Societal power (to make a distinction from social power which is a more ambiguous term) is an aggregate or composite of the power delegated,
loaned or entrusted to larger entities by smaller entities or by
individuals.  Social power can play out on a large scale or at local and
individual levels.  My purpose for distinguishing between societal power
and social power is to be absolutely clear that I'm describing power on a
macro, global scale.  While the macro and the micro are closely interrelated
and interdependent (as in “Think globally, act locally”), we should not confuse
the two. 

 Aggregations of individuals tend to have more societal power than individuals.  Of
course, there are exceptions to this generalization, but governments usually do
have more societal power than politicians (or political parties) who in turn
have more societal power than most individual citizens.  On the other
hand, individuals can be much more nimble in using their power than large
entities (as in “Big ships turn slowly”).

 One of the inherent problems with the societal power of large entities is that it is
wielded by a small number of leaders who may lose sight of the collective
interests they should be representing.  Even worse, those leaders often
try to manipulate the many smaller entities or individuals they represent to
become followers and supporters of a redirected agenda that better suits the
leaders.  There is an unavoidable, hard-wired conflict of interest in
leadership roles called “self” and many leaders don’t manage this conflict
effectively.

 In the current season of political campaigning we are once again being treated to a
spectacle of mudslinging and polarizing demagoguery.  Complex issues are
dumbed down and oversimplified into distorted caricatures of reality for the
purposes of inflaming emotions and mobilizing voters to support particular
candidates and positions.  I could give plenty of outrageous examples from
the Colorado political scene but there’s no need to since everyone can likely
do the same for their own communities.  The point is not to have a
“dumping party” on political or corporate leaders but to recognize that this
same ugly (mis)use of societal power is being played out on a global scale with
potentially frightening consequences.

 On a global scale, the related issues of pollution, global warming, and energy
production/consumption, which I will broadly frame as “environmental
stewardship” (ES), are being oversimplified and caricatured to mobilize support
for opposing positions while important interests are neglected.  Claims
and counterclaims are made in convenient sound bytes for the hurried masses who
want an easy answer.  For those who pride themselves in diving deep into
the issues there are plenty of accusations and counteraccusations of data
manipulation, flawed research methodology and academic or corporate
improprieties to consider.

 Without taking sides in the ES controversy, I think it is easy to find plenty of ammunition to defend
whatever position you believe and attack the opposing position.   A
minority of those who have taken sides actively add their support to the larger
entities, organizations or leaders who can more effectively apply societal
power to ES issues.  A larger proportion, though not necessarily engaging
actively in the societal (macro) power struggle, are nonetheless making daily
local (micro) choices that reflect the position they believe in.  As long
as there is not a great imbalance of people believing in different positions,
the cumulative effect of their local/micro choices tend to cancel each other
out and the net global impact is minimal.

For the large numbers of people who have not taken sides in the ES controversy, the ambivalent, the undecided and the confused, their decisional inertia perpetuates the status quo at the personal (nano) level.  The fundamental ES controversy boils down to whether the status
quo is OK or if the status quo will have dire global consequences affecting the
entire biosphere (with humans not being exempt).  Over simplification and
polarization of ES issues at the level of societal power leads to escalation,
“societal/macro-impasses” and “local/micro-cancellation” that favor the status
quo.  On the other hand, complexity promotes personal/nano decisional
inertia that also favors the status quo.  Since too simple and too complex
both favor the status quo this seems to create a strategic dilemma for anyone
who would like to see things change (if for no other reason than this just
might save the world).  Rather than letting ourselves be artificially
constrained to choosing between “A or B” (too simple or too complex messaging)
or maybe “C” (just right, Goldilocks messaging), we should brainstorm to come
up with other strategic options (D, E, etc.).  We should also not be
constrained into thinking there is only one viable strategy when in reality a
combination of strategies is probably what’s needed.

Dr. Cloke, I think your strategy of embedding mediation in all the societal/macro ES disputes certainly makes sense as a way of moving beyond those impasses and
changing the status quo.  Listening to your Climate TV interview on
YouTube reminded me somewhat of Peggy Noonan’s phrase “a thousand points of
light” that President Bush Sr. popularized 20 years ago.  The same logic could also
be extended to the local/micro level and I would suggest it also needs to be
applied at the personal/nano level.  By my calculations, a thousand points
of light at the societal/macro level, multiplied by a thousand points of light
at the local/micro level, multiplied by a thousand points of light at the
individual/nano level would be a billion points of light! 

 So if “points of light” represent mediation at the societal/macro and local/micro
level, what do they represent at the personal/nano level?  Speaking for
myself, there are many issues (ES not being one of them) where I experience
decisional inertia.  This cognitive impasse resulting from the unresolved
dispute in my brain prevents me from taking action.  As already described,
this lack of action perpetuates the status quo.  Sometimes the status quo
is OK and sometimes it can be very dangerous.  Personal/nano points of light
mediate between the voices in our heads (or at least the voices in mine ;-) to
move past the impasses that prevent constructive action.  In other words,
applying the principles of mediation to our own internal conflicts can get us
unstuck.  If billions of people get unstuck regarding ES the cumulative
effect will be global/societal/macro change.

From a complexity theory perspective, only focusing on mediation at the societal/macro
level may reinforce a “command and control, top-down, management by big-brains”
view which is insufficient to address ES and other issues faced in the world of
complex adaptive systems we  live in. Simple rules that drive behaviors
and interactions between adaptive agents (a.k.a. people) allow self-organizing,
complex patterns to emerge progressively from the nano to the micro and macro
scale.  Minor adjustments in the simple rules driving behaviors at the
nano level can have a huge impact at the macro level (far exceeding what can be
achieved by command and control interventions).  Therefore, not to ignore
the more classical macro level interventions, do you think a greater impact could be
achieved by working at the personal/nano level where self-organizing (or
self-reorganizing) behavior takes place? 

 Although it would no longer fit on a bumper sticker (and still be legible) “Think
globally, act locally” should be expanded to “think about complex impacts at
the global/societal/macro level, take simple action at the local/micro level
and get unstuck at the personal/nano level.”  A billion points of light
are needed to actualize this.  Lest you think this is an abstract,
theoretic rant (which I admittedly am sometimes guilty of) there are specific
questions (from the discipline of mediation) we should all be asking ourselves
when we experience decisional inertia about important issues.  We can
agree to disagree within ourselves and still move beyond the cognitive impasse
in a constructive way.  What are the interests at stake?  What are
the potential consequences of inaction if “internal party A” is right? 
What are the potential consequences of inaction if “internal party B” is
right?  What range of options could advance the interests of both internal
parties?   What simple behaviors or actions would promote "power with"
internal dissent rather than unstable "power over" internal dissent or the
unengaged powerlessness of avoiding internal dissent altogether?

If the status quo on issues of ES is threatening the survival of humanity we need a
billion points of mediatory light and conflict engagement to get us unstuck at
the personal/nano level.  Relying exclusively on traditional channels of
communication and education to accomplish this would seem to be a virtually
impossible task.  Leveraging the viral, exponential impact of social media
via the Internet may make this gargantuan task possible.  If in fact we
are entering a phase of exponential decline in the environment we need to mount
an exponential response.  Linear, business as usual just won’t cut
it.  It seems like we need to unleash a positive pandemic of “unstuckedness.”

Respectfully,

Milt Hammerly