Blog

The spiritual teacher, political activist and cultural (r)evolutionary [1] Marianne Williamson recently interviews human rights lawyer Steven Donziger, who has been for over 20 yrs fighting the battle for the Ecuadorian farmers and tribal peoples of the Amazonian Basin in S. America. I highly recommend this interview not only to show two outstanding citizens in dialogue, without hatred, but with firm analysis and righteous indignation as they point out in some detail how the guts of the American judiciary branch of justice is being systematically undermined by the courts and corporatist (money/powers) of the oil industry (i.e., Texaco now bought by Chevron). The corporations, with their huge lawyer teams, belive they can out-smart and finesse their way out of their own debts to the Ecuadorian people and ecosystems, which are in law they are to pay for the damages they did back several decades ago in malpractice of their oil drilling operations. 

The importance of what Donziger, now under "house arrest" in what is likely an illegal (certainly unjust) set of circumstances in New York courts, backed by Chevron's legal team, cannot be underestimated. I particularly am impressed overall how Williamson with her use of her large following of fans and supporters, is keeping the battle going even if she is not a "politician" per se. She is showing everyone how to be a political leader in and out of the mess and corruption of so much of politics and the law these days. Of course, corruption is nothing new. This case is exemplar as to what the justice systems, law itself, has to confront with the newest maneuverings of gross injustices by legal firms and corporations ('big oil' in this case). The latter are bent on intimidating, if not destroying, human rights lawyers in general--and could just as well be investigative journalists, etc. who are out to expose the truths of the worst crimes against humanity and the earth's ecosystems at-large. Williamson has found her broadcast medium through her podcasts [2] and her independent type of journalistic-work. It is not something to be dismissed of what she is capable of, and of which I would argue makes her one of the most important adult educators and (r)evolutionary leaders of the Fearlessness Movement today. 

Williamson offers several direct actions for solutions to the Donziger case, and makes it clear that even if things go in the worst way with his charges and trial on May 10th, 2021, that he will not be forgotten in his heroic efforts to bring to justice these corporate-legal entities that believe they can operate and profit from destroying the lives of lawyers as the 'weak link' when they have been shown to be guilty already in the Ecuadorian Court going back to the 2011 judgement, which Williamson speaks about with Donziger in this recent interview. Consider helping out in anyway you can. And, finally it is worth noting that although the two of them have never met, other than online, after Williamson initiated the first talk with him (this being the 2nd one)--Donziger makes his clear endorsement of Williamson that is worth writing down and reading. He says at the end, unsolicited: 

"Thank you Marianne for your leadership in our society. Your positive vision, you're an awesome person. I've watched you from afar [including during her 2020 election bid for leadership of the Democratic Party]... I just salute you for having the visiion that you do to better our society." 

In my mind, a toxic fearism, as I call it, has been the underbelly of all kinds of terrorism. Now that fearism is working its way into law big time, with corporatism and its worst sides giving us all a picture of how it will intimidate and destroy human rights lawyers, ignore the charges against it, and use money-power-law-politics to be the weapons for its own survival, meanwhile willing to destroy peoples and the ecological systems of this planet in their own selfishness. It is their deep fear/terror that they will lose control of their domination (Oil Empire)--and indeed, that battle still remains. We do have to recognize that "fighting" such sickness as we see in this case of Chevron and their law teams and the judges involved, that it is fear-based. That means it is wound-based. The way to fight them all has to be done with a good critical analysis of fearism not merely claims of injustice and crime etc. That latter concepts will not be sufficient [3] in the long run if we truly want to 'set everyone free,' even the oppressors, the criminals, those who exploit others. Everyone deserves to 'pay the price' when they are responsible for damages proven in courts. And, everyone deserves to be restored and supported to heal and transform.  

Notes

1. I have outlined in great detail her role in Fisher, R. M. (2021). The Marianne Williamson Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution for a Dangerous Time. Peter Lang. 

