J.W. Mathews
We who are gathered here are no wise a decisionmaking
body at all. We're not here to decide anything. But we're here
to dig out data that we can recommend to the decisionmaking
centers of the movement. The key of which probably these days,
beyond the total Order, is the Area Priors around the globe. They
will come together with the rest of us in September, and it would
be fine if between now and September that useful data and those
recommendations could be at hand. I may see a sizable number of
them this spring, and it would be fine if something came out of
our meeting today in any form, even in the fashion of guidelines,
that we hopefully would be using to reflect upon the issues at
hand, in the next few months, which would of course enable them
to get their stewing going. I look upon today, though I don't
know what the Lord has in mind, as an exploratory moment. We've
got together a somewhat of a crosssection of us. We wanted
men who had secular wisdom of various types, but who were very,
very, very close to the Order for this first meeting. If we meet
in the future, which I would expect that we would, we of course
could call in anybody who had the kind of expertise that our guidelines
pointed out that we need.
Most of you are perhaps aware that in August, September, October,
November a group like this met to deal with our finances. And
it was fantastically remarkable to me what happened. And the experts
that they called in were to me educators. I got an education.
I'm convinced of it. Anyway I look forward to what will come out
of our time together. I have no idea what will be.
Perhaps I can remind you of where we are in terms of the operating
dynamics that relate to the decisions that determine the actualization
of our mission that we sometimes call the polity structure. And
then maybe we can look at a possible agenda.
However poorly, we're concerned with using ourselves as guinea
pigs that might in some small modest way make some contribution
to our time in the whole arena of corporateness as it relates
to the decisionmaking processes. And you recollect that
we are concerned in polity with creating tensional systems out
of which we believe creativity will perpetually come. We at the
moment are concerned with complexing those tensional systems,
not taking the complexity out of it. And, rightly or wrongly,
this is to avoid an architectonic form of bureaucracy, or to say
it the other way is to push the bureaucracy to such limits that
a total body becomes that bureaucracy relatively speaking, which
takes away, hopefully, the possibility of the monstrosities such
as Goodwin described in the New Yorker, I guess it was, in those
three articles in which he summed it UD by saying that the dragon
of bureaucracy today just operates. And if everybody on the earth
dropped dead, this old monster would just keep going, eternally.
Some body reminded me of this science fiction story where this
big bomber, absolutely automatic, would come in, get reserviced,
reloaded, refueled, would fly out and drop its bombs.
And 20 years after this bomber had destroyed everybody on earth,
it was still coming in, getting repaired, refueled, restocked,
and dropping bombs out where there was nothing left to kill.
Anyway, we want to avoid two things in our polity. One is
any form of the medieval hierarchical construct of polity. And
also, what is today I suppose beginning to worry more and more
people, and that's the bureaucratic revolution Mow in order to
do that we try to build a tension between the global and the local.
And in the local you have in this circle 84 Religious Houses around
the world, 20 or 21 of which are Area Houses. In our scheme of
the world we have 54 Areas, and 21 of them are developed. And
I might say that, if we had the trained forces, you could shove
that down the road a huge way. I think that probably the only
Areas in which we will be temporarily deterred will be China and
Russia, at the moment. Anyway, I put up here just the Area Houses.
There ought to be, I think, 20 UD there.
Around these are the satellites of the other Religious Houses.
Some of these do not have any satellites. Others have maybe 12
or 13, I think. Anyway, this represents the local dynamic. I might
say we tried to do this continentally, and I think we failed.
Then we used to think regionally. But there are 324 Regions,
and that seems too much to handle, so we settled on the 54 Areas
to represent the local. And we mean in the local politywise,
local autonomy. Local autonomy in our definition only exists when
that local does its local in a global context. This is what we
mean by the Xavier principle, to use our jargon. We are not interested
in the kind of local autonomy in which something over here is
running its little thing and over here its little thing and over
here its little thing. Each one of those locals is related to
the globe. My great illustration of that is one time I stopped
by to see Prank Hilliard in London, and Frank and I were pushing
it around a little bit, and he said to me, "Joseph, I want
you to understand that, though I'm the prior of the London Area,
I am responsible for the total mission of the whole Order across
the globe." Well that's local autonomy. What that means is
nobody finally is telling Hilliard what he ought to do over in
London. That doesn't mean, and I'll come to that in a moment,
that ,,re do not have common operating structures. But Hilliard
could only fulfill what we mean by the local function if he not
only said but meant what he said about the globe. And I would
like to believe that these kinds of things that I'm saving, though
I'm using the jargon of untutored laymen in this area, potentially
would relate to the operation of any complex organization or institution
that happens to exist at this moment in history.
