Near-Fearlessness Women Leaders and Their Shadow: U.S

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Werklund School of Education Werklund School of Education Research & Publications

2019-06-14 Near-Fearlessness Women Leaders and Their Shadow: U.S. Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson

Fisher, Robert Michael

Fisher, R. M. (2019). Near-Fearlessness Women Leaders and Their Shadow: U.S. Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson. 1-32. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110637 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

Near-Fearlessness Women Leaders and Their Shadow: U.S. Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 87

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

Near-Fearlessness Women Leaders and Their Shadow: U.S. Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson

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 2019

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

Near-Fearlessness Women Leaders and Their Shadow: U.S. Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson

- R. Michael Fisher,1 Ph.D.

Technical Paper No. 87

Abstract

Across the globe, there is a recent under-examined critical history of important, and relatively effective, leadership by women in political spheres (e.g., Aung San Suu Kyi, Marianne Williamson). The author situates these women within a unique and virtually unknown consciousness movement he calls the global Fearlessness Movement throughout time, across cultures, transcending party-political lines, and across vast geographies. From that position and his own critical integral fearanalysis of such women leaders, including his introduction of the reference for a new fearlessness psychology, this paper argues for the upside and downside (shadow) of such women’s leadership. He makes recommendations for how to avoid some of the pitfalls that such women leaders and their followers seem to inhabit unconsciously. Avoiding any kind of blame of only these women leaders, he takes his fearanalysis to a systems integrative understanding where there are multiple complex factors intersecting that add to the degree of the pitfall—a ‘Fall’ that all are susceptible to in the world of a ‘Fear’ Matrix and no more exacerbated and vulnerable is such a Fall as in the political sphere with its toxic, if not psychotic, patterns.

1 Fisher is an Adjunct Faculty member of the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. He is fearologist and co-founder of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ) and Research Institute (1991- ) and lead initiator of the Fearlessness 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 Department Head at CSIIE of Integral & 'Fear' Studies. Fisher is an independent scholar, public intellectual and peda- gogue, lecturer, author, consultant, researcher, coach, artist and Principal of his own com- pany (http://loveandfearsolutions.com). He has five leading-edge books: The World’s Fear- lessness 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 criminology: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism (Xlibris); India, a Nation of Fear and Prejudice (Xlibris). Currently, he is developing The Fearology Institute to teach courses. He can be reached at: [email protected]

3 4

Introduction to Women’s Leadership: A Radical View

“Radical” means “rooted” deeply—accessing the core wisdom of traditions and upgrading that into contemporary times—taking the best from the past and present and creatively synthesizing a new radical root of nourishment and sourcing for a ‘better’ way to live in the future. Simply, this is called integrative radicality or better yet holisitc-integral radicality.

I am not an advocate of being radical because it is ‘cool’ and one way to resist the status quo and prove oneself as superior as to not be trapped in the status quo and to not be timid, asleep and conformist. All those awakening and resisting qualities of the radical/rebel spirit I truly love and have long followed as my own mission to make the ‘world a better place.’ The status quo is no god! One has to pull out eventually to see the status quo for both its strengths and gifts and its inevitable weaknesses (and, yes, often its pathologies). I am no fan of a fear-based society (i.e., a “culture of fear”) where excess fear, mistrust, conformity is oppressing everyone, more or less. Unfortunately, I see most everywhere deeply rooted in the fear-dis-ease! More on that later.

So, I believe in (good and healthy) rebellion. Yet, at the age of 67 I have learned a lot about the need to re-envision radicality itself for real progress in the evolution of consciousness and humanity. We need (and desire) healing and transformation regarding our relationship as a species with all beings—and with a sacred sensitivity to the environment and the cosmos itself. I’ll share after this introduction many things, and yet most important I’ll share my deep intuition and my actual practices as a leader of Fearlessness (since 1989)—with emphasis on my emancipatory work with women and the special role I see they need to play in the world today and tomorrow—that is, IF We are to make it alive through this next very challenging decade of intense cascading crisis (some call the Anthropocene era). More than making it alive, survival—the path of Fearlessness is about a thriving and beyond even that—it is about a growth and development (maturity) that is our destiny as part of evolution and spirit itself. To quote one of my fav philosophers (Ken Wilber):

‘Mankind,’ said Plotinus, ‘is poised midway between the gods and the beasts’.... that delicate position [tipping point].... our possible future evolution. For if men and women [and those non-binary identified] have come up from the beasts, then they will likely end up with the gods. The distance between man [sic] and gods is not all that much greater than the distance be-

4 5

tween beasts and man. We have already closed the latter gap, and there is no reason to suppose that we shall not eventually close the former. As Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin knew, the future of humankind is God-consciousness, and we will want to examine this future in the entire context of human history. But if men and women are up from the beasts and on their way to the gods, they are in the meantime rather tragic figures. Poised between the two extremes, they are subjected to the most violent conflicts. No longer beast, not yet god—or worse, half beast, half god: there is the soul of mankind. Put another way, humankind is an essentially tragic figure with a beautiful- ly optimistic future—if they can survive the transition.... it is ... true that each new evolutionary step forward [historically, de- velopmentally] brought new responsibilities, new terrors, new anxieties, and new guilts.... there is a price to be paid for every increase in consciousness, and only that [grand universal] perspective, I believe, can place mankind’s evolutionary history in the proper context. Most of the accounts of man’s evolution [history] err to one side or the other of that equation. They ei- ther overemphasis the growth aspect, seeing man’s evolution as nothing but a series of great advances and great leaps forward, thereby ignoring the fact that evolution is not a happy-go-lucky series of sweetness-and-light promotions [progress], but a pain- ful [often terrifying] process of growth. Or they tend to the op- posite direction and, seeing the agony and despair of mankind, look back nostalgically to that lost Eden of innocence, prior to self-consciousness, wherein man slumbered with the beasts in blissful ignorance. This view tends to see every evolutionary step [of history] out of Eden as being a crime [sin].... What I am saying [arguing] is that, in the main, both views are correct [but partial].2

My own philosophy and political attitude is Wilberian in foundation— albeit, I have my own twists and turns and modifications from that. I would (roughly) suggest the evolutionary and historical arc of the human species is one of a universal movement (i.e., “story of the soul”3) whereby the extremes on this Wilberian spectrum mapping can be translated as: beasts are of “No Fear,” and the gods are “Fearless”—and, all in between are various fear management systems between FMS-0 (No Fear) to FMS-9 (Fear-

2 Excerpt from Wilber (1981), pp. ix-x. 3 Using Wilber’s (1981) term (p. xi).

5 6 less)—which, include typical generic systems of Bravery, Courageousness, Fear-less, and Fearlessness.4 The critical referent of the fearanalysis5 of women leadership herein is from the Fearlessness (FMS-7) perspective for the most part. “Fearlessness” is both path of liberation along the spectrum Wilber articulates, and it is the class and level of attainment of evolution (consciousness)—whereby, motivations of individuals and systems are no longer mostly driven by fear-based motivations.6 That’s a larger topic beyond the scope of this paper, yet it gives you a sense of my strict use of the term “fearlessness” throughout and it provides a way to assess what I mean by near-fearlessness women leaders.

One highlight from Wilber’s grand map/story of the path of humanity’s growth and development, and it is outstanding relative to most thinkers, is that “new responsibilities, new terrors, new anxieties, and new guilts” (i.e., Fear) is inevitable and problematic all the time no matter how primal or how advanced human societies are—and, that includes within the development of the individual from conception to death. Wilber’s Fear Theory (my terms) is superior to any other I have found to date for its in depth understanding of this Fear phenomenon (project) at the base of all living life/systems. I am also quite critical of its short-comings. However, I have summarized part of his Fear Theory7 (which deserves capital letters) in Fisher (1997).8 I won’t repeat that here.