2. Go to: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/marianne-williamson-podcast-conversations-that-matter/id1536043190 

3. The holistic-integral arguments within the framework of a philosophy of fearism (as distinct from fearist-t in its toxic form), have been given in the book: Fisher, R. M., Subba, D. & Kumar, B. M. (2018). Fear, Law and Criminology: Critical Issues in Applying the Philosophy of Fearism. Xlibris. 

By now most of the FM ning readers will have seen and/or heard of this (somewhat 9/11-like tragic and disturbing event)--that hit the Washington, DC city and Capital Hill (the White House of the USA Government) on Jan. 6, 2021. 

The purpose of my short blogpost here is to put in my 'vote' for all of us to be very aware, smart, and fearless in our thoughts and imaginations about what happened that day (Jan. 6, 2021). I say this after my research on fear and fearlessness (and fearism [1]) for the last 25 years or so and how it is so important to not just fall into all the rhetoric, tropes and narratives being "spun" by all kinds of agendas, and politics, and extremisms. So, I call the Jan. 6 event an example (with more to come) of the organization and dynamics of how 'two sides danced' (i.e., opposites that have made an enemy out of each other for a long time)--to create this phenomenon now recorded in US history and recorded as a 'message' to EVERYONE--that, "Domestic Fearism" (my term for it)--is not going away (for it also has been a process, a phenomenon, boiling in the base of the mountain and awaiting to explode in the classic hurling lava of rage, fear, hate, call it what you will--violence, by any other name. The chaos and irrationality laying just below the surface. But wait... even I am susceptible to fall into easy narratives, I could even so easily pick sides in the "battle" on Capitol Hill (and, everywhere in America, at least)-- I too could fall into the fear-based 'design' of perception, thinking, valuing, worldview and rhetoric and actions of those all who are clearly upset by what happened that day--and, prior. 

This is all I'm going to write on this today, to just start FM ning members thinking about this all--and, the perennial problem in all forms of governance from the beginning of human history, you know I'm talking about when people don't get along--when conflict is part n' parcel of living in groups. Oh, but today, I trust we can be a lot more intelligent in figuring our way through this crisis of governance which this demonstration above truly shows--our failure in a lot of parts of governance. It is no one's (only one's) fault that any of this symptom exists and erupts--sure, some will be spear-head leaders but they are "not the problem" in the roots of the phenomenon, I will continue to call "Domestic Fearism" --a more nuanced and critical conception rather than calling it "Domestic Terrorism" as many (including Michael Moore, Marianne Williamson[2]) have already chosen to call it. Let's keep having a deep conversation on this, and preferrably from a fearlessness standpoint (rare and difficult as it may be to pull off)--rather, than the classic and habitual fear standpoint. Let's talk... 

Addendum: 

I just made a video on Michael Moore's intense emergency raw talk on Jan. 6/21 events and what is following soon. You might want to watch this but I'd suggest do it with a friend, ally or group, as it can be quite terrifying and traumatic material. I am both supportive and critical of how Moore does this work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgP1aDxLeag

Notes: 

1. "Fearism" is my specialty and conception of choices (amongst other frames and terms and theories)--because I am convinced it will be emancipatory for all human beings (and yes, all citizens, and yes, all who are on either side of the current enemy-making that is actually 'storming the entire nation' --of America--but also around the world). There is a lot of writing on "fearism" and "philosophy of fearism" on the internet and on the FM ning (just do a search here on our FM ning front page for more info.). I am particularly pointing out in my title for this blog that of one expression of fearism that is--fearism-t which is the toxic form of "fearism" (as Desh Subba has coined)--see our book for more on this distinction: Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of Fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Xlibris. To be very short, "domestic fearism" is the best way to understand "domestic terrorism"--and, that applies as well to finding a better way to understand terrorism in general--as fearism is the underbelly, the more quiet and less dramatic dynamic and reality that is always going on in oppressive societies--building up suppression, repression and violence of many forms--all of which, when built up enough, some eruption will come from that fearism and 'blow' to become an obvious form of terrorism (e.g., like what was seen Jan. 6). If we only try to understand terrorism without fearism, that will lead inevitably to such a partial and distorted analysis of the problems going on and that of course will undermine finding a real set of solutions deeper below the surface where fear breeds--and, virtually everyone on this planet is (more or less) a contributor to the "manufacture of fear" (and, fearism-t). 

2. For more background on my interest and study of Williamson's work and her political ambitions etc., see my upcoming book soon off the press: The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution in Dangerous Times (New York: Peter Lang, 2020). 

The philosophy of fearism (a la Subba et al.) is a great foundation, and still needs a lot of work (thanks to all of you working on that). However, if the idea of having fear and its role recognized as central in mediating human affairs throughout history, then legitimized in actual contemporary research studies (e.g., in social sciences) and then into actual policy formation (e.g., politics, urban planning)--well, there are some great opportunities. Recently the two research articles below from the international scene of publishing indicate, for the first time in a big way, that I have seen, where "fearism" is used as a key "force" field actor-agent of analysis and interventions. I've selected excerpts from the two papers so you can get a sense of how "fearism" [1] is being used and why. It is exactly this direction that fearism studies and knowledge need to go to actualize into world affairs with some impact. I ask all of you to help spread this message and encourage research in these directions of applications. Very important. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Note

1. You will notice that Desh Subba's notion of "fearism" per se is not being cited directly by these researchers but my own version that pre-dates Subba's meaning of fearism. In Fisher (2017), as you see the citation of my work in these two papers, does include a discussion briefly of Subbaian fearism as well. So far, the researchers in Global Migration Studies tend to (but not always) use my old definition from a paper I published in 2006 (although, my first naming and definition of fearism goes back to 1997). My definition of fearism originally focused on the cultural-ideological angle of fear-based "structures" (discourses) that control and manipulate societies. Fearism in that sense was the subtle underbelly of terrorism. Later in Fisher & Subba (2016) I came to distinguish my original version as fearism-t (toxic). Unfortunately, despite all the enthusiasm in the social sciences with my "fearism" concept and that is great, unfortunately, I have also seen it not used very accurately, or is just oversimplified, of which my 2017 paper was intended to correct those errors but that's not yet happening even in these two new 2020 articles. See Fisher, R. M. (2017).'Fearism': A critical analysis of uses and discourses in Global Migration Studies. Technical Paper No. 64. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. See Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Xlibris. 

March For Our Lives, centered in Washington, DC. leading Millenials' speakers, from 11 years old to teens of all kinds, shown giving voice, in numbers of hundreds of thousands, to their anger and frustration, their fears and hopes of the future ... and mostly showing they will no longer wait for adults to solve the problem of violence, trauma and social deterioration because politicians, community leaders, and adults generally have not done enough to make their lives safe and secure. The surface symptom of their battle centers on gun violence (especially in America). To see this movement and their rebellion in words, "without fear" and "enough is enough" and "never again" go to the four hour media coverage https://www.democracynow.org/live/watch_democracy_now_march_for_our

To understand one core dimension of this problem that these children and youth are standing up for, is to understand that when the so-called "safe," "wealthy" and "privileged" youth are attacked by a mass murderer in one of their schools (e.g., Parkland, in Florida Feb. 14, 2018), then enough is enough and masses of organized protest happens. And it was a revolution and movement very evident, very rooted, very generationally based. Youth will not lay down any longer, so it appears, and watch their future deteriorate before their very eyes by threats of being killed in schools or traveling to school--by terror(ism) and the resultant fear from victimization and collective trauma, etc. They are speaking out they do not want their schools and communities to end up as militarized "war zones" [1] where just about anyone has a gun hidden away in wait for the next battle. This is not the fearful kind of lives these traumatized youth want to live. 

