Article 1:
God And Control
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyright, W. Krossa)

*The Origin of Control  *Control In God  *Making Control Sacred 
*A More Humane God   *The Inevitability of Horizontal Reality 
*Setting God Free  *Others On Control  *What Is Control?

Introduction

"Some jobs are to die for. Citing the strongest evidence yet, researchers find that people who have little or no control over their work life (such as secretaries or assembly-line workers) have a 70% higher risk of dying from heart disease than those who can decide for themselves what they will do and when" (1). The evidence is convincing- loss of personal control or being controlled by others has devastating effects on human well being. In fact, control is so bad for human health that it may even be killing people. While the above quote refers to workplace research, other similar evidence shows that control has the same damaging impact on human beings in all areas of life.

Control is one of the most destructive features to have continued on from animal existence into human societies and human forms of relating. The negative effects of control are wide ranging and include alienation, mental and emotional disorders such as depression, debilitating dependency and helplessness, physical illness, violence, and as noted above, even early death. Due to the immense damage that control effects on human well-being, human relationships, and human development (2), it is important that we understand control more and work to eliminate it entirely from all human relationships. We also need to deal radically and thoroughly with control because it subverts our most prized ideals- freedom and equality.

These essays take a look at control, power, and domination in human relationships. They are part of my effort to understand the origin of control and what basic ideas support and validate control in human relating. I am particularly interested in how control became embedded in ideas of God and how God has been used for millennia to validate the control of some people by others. There will never be true freedom and empowerment in human relationships until we deal thoroughly with the most cursed reality of human existence, the control of some people by others. And to deal thoroughly with control we need to understand more clearly the root ideas that people use to validate their control of other people.

Control is a perplexing and disturbing thing. It is difficult to understand the perverse desire and drive in people to want to control others. It is also difficult to understand the continued existence of controlling relationships in so many areas of life- in families, in schools, in the workplace, in religion, in government, and other social institutions. How did control progress along with developing humanity and became so deeply embedded in human worldviews, human societies, and human institutions?

Over the past few millennia since domestication, control has been reworked and refined until we now have its contemporary expression in the highly sophisticated hierarchies of modern institutions and states. What was once expressed as brute physical force is now exercised more subtly through modern administrative or management science and leadership practice. The threat of the whip has been replaced by the threat of job loss or benefits denied, but the consequences are still the same- the loss of true freedom and the undermining of genuinely humane relating.

Effort is constantly being made to make control more palatable to people by such token means as increasing member participation and input into decision making and planning processes. Uncomfortable with words like control and power, people now use synonyms like influence, leadership, and persuasion. But the use of such language does not change the fact that control is still the practice of getting others to do what they would normally prefer not to do (3). No matter what it is called, it is still control or power wielded over others and efforts to refine and validate it have not changed the basic nature of control from the destructive predatory characteristic that it is.

There is something fundamentally inhumane and wrong, and too often evil, about some people being controlled by others. Control does not deserve a place in truly humane relationships.

The Origin of Control

I believe control can be best understood in relation to our animal past and our gradual evolutionary emergence from that past (in a word- evolutionary biology). This approach will help us appreciate how this base feature of a predatory existence may have possibly entered and become deeply embedded in human societies and worldviews. While this is covered in more detail later, the following is a summary that traces the basic direction of my argument.

The animal realm is characterized by brutal domination which is essential to competition and survival in the animal food hierarchy. Animals savagely dominate one another in a merciless struggle over resources for their ongoing existence.

Early humans emerged out of that animal existence to eventually live as bands of hunter/gatherers. As they gradually emerged from their animal past, they brought with them various characteristics of that existence. These features, which were selected for over millions of years, did not suddenly disappear from emerging human mentality and relationships.

Those early people continued to view life and to relate to one another in a very animal-like fashion. In the struggle for resources, some people controlled and dominated others just as had occurred in previous animal existence. Hunter/gatherer hierarchy was not yet formally organized, but it existed within families and clans in the form of male/female, parent/child, stronger/weaker, and older/younger authority relationships.

Contrary to some thought on the matter, hunter/gatherer existence was not egalitarian, but was brutally hierarchical, much like the animal existence that preceded it.

