Initiation and initiative : an exploration of the life and ideas of Dimitrije Mitrinović

152 LIFE AND IDEAS OF MITRINOVIC

it must be personal, a personal concern about particulars, about the unique beings each of us are.

In making a commitment, one was making it to the whole person, warts and all. If one was to develop the ability to wholeheartedly embrace the standpoints of others, then it was a pointless practice Just to share one’s life and concerns with those who felt, thought and acted like you. Ultimately senators would have the task of speaking to other people on behalf of humanity as a whole. It was therefore crucial that they should be exposed to and share their lives with as wide a range of human types as possible—rogues and villains as well as saints and angels. Thus, there was one particular member of the group who had been actively involved in the organisation of the New Britain Movement who had proved himself to be almost completely amoral. He was the archetypal male rogue—friendly, bright, not to be trusted with women, and continually letting the other members of the group down. So much so that they were eventually ready to reject him. At such times Mitrinovi¢ reminded them of the depth and the reality of their contract with each other—and with the culprit.

His badness is the world’s badness ... That darkness we have to turn into the light. And how? Why, by swallowing it! Take it! Swallow it! Eat it up! Its good for the stomach. It will make your stomachs hardier for the next meal and the next.’

Whilst at such times it was the Barley element that was to the fore, this in its turn provided the context within which the painful spikes of the Cactus might be exposed. The understanding and acceptance of each other made it possible for them to make explicit the sharpest of differences between them. This was what took place in ‘group work’ when the harshest truth-speaking about oneself and about others was practiced. It could be extremely painful for the ‘victim, as David Davies experienced on more than one occasion.

The technique was simple. Six or seven of us would meet for a session of three or four hours, generally late at night, for one’s unconscious was supposed to be less remote in the deep night. One of the group would start, perhaps, by criticizing something I had done—a speech I had made, or the way I had behaved on some particular occasion. Against that criticism I would defend myself. By this time we were fairly launched, and gradually were out in deep waters. A member of the group would then say, in language that lacked nothing of brutality and candour, exactly what he, more frequently she (which made it worse!), thought