For 30 years I have been searching in and across disciplines, cultures, time, geographies and history, in order to put together the best holistic-integral mapping of the topic “fear” –and, in particular, how its nature and role has changed over time and across cultures—and, to show that one’s interest in

4 This is detailed in Fisher (2010) under “Fear Management Systems” (theory). Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world’s fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 5 This is an original term I coined decades ago—and, it is a complex concept and methodology. Fearanalysis, like but very different from psychoanalysis, can be understood by reading several of my publications on that topic—as any search on the Internet will yield several downloadable works of mine to read and study. 6 Fisher, R. M. (2013). The problem of defining the concept of "fear-based." Technical Paper No. 48. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 7 More accurately, and from my critical theory view, I prefer to call it the ‘Fear’ Project (a real phenomenon and a theory to explain it). 8 Fisher, R. M. (1997). Thanatos and Phobos: 'Fear' and its role in Ken Wilber's transper- sonal theory. Technical Paper No. 4. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Insti- tute.

6 7 the topic (pretty much universally) is an interest that is all about improving one’s fear management capacities. Whether that motivation is for ‘good’ or for ‘bad’ results is a complex topic I won’t go into here. What I have been passionate about is multiple perspectives on the topic “fear” (and fearlessness)—and, in practical application terms my great interest is in women’s leadership related to fear/fearlessness. I believe there is a way to unite a terrific benign force9 of support of women and allies of women for political impact in really positive and transformative changes on this planet. How- ever, my thesis here is that this isn’t happening primarily (not near enough10) because of the lack of focused attention on a fearanalysis of the problems of women’s leadership and politics.

Long ago, it occurred to me that fear itself may be (not in a good way11), more or less,12 controlling the very ways we come to know fear (and fearlessness and love)—and that is, likely (theoretically) very problematic and distortive. It impacts how one conceives and carries out fear management policies and practices—at the individual and institutional and collective scale. You can read my work in various documents on the problems of finding a good “epistemology of fear”—especially my unique fearless standpoint at the heart of my critical integral fearanalysis methodology.13

9 I have constructed this uniting frame under many terms, which I won’t repeat here—but, suffice it to say, a good source for this uniting mission is Fisher (2010), especially Chapter Five “Unifying the Fearlessness Movement: Educational Implications for a New Activist Agenda.” 10 “Fear’s Empire” as some have labeled it is growing rapidly and overtaking (in many ways) the love and fearlessness that is also there but the latter is being over-swamped by the dynamics of fear (‘fear’) poorly managed. At least, this is the hypothesis I work from, and I am open to other ways of seeing the current world crises too. 11 Critical readers may think here I am not making a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fear—but I actually am; however, this is a very controversial topic for me and one that I cannot enter into here (see most any of my other publications)—suffice it to say, most of what I am talking about re: fear-based refers to not good fear—but toxic fear (or ‘fear’). 12 To be clear, the worst of this problem, is that We humans are typically unconscious this is the dynamic going on—and, so we presume we are conscious of the knowledge sourcing about fear and we trust it (naively so). I take my work off from that point in a major critique of our knowledge about fear (i.e., fear management)—and, that includes the dialectic fear/fearlessness. Thus, “fearlessness” is also needing to be critically re-evaluated, which is not something any of the women leaders I am going to mention in this paper do (unfortunately). 13 To avoid getting overly technical in this paper, I’ll leave readers to consult my latest technical paper on Fearless Standpoint Theory (FST) (Fisher, 2019) and, I’ll repeat the following from that paper to give you some sense of my mission, theory, method and praxis: “However, all along that very systematic pointing out the problems, I also have been in- trigued to uncover a notion of a Fearless Standpoint Theory (FST) as a positive, and highly

7 8

My point of emphasis, in blunt terms is: Women leaders who put one or more of the three key aspects of reality (fear, fearlessness, love) at the foreground of their leadership and/or political work are doing so because they believe with passion that such notions are central to political and ethical life—and, central to the very health, sanity and sustainability of the world at-large. My interest as a researcher and fearanalyst is to amplify their important agenda to improve fear management/education in their nations in which they stand out and lead but also in the global sphere of what is core to maintaining a mature humanity itself. I totally back-up the efforts of such women leaders (especially) and believe their work needs to be studied as a radical phenomenon on the planet which they and all of us have much to learn from. It is in dedication then to these great human beings, these particular near-fearlessness women that this technical paper is dedicated to.

The notion of “near-fearlessness” is pivotal to understand not merely from a simple common sense understanding but as you’ll see in this paper, it requires a serious and systematic critical analysis, which I have spent three decades developing as a working framework and methodology. I trust these women leaders and their followers, and even their enemies, will gain from what I have discovered. Someday soon, I’d like to pronounce in my writing and teaching that there is a fearlessness leader and support team they have gathered that is no longer merely near-fearlessness. That said, to become near-fearlessness as a leader is a remarkable and inspiring phenomena in and of itself. I think we can still raise the bar a notch—and, so let me proceed with my fearanalysis in that light.

Sex, Gender: Methodology Issues

Before diving in too deep on Marianne Williamson, the 2020 U.S. presidential candidate and before I proceed to trigger too many readers, including feminists, who may be cautious about a “white heterosexual male” (old potent, possibility to explain and to research the phenomena of fear (and ‘fear’)—in the largest sense of those terms. FST is my own (meta-methodological) term and as of a recent search on the Internet and in Research Indexes, no one else has even cited my use of this term, never mind trying to understand it. That’s very unfortunate. Anyone who wants to understand my work on fear/fearlessness will ‘miss’ what is going on in my work without first understanding (at least in part) what FMS-9 (Fear Management System-9 means)— and, concomitantly, the use of FMS-9 as the location along the spectrum of consciousness (evolution) for FST to develop and help us manage fear better as a species” (p. 1). Fisher, R. M. (2019). Fearless standpoint theory: Origins of FMS-9 in Arthur Schopenhauer’s work. Technical Paper No. 86. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

8 9 man) critiquing the levels of fear and fearlessness in women leaders—ah, yah, there is cause for pause! All due caution is the right thing. I can easily utilize, and blindly step in, where I ought to tread carefully, informed, re- spectfully as I address my ‘other’ (females identified). I don’t want to get too caught up in identity politics here, and generally it is not at the forefront of my work, much to the chagrin of many poststructuralist and postmodern and postcolonial (and neo-colonial) critics. Feminists and/or queer theorists and identified folks also may not like my universal approach to fear management education, and my reliance on evolutionary theories and consciousness (e.g., Ken Wilber, another white heterosexual male) etc. As I say, I have awareness and have studied these points of radical critique, including “standpoint feminism” (which I utilize with my own twist on it as a very important critique positionality—see my Fearless Standpoint Theory). I acknowledge the potential conflicts, is really all I am saying.

And, to go further, my methodological positioning (epistemology) is thus surely to be under questioning and doubts from these and many other sources. How to address this, keeping it short, is what I will attempt to do in this section. First, I do think women, children and people of non-binary categories in terms of gender identities and sexual orientations are brutally (often blindly) oppressed by the general pathological patriarchy—perhaps, going back 5000 years in W. history. I think the ancient traditional ways of the Indigenous peoples of the world have a lot better approach to gender and sexuality overall—as I have studied some of that work and history. I won’t go into justifying any of my beliefs about oppression of various groups—but let me conclude by saying as well, men are very oppressed too—because an Oppressive Society (I’ll speak for myself in the W. world I grew up in and live in and critique) is pervasive—no one escapes injury and even death because of unnecessary ideological systems—Patriarchy being one of those.