Over the span of the hunter/gatherer era, while human mentality continued to develop into more advanced forms, it also continued to be shaped by the residual animal drives that emerging human beings had inherited. Animal reality continued to shape the emerging forms of human mentality to view life as a vertical reality and this led humans to continue to relate to one another in a controlling manner as superiors to inferiors.

But it was something else which encouraged early people to embed control deeply within their worldviews and relationships.

Control In God

While it may initially be offensive to some people, one of the central points I want to argue is that the most fundamental features of our contemporary God also had their origin in animal reality. Control is one of those features. It is important that we face this squarely if we are ever to understand control fully and eliminate it from all human relationships.

The contemporary Western view of God as an all-powerful, predetermining, and controlling male Ruler is the descendent of ancient people who projected the basest features of existence onto divinity. These base features originated ultimately within animal existence. This view of God expresses animal-like reality at its very core with the demand for vertically oriented relationships of domination/submission between a male patriarch and his subjects. Control by a patriarch embodies the essence of animal reality. The fact that this feature has become embedded in ideas of God has made it very difficult to challenge or change controlling relationships. Control has become so central to our ideas of the divine or sacred order (omnipotence, predestination, God controlling all things, etc.) that we can not envision God or relationships aside from such tight control. How did this happen?

As god consciousness emerged in human mentality near the end of the hunter/gatherer era, those early people began to view their patriarchs as god-like individuals. They began to sacralize or make sacred the characteristics of those patriarchs, including their dominating relationships with their subjects. Gods controlling people in relationships of domination/submission came to be viewed as the sacred order. Control and domination were therefore essential to the earliest understanding of gods. This gave the earliest gods the distinctly vertical orientation characteristic of animal reality. This controlling orientation is commonly expressed now in the ideas of omnipotent predetermination and submission to the will of God.

We should not judge those early people too harshly. They were simply incorporating the prevalent domination of their existence into their earliest perceptions of divinity. That animal-like existence was the only reality they were aware of when god consciousness emerged. They had no other experience to draw from. Emerging god consciousness, like the rest of early human mentality, was simply swamped by the surrounding animal environment and shaped into a vertically oriented reality of domination and control. In this manner, animal-like domination was absorbed and became a basic element of developing human worldviews and ideas of gods. Those gods, then in turn, became the central agents of social control in early societies.

It is now clear that animal characteristics such as domination were projected onto the earliest gods. These features were passed along to succeeding generations of gods and eventually became lodged in monotheistic ideas of God. Such features have distorted ideas of God ever since, giving us contemporary views of divinity that have progressed very little beyond the paganism of our ancestors.

As Ranke Heinemann has said of the Christian view of God, "The Christian image of God is at bottom still a pagan image, and a primitive pagan image at that... the common denominator is inhumanity" (4).

With their vertically oriented worldviews and ideas of gods as vertically oriented realities, it was also quite natural that as early people began to domesticate they would create structures and institutions oriented to the only reality they were aware of- vertical relationships of domination. Early human societies and institutions were then structured for relationships of control. Those early institutions with their dominant/subordinate or superior/inferior forms of relating became the pattern for all subsequent forms of human social organizing, including those of the present. That, in summary, is how animal domination became embedded in human societies and worldviews.

Let me state here at the start that I assume God has always related horizontally to all of life. God has always been best defined as a servant divinity and has never dominated or controlled anything.

Making Control Sacred

The embodiment of control in God has provided a powerful source of validation for hierarchical forms of relating. In early human societies vertically oriented relationships of control were viewed as the sacred order or divine pattern for all forms of human relating. This explains in part why controlling relationships continue into the present as the dominant form of relating in most social institutions. They are viewed as the sacred or natural order of relating between leaders and subjects.

It is extremely difficult to question, challenge, or change something that is considered sacred or divine, such as inherited ideas of God. It was a coup by early elites or power holders to embody control in early views of God as it placed the feature of control in an almost untouchable position. Things considered sacred are often treated as fixed, final, and not open to any questioning or adjustment. In fact, it is considered blasphemy to try to change or even to challenge something that is regarded as being essential to the nature of God and therefore natural and right for all life.

But control must be challenged and eliminated from human relationships. Control or domination simply have no place in a truly humane existence. Abundant evidence now shows that control undermines human well being and retards human development. Control must therefore be challenged and condemned wherever we find it. And we need to especially challenge the supreme embodiment of control that exists in views of a dominating God, because ideas of God often serve as the most fundamental source of validation for other elements of human worldviews. Therefore, I believe it to be true that we will never have truly human social orders until we have more human views of God.

