Code of conduct

code of conduct

It is the staple of any organization that there are some ground rules that need to be laid down. This is not an inherently bad thing but they need to justified within the context that they will be used. If they are enforced by others through monetary, social and physical means then we call them laws. But they need to allocated with some finesse, they need that overall context or they will be used as a tool of oppression rather than liberation. What may be a good idea in one place will can be a massive failure in another. One size does not fit all.

It was in the late 1960’s and early 70’s that there was a movement towards self sustaining communes, they also typically could be identified by the large geodesic domes that Buckminster Fuller was so proud of. The dome represented the people, a vision of the future that was self sustaining, if you removed any one piece of the domes construction it would become significantly weaker. It was a nice analogy even if it was originally intended only for engineering sake.

These communes, tired of the modern industrialized world and its rules/structures, sick of the inequality they produced, decided to have an entirely flat organizational structure and try to live as close to a commune lifestyle living off the land. Only a few of them survived longer than a year and it was down to them largely dropping these initial ideas to achieve that. A few of those even survive til this day (as of writing in 2020) but they are less communes and more like villages that trade with others from outside. The dream is dead but the outward appearance is still there.

That those that survived choose to adapt was in part because they had the fortitude to change the code of conduct they had and to be malleable in their intent. Those that did not survive were usually victims of their own stubborn ideology and unwilling to change with the conditions of the world around them. As an accidental ‘Sutra’ from a vending machine once told me "Please accept change". Their failings were built in place with their own code of conduct.

As more folks are pushing their ideals onto others in order to produce a world in their vision, these rules tend to take on a life of their own. Like most people in history, they are well meaning in intent but eventually, too much of a good dead can become an inescapable evil. The big driving force of this is the lack of introspection. That is people are acting without truly understanding the reasons why they are acting. In the same way the communes that didn’t adjust to the world around them eventually seeded their own demise. This is the way that good intentions can come crashing down.

A desire to right a valid wrong is a good thing indeed, but to push it beyond simple actions and into an in-depth ideology is the step that ends up being the element that can take a purely good thing and taint it permanently. It is the step that produces dogmatic doctrine regardless of intent. The structure of rules for interactions that disposes of the human element of change and prevents them from ever becoming viable against those same rules.

Back to Index