In the aftermath of World War II, Mensa was conceived, an altruistic vision to assist the British government with the country's recovery by harnessing the creative power of those with high intelligence to help rebuild a more peaceful, more productive world. The concept was powerful, the participants able and the spirit strong in the battered nation. Although the altruistic ideal would not reach fruition, the organization, Mensa, survived.
Let's ponder, for a moment, what our Mensa community would be like today if our original offer had been accepted and its mission fulfilled. One can imagine the following welcome speech to a new member: "Well, we have eight projects we're working on. Some are in a semi-open state, some closed, some just forming. If you don't see anything that interests you, stay around, enjoy the companionship; something is sure to come along."
This bifurcation (between social and serious aspects) does exist today, but the two sides are not of equal weight or consequence. Mensa is not an organization like the Shriners, with its clown cars and children's burn hospitals. Nor are we like E. Clampus Vitus, with their rowdy, drunken barbeques and quietly intense charitable ventures. Neither of these groups pressures its members to perform. Nor do they have "in groups" for those who participate on their charitable sides. Mensa, however, in its infancy, created its own contradiction: It put its philosophical potential at odds with its social/political quintessence, by declaring that it would espouse no cause, endorse no belief.
In the early '60s, when Mensa immigrated to America, the organization was new and exciting in itself. Novel and unfamiliar, it attracted intelligent eccentrics from all economic strata, an unorthodox mix for a social club. Mensa was both part of and engaged in the social revolution of its time. In the zeitgeist of that era, most of us did not feel the need for a rigid structure — we preferred and throve on consensus and a roundtable form of governance, agreeing to a "town hall" method of settling differences when any internal conflict occurred.
Holding office was not coveted, but was more a matter of, " … well, somebody has to; I guess it's my turn."
But times changed. The emotional commitment and ideals of the '60s evolved into the practical, quieter '80s. A large percentage of our new members had always lapsed after their first year, but how Mensa approached that lapse rate began to alter. Although we continued to recruit with the promise of the Arthurian Round Table, we used slick corporate-style material to do so — betraying, however subtly, our heterodox origins. Mensa had turned into a "dues mill."
We still attract many who think of themselves as underachievers and countless others who feel they've been "handicapped" by their I.Q. — having an overactive intelligence and feeling compelled to hide their
|
Yet
this community, despite its intensely felt potential, seems to lead
nowhere.
|
Yet this community, despite its intensely felt potential, seems to lead nowhere. We know, intrinsically and inherently, that something greater can come out of this concatenation of talent because we see it in the occasional sparking of intellect and superior ability to solve problems. But the chasm between promise and practice has widened and deepened and continues to do so.
Why is that? It's an intuitive baby-step to think that Mensa, had it grown under the original vision, might indeed come to represent a threat to the stability of the "free world." Mensa is certainly large enough (currently worldwide with effective communications), and clearly can place itself above political and/or nationalistic economic interests. But most nations wouldn't want to invite a third player — especially a brilliant, focused supranational entity — to their tables: so much free-spirited brainpower could be a potential threat, worth the minor effort it would take to keep "under control." Yet three independent sources have told me that they've heard top AMC officers say that "Mensa needs to be kept smaller, not allowed to get bigger." Is Mensa's promise-vs.-practice chasm the result of such inside maneuverings?
Or did it begin when, in our laissez-faire openness, we allowed our "corporate business leader" half to launch themselves into management positions, and they "managed" to institutionalize it? Aided by the conservative ambience of the '80s, they inherently brought us a hierarchical system of top-down business management with its inevitable accouterments, including power brokering, commercialism and replacement of spontaneity with mechanical structures.
For some of Mensa's leaders, this spawned survival of the meanest.
National officers found themselves faced with initiation into an "in group" — which enjoyed various perquisites — on the condition that that they become "team players." Officers who questioned this sequestration from "rank and file" members were isolated and relegated to minor, if any, subcommittee assignments.
Why won't/can't Mensans of good will promote an effective cooperative approach to reinvigorating what used to be so wonderful about the Mensa experience? Why doesn't the American Mensa Committee (AMC) simply sit down and figure out what it is and how that fits with where the members collectively want to go? After all, if anybody could, we could blend business management acumen with the roundtable philosophy and have a resounding success.
|
So
much free-spirited brainpower could be a potential threat.
|
I suspect that AMC, though its collective lips are sealed, knows the exact answer to that question: We have a dues mill; and to upset that equation — even for the betterment of the membership experience — is to destroy the hierarchal system that sets them on their pedestals.
An honest appraisal of the inclusive fellowship that has made Mensa so appealing would show that it is still neither fashionable nor ego flattering to lust after office, commandeer perqs of "privilege" or seek personal aggrandizement — especially in the name of the Round Table with its legendary precedent that no participant have primacy and that all debates be settled with the maximum amount of courteous give and take on each side. In such an analysis there would be no room for a hierarchy, no place and no patience for a system that corrupts the guiding principle and promotes top-down management. Indeed, those goals would be considered heretical, the very antithesis of roundness and flatness. So, apparently, we have changed.
Can change still be made? Yes! Reform is possible, perhaps more so than in the recent past now that conditions are so egregiously bad.
As discontent and frustration within the membership grow, more members are looking back at previous administrations and asking in bewilderment: "Where was I, where were you when all this was happening? Did we elect leaders with insufficient business experience?" Not likely. We had two superb "business" chairmen during the most critical of times — Gabe Werba and Charley Fallon. Yet nothing was done or even planned to ensure that Mensa could conduct its necessary business while retaining its freewheeling character.
Some current and past officers refuse to respond to questions about our dilemma, failing to understand that these are legitimate questions and not the concerns of only "a few fringe radicals."
Multitudinous, hastily constructed bylaws revisions create confusion and restrictions. Service cuts to local groups continue unabated while funds increasingly pour back to our national officers for AMC leadership sessions, more staff and more travel by AMC and staff. It is rape of the membership resource by the few in power. Either by inadvertency, inclination or subornation, AMC apparently exists to perpetuate and enlarge itself and its power. Meanwhile, Mensans seem afraid (or perhaps just too overwhelmed) to come together and realize their potential to address these common problems and their roots.
We have been blindsided as to where Mensa's real problem lies. Not only do we have the human tendency to look in some other direction, to avert our minds from distasteful actions until they affect our "fun" in Mensa, but there are also forces urging us to look in other directions, away from where Mensa's real problem lies. The guiding principle of top Mensa officials now seems to be "Keep Mensa Quiet" and at its present level. At best, this standard keeps Mensa a cash cow for the benefit of the privileged in-group of officials; at worst, it throttles the tremendous potential Mensa is.
And Mensa does still have much potential. With our unique, inborn capabilities, we must recognize most of all that our numbers, our abilities, our very passion for independence can pose a threat to those Mensa officers determined to be the "more equal among equals."
This can be stopped and turned around. Start with local groups. Appeal to our base constituency: the members. Members who have been disillusioned in their expectations, and who crave fulfillment of the Promise of Mensa. Yes, American Mensa is a corporation with a serious, business side, but it was a corporation with a difference. Members who wished to speak could be heard; decisions were made with the informed consent of the membership; initiatives were those of the membership.
Work to end the contradiction. Work toward the Promise. We, the grassroots members, must take back what is ours — must assert ourselves and achieve the balance that Mensa should have. I would hate to look back years from now and sadly say, we could have been so much more.