It has been suggested that many of our modern social ideas and practices are rooted in or shaped by ancient religious ideas. The practice of punishment is one example. This common practice derives ultimately from ancient beliefs regarding angry gods who demanded blood sacrifices as payback for wrongdoing. Until we properly deal with the barbaric root ideas and beliefs behind such things as punishment, we will never progress toward a truly human future. Many other similarly barbaric practices or ideas are rooted in ancient mythical ideas.

Contemporary religion, in particular, needs to be challenged regarding the issue of control because of the common religious claim to represent God and sources of information about God. Religion in general has been developed as perhaps one of the most powerful of institutions supporting the ongoing use of control in human society. And in a more intense manner than other institutions, religion validates its existence and practices by direct appeal to the idea of God.

In the past three millennia, Western religion has tried to validate control by employing ideas of a loving God who omnipotently determines all things. The addition of love has softened somewhat the harsher features of earlier more pagan gods. Love is now used to explain the ongoing use of control by God- God works all things together for good- but control can never be good and it is certainly never loving. Despite the effort to emphasize love in modern Western views of God, the element of damaging control effectively negates the expression of any form of love because love can never be expressed in controlling another person. We will note later the argument that control or power entering any relationship inevitably undermines the expression of humane feeling and compassion in such relationships.

The creation of a vertically oriented and dominating God is simply the highest expression, the supreme expression of animal-like control ever devised by humans. It has embodied and deeply lodged corrupting control in the greatest idea to ever enter human thinking- God.

The impact on human relationships and existence has been devastating.

A More Humane God

There is however, an emerging view of God that most often finds expression outside of religion. This is the view of a God who does not control but who is very humane and egalitarian.

I will be using the term egalitarian to mean relating as an equal, with no element of above/below or superior/inferior. While I would prefer another term with fewer ideological connotations, egalitarian will have to do for now. In any event, this must be the direction that human understanding of divinity moves toward because emerging humanity is moving irreversibly in the direction of a more egalitarian reality.

In regard to this argument for a more human and egalitarian understanding of God, it needs to be stated clearly that placing God on the same level as an equal does not diminish God in any way. While placing God on the same plane as humanity is a radical reorientation of the religious idea of divinity, it enhances God immensely in that it removes him from the vertically oriented realm of base animal-like relating with its destructive domination and control and therefore reveals him to be more human. God is located within a more human horizontal orientation. The end result is a more humane God, a God who is more expressive of humanity and reality as we know it. This is a necessary correction of extremely corrupted ideas of divinity. To put it another way, in placing God on the same plane as humanity and all other life, we are simply saying that God relates as an equal to all others and respects the freedom of others.

So a horizontal orientation in God simply means that God relates to others without any element of superiority or domination. God relates with equality, freedom and humanity.

Robert Brinsmead has said in this regard that "God is not a dictator who determines to control the human spirit. God is not a non-human vertical reality above us" (5). This summarizes well the new arguments about the horizontally oriented humanity of a new God.

In arguing that God is human I am simply saying that God is about love, forgiveness, sharing, and cooperating. These, along with other similarly humane features, are the defining characteristics of a truly humane God. These humane responses are contrary to animal existence which is all about competition, domination, and selfishness. God is inspiring humanity to move away from such brutal existence toward the expression of such things that lead to a more truly human existence.

Arguably, these human qualities of love and forgiveness were most clearly expressed in people like the historical Jesus. Someone has said that if Jesus represented God, then God is more truly humane than any person. God is a supremely human God. And so I argue that we need a new view of God as truly humane.

Throughout these essays I will refer to Jesus' radical ideas about truly humane existence because his vision of existence goes to the heart of issues surrounding control and domination.

Throughout history power holders have employed a variety of religious ideas to enslave the minds and emotions of those they dominate. Some of their most potent ideas they used were myths of people being separated or cut off from God and therefore being rejected by God due to an ancient 'Fall'. This myth has produced a devastating sense of loneliness, abandonment, rejection, and guilt in human consciousness. And guilty people are easily controlled or manipulated. They will do anything for relief.

