Author: Dr. Martin Clay Fowler
Title: “You Always Belonged and You Always Will: A Philosophy
of Belonging”
Publication: 2014, Durham NC, by ZuberFowler Initiatives, ISBN
978-0615931326, 293 pages, paper, some black and white illustrations (photos
and drawings); 3 Parts, 14 Chapters
I knew the author personally (usually calling himself "Martin Fowler") when I lived in Dallas in the
1980s, and I will come back to that. The
author now lives in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, according to
his own statement, probably for employment.
(It’s booming. I was there in
December myself.) He has an earlier book
from 2008 on Amazon, “The Ethical Practice of Critical Thinking”, which I will
have to look into soon.
In an early chapter Fowler refers to this book as a “Manifesto
of Belonging”. “Manifesto” has become a
trendy word, not always with positive connotations. My own first “Do Ask, Do Tell” book in 1997
was called “The Manifesto” by coworkers!
Fowler asserts that “each life belongs in every life, and every
life belongs in each life” (p. 253).
Belonging means “living within lives”, whereas a “relationship” refers
to interaction between distinct lives (like in a romantic sense, marriage, or
friendship). Belonging implies “vulnerability
to transformation”. This implies accepting
a risk of being changed. Of course, in
the Christian faith that can mean being “born again” to some people.
My own take on this, at a high level, is to see this as part
of physics and cosmology. In nature,
everything tends to deteriorate, with entropy, according to laws of
thermodynamics. Life is nature’s way to
oppose entropy. But life needs a cycle,
which means reproduction (including some sexual reproduction to mix genes) and
termination of the body in one particular place (“death”). It also needs to develop “free will”, which
is the ultimate victor over entropy.
That’s why I think life has to be ubiquitous throughout the
Universe. Now will of consciousness can
express at various levels. In higher
animals, like humans (and dogs, cats, foxes, chimps, orcas) it connects to the
individual body. In bees, ants or other
social insects, free will may exist with the entire hive as a “group mind”: we
aren’t sure. What could happen in other
worlds seems unimaginable, but I think there are other worlds that are more
similar to ours than we expect. Fowler
talks about what it would mean to belong on another planet (Mars)
philosophically, if humans decided to settle there (as they must some day).
Fowler spends a lot of space talking about personality
attributes and processes, often in pairs.
The list includes “power and speed”, “strength and flexibility”, “balance
and coordination”, “agility and accuracy”, “endurance and stamina”. He defines concepts like Love, Truth, and
Justice. He makes the interesting
observation that “endurance is about your relationship with suffering, and
stamina is about your relationship with strength” (p 191), partly because
suffering can happen as part of transformation.
He discusses social media under the concept of "virtual belonging", make-believe which is still "real". (I know that others have purported the idea of "Alone together", Nov.2, 2011). He also discusses acting in relation to virtual belonging,
Now all of this reminds me of the “polarity theory” of Paul
Rosenfels, as explained in a book “Homosexuality: The Psychology of the
Creative Process” which I review here April 12, 2006. I learned about Rosenfels when I regularly
visited (and for a while “belonged” to) the Ninth Street Center (in the East
Village – now called “The Paul Rosenfels Community”) in the mid
1970s after I had moved into New York City.
Rosenfels speaks of personalities as having attributes that are polar
opposites, like “masculine and feminine” and “objective and subjective”, “balanced
and unbalanced”. This connects up to
Fowler now pretty readily. What is
different is that Rosenfels pins these characteristics to individuals who may
participate in a polarized romantic relationship (particularly relevant today
as gay marriage develops in society). A
male person (even heterosexual) might well be a “subjective feminine male”, and
therefore “unbalanced”. The feminine personality
is more interested in developing the capacity to “love”, the masculine, to
exert “power”, but always “creatively”.
Now Love corresponds to Truth (which Fowler defines), and Power
corresponds to “Right” (Paul’s word) or “Justice” (Fowler’s term). Fowler does mention feminine-masculine as
yin-yang at one point. What makes Fowler different is that in his view, all
personalities should have access to all of these traits and processes, because
all of these processes derive from “belonging”. It's interesting to remember that the Ninth Street Center offered acting classes back in the 1970s and considered acting a value venue for growth (especially for "masculine" personalities -- it helps if you have a devoted dog to do it with you)

I don’t see Rosenfels mentioned in Fowler’s endnotes, which
surprised me. (Maybe I missed it.) I believe I had mentioned Rosenfels to him
back in Dallas in the 1980s. But I
would say that Fowler’s philosophy is like that of Rosenfels, with some
elements of Zen. (There is a chapter on “inactivity”.) It would fit well at Yogaville or the Monroe
Institute (both of which I just visited this past weekend).
I could suggest a couple more concepts myself: "momentum" and "traction".
The book offers “25 meditations” early, and “25 epigrams”
near the end. He uses illustrations to
tell some parables (like “Animal Crackers”).
I did know Martin and Clyde (Zuber) when they were living in
Grand Prairie, Texas (near I-20, between Dallas and Fort Worth) in the
1980s. At the time, they ran meetings of
a group called “Evangelicals Concerned” and worked with Dr. Ralph Blair, who at
least once led a service in their home (
link). I seem to recall Thanksgiving dinner
there in 1985, right before a big implementation at work. Some memories last a long time.
I do have a bit of an issue with the idea of being open to
belonging unconditionally. Suppose an
outside aggressor, possibly aggrieved with poverty or indignation or religious
ideology, forces an unchosen “transformation” upon me. This is becoming more of an issue as the
media covers brazen belligerence, violence and particularly terrorism. I do understand the Christian idea that
without forgiveness and Grace, one winds up paying for the sins of the perpetrator,
or in sharing the debt. I have been able to be effective as an individual in my
own way in the world in which I have lived (at least to age 71 now), but if
that world were destroyed (by war or terror) I feel I would have nothing more
to offer it, having always remained aloof at some personal levels (a topic we
talked about in Dallas). I would just “belong”
but against my will, in a subordinate or unintentionally (not creative)
submissive situation. I do have a real
problem with that, and have said so online. "Belonging", for me, has a moral component.