Now the global dynamic is what we call Centrums. They must
not be seen in geographica1 terms. Otherwise you're building,
I think, simply another invisible architectonic system. They have
to occupy space. But you're not interested in having one per continent
or one per area. Where the Centrum would be located in its multiplicity
would be determined by the degree of service that was needed by
the Religious Houses and matters of distance and these kinds of
things. For instance, there might be one in a sphere; there might
be another that would be continental. My guess here in North America,
and I'm sorry it happens this way because it has to do with Chicago,
is that it probably has to be continental. Maybe not. But in other
Places it could even be on an area level. Like, for instance,
Sydney, which is so far away from everywhere, might very well
have a Centrum there. Jim Bishop some years ago, perhaps prematurely,
set up a separate house in Sydney that was to take care of all
of Australia. Looking back on it, he probably was pioneering the
fact that Australia maybe does need a Centrum, although I'm not
pushing for that at the moment.
If you think in terms of what is immediately ahead, I would
say something like this. Maybe Centrums would be located in four
places in the world, like in Chicago and Hong Kong and Bombay
and maybe Brussels or London. Or maybe this one in Hong Kong ought
to be in Singapore, which could reach Sydney a little easier than
Hong Kong. In these Centrums, Chicago, due to fate, would always
be in one sense a home base probably. Maybe one day not. They
tell me that Beirut is the point in the world which is easier
for all people by air lines to convene. Well, it could be that
something like that would overcome the fatefilled symbolism that
Chicago is. But it would have to he something like that, I suppose.
Now, secondly, though we use the word Centrums which I'll come to in a moment, when we use the plural it does not apply to this kind of spatial diffusion. There is one Centrum. Though it may have four manifestations. There is only one. This is global, and if you had a multiplicity of Centrums you could not maintain the tension between the global and the local, we believe. However, we do use the plural of Centrum, and that refers to the dynamics in Centrum itself. We call these Centrums, these four things (Centrums) within a centrum which is all of this, and these, as You know, are Research, Development, Operations and Management. Now here in Chicago all of these are now going. Rick Loudermilk and Art Smith pulled off the Management Centrum as an independent entity standing on its own feet, so all four of these are operating.
Actually, the foundational philosophy underneath all of this
is 1ust stark naked platonism5 in which he said any government
is made UD of oligarchy you've got to transpose that into
the postmodern world oligarchy or aristocracy
and democracy. Now in our language cower centers first of all
rest in the total community. That's what we mean by consensus.
The aristocracy was craved in the past by the seven families that
moved from Austin, Texas, to Chicago. About three years ago they
began to fade into nothing, at the pain of some of them. The new
leadership emerged in the community, but none of that had been
very self-conscious. We were so small that we operated by town
meetings. This only by necessity. When you have a huge number
at town meetings, you can't hire 28 747's to fly people to one
place, and too many of us operate this way anyway. And it will
be increasingly so.
Now this is the Area priors (the Aristocracy). Then the monarchy,
and this has happened in our day, as always. This is symbolic.
That was their basic power. Though they snatched power from here
in the perversion of this. Now this is sticking out as sheer symbolism.
Without this, this nor this could operate. That's behind it. Last
September we had the first Area Priors Council. This next year
we're going to have to have it far more systematically. I tell
you this burns the hell out of me. I just shudder at systems.
That's right. What I fear is hierarchical systems. Not systems.
In which these development people would be working together, for
commonness; the operations people working together for commonness.
