I want to describe two different ways of believing something- organic and compositus.
Compositus belief spreads itself by convincing people to subscribe to a list of doctrines. Organic belief spreads itself by getting people to *see* something, it is more like a vantage point than a list of doctrines. Unfortunately, this can make it very hard to spread organic beliefs. It’s difficult to proselytize a gestalt or way of seeing the whole.
Organic belief is much less defensive than compositus belief. It is less likely to get angry at a contradiction. Because organic belief is less defensive, it is much more open to working with other models and ways of thinking. It is theoretically promiscuous, but ultimately faithful in its loyalties. Compositus belief is faithful across the board, but if it should ever start to cheat, there is a real risk the marriage might collapse.
Groups based on compositus beliefs can be quite brittle, because every point of doctrine, and there are many, carries with it the possibility of a split. Moreover, new points of doctrine and clarifications of existing points must be constantly manufactured to ensure the group has a line on current events. There is a tendency among the acolytes of compositus belief to think that partial alignment with their view may be worse than no alignment at all, it may serve as a blockage against the arrival of full and true consciousness. This does not apply to organic belief which is, in a sense, always a group of fellow travelers.
Perhaps because of this brittle quality, compositus belief-based groups struggle when times are tough. Since there are no prizes to be won through unity, members fragment into grouplets.
When making practical plans, the acolytes of compositus beliefs tend to reason like someone laying out a chain of dominos- first this, then this, then that. Whereas those with organic beliefs tend to think more in terms of building capacities that might be used in multiple possible ways, many of which have not even yet been imagined.
Organic belief is open to revision, it distinguishes between the core idea and auxiliaries, this is because organic belief posits a really existing object that is not fully understood- and allows us the looseness to change our thinking. We may have models, but the thing itself exists very much beyond and outside those models [see Sheila Dow on Babylonian & Euclidean methodology]. compositus belief desperately wants to fill in the gap between thought and the world.
As a result, organic belief tends to persist better than compositus belief. It is fine if a bit of the structure of ideas is snapped off. Whereas a doctrinaire supporter of a system of compositus belief, if they begin to doubt part of the system, begin to doubt it all. Look at all the Trotskyists who became neocons.
Despite my criticism of compositus belief, both organic and compositus beliefs are necessary to change the world. The discipline of compositus belief makes coordination easier- it is far from meritless. Ideally, I suspect, a functioning movement has an ecosystem of both. On a more general level, knowing when to insist on a line, and when to fudge over differences is, as always, a critical skill for anyone engaged in coaliational politics.
That's an interesting thought.
It's interesting that you feel that what you are describing as organic belief is more stable, as I feel like the typical story of religions is that the first generation of followers are true believers who really get it, while subsequent generations just go through the motions and are more interested in the external trappings than the real ideas.
My second thought on this is whether "belief" is really the right framework to analyze this concept, or is it more some sense of group solidarity or shared goals that is relevant (and the parts about belief are secondary or just a description of a way of looking at the group relationship).
My third thought is that this reminds me of Wilfred Bion's group therapy concepts a bit, particularly the part about Work Groups vs. Basic Assumption Groups, or in general the idea of looking at different modes of actions of group behavior.
Thanks for your post!
I think this might be a good way too of identifying when a split is *neccesary*, which is sometimes the case. Does the division go to the 'way of seeing things, as a whole'? If so, a split may be a better option than the confused outcomes of an organisation in a permanent tug of war of irreconcilable positions