our o ost on ways of tryg to address our toughest cial challens are the extre ones: aggressive war and subissive peace neither of these ways works we can try, g our guns or oney or votes, to ph through what we want, regardless of what others want-but evitably the others ph back or we can try not to ph anythg on anyone-but that leaves our situation jt as it is

these extre ways are extrely on, on all scales one on one, we can be phy or nflict averse at work, we can be bossy or "go along to t along" our unities, we can set thgs up that they are the way we want the to be, or we can abdicate national affairs, we can ake deals to t our way, or we can let others have their way ternational retions-whether the challen is cliate chan or trade rules or peace the iddle east-we can try to ipose our tions on everyone else, or we can negotiate endlessly these extre, on ways of tryg to address our toughest cial challens ually fail, leavg stuck and pa there are any exceptions to these neralizations about the prevalence of these extre ways, but the fact that these are exceptions proves the neral rule we need-and any people are workg on developg-different, unon ways of addressg cial challens: ways beyond these denerative fors of war and peace

a character rent, jonathan rn's broadway ical about strugglg artists and icians new york city, says, "the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation!"[1] to address our toughest cial challens, we need a way that is neither war nor peace, but llective creation how can we -create new cial realities?

o fundantal drives

to -create new cial realities, we have to work with o distct fundantal forces that are tension: power and love this assertion reires an expnation becae the words "power" and "love" are defed by any different people any different ways this book i e o unual defitions of power and love sugsted by theologian and philopher paul tillich his defitions are ontological: they deal with what and why power and love are, rather than what they enable or produce i e these defitions becae they rg true with y experience of what practice is reired to address tough challens at all levels: dividual, group, unity, ciety

tillich defes power as "the drive of everythg livg to realize itself, with creasg tensity and extensity" power this sense is the drive to achieve one's purpose, to t one's job done, to grow he defes love as "the drive towards the unity of the separated"[2] love this sense is the drive to rennect and ake whole that which has bee or appears fragnted these o ways of lookg at power and love, rather than the ore on ideas of oppressive power and roantic love (represented on the ver by the grenade and the rose), are at the re of this book

our full world

we cannot address our tough challens only through drivg towards self-realization or only through drivg towards unity we need to do both often we assu that all it takes to create thg new-whether bess or politics or technology or art-is purposefulness or power this is becae we often assu that the ntext which we create is an epty world: an open frontier, a white space, a bnk canvas neral this assuption is rrect

let's look at a historical exaple 1788, british settlers arrived atralia and enuntered the dino people who had arrived 40,000 years earlier this history ilstrates not only the ura and entrepreneurialis of people willg to travel across the globe to create a new cial reality, but al the huan and elogical devastation that this pioneerg d-set can produce for ore than o centuries, the nflict beeen settlers and aborigal peoples atralia was frad ters of the doctre of terra nulli, a roan legal ter that ans "nd belongg to no one," or "epty nd" it was not until 1992 that the high urt of atralia ruled that the ntent had fact never been terra nulli, and that the odern-day settlers had to work out a new way of livg tother with the aborigal people

none of lives terra nulli we can pretend that our world is epty, but it is not our earth is creasgly full of people and buildgs and cars and piles of garba our atosphere is creasgly full of carbon dioxide our ciety is creasgly full of diverse, strong, petg voices and ideas and cultures this fullness is the fundantal rean why, order to address our toughest cial challens, we need to eploy not only power but al love

a challen is tough when it is plex three ways[3] a challen is dynaically plex when cae and effect are terdependent and far apart space and ti; such challens cannot suessfully be addressed piece by piece, but only by seeg the syste as a whole a challen is cially plex when the actors volved have different perspectives and terests; such challens cannot suessfully be addressed by experts or authorities, but only with the engant of the actors theselves and a challen is neratively plex when its future is fundantally unfailiar and undetered; such challens cannot suessfully be addressed by applyg "best practice" tions fro the past, but only by grog new, "next practice" tions

the fullness of our world produces this threefold plexity we can pretend that we are dependent and that what we do does not affect others (and what others do does not affect ), but this is not true we can pretend that everybody sees thgs the sa way, or that our differences can be relved purely through arket or political or legal petition, but this is not true and we can pretend that we can do thgs the way we always have, or that we can first figure out and then execute the rrect answer, but this is not true

