Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

I am going to quote Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (again) because, despite his flagrant sexism, he touches on core concepts that I believe:

The prerequisite for an ideology is possession of a basic truth...An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, [s/]he does not have a fixed truth--truth to [her/]him is relative and changing; everything to [her/]him is relative and changing. [S/]he is a political relativist. [S/]he accepts the late Justice Learned Hand's statement that "the mark of a free [wo/]man is that ever-gnawing uncertainty as to whether or not [s/]he is right"...[S/]he must constantly examine life, including [her/]his own, to get some idea of what it is all about, and [s/]he must challenge and test [her/]his findings. Irreverence, essential to questioning, is a requisite. Curiosity becomes compulsive.
pg 10-11

Let me repeat my favorite part: the mark of a free [wo/]man is that ever-gnawing uncertainty as to whether or not [s/]he is right.

Similarly, Alinsky also talks about the well-integrated political schizoid:

What I am saying is that the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts--one part in the arena of action where [s/]he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead [her/]his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations, that is really is only a 10 per cent difference--and yet both parts have to live comfortably with each other. Only a well-organized person can split and stay together. But this is what an organizer must do. pg 78-79

I really appreciate the term political schizoid--this is exactly how I have felt about myself for quite some time. It is seemingly conflicting to know that you have strong beliefs, but at the same time to understand that there is no such thing as absolute truth. I believe the only way diversity can exist is if each individual and/or group recognizes that it does not hold the absolute truth, and in knowing this, dialogue replaces enforcement...progress replaces bigotry.

Again, although seemingly contradictory, I cannot engage respectfully with bigots...and in the haste with which I dismiss "possessors of truth," I myself become some sort of bigot.

So if there is no absolute truth, what the hell is the point of the discussion? I will quote another favorite passage:

If we think of the struggle as a climb up a mountain, then we must visualize a mountain with no top. We see a top, but when we finally reach it, the overcast rises and we find ourselves merely on a bluff. The mountain continues on up. Now we see the "real" top ahead of us, and strive for it, only to find we've reached another bluff, the top still above us. And so it goes on, interminably.

Knowing that the mountain has no top, that it is a perpetual quest from plateau to plateau, the question arises, "Why struggle, the conflict, the heartbreak, the danger, the sacrifice. Why the constant climb?" Our answer is the same as that which a real mountain climber gives when [s/]he is asked why [s/]he does what [s/]he does. "Because it's there." Because life is there ahead of you and either one tests oneself to its challenges or huddles in the valleys in a dreamless day-to-day existence whose only purpose is the preservation of an illusory security and safety. The latter is what the vast majority of people do, fearing the adventure into the unknown. pg 21-22

The all-too-prevalent fear of uncertainty is upsetting to me--fear of uncertainty leads to God. Uncertainty must be re-framed; instead of frightening, it should be exciting. The mindset that the unknown forsakes preparation, stability and ultimately safety must be replaced with understandings that living life day-to-day promotes adventure, growth, and the countless opportunities that come with having no clear vision of the future.