she is not a straightforward looking “Sacred Warrior” of which I most admire—albeit, one has to ask carefully, then why is it she has been

8 9 named very powerful archetypal labels as a leader (e.g., Goddess,9 gladiator,10 and many more)?

Figure 1 tells a lot. She is a well-dressed “populist” leader—best known as a new thought minister and motivational speaker on the public circuits of what you could call the Human Potential Movement, and/or New Age and Wellness genre—that is, “self-help” author/guru. Figure 1 is a slick studio- lit nice image of a typical totally confident, trustable, proper, upper middle class professional and business person—not to forget to mention, it is the stereotypic image of thousands of book and magazine covers of successful people and best-selling authors11—at least, in American culture (i.e., celebrity look). It is again, a long ways away from territories I hang out in and feel comfortable in.

Yet, with Williamson, something else pulled me in...deeper in...and unex- pectedly deeper in and further than I wanted at first. Yes, decade after decade—I could not ignore her as a “teacher” for a whole great percentage of the population around the world; but mainly in (North) America. She is a ‘star’ iconic contemporary celebrity in her own right. I capture some of that story in my new book “The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenome- non: Cultural (R)Evolution in a Dangerous Time” (Fisher, 2020). I won’t repeat all that background here. You can also go on Wikipedia to get a quick summary of her life and work, her fans views and her critics views. The first biography on her, written in the early 1990s, is also a good read, albeit it is biased towards mostly all positive things.12 I consider myself both a supporter and critic—both positive and negative re: all things Marianne Williamson.

My homework on this great (world) leader13 began casually c. 1993. I had founded and was directing the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute then, when a colleague tells me I should read Williamson. I found a few of her inspirational popular books, and I heard she had also written a book on “healing of America.” Yet at the time, I was only interested in taking down

9 For e.g., Busch (2019). Oumano (1992), attempting to counter popular over-in- flation of the perfectionist deification of MW, wrote her last chapter on MW: “Not a Goddess” (p. 268). 10 For e.g., Sanders (2019). 11 Of the some 13+ books, four as no. 1 NY Best-sellers listed. 12 Oumano (1992). 13 Indeed, I have gone so far out on a limb, to claim “my vote” for her as a world leader (Fisher, 2020d).

9 10 some quotes for my research on how people think, talk, write and teach about fear. Indeed, she did a lot of writing about fear and love. But I was not much interested in politics per se, at the time. However, she was very interested in politics, and it was that combination with her deep philosophical interest in the relationship between Love and Fear (a la especially, through the teachings of A Course in Miracles14) that held her up as a good-to-great leader in my mind. I then read some of The Course that had changed Williamson’s life in a major transformative way. “Fear” was talked about a good deal as the opposite of “Love”—but, theologically and philosophically (esoterically) it argued (as does Williamson to this day), that “fear” isn’t even real. Now, that had my attention back then, and still does now. Controversial as such a claim is, what is more controversial is that a contemporary leader in the political sphere is working with that as the operative assumption behind her work. Wow!

Problem of Intellectual Supremacy: Intellectualism

From the start of reading Williamson’s work, I was a serious investigator in all things philosophical. I wondered how scholarly was her claims about “fear”—which, happened to be my expertise as an independent scholar and educator. I wanted to understand and if necessary challenge her on her views. That’s a long story... but in the late fall of 2018, I picked up her trail as I heard she was going to run for the Office of Presidency in the US election. Wow.

That means a lot for someone of any background, but she was coming from a really unique human potential and consciousness background in many ways. She was (California) spiritual-based in her views and teachings— and, I had to know how she was going to pull that off. Californian thought had infiltrated the ‘edges’ of Canadian society since the 1960-70s (i.e., Boomer’s generation—and, it impacted me greatly too). How was she going to keep people’s attention today, and get them to understand her views without having total resistance? I knew how hard that task was.

She was anything but mainstream in her spiritual thinking. However, she was mainstream (more or less) in her motivational lecturing work and her own image as a celebrity in America (she had been on Oprah’s TV pro- gram several times). In 2018, I couldn’t believe her “politics” would fly. But she was trying it out. And, I knew she was going up against not just the

14 See Foundation of Inner Peace (1975).

10 11 dominating (rather reductionist-materialist) views of the general society but also the views of Donald Trump and his supporters who put him into the Presidency in 2016. I later found out during her campaign that a very big reason for her running in 2020 was because of her total dislike of everything Trump stood for in American society and the political sphere. She would be his most extreme challenger—that’s why I designed my new book cover with them both head-to-head (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Fisher’s (2020) book cover.

With that bit of background, let me share now why I am writing this Tech. Paper #118, and why I will write a few more on “interpretations of the Ma- rianne Williamson Phenomenon.” But just before I do that, you ought to know you can at any time stop reading this specific paper and go to my other free technical papers online about “Marianne Williamson” and/or go to my videos on her and her presidency, that is, her “ethical leadership,” as I’ve labeled it. In these writings and teachings, I point out strengths and weaknesses and how she could have done some things different to be more effective in the 2020 campaign run. I offer lessons for growth—of her, and

11 12 all of us—that is, lessons in best understanding great leadership in “dangerous times” (as my book title suggests).

So, for other Technical Papers on Williamson, just enter a Google Search with her name and my name and you ought to find most of them. For videos (see Fisher, 2020a, b, c; Fisher 2019a, b, c, d). A main feature of my work with this “subject” which she is, is to focus on the “phenomenon” itself as best I can. I encourage others to do that as well, so as not to overly focus on her personality and personhood in critiques. That said, it is complex to define what I mean by the “Marianne Williamson Phenomenon” just as with the “Donald Trump Phenomenon” (this latter term was used by Williamson in the campaign). I am more interested in, and I think it is generally more useful to leadership learning, to focus on the ecological systems and relational complexity of what happens when everything that Williamson represents and promotes entangles (conflicts) with ‘the wide world’ (i.e., American society and history). The fact is, dialectically speaking, no one person is a separate island alone, they are, their movement they promote, shaped intensely by their environment and circumstances—and, they in turn co-shape the environment and circumstances—more or less. It is a mutual co-creation going on—a process of ongoing evolution.

That’s how one thinks from a systems theory perspective. I know William- son herself sees her approach as “systems” based, and so I respect that and try to analyze her life and work also within that lens. I also believe it is more holistic and integral to do so than using other less-comprehensive ap- proaches—that latter making that mistake of reductionism, especially, when they overly focus on her personality.

Now, why I am writing this new series of technical papers from #118 on- ward, is because I see that critics of Williamson tend to make reduction- istic errors and overly label (if not dismiss) Williamson and the phenomenon around her. That is a short-circuiting of good learning and wisdom, as far as I am concerned. It is too narrow. I want to counter-balance that im- balance of views. So, I ask you to learn with me here—and to be patient, because in this new series of technical papers I’ll pull out some of the more glaring of the negative labels laid upon her and her work by critics. I support critics for sure. I am a critic. However, there is good criticism and not so good. I am looking to inform all who care to read here, that there are better alternatives to simple use of labels to demean and create stereotypes that are with little (although, maybe with some) truth.

12 13

I now wish to turn to the main topic of this paper—that of the labeling of Williamson as “flake” or “flakey.” And, other terms have been used over the years, and especially during the campaign run of 2020.15

During my research for the new book I saw a lot of these types of labels. Overall, the label flakey is meant to demean someone and their views because they don’t fit your comfortable view of the world and your identity formation that is tied up with your view—which, you think is the ‘norm’ or at least you think it ought to be the ‘norm.’ So, an ‘Other’ view or person is therefore immediately labeled flakey—as a code word for ‘abnormal’— and, that means there is something ‘wrong’ with them. Meaning, don’t pay them heed—or worse, destroy their views or them. Now, that may not be a conscious opponent either who is using flakey as a label. I think it often is just a simple way to put someone down as ‘less’ intelligent than you are. However, the deeper implication, arguably, is that one labels someone flakey because they actually have serious and oppositional views, worldviews, values, ideas, and politics, than you do.

I personally avoid projecting this label on others, as I’ve come to learn how dangerous it is for perpetuating not White Supremacy (necessarily) but Intellectual Supremacy (a form of classism, by any other name)—which crosses all borders and places and is often way more hidden beneath the surface of toxic refuge, than say racism. We could call it intellectualism as well—a form of oppression that categorizes people in terms of lesser and more intelligent (lesser and more educated)—but is done as merely a sub- jective evaluation and often (typically) without doing research on the one that is being so labeled. It is thus a reactive formation of a form of oppres- sion16. Very hurtful. I believe it hurts (i.e., traumatizes and terrorizes at

15 “New Agey” or “woo woo” or a lot worse terms have been used. But the one’s mentioned are also linked to “flakey” for sure. I’ll focus here only on “flakey” just for easy of not having to make this too long of a paper, and to hit on the main points I want to raise. That said, a more much detailed and deep analysis could be done and ought to be done in the near future—to better understand what all this labeling in these categories specifically is about, where it comes from, and how we all may take part in it (even unconsciously)—if we are not more careful with our thoughts and speech and writing and teaching. 16 More subtle reading here, would also have to involved looking at how such intellectual supremacy relates to internalized oppression and externalized oppression, and to look historically (and psychoanalytically, and fearanalytically) at the past disourses around classism and education. Way beyond the scope of this paper. But again, as I mentioned in an earlier footnote, “authority” (power, status, privilege) is drenched in this phenomenon of intellectual supremacy.

13 14 some level) the whole society—creating more divisiveness and inclusive vs. exclusive and ‘classism’ etc. It is violent and self-reinforcing. It tries to divide the well-educated (so called) or “heavy weight” thinkers from the other lower ones, not so educated or intelligent—as just “light weight” thinkers.

I came across this personally in a communique with an American colleague in a philosophy department in an American university, after I showed them my book cover and some of the inside materials in the book. To be clear, I have no vendetta with this colleague, we hardly know each other at all, and I do not know their work at all. It was quite ‘innocent’ what they wrote in their initial email response to my book but it is also not innocent when looked at as a pattern, and in light of the historical kinds of problems it represents and reproduces in American society (and, yes, it could be anywhere in the world—and, this colleague is like so many others who use the term ‘flakey’ and think nothing of it).

Their email goes like this (quoting):

"I will definitely take a closer look at this book; I had her in the 'flake' category until now....Congratulations on this publication. And as you say, this book might be relevant to another election yet!"

A couple of triggers for such an honest response from them (which I actually appreciate in that honesty is good, like it or not)—was because this person must have read one or more of the book endorsements in the book brochure I sent. The first book endorsement (Review) is from another sen- ior scholar, this one in the field of philosophy and communications. I know Dr. R. Auxier is quite a politically-minded advocate and has run for office locally a few times. Auxier wrote in the endorsement (appropriately and as a way to connect with other readers he suspected were likely to think negatively at first like he did when the name Marianne Williamson arose up):

Dr. Fisher has made a case study of her “transformational leadership” arguing (critically at times) that the key to her success was an ability to meet fear fearlessly. Why does her message resonate now....Why is there such tension between those who want to push her away, call her a flake, avoid the obvious and real spiritual impli- cations of our present politics?

Another book endorser, an American scholar in the field of social psychology, Dr. Solomon, wrote,

14 15

He [Dr. Fisher] makes a compelling case that Williamson’s is a serious and capable philosopher, educator, and nascent political activist, with a strong background in psychology and theology. This was an important revelation to me and I suspect will be for many readers, as I pre-emptively dismissed Williamson by lumping her with a raft of intellectual light-weights and outright frauds associated with New Age thinkers and self-help gurus.

If my new book does any good out in the world, may it at least turn a few more of the elite (or faux elite) thinkers (philosophers) to reconsider Williamson as an important intellectual (philosopher) of our times (among other things). The evidence is there, that professional philosophers in aca- demia (like the three above) have quick judgements about “flake” and “light-weights” when it comes to the intellectual sphere of discourse and relationships. Judge these professors how you may, that is not what I am interested here in doing, but rather I am showing how prevalent the meme is that one kind of intellectual can judge another person (or intellectual)— and just make the labeling stick. That’s not useful to anything I can tell, in terms of learning from each other. It rather sets up an immediate Fear Wall (i.e., Fire Wall) of defense and protection of one’s kingdom of elite intellectuals vs. ‘the Other’—and, quite frankly, the data I collected shows that such a Fear Wall is all over the place. It is not just in academic cultures that do this.

I want to give a few more examples from populations other than from academic professionals. But before that, I want to respond to my colleagues, across all disciplines, and/or people who see themselves as relatively intellectual superiors (in some way), that “intellectual” is a large and di- verse label itself. It has an important history, and today I believe an argu- ment can be made that the term is too narrowly applied and conceived— compared to what it used to mean. But I am not an expert on that history of the idea of the intellectual. What I know more about is that there is a term and concept from Antonio Gramsci,17 a great 20th century Italian Marxist sociological, critical thinker, and philosophical thinker, which is very ap- plicable to locate Marianne Williamson. That is, the Gramscian idea of “organic intellectual”18 (overlapping with, but distinct from “public intellectual”). Organic intellectual, to be brief, is a person who arises from the populist (even mainstream) movements of the day, and is not with great formal university education, but has a lot of ‘street smarts’ as well as the

17 For e.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci 18 For e.g., see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/organic_intellectual

15 16 combination of ‘wisdom’ and is ‘well-read.’ In other words, they devel- oped their philosophical smarts through their biographical backgrounds, for example, where their families were very involved in social movements, politics, and ideas. They discussed big ideas, and debated, and learned to think hard. Jewish families generally do this, and Williamson’s family is no exception. She is a thinker and when that is put into use to liberate the people from oppressive situations, they become an “organic intellectual” and often a populist leader who can easily become charismatic and lead people—why? Because mostly people in the populist parts of society (but not only them) also appreciate a ‘smart person.’ They have to be a prag- matic person but they also have to be smart. Williamson definitely fits this bill. She even calls herself (and she is not alone) a “philosopher” (see my new book). I agree. She is an example of an important contemporary organic intellectual, political thinker and philosopher—and, a whole lot more.

Now, to some other examples of critics calling her a flake. One FB post in 2019, from someone responding to Williamson’s performance in the 2nd Democratic Leadership Debate wrote,

Kovar Surak She seemed less flakey than the 1st debate. But ... meh ... no thanks.

An anonymous author wrote an article during the campaign run:

“New age flake Marianne Williamson is running for Presi- dent”19

Another article made Gwyneth Paltrow (famous American actress and en- trepreneur who founded Goop), and her crew as “flakey” and, that’s only important in that Marianne Williamson has been continually endorsed overtly by Paltrow during the campaign run, and Paltrow’s business website referred to “Williamson as a ‘spiritual legend’.”20 Such Hollywood associations are not unusual in Williamson’s privileged life—going back to her high school years. The public and especially certain critics in the political sphere, are very cautious of any such associations of this kind. Paltrow is part of the ‘New Age’ box of label dumping that has been around for a

19 https://www.datalounge.com/thread/22504284-new-age-flake-marianne-williamson-is-running-for-president 20 According to Kurtz (2019).

16 17 long time, and lots of people have also called Williamson ‘New Age’ this or that—and, mostly not positive associations.

Again, one could find many more examples of the “flake” labeling of Wil- liamson and her work and politics. I mean, just by naming her latest book, penned just in readying herself to run for President in 2020, is “Politics of Love”—so, for most hard-nosed politically minded people, Left or Right, or in between—that is way too soft and ‘new agey’—indeed, yes, ‘flakey’—whether they will come out and say it in public print or on video, or not. They think it, so it exists. It exists as a quick diss and exclusion, en- abling a vicious ‘Othering’ that is already tearing the fabric of American society apart.

Flake = Fake!

The point is, such labeling is not just from academic philosophers and intellectuals, but from journalists and populist politically interested people— and, just about anyone can use that label. It is really hard to try to reverse that stereotyping once it has set out on a meme pattern in culture. And, one of the big reasons, not only, that Williamson never was able to rally enough of the general population to support her campaign in 2020 was just because they did not want to be seen as supporting and/or voting for (heaven for bid) a “flake”—which, by the way, you’ll notice is very close to the term “fake”—that is, a faux politician. I raise this because “flake” thinker is a labeling that is a fake thinker—or, is meant to demean someone because they may ‘sound smart’ to a lot of people (especially, in the populist) but when put in a relatively different circumstance of being in the company of serious heavy-weight thinkers, the “flake” falls well short of competing in that arena. It is clear to me that many would not support Williamson because she comes off ‘smart’ but not ‘smart enough’—and, really, mostly I believe that means: she comes off as political—but really she isn’t political enough. She’s a fake politician. Granted, there is some truth to that. And, granted, she never said she was a typical “politician” but rather, she was trying to re-write the script for a politician and a president all in one—while, she was applying for the ‘job.’ It didn’t work. This is one of the big lessons I write about in my new book (e.g., see Chapter 6).

She was not a politician. She tried to act like one, in part. But she couldn’t pull off that ‘character’ and ‘performance’ convincingly enough to gain enough funders, supporters and voters—i.e., she dropped out in advance of the 2020 Primaries, as she knew she would be slaughtered in the Primary poles. She’d be slaughtered because she was not a politician. There are

17 18 many levels of meaning for that claim. But let’s move on to her part in the way she gets labeled flake(y).

I write in my new book about how she tries to mix so many things into her political messaging that it confuses most people greatly. Albeit, not all. She mixes in her Course (esoteric) metaphysics, mysticism, feminism, spiritu- alism (witch talk), all with gut-level mainstream social justice and political discourse. Well, that’s a big mouthful and mindful bit to offer, which is great, but it cannot easily be received and likely will be misconceived. She will end up coming across as flakey because of all her layers of complexity thrown out and exposed (as she tends to do freely without often thinking before she mouths off)—and, so, flakey is like a metaphor for her, as too many layers, too thin of layers, and not a ‘solid’ enough base or even solid enough one or two layers.

Another reason, she gets into hot water quickly with serious-type and philosophical-type people, in or outside of political activism, is that she herself has for many many years been a critic of intellectuals. I know she would immediate gruff at such a suggestion, given it is a generality and is inaccu- rate relatively speaking. Sure, she loves some of what intellectuals have of- fered her in her own education. She comes from a Jewish background and respects its well-known intellectual valuation. She is product, as a thinker, and person, of such a background and privilege. Yet, when she gets a chance, she tends to throw her own set of darts at the intellectuals in a wide variety of domains, and, especially in the circles of the Left-wing political Intelligentsia (in America, in particular). Why? Because she is not ‘ac- cepted’ amongst the Left very well—as, my book details a large number of conflicts and negative labeling she received from them. This would be another paper to write someday but let me finish here.

If anyone wants to continue to swing labels bearing the flag and toxicity of Intellectual Supremacy—including, Williamson’s own slips in this direc- tion at times—there is a consequence that is not going to be pretty. This is not good dialogue, discourse for unity, peace, or even good debate. No, it is hurtful, if not traumatic. It creates more pernicious and oppressive ‘Other- ing’ in a society already, obviously, racked-n-ruined by creating enemies through ‘othering’ processess. It is all bred upon a fear-based patterning, that most people don’t see when they fling the darts and negatively label someone. It is especially worse, when they don’t even know them. They have made a premature judgement. They have not done their homework. Clearly, I am not against labeling people, movements, political positions, etc. They are helpful. I am merely saying they need to be used carefully.

18 19

Most critics don’t take the time and effort to do that. Most don’t have a good discipline or critical praxis to check up on themselves and their ‘words’ and ‘labels.’ Williamson has unfairly received more than her share. I have given some examples and reasons for this. But a lot more systematic study is required to better understand this phenomenon.

*****

References

Fisher, R. M. (2021). Hot button twin archetypes clash: Williamson vs. Trump. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4sYleZOf5g&t=250s

Fisher, R. M. (2020). The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution in a Dangerous Time. Peter Lang.

Fisher, R. M. (2020a). Lucile Scott, Marianne Williamson and feminist (r)evolution. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muekBKEasKg

Fisher, R. M. (2020b). Marianne Williamson Phenomenon: Chapter Six reading. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xesF3CTWz40&t=944s

Fisher, R. M. (2020c). Marianne Williamson: New book dives deeper. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBo66hjxMWg&t=249s

Fisher, R. M. (2020d). My ‘vote’ for Marianne Williamson as a world leader and educator. Retrieved from https://fearlessness movment.ning.com/blog/my-vote-for-marianne- williamson-as-world- leader-educator

Fisher, R. M. (2019a). Marianne Williamson: Fearmongering herself. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Satev8F7K14&t=35s

Fisher, R. M. (2019b). Marianne Williamson 3: Love and Fear. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJzLb6ALHPg&t=26s

19 20

Fisher, R. M. (2019c). New ethical leadership: Marianne Williamson 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHDlATRUYLM&t=1s

Fisher, R. M. (2019d). New ethical leadership: Marianne Williamson 1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyENboIzxc&t=8s

Fisher, R. M. (2019e). Fearless standpoint theory: Origins of FMS-9 in Arthur Schopenhauer’s work. Technical Paper No. 86. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (2018). Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer. Peter Lang.

Fisher, R. M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the ‘Fear’ Matrix. Unpublished dissertation. The University of British Columbia.

Fisher, R.M. (2008). Fearless standpoint theory: Orgins of FMS-9 in Ken Wilber’s work. Technical Paper No. 31. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (1997). A guide to Wilberland: Some common misunder- standings of the critics of Ken Wilber and his work on transpersonal theory prior to 1995. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(4), 30-73.

Foundation for Inner Peace (1975). A Course in Miracle. Foundation for Inner Peace.

Kurtz, J. (2019). Marianne Williamson to appear at Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop wellness summit. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/blogs/in- the-know/in-the-know/464293-marianne-williamson-to-appear-at- gwyneth-paltrows-goop-wellness

Oumano, E. (1992). Marianne Williamson: Her life, her message, her miracles. St. Martin’s Press.

Sanders, C. K. (2019). Marianne Williamson is the new gladiator. Retrieved from https://www.marianne2020.com/posts/marianne-wil liamson-is-the-new-gladiator

20 21

Semley, J. (2020). Psychedelic drugs have lost their cool. Blame Gwyneth Paltrow and her Goop. Retrieved from https://www.theguard ian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/17/psychedelic-drugs-have-lost- their-cool-blame-gwyneth-paltrow-and-her-goop

Williamson, M. (2020). Marianne 2020 website. Retrieved from https://marianne2020.com/