|
In Reply to: how do you define "the family"? posted by ray on August 14, 2002 at 07:30:10:
I think the best way is to abide by the parameters you're setting here and work at the definition. Others have already presented the same view of individualism vs. group mentality. There have also been descriptions that take into consideration distance from the inner circle you mention.
So how can "The Family" be defined? I think some parallel questions can also be examined.
Is it a loose organization? No, it is not but there are several concentric membership levels and some are more loose than others.
To what extent is individualism encouraged? It is subject to interpretation and thus not absolute. As long as it is constrained within the limits of the current doctrine and practice, it is fine to be indivualism. This is also related to the concentric cirles of membership.
I remember a MO quote: Those who love me the most follow me closest". While those in the inner circles are more subjected to tighter controls, others have more freedom but still not all in the closer circles follow closer as the needs of leadership may require their presence but not for loyalty but for security reasons. This is to say that being in the inner cirles is not equivalent to "follow closest" as many loyal folloowers exist in the periphery.
So I would adventure that a good definition of the family is those who follow the MO letters and now the Maria Letters or Peter's Letters or whatever other directives they get. Their hierachical status may be an indicator but nothing else. Their life is a better gauge but since their practices are done away from the puiblic, it is difficult to know who is who. As a practical working measure, I would go as follow:
1: Was in the inner circle and still is in the inner circle - a closer follower (Family member).
2: Was not in the inner circle but is now in the inner circle - a closer follower (Family member).
3: Has never been in the inner cirle but has been in the family for a long time (define long time here) - a closer follower (Family member).
4: Has just recently been in The Family but not even near the inner circle - a follower (Family member).
5: Has never been in the family - not a follower (Family member).
I may be wrong but it seems that it is not a matter of degrees but rather a binary matter, one way or the other. One is or is not a follower, one is or is not in the family. My question would be: What degree of personal involvement in The Family the have?
But this is a question that can define the individual members and not The Family as a group so it may not be relevant to the discusion but, as you say, it's important to separate the group from the individual.