Secondly, I may look like a “man” and biologically that is my given. But in late 1990s I switched—first, to a 51/49 female/male by gender choice. Next, a few years later, to a 60/49 female/male gender choice and I have remained that for more than a decade—that is, I am a “trans” and invisible one at that. I think queer theory (way of being) is really superior to the current rigid binary way of understanding sex and gender and sexualities. Fur- ther, I have taken on many times to be conscious in my relationships with my female partners, and in my parenting of two female daughters. I have near 40 years experience in intimacy work with female partners and my children and that I take seriously—as I always knew that I did not want to take advantage of my maleness and dominate femaleness. Easier said than

9 10 done, but I bring that work to the table—and, it was so important to understand those impacts of my relationships with females that I produced an autobiography through that very texture of my life with females (and women, especially).14 Many times, personally and professionally, I have told people or written it, that “I am a radical feminist” in basic orientation. To make sense of that in my own “fearlessness psychology” perspective, I take that radical feminist position (standpoint) because I do believe that females (women especially) have 1 up in clarity on what the difference is between a fear-based way of living and a love-based way of living (i.e., the latter being more fearlessness-centric than not).

Okay, you have my quick overview of how I situate myself—and that I am a “trans-gendered” thinker, writer, teacher and fearologist. At this point, I have not had anyone seriously critique this positioning of myself and my work but I am always open to hear what others think—be it nice or not so nice. I feel I well know who I am and I know well when I track over into more obvious “female territories”—like I am doing in this paper, but doing so as an obvious male investigator (in part)—and, yes, with all the differ- ences and with all the not-so-informed (limitations) of being an obvious male in the physical and culture world I live in. My presence in female worldspace is still seen as alien—and it is so that way—I feel it now and have all along. I feel largely excluded from female world—and, from any other gender-identified worlds (subcultures)—and, yes, that is a deep limi- tation to my understanding of those ‘other’ worlds. Yet, I have done my homework to attempt to understand those worlds—even if it is never enough. Thus, in no way will I ever attempt to speak for the ‘other’ and in this case females and women—even though, I believe as a human being I have a lot to say, from systematic study and experiences—to be worth listening to in regard to how females and women come to a relationship with fear, fearlessness and love. Again, my focus in this technical paper will be on fearlessness and women leadership—with, Marianne Williamson as the most important case, in my view, of someone really putting out direct moral imperatives for Americans—but also the world. She is a world-teacher (prophetess) really, as many have recognized not just me.

So, you are now getting my admission of methodological inadequacy in my investigation here. There is always more to uncover as I may be blind and unconscious to other biases I bring to this study. I also am prone (likely) to some jealousy with women powerful leaders who are having a lot of im-

14 Fisher, R. M. (1996). Call her rebel: Autobiography through my female relationships. Self-published: Calgary, AB.

10 11 pact and “success”—as my own career as a fearlessness leader has been far from what they have accomplished. I have to watch I also do not pass on, project, my own fears of females—very real for me as a young boy and especially into my teens and early twenties when in many instances I was deeply hurt by how females, including my mother, my school teachers treated me. I also think generally in Patriarchal societies like the one I grew up and now live in, there is domination by males in many sectors of public life, and females dominate, usually emotionally, in other sectors (e.g., often in the domestic sphere). That said, males in patriarchy are really afraid of women’s power but will typically deny it and try to control and erase it by various means—and some of those are incredibly violent (as feminists in particular have pointed out for hundreds of years now). Thus, my own fear- projections can easily slip out when I critique women “trying” to be fearless—and/or even “trying” to be loving, when I see they don’t really achieve that well because of their own suppressed fear(s). When I talk about Marianne Williamson and Aung San Suu Kyi, for example, in this paper, and their “near-fearlessness” attainment, it is not meant to be a put down or judgement in that sense (though, some will think that is what I am doing). I am merely bringing all my skills and learning, and scholarship to the table of evaluating boldly what it going on and why things may not always be the ‘best’ they can be—and/or they are causing the very problem that the leaders are trying to solve. Some combination of those critiques is part of everything I am sharing in the technical paper.

In my defense, I have some history to share that shows my sincere dedication to the important (essential) role of women15 that I envision is necessary today and in the future—particularly, in leadership. I’ll give a few examples only: (a) I have been an ‘equal’ partner (non-traditional) in all three of my major long-term and short-term ‘marriages’ to women—a total of 38 years of experience living together with them—of which the longest is my third partner whom we have 29 years logged and going strong; (b) in my first and most powerful transformative years in my early to mid 30s I joined a conscious community or learning community of alternative folks with a totally charismatic and brilliant older woman as leader and for eight years I resisted, yielded, and respected her leadership as it brought me to understand women and women’s leadership styles in ways I would not

15 Equally, I include those self-identified women, and I include those others who take a feminine and feminist or womanist view as well—all depending on other factors of what I support more than other things. Queer identities etc. also need to be leading in public spaces and I am glad that is happening more and more, at least in North America (albeit, not guar- anteed and there are dangerous regressions (of ideologies) going on that are fear-based and violently attempting to exclude such as well).

11 12 have learned otherwise, not even from my marriages; (c) when I struck forth to create my own conscious learning and liberation community (In Search of Fearlessness) I did so because of a co-partner, co-leader, a woman—even if that did not last, another woman became my intimate partner and spouse and co-lead and still often does in regards to the project of Fearlessness on this planet16; (d) my own leadership in the Fearlessness community often revolved around therapeutic relationships, peer- counseling relationships and friendship and allyships with many women of diverse backgrounds (albeit, most, not all, were white and often heterosexual)—this ‘natural’ connectivity and intimacy was potent in my learning about my own “feminine” and “feminist” aspects as well I understood many of the aspects of female and women’s oppression in the society (e.g., North America, at least); (e) with the privilege of access to so many woman’s inner life (including my own daughters) I often provoked the Fear- lessness community to truly take on what it means to be practicing fearlessness at the political and leadership levels of public action (i.e., citizenship)—and, often said, more or less, “men, you need to take your turn being on your knees as empowered male allies for women so that they can truly lead—you need to let them know you have their backs—but in not bravado or old roles of heroic proportions and fantasies but vulnerably and sincerely because you actually believe (or can imagine to believe) that they are the ‘better’ choice leader for our extremely terrifying and challenging times—and, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. We men have had our turn in history leading in the pubic sphere and now let’s let women have their full go at it—with our backing.”

Equally important, but at an academic and theoretical level, I’ve been (still am) an advocate for women’s leadership and research on it. Often I have been an unconditional listener for several women leaders (including may academics) in public roles. As well, I undertook my entire dissertation process for three years to understand the nature of the “culture of fear” as in and through a “feminist cyborg lens,” by which my dissertation is primarily a screen play of three major female (women) characters (and archetypes)— and they provided the feminine imaginary for a new emancipatory leadership on the planet to challenge the ‘Fear’ Matrix17 and rebuild a Love- based world (e.g., this is the kind of talk in the Marianne Williamson 2020

16 In order of mention, these women leaders are Jean Robertson, Catherine Sannuto, Barbara Bickel. 17 This dissertation (Fisher, 2003) screenplay was a take-off from The Wachowski Bros. sci-fic futuristic trilogy film narrative. Fisher, R. M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the ‘Fear’ Matrix. Unpublished dissertation. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.

12 13 presidential campaign that is being touted by her and her team as the only moral and radical way to go—and, I basically agree with that discourse and direction and I and my wife have supported her campaign from the beginning in the Spring of 2019).