But the good news is that no one has ever been separated from God. No one has ever been cut off or rejected by God. The Fall myth is simply an ancient tale that never actually happened. The misery and suffering in life are not due to a Fall into sin some 6 millennia ago. Suffering existed long before any such event was believed to have happened. Pain, sickness, and death have always been part of life since its emergence some 3-4 billion years ago.

Therefore, we can conclude that if we have never been rejected due to a Fall, then we have never been alone. God has never retreated up into the heavens, which were imagined by ancient peoples as being in outer space, up and away. God has always been right here, holding everything in existence. There is nothing more liberating and empowering in life.

And equally liberating is the fact that there are no requirements, religious or other, for existing in God's presence and enjoying the favor of deity. There are no religious standards to meet. God only wishes that we be human and grant others the freedom to be uniquely human. We need to remember that we all live permanently in the presence of genuinely humane God. As the ancients said, there is no circumference to God, only center.

Also, there is no need to fear the threat of punishment in the future. Every human being has been forgiven and liberated from the past. Therefore, no one can hold the power of guilt over us for past imperfection. And we are free from the threat of judgement in the future. Threat of punishment has always been a powerful tool for manipulating and controlling people. Religious authorities know this well.

The presence and generosity of God deal with the root ideas behind human loneliness, alienation, isolation, guilt, and sadness. Traditional religious myths of separation, sinfulness, and punishment have always led to religious domination and control. True liberation from domination must begin with these root ideas. From such liberation of consciousness and spirit, all social liberation flows. This is what is meant by the argument that you can only have truly human social orders if you have truly human views of God. This is how to get to the heart of God and control issues.

I am setting forth, then, two mutually exclusive views of God. One view is that of a dominating and controlling animal-like God. I will argue that this has been the predominant view of gods/God since ancient times. The other view of God is that of a God who does not control. This non-determining God more closely reflects the humane reality that we are all becoming more aware of and trying to move toward.

The Inevitability of Horizontal Reality

As humanity continues to emerge from its animal past and as human understanding and consciousness continues to evolve, people will move inevitably toward a view of divinity that is non-controlling and nonhierarchical; a view of divinity as equal with all life. People will move toward views of God as a truly humane reality. Such a perception of God is inevitable because it is more conducive to human development and progress. Where a vertically oriented God may have suited the hierarchical existence of the past, that view of God is now entirely unsuited to a truly egalitarian and human future.

Human societies since the earliest times have been governed by principles of competitive dominance and the use of often brutal force. Egalitarian relationships have often been overwhelmed in such contexts. But growing consciousness of truly humane reality is now leading more people to view freedom from control and equality with all others as basic to human well being and development. Views of God must also move more in this direction.

The environment for re-evaluating human understanding of God has already emerged with increasing numbers of people abandoning traditional religions and traditional religious views for alternative views of spirituality. Many people are simply tired and disillusioned with the forms of spirituality mediated by controlling institutions and shaped by traditional ideas of a controlling God. They are looking for entirely new approaches to spiritual issues, approaches that are much more humane.

In noting the above contrasting views of God, I am not expressing everything there is to say about the idea of God. Divinity and spirituality are vast areas to explore and there are endless discoveries yet to be made. But it is important to note control in relation to the idea of God because of the continued use of God to validate damaging social attitudes and practices of control. Control has immense and often tragic consequences on human relating and well being.

Setting God Free

Ideas of a more egalitarian and more humane God have great potential for liberating people who no longer find anything attractive about a controlling religious God. But many such people have been reluctant to leave their religion or their view of a religious God because acceptable alternatives have not been offered to them. They have been taught that there is only one true God and he is the God of the religion they belong to. Often, the only alternative offered to these people has been atheism, which is simply unacceptable to most people.

I want to challenge this simplistic polarization and open up the possibility for radical change and liberation by arguing that the controlling God of religion is not and never was God nor does such a view of God represent anything remotely related to the reality that is God. Religion's view of God as a controlling Patriarch is quite simply the creation of religious people obsessed with the control of others.

A truly humane God would not be in any way dominating, hierarchically oriented, religious, or institutional. To the contrary, a humane God would relate equally to all and be freely available to all humanity outside of religion and institutional contexts. Creating a new view of God is essentially an effort to liberate ideas of God from millennia of imprisonment in religious and institutional environments.

