The first editorial of June and we are officially into the Summer of ‘22 - whatever that may come to mean in the future. In the UK, let's at least note that our mourning for 100 days of war in Ukraine sits painfully alongside the public celebrations of 70 years of Queen Elizabeth's 'rule' in the UK.

A wider picture might reveal the monarchy held deeply in question, both from within the Royal Family and without (particularly by the next Gen). And war itself is a subject of wide debate: ferociously in global chat rooms but also in the homes and families of, in this case, the war-monger of Russia.

Firstly, a caveat: this editorial will not be an attack on the mainstream embrace of Queen and country. Even so, there is an urgent need to bring together the story lines and make some sense of what is old and dying and what is coming through. There is no doubt that these institutions answer an emotional need for the wider population. But just as we are entranced by their allure, we are also learning to question our addictions to their promise of agency.

Even as milllions come out on the streets to celebrate the Jubilee, can we truly gloss over the hierarchy of aristocracy at this time of increasing and severe poverty? Even as we hope for and cheer any wins for Ukraine, can we really ignore the deeper conflicts that gave rise to this unforgiveable invasion by Russia? Not least the ongoing role of the global military-industrial complex that we are all economically embroiled in?

At the same time, should we only sneer at the desire for some kind of shared imaginary - evidenced by crowds at the Olympics, Royal Births and Deaths and every New Year? When you have such a smiley and gracious elder woman holding that space, the realities that lie beneath are more easily ignored, feel harmless.

Regarding war, should we ever belittle legitimate fears of the behaviour of rogue leaders? