Tweet
Who is Robert W. Fuller you might ask? Maybe you have enjoyed him on CSPAN? Or read his books, or the article in Oprah? His Huffington Post contributions (a great one recently about the Gates/Crowley teaching moment, btw). You may not know that, in his long and distinguished career, Fuller was a consultant to Indira Gandhi in 1971, or met Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office to launch a hunger program.
Personally, I think he is America’s Ghandi. Like Ghandi, Robert W. Fuller is offering us a way out of the destructive, divisive pickle we find ourselves in. We have gone beyond the normal party parsing of politics and are about to drop like a ton of bricks into social chaos unless someone puts on the brakes. And no in Washington seems to know how.
I think we need a national discussion on our shared principles again. Everyone seems to running around all angry and agitated and right, instead of striving to unite, or so it seems to me.
The word Ghandi would have loved to have had is RANKISM. Fuller has written a couple of books about RANKISM and has lectured throughout the world sharing his vision of a society that overcomes the one ISM that all of us have experienced and may be experiencing. Worse yet, we may even be guilty of abusing our rank at work or at home. This can be overcome, Fuller teaches the way.
The word RANKISM stems from the dynamics between the abuser of rank and the victim of rank abuse. So who are the RANKISTS among us? Are you a victim of RANKISM? With these words available to us, we can take the next step in the evolution of our democracy:
A DIGNITARIAN SOCIETY, also a term Fuller has coined to describe a society in which RANKISM has been exposed and seeks to root out.
I know. I know. Another term or theory you might sigh. But before you do, I highly recommend checking out Fuller’s volume of work. At age 71, successfully retired, Fuller just wants a chance to share what many believe is America’s best hope for a more perfect union.
Here’s what Studs Terkel once said of Robert’s work, Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank:
“…a wonderful and tremendously important book on the ‘ism’ that is far more encompassing than racism, sexism or ageism. ‘Rankism’ must be our prime target from now on in. Viva Fuller!”
And how do we overcome RANKISM?
DIGNITY: The Cure For Rankism
How do you change something that’s so pervasive and that has for so long gone unnamed? With dignity, Fuller says. Treating people with dignity, no matter where they fall on the corporate, social, familial, or political ladder is the key to overcoming rankism in all its manifestations. In rankist environments, creativity is stifled, students can’t learn, workers are disloyal, health is compromised, families suffer dysfunction, and victims want revenge. Dignity is the antidote.
Why am I sharing this? I truly believe Fuller’s moral philosophy can stem the tide of chaos and anarchy America seems to be riding.It’s time to get some dignity back into our hearts and minds, folks, before it’s too late!Studs Terkel, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Working.
EVERY GREAT SHIFT IN THINKING HAS A TIME AND A SEASON.
Now is the season, embracing Dignity For All is the shift, and curtailing the pervasive social destruction fostered by unbridled RANKISM or abuse of rank is the answer. I hope you will take some time to become familiar with this American philosopher’s work.
MASS MEDIA. HEY, WHERE ARE YOU? Someone has ANSWERS for a change! Who will be first to introduce Fuller’s work on the national stage?
Here is Robert W. Fuller’s webpage:
http://www.breakingranks.net
20 Comments
Um. What happened to the intro paragraphs? My first firedoglake diary, thanks.
Well, I html’d paragraphs. So there is hope, heh?
This is the INTRO that didn’t publish. I wonder why?
What Ghandi really fought against was a word that hadn’t yet been invented – Rankism.
Rankists, in Ghandi’s India, impoverished the masses while enjoying their riches and power. India became a powder keg of malcontent under the weight of unfairness and outright cruelty experienced by the majority of its citizens.
Isn’t this happening here and now in America? Is America becoming our social powder keg?
And, if so, how can we stem the tide of chaos? I believe Robert W. Fuller has the answers.
How can we become A MORE PERFECT UNION?
Who is Robert W. Fuller and what the heck is RANKISM you might ask?
Gandhi, or Gandiji (I think). You can always go back and edit your diary entry for a period of time. Use the buttons provided to add html tags that are allowed. I think whatever you did is messing up Scarecrow’s diary right behind yours.
Interesting angle. Never heard of rankism. This is a Fuller term, not a Gandiji term?
I have the pleasure of having a 1980 self-published book (1000 copies sold, 1000 copies distributed, 500 waiting for special re-release)with a comprehensive vision of human history and human choices and human sciences — a system which is not an ideology as it allows us all to be the best scientists of our own reality, and to argue this out forevermore — which has evolved and developed and proven quite useful in the decades since then.