My first systematic writing on females and fear18 (besides my 1996 autobiography mentioned earlier) is an investigation into whether I think males or females in our society (e.g., the West) have a better education on fear and know better fear management strategies(?)—because they are differentially more well naturally endowed (i.e., genetically, evolutionarily) and/or cul- turally (or spiritually) attained. I have presented on this topic, and most significant I took the risk to present on it in a brown bag discussion in a university setting in a Women’s Gender and Sexuality Department—and, I survived. Women there were quite interested, albeit, not enough to follow- through and further investigate my hypotheses and claims. Anyways, my findings in 2013 concluded (from the Abstract):

I write as a man in body, as a wo-man in soul.... For the most part, females have said nothing too new or radical in reconcep- tualizig the nature and role of fear. They seem to have repeated what males have been saying. This is an area that requires re- freshing challenge....19

I also acknowledged that my study of the research literature on women and fear (and fearlessness) was biased in that I didn’t have as much or maybe was missing lots because most of my comfort zone of finding research tended to be biased and dominated (typically) by male authors. To this day, I still notice this bias somewhat. That said, I truly have taken in many wonderful empowering critical quotes from womanists, feminists, and other women on how they understand the nature and role of fear. In my dissertation I quoted many (here are a few gems):

Women superintendents [of schools] need to be fearless, courageous. ‘Can do’ risk takes. At the same time, they need to have a plan for retreat when faced with the impossible.... The notion that anyone in the superintendency must be fearless... is no sur-

18 Fisher, R. M. (2013). Females and fear: Contributions and challenges. Technical Paper No. 49. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Note: other resources with this same focus can be found in my other publications like (for e.g.)— https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/women-s-courage-will-change-the-world-big- time ; or https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/females-women-fear-love 19 Fisher (2013), p. 3.

13 14

prise to anyone familiar with the role-related expectations of the position, but most often these descriptions have been reserved for men in our [W.] culture. – Brunner (1998, p. 16)

Neo. I’m not afraid anymore. The Oracle told me that I would fall in love and that that man, the man that I loved, would be the One.... I love you. – Trinity, in The Matrix (1999)

Yet we are all terribly afraid most of the time. As a culture we are obsessed with the notion of safety. Yet we do not question why we live in states of extreme anxiety and dread. Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination. — hooks (2000, pp. 93-94)

In recent years, in the middle of U.S. elections prior, it is worthy to note that Ariana Huffington started using powerful signs in her very successful online newspaper:

The Huffington Post...”Fear Watch ’08: Keeping an Eye Out for GOP Fear-mongering” and “Why We Need An Epidemic of Fearlessness” and [her new book] Becoming Fearless....20

There was something powerfully (r)evolutionary happening related to “fear”—and, often women were leading. I engaged voices, in Fisher (2010), in Chapter One “Do We Really Want a Fearlessness (R)evolution?”—where I feature 5 top women leaders as exemplar profiles (which I had not included Marianne Williamson but would now): Ericka D. Jackson, Rev. Bernice Powell Jackson, Arianna Huffington, Aung San Suu Kyi and Susan Griffin. As much as I praised their amazing efforts to help with better understanding and managing fear on this planet, and moving us towards and along the path of fearlessness (my words), I was ultimately critical they weren’t holistic-integral and near critical enough of how to actually accomplish that task. They each had their own ways. And, that was one of the biggest problems, they weren’t uniting, weren’t even citing each other’s work—and, sorry to say but this trend of individualist (careerist) patterning seems to be so prevalent even today. Now, I would label them all near-fearlessness women leaders.

20 Cited in Fisher (2010), p. xxx.

14 15

The Shadow-Side of Women’s Leadership

Before I dive in to my research on Marianne Williamson, which began in the early 1990s, I wish to share some generic concerns about the “shadow” of women leaders, and in particular the women of fearlessness that I have been following (Williamson as one of several). Remember, I sincerely care to support such leaders, and I reach out to them where practical. To this day, none have replied. My aim is to study them as a particular historical moment in the long trajectory of human evolution of fear management discourses and strategies. I believe the women leaders I am focusing on (as a sample) have incredi- ble gifts to offer the world in this regard, and in my eyes I am looking directly at their offerings to the Fearlessness Movement –and, more practically, to the growth and maturation of how our species does fear management/education. Yes, I believe they are leaders to watch for just this latter purpose, never mind all the other purposes they offer and provide.

A little bit about “shadow” (i.e., the down-side or shadow-side) of every good thing and person, and leadership initiatives. Carl Jung, among others, has given the most pertinent research accounts of this Shadow, which is that part of us that we repress because it doesn’t fit our positive and socially acceptable image of ourselves. This psychodynamic has sociopolitical dynamic intermeshing as well. It is not just an individual problem, it is a cultural problem and an institutional problem. And, no one, no group, is above this problem. We all, more or less, repress shadow-material (the abject, unwanted, feared). I won’t say more, as many have said already much about this. But be clear, my fearanalysis is a kind of shadow-analysis to be sure. Typi- cally people and collective organizations have ‘blind spots’—is the most simple way to put this, and those blind spots can be really dam- aging on many levels. They promote typically various forms of ‘fear’-projections (as I call it)—that is, fear is not owned and is thus defended against and projected on others (e.g., Freud’s basic principle of defense mechanisms). That’s why the big ‘Fear’ Project (and Fear Problem) globally is so hard to analyze and undermine—fear, you may notice keeps growing like a mass-cancer of the entire species and our human systems. It is killing us—and, a lot of other life forms with it.

15 16

I’ll return to another way ‘fear’ projection may function, and that is by adopting a hiding cover, a shield, a mask and disguise21—that is, bravado and worse, love. Yes, some fearful people can really use Love as a weapon to shield them from seeing themselves because they are so busy exuding Love (and caring, etc.). Women, I’m going to argue are highly susceptible to this shadow psychodynamic defense mechanism.

Women leaders of fearlessness are essentially tasked with solving this Fear Problem, and it is so important they recognize distinctions between what is fear-based projections and motivations and what is not. That sounds a lot easier perhaps than it is in practice, at least as I have found this to be the case after three decades focusing on this. Most all the women leaders, especially the two I will deal with in some depth here in this technical paper have not made such a special- ized study as is required of fear, fearlessness and love. Albeit, they have done a lot of homework, no doubt, as we will see. My critique is not what they have done, but what is still partial, and crucial to improve in their work.

Aung San Suu Kyi: Leader of Burma (Myanmar)

It is not power that corrupts.... It is fear.... -Aung San Suu Kyi (1995)22

This quote by Kyi, a committed Buddhist, a woman, a political career activist, and one who has been highly regarded with a Nobel Peace Laureate Prize in 1991, has been on my radar as a fearlessness en- dorsing world leader. She has had many battles (including house arrest for many years) in the opposition party to Myanmar’s military junta regime and now is operating in government with some freedom and impact as “prime minister” since 2016.23 I recommend readers do their own research on her background and current controversy where she is now accused of supporting (in part) a genocide in her country.

21 One of the best writings on this, among others, is Overstreet (1951/71), a bright and open-minded adult educator, poet and a woman; see Overstreet, B. W. (1951/71). Under- standing fear in ourselves and others. New York: Harper & Row. 22 From Kyi, A.S.S. (1995). Freedom from fear and other writings, ed. M. Aris. UK: Pen- guin [original essay “Freedom from Fear,” 1991]. 23 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

16 17

Many have asked to have her Nobel Peace prize revoked and that she step down from leadership.

Back in the better days of her glory and high regard almost universally (except the military enemies she had within her country), I had discovered her through her writing on fear and fearlessness. It im- pressed me from the start and still does, in that it is so incredibly rare to find a female/woman leader promoting in the political sphere that “fearlessness” is the primary ethical guiding reference for running a country and being a good citizen. Amen, I say. So, what happened?

Kyi is not the focus of this technical paper and so I’ll be very brief as to what I have seen happen. In the early days when Kyi was a popu- lar leader with so many, against the military junta, she was likely more clear about her values and worldview, her Buddhism praxis and principles—as she wasn’t serving in the government per se, mostly she was under house arrest and a diplomat. Not being so directly in the fray of power and decisions in government, I found her to be a philosophical-spiritual leader of nonviolence and considered her prominent in what I labeled as the Fearlessness Movement. She in- spired other groups at times to likewise lead their liberation movements via “fearlessness.” I covered her work and leadership in my book24 and linked it to the S. Asian cultural and spiritual tradition of what scholars have labeled “gift of fearlessness” (abhaya dãna)25. At one point in an interview, when proded by the inerviewer Alan Clements, an admiring Buddhism monk and political activist from the West, Kyi said, I am afraid. I’m afraid of doing the wrong thing that might bring harm to others.”26 She said that, despite her living the principle of fearlessness. She obviously thought this was a healthy fear to have but she did not believe or live by fear-based ways overall. Fear-based would lead to violence, whereas a healthy fear in touch with reality of caring, in her case, to hurt others, was an act of nonviolence and compassion for the fate of others—especially, if they are harmed by something she had done as a person and leader of her people.