Those brave enough to declare themselves free of religion and free from the control of a religious God will most likely be labeled as atheists and damned by the religious authorities who will not tolerate an alternative to their own Patriarch. But people need not fear these charges for it is not atheism that they are turning toward, but rather, in moving away from controlling religion they are taking a positive step toward truly humane reality and views of divinity as free.

To those who have purposely chosen atheism as a response to traditional religious views of God, we offer Karen Armstrong's insight that atheism is often a transitional stage on the way toward the creation of a new God. It is the rejection or denial "of a 'God' which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time" (6). In its traditional expression atheism was often the rejection of the status quo God for something radically new. Even the early Christians were called atheists by their Roman counterparts for introducing a new God in the early centuries AD.

Karen Armstrong has made the point that throughout history people have projected their own ideas and prejudices onto God (7). That is how the human understanding of God was developed. Tragically, people tended to project some of their very worst features onto God, which then allowed them to act in inhumane ways toward others, all in the name of God. It is no wonder that many decent people have come to reject the pagan gods fashioned by fallible people very much like ourselves.

To people who feel they can not yet handle the idea of God, we say, relax. You will not be damned for rejecting something that has been an inhumane reality for most of human existence.

The idea of God that we choose to hold will profoundly impact our thinking, behaving, and our living in general. It will influence how we relate to and how we treat other people. It will also influence the way we treat life and nature around us. The way that we view God will also shape the direction we take into the future and it will determine whether we develop more humanely or not.

Throughout history, people have adopted and held views of divinity as a controlling reality. These views have influenced other elements of the worldviews people have adopted and validated their endeavors to develop institutions of control and domination. In holding such views of God, what people have done essentially is to use the idea of God to validate the worst of residual animal drives and dominating behavior. They have used barbaric ideas of divinity as an excuse to continue living like animals and as an excuse for refusing the responsibility to become fully human.

Others On Control

In these essays I will make extensive reference to parts of the research done by Julian Jaynes on the bicameral era (8). This is the time spanning some 15,000 to 4,000 years ago when humans did not yet possess modern subjective or reflective consciousness. The bicameral mind of that era was a commanded mentality operating within strict hierarchies very much like those of animal existence. It was the mentality that spanned the initial and early period of domestication and therefore led humans to shape vertical animal-like social orders with relationships of strict control.

Jaynes' work is important to understanding the mentality which viewed gods as controlling patriarchs and replicated that patriarchal control in early human social orders, thereby shaping those early societies into animal-like realities. The bicameral mind may have possibly been the central mechanism that enabled animal relating and animal control to move on into the era of human domestication. Jaynes' work provides an interesting view of this very important period in human development when animal features like control were becoming embedded in views of God and in human social institutions.

It is also noted by Jaynes that modern subjective consciousness later emerged within the archaic vertical hierarchies of control. The emergence of this more humane form of mentality led to the advocacy for more egalitarian relationships but such horizontal relationships were not possible within the old hierarchical structures. The emergence of modern horizontally oriented humanity into such a vertical and animal-like context has seriously hindered human development.

It is important to understand this conflict between emerging human consciousness and the structures of control that people continue to operate within. Understanding the emergence of modern humanity into an animal-like existence with animal-like arrangements of relationships, helps immensely in comprehending much of the alienation, depression, illness, and violence suffered by people in the lower strata of our social institutions. Human beings were not intended to be controlled in vertical relationships.

Interestingly, the emergence of modern human consciousness can also be correlated with the emergence of modern movements toward freedom. Shortly after the dates given by Jaynes for the emergence of human consciousness, Orlando Patterson has noted the emergence of the modern idea of freedom (9). As someone has noted, the history of the emergence of freedom is the history of the emergence of human consciousness.

Excellent work is also being done by others on the emerging human self and the nature of true human being or personhood (10). These writers have made valuable contributions to the endeavor to rethink divinity and have provided an excellent framework for understanding the human self, freedom, control, life, and an array of other issues.

We have also included some of the material of Sherry Arnstein (11) and Kathy Iannello (12) in order to expose people to their ideas on horizontal forms of relating and organizing. This input is part of the creative effort needed to move us toward more humane relating and existence. Others offer similarly interesting ideas for creating more workable structures for genuinely human relating and cooperation (13). These ideas are a sample of the creative effort being made to humanize and horizontalize life in all areas.