Going out to the garage to get a copy and try to prop it open, I then defined (later versions also exist) the science of politics as:
“the study of man and his relationships with other men in the creation, distribution and regulation of status, rank, and group decision making. Every time our early men and women recognized roles, status and rank in interpersonal affairs, every time they interacted in group decision-making, they were engaged in political behavior.”
The science of politics is, in the current version, one of four social sciences which simultaneously describe our every human motion.
It used to take me ten or fifteen minutes to explain my system. This summer, I’ve twice gotten it down to a quick humorous 5-6 minutes — maybe 750 words, a long newspaper column space. I’ve got many other plans & problems for this evening, I’ll try to prepare it for y’all sometime soon.
Fuller’s on the right path, wait ’til I get goin’, I have already written much on these themes, referring to it as “personal and social imperialism.”
Thank you for commenting. This is my first firedoglake diary, so I don’t really know how it could affect another diary. That it dropped the into I wrote is a mystery to me.
Re: Ghandi and Ghandiji. In India, Ghandiji means Dear Ghandi. The “iji” is added to revered persons, like Ghandi. Another example is “mata” or mother. Dear Mother would be expressed as “mataji”. I learned this during my youthful entrance into an American Ashram when I launched my spiritual quest for that elusive Truth some are driven to seek.
Now, I could be wrong; however, I think this explains the difference between the name references of Ghandi and Ghandiji.
“If Ghandi Could See Us Now, What Would He Recommend?”: He would recommend correcting the transliterated (mis-)spelling of his name: it should be “Gandhi” NOT “Ghandi.” BTW, the “iji” is also incorrect: should be “ji” (honorific; respectful term; e.g. “Sir” or “Madam” ).
Fascinating. I like Fuller’s term Rankism because it easily fits into the present, accepted language of other isms like sexism, racism, and ageism. With these terms we have been able to label (ugh! but necessary in order to have a cogent conversation I believe). Abuse of rank, or abuse in general, becomes more easily discussed with the ability to call out someone or a group with a word – Rankist.
When you think about it, aren’t all the isms a form of Rankism? Isn’t abuse of rank, either real or perceived, at the root of each of them?
What is this negative human tendency to elevate ourselves by denigrating others? It is such a false sense of self worth and so harmful to the well-being of others and society at large, don’t you think?
Perhaps you could coin Fuller’s words: Rankism and Dignitarian into your work.
I believe the clock is ticking and running short before America descends into Chaos. I have sensed this for a long time. The Anti-Health Care Reform Shouters are the seed to mobocracy. It is a Lose Lose Strategy funded and fueled by Corporate Interests who care nothing about a stable, productive society IF they perceive such to be a threat to their vested interests.
I believe the time is now to promote the concept of Rankism and the next step in the evolution of Democracy – Dignity For All. Will you help?
Personally, I am seeking no personal gain here. I just want to help dampen the divisiveness that threatens to destroy all that so many have toiled and even died in combat to protect.
As an aside, I do believe the Shouters are fearful. They have been fed a steady stream of misinformation. It would be best to maintain a modicum of compassion for them, even though they certainly inspire rancor from those who just want a better life for most Americans. However, if we respond in similar negative ways, all hell will break out, which is exactly what the Rankists (corporatists) want. Nothing would please them more than the response to utter Chaos – An Authoritarian Government that will force us all to feed their coffers through such things as an Insurance Mandate.
I suggest we respond with FACTS. Bring those (or pictures and stories of those) who are or have died because of Insurer abuse. Reality can touch the hearts of even the most outraged, fearful Shouters because pictures of children and others like them who have died at the hands of Corporate Health Insurance policies might open their hearts to another reality – That they, too, could be one of those who will die because their Insurer tosses them to the grave so that the Corporate Profits don’t suffer. How Heartless!
Again, thanks for responding.
Oops.. You are correct. It’s difficult to proof read your own stuff. Thanks!
Good idea. Wrong species.
We are primates, and primates operate in band structures. Bands are fairly egalitarian, but as Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others. Rankism is just a neologism for using one’s status in a social hierarchy. Maybe you want to call it abuse of status, I don’t know.
Whatever you want to call it, we aren’t wired that way. We have been trying to figure out how to operate large-scale social organization, and failing at it, for about 6000 years now.
If you folks are serious about this, god bless your efforts. But you’d better study social structures along with it, because any system that ignores those things is doomed to fail.