24 Fisher (2010), pp. 13-6. 25 See the scholarly analysis of this tradition (movement) in Jainism, Hinduism and Bud- dhism, for e.g., via Heim, M. (2004). Theories of the gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain reflections on dãna. New York: Routledge. 26 This is from The Voice of Hope (1997), cited in Fisher (2010), p. 15.

17 18

Many years later, as she was released from house arrest and won an election to be prime minister, she soon showed, in some critics views, biases and as I said, now she is accused of genocide within her own country along racial-religious biased lines. Potentially, it looks as if she has lost something or maybe not—and, we have to wonder how the world around her may also be constructing her as a ‘demon’ because of her power and fearlessness together. It is hard to say, and I have not followed the case close enough to make a judgment, but clearly her international record and glory has faltered for real. Per- haps, her fear of harming others was not merely healthy and with gaining more real political power in government she had to compro- mise more and more and more—and, perhaps lost some of her original fearlessness to a tainted near-fearlessness. That’s a hypothesis, and it is one that has negatively affected me because I was such an admirer for so long. It needs to be investigated but not just from the views of the regular media sources. Fearlessness is powerful but it is also vulnerable, as is love, to corruption and pathologies—especially, (and that’s my argument) when fear/fearlessness are not studied and updated from the old traditions (including the abhaya dãna tradition).

Remember, Kyi, to me, in her early 1995 fearlessness revolution speeches sounds an awful lot like Marianne Williamson today (see e.g., Fisher, 2010, p. 14). No point in going further, so let’s turn to Williamson, the focal case study, to see if there are signs (as I think there are) where she too may fold under, be ‘hit’ by her own shadow, as she gains political popularity and power and confidence.

Marianne Williamson: For President

The forces of fear are intensifying; the forces of love are intensifying. – Marianne Williamson, 2012 interview27

Here’s one random website voice recently speaking about Marianne Williamson (WM) and her potential leadership, impact and her agenda (vision) of love:

It’s tempting to dismiss Marianne Williamson, who arrived on the Democratic debate stage in late June to declare, “I’m going

27 This comes from a live interview (podcast) of Marianne Williamson by my daughter (Oct. 24, 2012); no longer available online.

18 19

to harness love for political purposes.” But many people are completely serious about her.

“She knows how to capture the hearts of people,” said Jacquel- ine Moore, one of Williamson’s supporters from Florida. “We don’t need a political mechanic, we need a political visionary.”

Moore, 69, retired from AT&T in 2001 and is now a civility and human potential educator, where she focuses on, as she puts it, “illuminating human potential.” She first came across Williamson in the 1990s, during what she considers a spiritual awakening in her life. Moore sees Williamson as a woman she can aspire to be and relate to. “I call her a modern-day prophet, because of the way she is able to receive and transmit truths,” she said.... “Yesterday she was not known by a lot of people, today they search for her, and tomorrow they will fall in love with her,” said Laura Guzman-Rodriguez, a 54-year-old Texas woman.28

And one more recent random website:

“This is a moral emergency,” Williamson said.... In the past, her faith has been described as “new-agey.” But that’s not accu- rate. It’s not traditional, but is just as deeply held as that of Evangelical Vice President Mike Pence and at least as thought- ful as Buttigieg’s. Williamson is the candidate that most resem- bles the “nones,” who are a growing part of the Democratic Party. This demographic may believe in God, but doesn’t want to be associated with rigid religious dogmas. They are less likely to believe homosexuality is sinful than their more traditional- ly religious counterparts, for instance, and more likely to believe abortion should be legal in most cases, even as conserva- tives call the practice murder and genocide.

But the “nones” may be just as hungry for a message of faith as voters who belong to a formal religion. Williamson could cer- tainly speak to that message: She is a Jew who converted to Christ—but not Christianity—as she once told Beliefnet. Evi-

28 From https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/8/20680003/marianne- williamson-2020-supporters-democratic-debate-vogue

19 20

dence of her faith jumps off her lips no matter the political is- sue she is discussing.

Williamson says she wants the country to take a “serious moral inventory.” She freely talks about redemption and “a merciful God,” miracles and “moral leadership.” And when she talks about policy, her preferences seem to grow naturally out of mo- rality.29

MW pulls out some zinger phrases, now and then, like the one above. She’s meaning to ‘wake people up’ as she often says. She’s not afraid of being ‘big’ and ‘loud’ and controversial. Her method of doing so requires investigation and response, even if her content is seemingly flawless. There is a fascinating history unfolding to be documented about what a unique woman leader, running for president, and what she can get away with (or not). How successful and how to judge that success is a worthy study as well as an intriguing event in history.

I for one, would like a moral change too (in North America, at least), and if it needs to be—to have a “prophet”-leader, and woman to truly lead us out of this amazing mess we have created. I don’t expect her alone to do that. It takes many many many of us involved and committed like hell to break the strangle hold of chronic fear-based leadership everywhere. That’s not a claim I make lightly and I don’t ever

29 From https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/a3xdgg/marianne-williamson-wants-to-make- democrats-the-party-of-faith?utm_source=viceadwordsca&utm_medium=cpc

20 21 put my romantic fantasies of ‘savior’ on anything or anyone—ever. It’s more about an authentic mature leader I can truly trust (for the most part) and get behind. That’s what I am seeking. And, with that, such a leader has to be really experienced, with values in the right place, really intelligent—thus, more than merely charismatic. I want the whole level of learning in society to jump up a few bars, please; for that is what we really need in this time.

Let me say from the start, this discussion is not only about the person, individual, the personality of a leader (e.g., MW)—because, everything a leader becomes is directly tied to the system and network of supporters (and enemies) around them. The leader herself is in a way core, but they are also cause and effect of the entire system of structures, history, politics, and relationships. I do not blame any leader alone for their deterioration which we have seen so often once they get in power in the mainstream systems—no matter how radical (shall we say, ‘pure’ in soul) they were at one time. One has to per- form to get elected, so this really challenges women leaders and no doubt lots of image-politics and classism, sexism and reverse classism, sexism can play out—if not ideological rigidity—the latter is what I am seeing in my studies of all her videos, primarily during the Spring 2019 campaign now into summer and in preparation for the “Primaries” in U.S. politics with an election in late 2020.

As a heads-up to what is to follow, it all can be summed up in one way (if this is useful)—and, that is: Williamson’s vs. Fisher’s ways to manage the Love-Fear (or Love vs. Fear) binary problem. I have cited some of my work on this already and there is lots more of my writing on the Internet re: this binary of oppositions or what look like oppositions as two great meta-motivations (some call two meta- emotions). Morally, it is analogously the binary of Good vs. Evil.30 And, keep in mind, it has been my ongoing research and finding after assessing Williamson’s views on fear (especially), that I have seen

30 Love vs. Fear, Good vs. Evil is (theologically speaking) a grand moral (ethical) narrative and ‘battle’ of discourses throughout history—some call a theodicy. If you listen to MW’s last short (now somewhat famous) speech in the first Democratic primary debate, in front of the cameras, she says: [to Pres. Trump]: “I’m going to harness love for political purposes, and sir, love will win.” She just as easily, in her moral discourse hegemony throughout her campaign, could have replaced the word Love with Good (or God), and said, it will win over Evil. Note, in other interviews she has used “harness hope and inspiration” and she’s left out love to the sidelines but one sees her psychospiritual and moral mission as a motivational speaker for 35 years.