when we pretend that our world is epty rather than full, and that our challens are siple rather than plex, we t stuck if we want to t unstuck, we need to acknowled our terdependence, operate, and feel our way forward we need therefore to eploy not only our power but al our love if this unds easy, it is not it is difficult and danro

o pitfalls

power and love are difficult to work with becae each of the has o sides power has a nerative side and a denerative side, and-less obvioly-love al has a nerative side and a denerative side feist schor pao lchiori poted out to that we can see these o sets of o sides if we look at historically nstructed nder roles the father, ebodyg ascule power, goes out to work, to do his job the nerative side of his power is that he can create thg vaable the world the denerative side of his power is that he can bee foced on his work that he denies his nnection to his lleagues and faily, and bees a robot or a tyrant

the other, by ntrast, ebodyg fee love, stays at ho to raise the children the nerative side of her love is that she gives life, literally to her child and figuratively to her whole faily the denerative side of her love is that she can bee identified with and ebracg of her child and faily that she denies their and especially her own need for self-realization, and stunts their and her own growth[4]

love is what akes power nerative stead of denerative power is what akes love nerative stead of denerative power and love are therefore exactly plentary order for each to achieve its full potential, it needs the other jt as the terra nulli perspective of focg only on power is an error, too is the pop perspective that "all you need is love"

psychologist rollo ay, a friend of paul tillich, warned of the danrs of disnnectg power (which he referred to as "will") fro love "love and will," he wrote, "are terdependent and belong tother both are njunctive processes of beg-a reachg out to fence others, oldg, forg, creatg the nscioness of the other but this is only possible, an ner sense, if one opens oneself at the sa ti to the fence of the other will without love bees anipution and love without will bees sentintal the botto then drops out of the njunctive eotions and processes"[5] ay's njunctive processes al operate on a cial level, and we can effect nonviolent cial chan only if we can enga both our power and our love

one of the greatest practitioners of nonviolent cial chan, art ther kg jr, was both a practical activist and a spiritual leader he deonstrated a way of addressg tough cial challens that went beyond aggressive war and subissive peace, thereby ntributg to the creation of new cial realities the united states and around the world his st presidential speech to the uthern christian leadership nference, kg-drag on his doctoral studies of tillich's work-ephasized the essential plentarity beeen power and love[6] "power without love is reckless and abive," kg said, "and love without power is sentintal and aneic"[7]

y own experience of the past enty years entirely bears out kg's analysis power without love is reckless and abive if those of engad cial chan act to realize ourselves without regnizg that we and others are terdependent, the result will at best be sensitive and at worst, oppressive or even nocidal and love without power is sentintal and aneic if we regnize our terdependence and act to unify with others, but do a way that hobbles our own or others' growth, the result will at best be effectual and at worst, deceitfully rercg of the stat o

power without love produces srched-earth war that destroys everythg we hold dear love without power produces lifeless peace that leaves stuck pce both of these are terrible outes we need to fd a better way

his speech, kg went on to say, "this llision of ioral power with powerless orality nstitutes the ajor crisis of our ti"[8] this llision ntues becae our porization of power and love ntues our cieties and unities and anizations, and with each of , we ually fd a "power cap," which pays attention to terests and differences, and a "love cap," which pays attention to nnections and onalities the llision beeen these o caps- the worlds of bess, politics, and cial chan, aong others-ipedes our ability to ake progress on our toughest cial challens

an iperative

power and love stand at right angles and deleate the space of cial chan if we want to t unstuck and to ove around this space-if we want to address our toughest challens-we t understand and work with both of these drives

rather than a choice to be ade one way or another, power and love nstitute a peranent dilea that t be renciled ntuoly and creatively this renciliation is easy theory but hard practice carl jung doubted whether it was even possible for these o drives to exist the sa pern: "where love reigns, there is no will to power; and where the will power is paraount, love is ckg the one is but the shadow of the other"[9] his student robert johnn said, "probably the ost trouble pair of opposites that we can try to rencile is love and power our odern world is torn to shreds by this dichotoy, and one fds any ore faires than suesses the attept to rencile the"[10]

i have seen any exaples of reckless and abive power without love, and any exaples of sentintal and aneic love without power i have seen far fewer exaples of power with love too few of are capable of eployg power with love ore of need to learn

if we are to sueed -creatg new cial realities, we cannot choose beeen power and love we t choose both this book explores how