Yes, we are primates, and yes as primates we gravitate into hierarchies, BUT, we are smart-enough primates to notice that hierarchies in which rank is not abused out-perform those in which rankism (abuse of rank) is sanctioned. There is simply more creativity and productivity in dignitarian organizations. Homo sapiens notices that, and democracies prevail, because of that, and over time more dignitarian societies displace rankist ones because of that. If America persists in its rankist ways, it will cede leadership to societies that call rankism on the carpet and formally disallow it. When racism got in our way, threatened to bifurcate the country into a White America and a Black America, we disallowed segregation and (albeit reluctantly) slowly adopted multiculturalism. In other words, the “price” (to segregationists) of a multi-ethnic America, was disallowing racism, and in the crunch we were willing to pay it. Similarly, to become a dignitarian America we shall he to give up rankism. Will we? That’s the question we must now confront. That is the battle we must now fight. On it depends the viability of the American dream, which is what the world has admired about us. Invoking primate social structures to suggest that we’re incapable of overcoming rankism is equivalent to saying we’ve come as far as we can; our union cannot be perfected any further; American democracy is stagnant. I suspect that there were voices at Runnymede who argued against taking those first Magna Carta baby steps towards democracy on the grounds that gorillas had not done so.
Perfect! Thank you. May I quote you?
Perhaps I didn’t state myself clearly. I believe that what you call rankism is a consequence (an emergent phenomenon if you prefer) of large-scale social organization.
I was not saying that we shouldn’t be doing what you’re trying to do. What I am saying is that if you attempt to simply address the issue as a matter of abusing status you’re treating the symptoms while ignoring the problem.
I think the Gandhi of today would not use neologisms to express ’shared values.’
There is no need to make up a new word to talk about dignity.
And really, the reason Gandhi ended up being a powerful figure in history is that he engaged in non-violent political actions. He took on leadership; he didn’t mind being the figurehead for a movement. He didn’t just theorize about a new operative model for social justice; Gandhi went to jail repeatedly for expressing his dignity. Do we have it in us to do that, as well?
robertwfuller says: “Similarly, to become a dignitarian America we shall he to give up rankism. Will we? That’s the question we must now confront. That is the battle we must now fight.”
Why is it a battle? If the goal is the common expression of shared values and principles, then there is no battle. There is only a table of plenty and an invitation for everyone to come and share. The image of a ‘battle’ denies the dignity of the ‘enemy,’ which is counterproductive.
In order to get what you want, which is an end to the violence (rhetorical or otherwise) you have to give up your own.
Historically, yes. Racism and sexism are also historical consequences of the sanctioned, both by society and by the law, behaviors of racists and sexists. Did we change history? Yes, we did. We passed laws limiting the ability of racists and sexists to exploit. More importantly, until we had the words racism and sexism to help us express our outrage at their injustices, it was if we were powerless to evolve as a society. We did evolve. We changed the course of history.
Once again, we have this opportunity. Rankism, or abuse of rank and it’s attendant injustice for its victims, has been rising at a feverish pitch for the past few decades resulting the largest income gap in our country’s history. And, yes, left unhindered rankism has historically emerged as a social norm. However, it is socially destructive in the long term which is also historically proven by the civil unrest of other countries when the down-trodden became too many, and too burdened.
Democracy was born through the evolution of mankind’s desire for a more just society. It evolved from it’s predecessor, the monarchy.
Surely, there is an opening for Democracy to continue to evolve. Isn’t this just plain logical? And what would the next step of evolution look like. I believe Fuller has the answers and the language, with the new words Rankism and Dignitarian Society to help us move forward.
I can feel the social unrest in the air. We see it on the news. The numbers of what could be termed the downtrodden have mushroomed recently. Personally, I would like to end the divisiveness and pass laws that protect people from rankism, just like we have for racism and sexism.
Can you be open to this possibility? Don’t we have to try?
A great argument. I can’t speak for Fuller; however, I can resonate with your comment that
Was overcoming sexism or racism a battle? Dr. King followed Gandhi’s example; however, many died violent deaths in the movement to end legally sanctioned racism in America. Was it a battle? I am sure some felt like they were engaged in a battle.
It is interesting to note that both Gandhi and Dr. King were shot to death.
Who, in America today, has their courage? I think Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein are courageous women. Bill Moyers, too. Perhaps we don’t need a figure head as much as we need those who enjoy a media-broadcasted, progressive voice to include Fuller’s ideas. Although, I sure wish we had a Gandhi to lead us away from the abyss we seem to be headed for.
