The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns…. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new. Saul Alinski

The opening image is of a path dependency disrupted by a punctuated equilibrium. This is essentially what Alinski refers to in the opening quote. For more details on punctuated equilibrium, see Recreating History, Part 4: Multiple Punctured Equilibriums. This is exactly what Alinsky wanted.

I wrote that piece about a year and a half ago, but synchronicity has a way of bringing ideas and concepts back into your face. Synchronicity is fascinating. Over the last day, I read an interesting passage in Matt Lincoln’s Maui Mayhem:

“Culture.” My heart broke, and my voice cracked over the word. “Whatever has happened with the ranching community…  It has caused much of the ranching community to abandon their own culture. That was what Papi had been trying to tell us, but he didn’t quite have the vocabulary to get it across.”

I also started seeing lots of images of people on Facebook from the 1970s. None of the people are overweight or have tattoos or piercings. The common denominator was people were happier, and the conclusion is culture changed and people got fat, tattooed and pierced. The net effect is that people change their views of self-respect and how they fit into society. The more people that get tattoos, gain weight, and get piercings, the more society and therefore culture change to adapt to this new reality. Society is disrupted and open for change.

Then I saw Knives Out, Glass Onion and there were references to change, especially culture, especially disrupters. Disruption is essentially creating a punctured equilibrium in academic speak that shocks a system/culture out of its path dependency, academic speak for a strong, entrenched equilibrium.

Let’s look at an example that does not involve obesity, tattoos or piercing.

The rational actor theory says that people will act in their own best interests. But the new New York City mayor is publicly anti-Semitic. He conveyed that during the campaign, and his first actions clearly demonstrated his anti-Semitic intent. Yet apparently, most Jews in NYC voted for him. Sharia Law is blatantly anti-gay and places a great deal of constraints on women. Yet gays and women support Islam, think Sharia Law is wonderful and are pro-Hamas.

Why? Is the rational actor theory no longer valid, or did rationality itself change?

I suspect the intent of disrupting culture to re-shape is to change people’s perception of rationality and rational behavior.

Listen to Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of NYC: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Now, set aside the temperature references as euphemisms and think about what he really means. He wants to change the definition of rational behavior in society. He wants the emphasis to be on what is good for the collective rather than what is good for me or my specific group. That change in rational perception and behavior facilitates the support we have seen of Jews, women, and the LGBTQ community for Hamas and Islam. In this new culture, these new concepts are good for the collective and therefore are the new rational behaviors.

Does that mean conversion to Islam is the end state of the disruptors’ plan? I doubt it. I suspect that it is a useful transition state for several reasons:

• Islam means to submit. Now, in the religious construct, it means submission to Allah. But in a practical sense, when we are talking about an Islamic state, it means submission to the state and its leaders.
• Collectivism flies in the face of the principles of the Enlightenment as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. The disruptors want to go back to a governmental and social construct that pre-dates the end of the Thirty Years War and the Enlightenment.
• Getting Jews and Christians—historic opponents of Islam — to protect and champion Islam helps to further break their ties to their own cultures and history, facilitating the change in rationality.

So, what are the disruptors’ objectives? Part 2 will explore the true objectives.