21 22 she is quite attached to and follows the teachings of A Course in Mir- acles (ACIM) largely in determining her psychospiritual (theological) teaching and political ideas31—of which this is now at the forefront of her “Politics of Love”32 rhetoric and campaign for U.S. President. This is her way (in her words) to “purify” and “heal America’s soul.”

To start with my own autobiography of contact with Williamson, it is important to start with the fact that someone in the early-1990s, I believe, introduced me to the book/teachings/movement of the rather ‘new age’ A Course in Miracles.33 There is a lot of talk in that book about a philosophy (spirituality) based on fear vs. Love. I gathered quotes on fear because that was my topic of specialty and found much of the basic wisdom on fear, from a psychospiritual and ethical perspective only in this book, was of a self-help pragmatism. It had little interest in justifying anything but from the perspective of Jesus Christ and/or other great sages. That was fine by me, but I also saw that this Love vs. fear teaching was in other traditions of a great vari- ety. ACIM was not unique metaphysically, despite its unique organi- zation of details and practices that obviously ‘work’ for many people making the transition from a fear-based life to a Love-based life (the Goodness). Immediately, I embraced this movement of The Founda- tion for Inner Peace (and its channeled ‘new age’ and esoteric writings) as part of the global Fearlessness Project, later I called the Fear- lessness Movement.

I studied several students, become teachers of ACIM and eventually came across MW’s work and studied it in the mid-1990s and was very curious to see her impressive application of the metaphysics of Love vs. fear into politics—American culture, and her suggestions to make the world a better place. Several people, my daughter and I included, back then saw she was likely to become a serious woman leader—on the world political stage if she chose to do so. Since then, our prediction was correct and she ran for politics in 2014 in Califor-

31 The first book I read was her best-seller, Williamson, M. (1996). A return to love: Re- flections on the principles of A Course in Miracles. New York: HarperCollins. 32 For e.g., this is the title of her latest book which has most of what is in her campaign speeches, and was published a few weeks after she announced her run for U.S. president; see Williamson, M. (2019). A politics of love: A handbook for a new American revolution. New York: HarperCollins. 33 Foundation for Inner Peace (1975). A Course in Miracles. Tiburn, CA: Foundation for Inner Peace.

22 23 nia and now five years later is in the race for the U.S. Presidency. It’s impressive as hell and she deserves every bit of it.

Over these years, I have included her in my publications on fear research and the Love vs. Fear binary problem. I have been critical of her overly simplified approach to this binary problem as well, for example (Fisher & Subba, 201634). In Fisher (2010) I quoted her famous words on “fear” that got into Nelson Mandela’s 1994 inaugural speech as President of S. Africa—and clearly this went viral at that time and still does now and then, because it is MW’s clever phrasing of something that resonates with a lot of people (in short form it says): “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.... As we’re liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” I had started my pivotal book in 2010 The World’s Fearlessness Teachings off with five women as current-to-watch “pivotal leaders of the Fear- lessness (R)evolution”—and, in hindsight, the only reason I did not include a detailed synopsis of the importance of MW in that book was because she wrote nothing about “fearlessness”—even though she oft quotes Mahatma Gandhi, who influenced Martin Luther King Jr. (the latter, her most inspiring political leader ever). I found that a contradiction in her rhetoric and teachings and writings. Today, she also does not use “fearlessness.” She has chosen Love as the answer to Fear—in contrast to myself (and, Gandhi who used both Love and Fearlessness35 as his great challenges to an oppressive fear-based world).36

Without going into all the details of my arguments, for that is another paper itself, my point ought to be clear in principle: I think MW is not up on the ins and outs of the deep historical discourses of the

34 See “Introduction” (chapter) in Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Why focus on fear, not love?; In, Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris. 35 Over the years (and in her current speeches), she asserts that Gandhi and MLK Jr. taught “Love” will overcome fear—and, she ignores that both of them also saw a place for fearlessness—with Gandhi having adopted it and theorized it out and gave it practices which MLK Jr. found useful, even if MLK Jr. did not espouse the word often. MW sees what she wants to see rather than looking deeper into her skewed (partial) interpretation of their work on liberation. Gandhi at one point said, “God is fearlessness” (cited in Fisher, 2010, pp. xxix, 151). 36 As impressive as the mult-religious (faith) and philosophical thinking in Gandhi’s discourses on fear/fearlessness, his theory needs a lot of up-dating to the 21st century as well but that’s a larger topic.

23 24

Eastern philosophies (especially), and mysticism in general, because there is so much said about fearlessness as the best counter to fear— and37, that is not just personal psychospiritual talk or thinking, it is metaphysical and philosophical as well. Again, any of my publications on Love and Fear will articulate all this in more detail. Reality is, back in the 1990s I located The Foundation for Inner Peace (and ACIM) as dedicated movements (that I appreciate) of the Fearless- ness Movement, but Williamson was not added in per se as a teacher—yet, in hindsight, I would add her now—but that requires me to soften my criteria from back in the 1990s.

I look forward to her engaging with the fearlessness literatures and wisdom from around the world, and, that she looks at why I theorize a holistic-integral38 model of “fear” and “fearlessness” in a dialectical relationship. Simply, I argue it is better not to try to overcome Fear by Love directly (as is typical of moralism, especially in the Middle- Eastern traditions and in Christianity, and remember that MW is ‘Jewish’ in terms of a commitment to Judaism to some degree and practices it in part). I use a transformation39 model of:

37 My own profound experiential awareness, with a woman intimate partner at the time, came with a metanoia of working at the level of the healing of the global (“World Soul” as Emerson and Schopenhauer have spoken) condition of consciousness, with the awareness that the ‘Fear’ Project needed to have an equally powerful counterhegemonic “In Search of Fearlessness Project.” This was intuited and verbalized without knowing any of the literatures on fear and fearlessness. Fearlessness grew in depth and breadth as an experience and concept meant to accompany Love and yet replaced “hope.” Fearlessness (potentially) was envisioned as the ultimate source of unity and inspiration to motivate the transformation I saw required in humanity; not that I was first to see this in history because many a sage, mystic, saint and/or moral philosopher has intuited this, in one way or another, over the ages and across cultures. Thus, my historical study began of the global Fearlessness Movement. See Fisher, R. M. (2018). The Fearlessness Movement: Meta-context exposed! Technical Paper No. 72. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute; Fisher, R. M. (2017). Love-Fear: Uni-Bicentric Theorem as basis for the Fearlessness Movement. Tech- nical Paper No. 65. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 38 It is beyond the scope of this paper, but “integral” here is based on the work of integral philosopher/psychologist (theorist) Ken Wilber, someone who Marianne Williamson has met and recognized in her own life and respects his great work. 39 It is obvious in her interviews and speeches MW positions herself as a transformation expert (35 years in the business, as she will defend)—and, so am I, albeit, not with near the popularity she has attained. I think her view of transformation is too limited and skewed in that partiality, albeit, it has lots that is really good. But we are talking on a different scale and level regarding transformation that I argue further below she is naive about, and mis- taken about and is teaching this at-large without critique. So, I begin that critique. See my teaching videos as some recent examples of my work on the understanding and history of

24 25

Fear ------> Fearlessness (path) ------> Love.40

This is a different to and in conflict with, somewhat, the model of Williamson’s traditional-religious-classic, and moralistic virtues- centered schema:

Fear ------> Love

The seriousness, sincerity and ethical depth of this juxtaposing these great forces, is not without great merit and MW ought to thus be seen as a great leader in history for the courageous willingness to articulate the problems in society this formal and metaphysical way. It is extremely rare in leadership and women’s leadership but it has been done before. When in her first major speech of announcing her 2020 campaign for U.S. President, she diagnosed her particular affective registration of what is going on that has to change: [we have in this country] “a low level [nasty] emotional civil war”. Many would have said we have a Culture Wars, or sometimes I use Fear Wars to pene- trate down to the deepest meta-motivational roots of the problems. An “emotional civil war” signifies declaration for a real revolution41 and that is exactly what her website and literature for the 2020 campaign is about. So, let’s keep that in mind, and to note I am with her on this diagnosis. I am more critical on her research and understanding behind that call for revolution in what I prefer to call the Fear- lessness (R)evolution. That said, now I want to move on to describe my most recent interventions to get people thinking more critically about MW’s revolution and leadership and to attend to some of its shadow-side. The sooner she (we) can ‘correct’ these things the better.