As for neologisms. A word can launch a shift towards shared values. It wasn’t until we created the neologisms (sexism and racism) that these social blights began to be rooted out in America. Once we could all have a word to refer to the particular injustice, we were unable to unite. It is this history that leads me to believe that the words Rankism and Dignitarian (both coined by Fuller) can provide Americans with a common language to both recognize and then root out those who promote rankism.
Thanks for commenting, btw.
Dear WarOnError,
I couldn’t, of course, coin Fuller’s terms into my work, as he has already coined them for all to use (or not).
I can’t even remember my own best lines, when it’s past my bedtime and I’m responding to a blog, my 1980 work had several pages on “psychological and social imperialism,” I do prefer those terms as to me they encompass all forms and modes of one person (or multiple persons) trying to force their will on one or several persons. I spoke in 1980 to the psychological imperialism that goes on between two friends, or even just acquaintances, who have no formal rank over each other. Have you ever had kids? You don’t think babies know all about exercising psychological imperialism, long before they are fluent with language?
More quotes from 1980:
“I think it’s much more likely that the discussion about the proper way to organize society has been going on Continuously and daily in human society, since the year 20 Million B.C., or as far back as you want to push it. I can imagine the very first mammals, a couple of little shrews that considered themselves deformed reptiles, chittering and pecking at each other in argument about which rock to hide under and when and how to go bug-hunting.
It’s impossible, however, to say whether psychological imperialism or social imperialism came first. Did the individual impose his belief systems on the group, or did the group impose their belief systems on the individuals? … Or do we need a perspective from which the eternal strife of individuals and groups forcing their ideas on each other, is as natural a function of the human animal as eating and breathing?”
I will give Fuller and yourself the credit for a useful concept, nevertheless a subset of the set of psychological and social imperialisms that I am trying to get after. Fuller’s Rankism is something I have noticed and detested since somewhere around second grade, and my decades-long history of effective protest letters to companies, etc., has made much use of it. Rankism is close the heart of the cancer that has been infecting America for some decades now (see the blogs of psychologist Kaye in this space and my comments there) and it is a good, focused concept that could conceivably be used for radical organizing purposes. (Of course most every radical effort I’ve participated in since the sixties has had some degree of Rankism within it too).
Fuller’s vision of Dignitarianism is a useful ideal worth striving for, even if, especially if, all competent persons have some tendency towards exercising Rankism when given the opportunity. I’ve been conscious of it and have tried very hard to avoid it, but I’ve slipped on occasion too, for example my little part in the contentions and splits of the Oregon Green Party in ‘04. Our board had rank, we had a small crisis, we took what we thought was the most useful and expedient decision we could, but we did take advantage of our rank to not follow the letters of our (unworkable) bylaws, and it caused a split. Not good on our part. I’d still rather stand with those who try get the ship over and through the waves, to a harbor, than with those who would allow the ship to sink in the storm while they stick to their ideals which in this case would have prevented action.
And why is Seminal so opposed to the paragraphs we try to put into our pieces? Sheer Rankism that must be opposed vehemently !
(Satire alert up there, if you didn’t get it)
In my submission #18 there were 8 or ten lines between the joke and the satire alert, compressed by the same Rankist Seminal program that hates our paragraphs, no doubt.
Am I open to the possibility? Absolutely.
I’m a teacher. My preference is for cooperative learning; in fact, on those occasions when I have to pull rank in the classroom I feel like I have failed. I suppose I have failed in some way to make clear what behaviors are and are not acceptable.
But I don’t think it’s simply a matter of passing laws. In fact, what laws should be passed? I’m not sure about it at all. Racism and sexism were easy (by comparison), because the laws simply re-express truths that we held to be self-evident in 1776.
Perhaps abuse of status also insults our belief that all humans are created equal. But there are a number of people (I’m not among them) who would emphasize the predicate rather than the adjective. Created equal does not imply remain equal. Of course, we have decided that all are (in theory) equal before the law. The reality is rather different. Bill Gates and a homeless veteran are equally free to sleep under a bridge on I-90, but somehow I don’t ever expect to find Gates arrested for sleeping under a highway bridge.
Personally, I think that those who accumulate great wealth should confront a choice: confiscatory estate taxes or establishing a charitable entity funded by their fortune. I think that Warren Buffett said it well when he decided to, “…leave my children enough that they can do anything, but not so much they can do nothing.”
I am sympathetic and supportive of your goals, but I believe that you are addressing symptoms rather than the underlying problem.