"The truth about youth... is that they have learned and been conditioned to trust humans less and less since the Boomer's generation of peace and love. Youth now face the great challenge of whether to continue down that road of fear and mistrust or turn their generations' perspective around. Without them on the path of fearlessness, we can be certain the result will be deadly." 

The protest of these youth of course has great historical ripples recently as I have documented the "No Fear Movement" in America (especially) since the early 1990s. I see this March for Our Lives as the culminating breakthrough and much needed, of what started as a commercialized "No Fear!" slogandia in 1990 in California when a few young entrepreneurs began to put No Fear! on just about everykind of clothing thinkable that youth were buying. This was a time of wars and especially the HIV contagion which shook so many people because of deaths from a disease mostly sexually transmitted and traveling through youth-based communities without anyone knowing the cause or cure at the time. 

The word "Fearless" was then a follow-up as the next branding term for many commercial products and advertising, all of which are meant to capture what the young people were wanting in their lives, as they were getting sick and tired of living in so much fear and terror. With more acts of mass murders through guns and terrorism attacks, etc. the world was just becoming more and more unsafe and it became harder to trust just about anyone. 

I have to say, I so appreciate the youth movement today of children and teens, and seeing such masses united on the streets, are no doubt a revolutionary change ... trailing and necessarily built on the young adult movements of Occupy in 2011, of Black Lives Matter, of the women's and #Me Too movements --all led at a time of total frustration by so many people, especially post-9/11 and especially with elitism and facism growing rampantly, and especially the levels of violence everywhere. The trauma and fear has led too many young people to be paranoid. If you listen to their talks at the March for Our Lives, you'll hear this comment about fear, and how they want to live "without fear" in their daily lives, but I was pleased they didn't just throw around the arrogant slogans of the past, of "No Fear!" or "Fearless" ... no, they were more talking about how paranoia was now their norm, and their ghost, living with it everyday, they have simply seen too much too close and they are hurting and grieving and ducking bullets. They do not believe most forms of adult management of fear (or guns) is doing much good at all. They don't want to live in a war zone in their communities and schools anymore. Of course, the marginalized youth and adults in America have been saying that for decades, and so have the wartorn countries of the world, and refugees. But now it seems, the tide has come in, and the scales of intolerance to living in paranoia have flipped. And it is damn well time! Good for all youth for being intolerant of an insane normalization of fear/paranoia [2] that has occurred in the world in the last century especially. 

But youth need assistance from adult allies to be successful in their goals to overcome the terrorism, the toxic fearism-t, and paranoia in societies. I invite adults and youth on this FM blog and elsewhere to join dialogues and actions to help the cause. There is so much good knowledge and wisdom available throughout the world's fearlessness teachings and non-violence movements to provide wise guidance for youth and everyone. It is obvious the March for Our Lives has tapped into some of those experiences of nonviolent protest but there is much more too. There is quality information on the faults of oppressive adultism and how it makes youth's concerns secondary. It is there. I have worked with some others, to make this available. Let me know how I can help (r. michaelfisher52 [at]gmail [dot] com). 

p.s. it seems my prediction in the late 1980s is coming true--it will be fear that unites the most people for the common good, not love ... love comes into it but fear is the major driver for liberation--and, fearlessness is the meta-motivation more invisible in joining the natural telos of Fear towards Love .... 

Notes: 

1. Eventually, more or less, the truth is going to come out in these youth protests, and actions. The truth is, that America is a warring country, always has been, and wants to dominate the world. You do that by "guns" of one kind or another. So, within the domestic sphere of society, school culture, urban realities, guess what... guns are everywhere because people for the most part are so afraid and so think war is the answer. America can truly change if youth rebel and don't stop... on this way to making countries everywhere give up on the war strategy as primary in fear management (i.e., safety and security management)... of course, we need lots of other strategies to handle the conflicts going on, which are real, and in which some take up arms to try to win.  

2. This is like an "addiction to fear" which is arguably characteristic of what many critics call the "culture of fear" phenomena.

I finally received a first published hard copy of my new co-authored book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (of which I have written previously on this FMning). I glanced it over and opened the book randomly at a few places and started reading. It's a little shocking to read one's own published work sometimes: "Who wrote that?" The overall impression is positive and that's a good sign. I happened to think (with all modesty and objectivity as I can muster) that there is no book more important on the topic fear and its management on the planet right now (that I know of). This short blog will say a few words (and quote from the new book) about why I think this is true. Btw, I thank my co-author Desh Subba (a Nepalese philosopher, novelist, poet) for his dedication to developing a philosophy of fearism and his openness to include me in that conceptualization and project. I see myself dedicating the rest of my working years (maybe 15 left until I'm 80) on this new philosophy. 

So the pages I happen to open to at random come from Chapt. 4 (pp. 98-100) which is unique in the book because Desh encouraged me to re-vise but basically republish a 2014 essay I wrote on a "Theory of Fearism" (Technical Paper No. 51) (note: theory of fearism as distinct from, but related to, a philosophy of fearism). I begin with a Foreword to Technical Paper No. 51: 

p. 98: "In Chapter 3 of this co-authored book there is a controversial message: "There is something wrong in the field of fear management" [a phrase I penned in my first major scholarly book The World's Fearlessness Teachings in 2010, p. xxvii]. I go on to talk about why we need various theories of fearism (mine, which I call fearism-t) in order to have a healthy philosophy of fearism, and from that a healthy set of practices of fear management (and fear education). Yes, I could just have easily written: "There is something wrong in the field of fear education" (i.e., fear education used in a positive way, analogous to sex education). So, how controversial is this claim? What do I back it up with? 

Let me first say, the phrase "something wrong" is hyperbole in a sense to attract attention on a problem in the field of fear management. In retrospect, I am not sure this is a good way to get attention, because the very discourse of labeling something "wrong" is highly problematic in terms of its long history (especially in the West) of being a way to put something, some group, some policy, some person (and their behavior or values) down. It is a criticism. And it carries a lot of fear-based baggage (garbage, toxicity) that tends to easily slide from saying "something is wrong" to "someone is wrong" and I would not want to perpetuate such a notion. I think it is too partial of a claim and it tries to paint the entire reality of something or someone as "wrong" in an absolute sense. And, it immediately raises the question of who (and from what perspective) can anyone judge that anyone is wrong--same applies to something. The use of the label "wrong" (often with emotional discharge behind it) is clearly an attack to putting something down and "diss it", more or less. I won't go on and on with this but to say the use of the term (hyperbole or not) is a dangerous one of bringing more injury into human society--and that means concomitantly bringing more fear with it. Arguably, it is "fear talk" to blame, shame and make someone or something "bad" (the opposite of good, and it may even mean making it "evil"). 

So, I used the phrase as hyperbole, and I could have (more sensitively) said: There is something wrong in the field of fear management, even though there is a good deal of something right in the field of fear management. Then, that would be both more fair, and less re-stimulating of our hurts and fear itself. Especially, in that I am not intending to attack anything or anyone per se who practices fear management as a professional, theorist, etc. Nor, would I want anyone who teaches and designs fear management curricula to feel I am attacking them and their work and their motivation. Criticism alone is usually not very useful and does more harm than good. Critique however, in contrast to criticism, is when you point out the negative and positive at the same time, in proportion to a healthy engagement with someone, rather than trying to put them down. I intended to offer a critique in my new book re: the state of the field of fear management (or, equally of fear education). I think if anyone reads my books they will find I can get passionate and critical and even slip into criticism but that if they read on it is more critique I offer overall. But I'll leave others to assess my work overall, as I am too close to it to tell. 

Returning to the point of this blog, I am taken with my clarity in the new book (scanning pp. 98-100), of how simple (and controversial) the message is that I have argued. It is worth repeating again but maybe I'll do it in a more readable way here in this blog. Things need to be said many times, and in many ways, in order to communicate. Sometimes a reader will hear it anew, from a different time and place and with some different language. As an educator myself, I am dedicated to not giving up on anyone, even when they tell me "I read your book and I don't really understand it." Okay, to the basic simple message in these couple pages, which really well represents my overall project--it all boils down to something like this: 

1. there is something wrong in the field of fear management; and that is skewing how we understand best how to know fear and thus, manage it well

2. that something wrong (or missing) is ....... a "harmful violent ideology" (p. 98) that over-shadows the entire study of fear

3. a theory and philosophy of fearism (e.g., Fisher and Subba) can address this ideology and ensure a 'correction' to what is missing (wrong) in fear management

4. no one else has pointed out the above problems (gaps, errors, "something wrong" or missing), until now, in this new book .... etc. 

Okay, there's the basics of the my work I am so passionate about. Would this excite anyone else, to the point where they would dedicate some time, or a lot of time to helping clarify the problem in the field of fear management (and, in every day life as we manage fear, more or less consciously)? With this new clarification, we could then develop interventions more healthy re: fear, and its study and management. We could create a re-evaluation of everything we think we know about fear, and run it all through a new deconstruction and reconstruction--that is, through a new theory and philosophy of fearism. 

On p. 99, I have a sub-title: Fearism-t and Epistemic Violence: Reconstructing Fear Management. That speaks to a greater articulation of all of the above. And, about now, one gets the creeping feeling that this all is about to impact the way one perceives, thinks, and acts in regard to fear. That's pretty major in implication to our everyday life. That involves being a lot more consciousness and self-reflective (and critical) about everything to do with fear--and, especially what others tell you about fear (e.g., authors, teachers, parents, ministers, psychology clinicians, policemen, lawyers, government leaders, business corporate heads, and so on). 

The simple notion is there. But will we talk about this further, or merely read about it? Will we talk about "a 'harmful violent ideology' surrounding the study of fear--and, in particular, the construction and dissemination of the knowledge about fear and its management and education" (p. 98)? Another way to put the problem is something like this: 

A lot of authors/experts on the topic of fear management (and researchers) often say: It is not fear that is the problem, it is how we manage it that matters most. Such a claim has become ever-popular in layman and professional circles today. It is partially (in my view) good wisdom but to a point. I (and Subba) tend to stretch this quite a lot more to a critical perspective on that claim itself (which, btw, those who utter the above predominant wisdom of the day, never reflect on themselves and offer readers some opening (cautionary) of critical inquiry into the claim and its potential limitations, if not distortions--they seem to not be aware of a perspective beyond their own favorite one--which gets repeated by others who think like they do). So, on p. 98-100 in the new book, I offer another entirely different angle (and I think a much better one): The problem with fear and how we manage it is that we lack a critical awareness and vocabulary (i.e., guiding methodology) that operates outside of the fear-based structure of the field of fear management. And thus, we return to the 4 points I listed re: the basic problem--which, you can see is articulated much differently than the popular wisdom problem articulation above. Introducing a notion of a harmful violent ideology surrounding the study of fear--becomes a very simple but also complex intervention I throw into the soup pot. The main ingredient missing in the popular wisdom is a notion of fearlessness (but that's a much longer story, of which I write about in my other WFT book). 

From this point forward, my work (and Subba's) is essentially different from anything else out there. It is also in that sense, critical of anything else out there. Now, in the long-run, time and experience will prove if it is better, as we both think it is. And, any such "proving" will only occur when others (beyond Subba and I) take serious interest with the necessary support of resources to help test the theory and philosophy of fearism. There's no doubt in our minds, that many theories and variations of philosophies are required to cover the huge territory of fear (and/or 'fear')--or what I like to simply call The Fear Problem today. So, I am not looking for only "followers" (yes, they are helpful for the cause), I am looking for allies who think critically (and have healthy doubt) about everything--including everything I just wrote in this blog! 

Give me a call or email [618-529-1166  r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com] if you want to talk seriously (or even playfully)... and co-create with me and this work.