I like that she and her campaign team have the opening slogan on their website: “THINK. LOVE. PARTICIPATE.” That’s good bal- ance. My focus in this technical paper is obviously on the first one

Transformation work (especially in North America): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7lVwK_ehI 40 A good ‘mapping’ and argumentation for this recently is in Fisher, R. M. (2017). Radical love—is it radical enough? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 8(1), 261-81. 41 A Google search for her campaign reads “Marianne Williamson for President: Join the Evolution” and subtitle of her new 2019 book is “A Handbook for a New American Revolu- tion.”

25 26

“Think” and to think critically. In my three recent teaching videos42 I talk about her approach to this campaign and about my relationship with her work going back over 25 years. I enjoyed listening to her earliest speeches in this 2020 campaign because she emphasized re- peatedly that we all need to take this year of campaigning time, not just to think about how to win, but how to think deeply about these issues, and her website gives lots of reading material and history about her platform. She was invoking good adult education in this year of ‘warming up’ for what would be an election year to follow of frenzy. I appreciate this critical and educational agenda—which, one will not find in any other candidate in this race, at least not so overt- ly. That’s why I see her as an adult educator of the emancipatory tradition. This is my expertise as an adult educator myself.43 Adult education is core to bringing about justice and (r)evolution of the masses and developing new educated citizens to support a new educated leadership along the ‘right’ ethical ground.

Now to the specific content of some of my major critiques of her work and campaign so far. Remember, I am only scratching surfaces in this brief technical paper and I highly recommend you watch the videos I’ve done but also they too are only a brief beginning of cautionary regarding her (r)evolutionary leadership work, which includes her advisors and team and followers—because the latter are very important and they too carry and reproduce shadow material (e.g., blin- ders) and thus any leader is susceptible to distortions from all quar- ters, from allies to enemies. To talk about problematics of her enemies, that includes, enemies of her kind of (r)evolution,44 would be a whole other paper to write.

42 My three 2019 videos on MW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyENboIzxc ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHDlATRUYLM ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJzLb6ALHPg 43 I have been teaching adults for 45 years in diverse situations, typically with an emancipatory agenda via human potential and with expertise in post-adult education—see Fisher, R. M. (2019). Post-adult education alternatives in 45 years of learning/teaching: An integral- informed autoethnographic reflection. In V. Bohac-Clarke (Ed.), Integral theory and trans- disciplinary action research in education (pp. 339-56). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. I have a B.Ed., MA (in Adult Education) and Ph.D. (in Curriculum & Instruction). My full up-dated CV is available upon request and/or there are old CV’s on the Internet as well. 44 Readers may find my articulation of the enemies of fearlessness akin to her potential enemies—see Fisher, R.M. (1997). Defining the enemy of fearlessness. Technical Paper No. 6. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

26 27

For brevity sake, I’ll only talk here (in summary form) about my first video of the trio.

I start my discussion of MW’s political agenda based on an earlier video (“The Great Citizen: Future Process Politics and Learning”45) in which I forefront my stepping-forward into politics by which I do so only because I make a distinction between “politics” as we know it and what is a long trajectory of activity in humanity that revolves around the “political sphere.” I believe my basic adjoining of philosophy and spirituality with politics is very similar to MW’s as she goes about promoting explicitly “an integrative approach.” I call my approach critical holistic-integral.

My first video on MW foregrounds my interest and history with MW and her work. I note that my favorite area of inquiry for all time is: What happens when fear meets fearlessness? I wish MW and her movement and campaign would seriously adopt this as their basic inquiry—for all ages, throughout America and abroad—wouldn’t that make for an interesting discourse. It would open spaces in totally new ways that her discourse hegemony of Love will conquer fear46— because that discourse leaves little open space of inquiry and ends up with a moralism discourse long tried, and in my view long stale and insufficient—arguably, it has historically failed, sorry to say.

Next, I like MW’s talk about a “higher moral ground” which is worthy to pursue and that means going far beyond the common “Left vs. Right” political discourse hegemony—which also leaves little open space of inquiry because there is (just like “Love” is the answer) an already pre-fixed agenda to conversion-propensity, be it secular as in Right vs. Left dynamics or sacred (religious)—as in vs. secular, etc. Indeed, “fear” needs to be brought forward, and in particular MW like myself is talking about a “politics of fear.” Unfortunately, MW isn’t the best up on the latest research and theorizing on this politics

45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE7jqnz6FXM 46 MW and her followers of ACIM will likely quickly jump on this particular phrasing and say that they would only talk about love transforming fear—and, yes I get that rhetorical distinction and why they would say that at a higher level of consciousness because they take a transformational (if not transmutational) perspective ultimately; however, the words Love conquers fear is more realistically appropriate to how MW has used it in her campaign, not the least of which is her last speech (statement) in the DCP TV primary debate—clearly, she talks about “win” (over, and conquer).

27 28 of fear dynamic and I would recommend Furedi (2018)47 for starters as he makes a good case that it is easy for Left and Right to exchange fear-mongering in very overt or subtle insidious ways in how they conduct political and moral critiques in societies. I’ll come back to this later below to recommend a cautionary around how MW has at- tempted to morally ‘castrate’ Donald Trump’s leadership. As a woman, that adds a lot of sexist fear into the system, which I don’t think she really reflects on its implications.

I so appreciate MW in my video because she is raising the bar for political leadership and for American citizenship in general. I mention my own work on a vision for a “fearless society” and note that this is in contrast rhetorically with MW’s interest in a just and loving and caring society—not that they are actually any different, if she was to read my work. Justice, loving and caring, especially from women leaders goes over well for the most part in most of society but then I raise the bar on even women’s leadership and politics because I agree with Margaret Wheatley’s challenge to all leaders to ask some serious “fearless questions.”48 Wheatley’s more Buddhist approach comes through in contrast to the kind of questions MW tends to put out and envision in the debates. Wheatley, like myself, challenges all the hope-mongering discourse49 in society and politics and leadership. MW could learn a lot from Wheatley and that one doesn’t have to always be the inspirational life-coach cheerleader which MW falls into stylistically and pedagogically, which is to her detriment for many (if not the majority of) people. I myself find it unnecessarily trying to be ‘hip’ but off-putting.

My video more or less demarcates another point of departure (appar- ently) between MW’s worldview and my own, and the analytical fall out from those. She prefers to keep harping on the Love Problem and how American needs to get back to the way the Good American Life

47 UK sociologist, Frank Furedi, is a long-time expert on the culture of fear and politics of fear dynamics in the W. world. Furedi, F. (2018). Fear and the renunciation of politics. Re- trieved from http://americanaffairsjoural.org/2018/11/fear-and-the-renunciation-of-politics/ 48 See Wheatley’s work on the Internet as an organizational development consultant and great woman leader herself; for the “eight fearless questions” I write about them in Fisher (2010), p. 265-66. 49 A larger argument about the commodification in mediated 21st century society re: fear/hope leveraging platforms of “sales” and “propaganda” (psychic manipulations) are beyond the scope of this paper; but it is very important to critique, which I find MW and her team seem to be oblivious too.

28 29 was constructed and intended by the “framers” of the Constitution, etc. I typically, would say, more than enough talk has gone on, and attempts to practice “love”—and with not enough analysis of the Fear Problem, especially as ‘fear’ has morphed into a new species, virtually and continues to do from the individual to the collective levels— this latter point MW and her team seem to have no interest in. They, like many esoteric spiritual (and religious) traditions believe that by just pouring more love into the polluted human condition it will transform to love eventually. The path of fearlessness does not have that faith-based commitment and calls for a more radical approach, of which I have indicated and referenced throughout this technical paper.