Oh, I mean these people here would be working with these people
for commonness. And so with the others. And also these commission
people would be working with the representatives from those commissions
to get a common operating consensus for at least one year. Whenever
you would have such things as Area Prior Councils you would be
dealing with Oligarchy. Then we've got to have this. Councils
here. But I tell you, I'm hard put. I even hate to go to representationalism.
As soon as you've done that, you've already moved into Oligarchy.
But we've got to find ways where consensus is on the local level.
That, to be honest with you, I don't quite see. How are we going
to do it? If you had $600,000,000,000 we could get together and
wouldn't it be easier.
Now these Centrums, as we look at it, have to do with our
mission, our task in all its forms. And in each one of these locations
there would be a dynamic. There would be one of these dynamics
that we call Centrums. But thento overcome the geographic
connotation, it's like there would be one Development Centrum
around the world. And we are much further down the road on this
than even, oh, two months ago I dreamed. We are on the way. It
looks as if in the next couple of months we will get $80,000 out
of two foundations in West Germany. That's interesting, isn't
it? Or you think that last year Joe Thomas raised $96,000 roughly
in SEAPAC. For us that's a miracle. It looks like a foundation
in Great Britain is going to give us $20,000 for work in India
in the next couple, few months. And these are just illustrations
that this is already beginning to happen. The men in Europe are
raising money for their own operation. Yes, and I would want to
make this clear. Keep in our mind all day long that
money we raise is program money. And this next year that'll be
$2,000,000, I suppose. And then the money that we live off of,
the food and inoutoftherain costs we earn
ourselves would be $5,000,000 including all the Religious Houses
overseas. I think it's important that we see this and keep it
clear. It also makes our polity more delicate. Nobody gets paid
nothing, so to speak. Anyway you see this. And then you'd have
to draw circles that relate these others. There is one Research
net around the globe. Not four or nine. There is one Management
net around the world. And one Operations net.
Now the interior life, and we're not so clear on this, is
taken care of by what we call commissions. And the commissions
do not make the Operating decisions. They are the guardians that
keep the decisions somewhat coordinated where they relate to our
internal life. And one of these is the Assignment Commission
if you want to use other language, this is personnel. But for
US the crucial thing relative to glue and polity are these long
sheets of assignments that come out. Not only in terms of where
we're stationed for a year, but in terms of where we go to teach
with those two suitcases that are always packed, as well as innumerable
other places where your fate is decided for you by somebody else.
One of these is the Fiscal Commission. And one of these is what
we call the Interior Life Commission. This has to do with personnel
relative to the task. This has to do with interrelationships within
our group, which as large as we are now is increasingly complex.
And these people watch over that. And then we have the Legal Commission.
These commissions do not make decisions in one sense. They
review decisions. They just watch over decisions. Fundamental
decisions, say thinking just of Centrum for a moment, are made
by these four Centrums within Centrums. For instance, there isn't
someone that's up above the Management that lays out a policy
for Management to follow. Management makes the decisions. And
so with Development. And so with Operations. l
Then we also have another complication that does not need
to go up on this for the moment, and that is that we divide ourselves
up into Congregations. We have four Congregations. And this is
the arena in which the total body takes care of each other. When
you boil it down, that's what it is. And yet in one sense it belongs
here, because, if you're trying to locate what we used to call
power centers where decisions are made, those Congregations are
absolutely crucial. They make decisions on behalf of all of us.
And this would be replicated in each one of these. How they would
be interrelated, I am not quite sure. As a matter of fact, this
whole arena is still fuzzy for us, but I think we have gone far
enough to see that it is absolutely crucial to us. And I suppose
clarity will come as we move on.
We have five People within our group here at Centrum, I mean
within a Centrum, who are on these commissions that relate to
the Centrum dynamic here in Chicago, which is the only one that's
realistically existing at the moment. But ever since the Guardians
have really moved, we have used them as an extension of these
commissions. Now the next time you meet I think that we probably
would need to open up this group and bring in some other Guardians
who are not directly a part of the Order. Right now we're exploring,
to do a little thinking ourselves. Each one of these commissions
would function in that fashion. Some of you who were here last
summer remember that we had a group of maybe 25 people, some of
whom did not belong to the Order, who were making assignments
of us for the year. One of them has since joined the Order (Bob
Booher.) I used to walk in there and "God, who is that eating
up our destiny?" But it is clearly interesting that it doesn't
make any difference. It doesn't make any difference. The job needed
to be done, needed to he done rationally. And obviously we know
in our day (they didn't know a hundred years ago, I suppose) there
are as many different schemes of rationality as there are stars
in the sky. There isn't one.