What Is Control?

At this point I might try to clarify the meaning of control as I am using the term. I am referring mainly to control in its negative, damaging sense. Control, operating in this sense, generally refers to some authority from without the human person that dominates and controls the person and their behavior. It is usually the power exercised by one person over another person, where the subordinate person is coerced into doing things that they would not normally or freely choose to do (14). This negative type of control usually operates within some formal hierarchical arrangement or structure and often has an element of threat or coercion in relationship to others.

The effect of such control is immensely damaging because it often entails a loss of control over the most critical things which shape people's lives and destinies. The loss of control leaves people feeling helpless and alienated.

There is also the positive form of control where people take more control of their own lives and destinies. The use of control that I am referring to will become more clear as I move through these essays.

And by way of explanation, in stating that control causes immense damage to human well being, I am not denying the fact that in many situations, such as the workplace, people voluntarily come together in groups or organizations to accomplish tasks, provide services, or produce things.

But far too often our group efforts at organizing degenerate to situations of domination and damaging control. Management and supervisory staff have a track record of moving beyond the legitimate function of guidance to dominate and abuse lower strata people. As an example of such abuse, note the threat and punishment that management consistently employs to manipulate and control employee behavior. Under these conditions, freedom and equality are undermined and often buried entirely.

Control continues to be one of the great curses of human existence. Among the many problems faced by people in life, control causes perhaps some of the most profound and damaging effects on human well being. The practice of control among people destroys human freedom and personal responsibility and therefore retards human development and progress. Some have even argued that whenever control or power enters any relationship, it then becomes impossible for genuine human emotions such as love to continue to exist within such relationships (15).

The damaging consequences of control are evident in the reluctance that many people feel with regard to expressing themselves in the uniquely human manner that is their nature. The consequences are also profoundly felt in the great loss of creativity from the many that exist at the bottom of society. Their creative contribution will not be experienced because these people are excluded from full participation in the decision making processes that shape our societies and our futures.

As we move on into a new millennium, we are in need of entirely new worldviews to help us make sense of the complex reality that we are discovering within ourselves and in the universe around us. We are also in need of new structures for human organizing that will support new cooperative forms of human relating- truly egalitarian forms of relating.

We are now facing a world of increasing population and decreasing resources. The consequence of these converging elements could possibly be serious conflict. Our contemporary vertically oriented institutions will ensure that we respond with a competitive struggle to control. The result of this struggle to control will only be more alienation and violence. Our very survival demands that we not continue in this direction any longer.

Control and domination undermine the possibility for harmonious human relating among groups at any level, from local to nation state. In the history of war, the origin of fighting can often be traced to someone trying to dominate and control others.

We can do better. It is time we prepared for a truly humane future with views and structures that encourage us to express ourselves in ways that are genuinely humane. Above all, we need views of God as a genuinely humane reality to validate and support such efforts.

(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyrighted material. For more information email wkrossa@istar.ca)

Works Cited

1. Time. April 6, 1996.

    

2. See Alienation, Community and Work by Andrew Oldenquist (Ed.), The Psychology of Control by Ellen Langer, and The Powerholders by David Kipnis.

    

3. Kipnis, David. 1976. The Powerholders, p.3.

    

4. Heinemann, Ranke quoted by Robert Brinsmead in "The Status Of Jesus Re-Examined", Verdict, Essay 1A 1998, p.10.

    

5. Brinsmead, Robert. 1989. "The Necessity of Freedom in All Relationships" in Quest, Essay 3, p.2.

    

6. Armstrong, Karen. 1993. A History of God, p.5.

    

7. Ibid, p.131.

    

8. Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

    

9. Patterson, Orlando. 1991. Freedom, Vol. 1: Freedom In The Making of Western Culture, p.47.

    

10. Brinsmead, Robert and Jack Zwemer in Verdict, Quest, and Destiny.

     

11. Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation" in AIP Journal.

     

12. Iannello, Kathy. 1992. Decisions Without Hierarchy.

     

13. Boothroyd, Peter. 1991. "Developing Community Planning Skills: Applications of a Seven-Step Model" in CHS Research Bulletin, University of British Columbia.

     

14. Kipnis, David. 1976. The Powerholders, p.1.

     

15. Ibid, p.176.

Copyright W. Krossa

---