Conclusions(s)—Suggestions

We have a good society [most people are basically good].... transform our lives from fear to love... then things [truly] transform. – Marianne Williamson (2019)50

My thesis for which way to go in political (r)evolution today—is not so simply or naively grounded on justification “we have a good society” in the U.S. or anywhere else.51 It is easy to say what she says and I guess she believes it. This isn’t manifesting for very good reasons historically. It isn’t happening primarily (not near enough) because, in my view, the lack of focused attention on a critical integral fearanalysis of the problems of the world and of women’s leadership and politics as well. This is the basic shadow I am pointing to in this technical paper and my critique of the MW project.

50 From her live webinar post-election announcement (Feb. 13, 2019, 6:30 pm MST). 51 Williamson is appealing to popularize her message here in this claim; rather than looking deeply enough into the despoiled roots of W. civilization and/or America as a colonizing super-nation (Empire). She ignores too much because she is so “in love” with being “in love” with her own country (i.e., Americanism as exceptionalism, which many international and national critics have shown to be a disastrous and dangerous ideology). Her superficial rhetorical rendering is not based on critical theory as mine and many others and thus it gives a simplified illusion that we just have a small problem to fix with a shot of Love. The last really ‘good’ society based on a postmodern, post-colonial critique is really to go back 5000 years (says Riane Eisler) or 9-10,000 years (says Four Arrows) to when we had true part- nership cultures, and Indigenous-based cultures respectively—where then, I’d be fine to label them (more or less) Love-based and Good (meaning, they were healthy, sane and sus- tainable) life-cultures rather than death-cultures (as may critics have pointed out).

29 30

Long ago, it occurred to me that fear itself may be (not in a good way52), more or less,53 controlling the very ways we come to know fear (and fearlessness and love)—and that is, likely (theoretically) very problematic and distortive. That is part of the Fear Problem that gets neglected examination because of the over valuing of looking at the Love Problem (a la MW). I’m looking for a 50:50 critical analysis—both Love and Fear getting their fair share of attention.

What MW misses, as do many like her, is asking: How does one know they are not hypnotized by the ‘Fear’ Matrix, to such an extent that they don’t really understand fear fully in the first place?54 That’s a good probability and that doesn’t speak well for the future of fear management/education and/or for Williamson’s broad brush Ameri- canist pragmatic esoteric theopsychology of “Love over fear” as a personal choice.

One can choose to follow Love instead of fear—it is the logical out- come of her view (i.e., view of A Course in Miracles). In fairness, she would include actions have to consonantly follow that choice— nonetheless, it is that particular ideology (rigidity in her worldview) I believe constitutes her most troublesome leadership blindspot for several reasons:

(a) her out-and-out personal and professional populist55 recalitrance, which largely resists inputs from others on worldviews and ways to

52 Critical readers may think here I am not making a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fear—but I actually am; however, this is a very controversial topic for me and one that I cannot enter into here (see most any of my other publications)—suffice it to say, most of what I am talking about re: fear-based refers to not good fear—but toxic fear (or ‘fear’). 53 To be clear, the worst of this problem, is that We humans are typically unconscious this is the dynamic going on—and, so we presume we are conscious of the knowledge sourcing about fear and we trust it (naively so). I take my work off from that point in a major critique of our knowledge about fear (i.e., fear management)—and, that includes the dialectic fear/fearlessness. Thus, “fearlessness” is also needing to be critically re-evaluated, which is not something any of the women leaders I am going to mention in this paper do (unfortunately). 54 I pointed to this foundational proposition for ‘Fear’ Studies in general; see Fisher, R. M. (2012). Foundations for 'Fear' Studies: 9 propositions. Technical Paper No. 43. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 55 Some of this comes from autobiographical sources but also because of her not attending (and sticking to completion) higher levels of post-secondary education where one enters a community of researchers/learners dedicated to critique and learns to discipline their own

30 31 manage the Love-Fear binary problem, indicates she has no well- developed or matured critical educative (or political) praxis to challenge her own worldview (i.e., she has already adopted, like a religion (ideology), her faith system based on a tradition and standard consensus interpretation of A Course in Miracles as grooved in place by those in this movement and the leaders within who have sanctified Williamson’s certification as a ‘minister’ or teacher of ACIM),

(b) being a woman (leader) makes her susceptible to a kind of ‘expert’ by body/birth/essentialist standpoint re: caring and loving—this, corrective she brings into the political sphere is most welcome, as I see it, but the down-side is that she over-inflates “Love” (capitals) because of her ideological (spiritual and religious) affiliations and meta-context for everything moral she claims—and this biases her to not seeing the deep problems of scale and levels of operations of systems from “individuals” on up to whole nations and the world; con- tinually she says, she can deal with the nation just like an individual—that is wrought with simplistic and reductionistic (and inflated) methodological certainty—which, she needs to take a look at, as Wilber and many others would show it is quite a dubious assumption,

(c) I have reached out to her in the past, and recently with the videos and a few emails, to find her campaign team rather un-interested if not cooled off from looking at what I have to offer, and it makes me wonder how often she and her team do this so that they can maintain some kind of hegemonic bias in how they approach the Love-Fear binary problematic—I recommend they all look at my “fearlessness psychology” initiatives in recent publications on the Internet because the current ‘new age’ and esoteric psychology MW uses really needs an upgrade—no matter how effective her caring and loving and moralism may actually be often on the ground in real ways (not to be de- nied, she is a great humanitarian).

favorite biases (at least they are supposed to) from premature cognitive closure. I don’t see her well-established critical praxis and engagement with ongoing perspectives from diverse fields, especially challenging her adopting ACIM presuppositions. Once one becomes a populist ‘successful’ entrepreneur (i.e., service professional) without exposure too often to diverse upgraded perspectives and literatures it is easy to form a ‘bubble’ of pragmatic ‘what works, works, and that’s good enough for me’ attitude to inquiry and thus inhibiting ongoing critical self-reflection and self-transformation possibilities.

31 32

With all her Texan brashness, let’s close with her poignant historical upstart finale: an evangelical (biblical56) moral indictment and prediction from the 1st DCP public debate on TV June 27, 2019:

Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk. He’s not going to be beaten just [from] somebody who has plans. He’s going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes. So, Mr. President, if you’re listening, I want you to hear me, please. You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you’re doing. I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field. And, sir, love will win.

I think she slips every time she talks about “winning” and therein is another shadow, because there is no winning in a complex messy world of systems upon systems constructed to colonize the life-world of Nature and humanity ongoing. Yes, improvements can be made. However, much of the world is so ‘psychotic’ and ‘dissociated’ and ‘hypnotized’—a case can be made (see my other writings on this)— and, thus a great shock is upon us and our humanitarian (humanism) assumptions—they need re-evaluation big time. The Fall of humankind has happened—and, is happening again. The shock of our own mortality, then the shock of our Anthropocene era caused by us to bring our extinction and a whole lot more in the near future (likely but not inevitable)—these are extraordinary conditions. MW has some sensibility to these but as a woman/mother I think she also is afraid to go into them deep enough for a better realistic analysis. That’s not blame—for she is like most every woman/mother and leader in that regard.

Ultimately, I want my work to initiate a unity of purpose for the Fear- lessness Movement globally, then we’ll have a truly workable and non-ideological (R)evolution on our hands—won’t that be great!

56 For example: “Only love casts out fear. And our deepest fear can only be cast out by the deepest love of all. We need to know unconditional love. Unconditional love, whether it comes from God or from another person, gives us substance and immortality.” Excerpt from Catholic Chaplaincy Oxford (https://www.catholic-chaplaincy.org.uk/anxiety/). This is prophetic text: “Perfect love casts out fear” (John 4:18).