Now here in the last part of this, oh yes, now, these Houses are not under Centrums. There is this kind of a tension constantly out of which consciousness is born. Of course this whole scheme is based on what man has become aware of simply in our lifetime, really that consciousness is born of tension, not as the psychologist would like to think, otherwise. We now are coming to
have awe before tension, not simply fear of it. Fighting is
a part of life. Deep down below anything you and I can look at.
And when that goes, then consciousness is gone.
Now you had to have a symbolic dynamic. And the symbolic dynamic
in this is neither global nor local, and it's transparent. And
therefore must always be nothing. Like I've often said, at least
once a year they ought to get together the Panchayat and everybody
piss on them to keep reminding them that they are nothing. They
are not a group of people who send out orders to the uttermost
parts of the earth. I don't think we're clear on even what we
mean when we say this is symbolic by a long shot, but we're clear
on a few items related to it. And that is that they are not what
in the cast were the head men. Any of them. Also, you are quite
well aware that what we call the Panchayat now, the five, has
almost become Mickey Mouse, not because anybody makes it Mickey
Mouse, but because that group could not even possibly represent
this dynamic we're spelling out, although it was through that
group that we have learned what we have learned. In the meantime,
they are operating in this little hunk of the whole scheme as
if they were this. The day after tomorrow, this global Panchayat
has got to come into being. What that would look like and how
you go about it, I do not know. It may very well be that you're
going to have to have a symbolic Panchayat that is composed of
portions of symbolic Panchayats especially you young
ones are going to have to think hard in that area. Now I also
believe myself, though I'd be hard put to make a speech on this,
that that kind of a thing is your new kind of executive coming
into being. You almost don't want to call him an executive any
more. I mean top echelon executive. I don't know much about how
this is directly related to corporations, for instance multinational
corporations, but my intuition says that there is a relationship.
And that maybe they would be some of the most important resources
for us to learn from and for us to adjust anything that we have
learned now.
One or two things. That's pretty well our dynamic. If you'll
notice, you've got a tension between the local and the global,
and you have another untension between the symbolic and the global
and between the symbolic and the local. But it's a tensional untension.
That's part of where, I think, in the future you're going to have
to do some hard thinking. We know now that there is power in symbolism.
But it is a different kind of Dower than you're dealing with in
other places. You have your tension in the Centrums, and you have
your tensions here in your areas. And you have your tensions within
each one of the manifestations of Centrum. Some of my colleagues
who I think, I don't ask them to agree with me, still operate
in the architectonic image, this drives them absolutely haywire.
But I believe you must not simplify these tensions. You have to
complex them. And when I accuse them of that which I did there,
I've got to say that's in me too. The way I accuse them of thinking
is also in myself.
There are probably some long established principles that will come out today and the next times we meet. And I'll not try to pull those out right now, except one. The decision is already made and has been made for years that we are one body and not two or three or eightyfour. We are one. And let's say that's a basic presupposition. low how you hold this multifaced monster together as one is, I believe, where our underlying problem is. Some of the issues, then, in the broad picture are: Those relating to ownership of property. Those relating to the interchange of moneys, banking, currency transferal, that kind of thing. Those relating to the legal constructs in many places. Matters having to do with trust laws. And with taxes of a variety or sorts that I do not even understand. Then all of these matters and more that you know of have to be seen through, at least for me, two sets of glasses. One is through our nation. Minus the ones in Canada, you've maybe got 42 Houses in this country. And then internationally. Now you may come up with a scheme in which you don't have two things. At the moment, in my mind, we've got two sets of practical problems: how we get this done in this country; and then, secondly, how we get it done around the world.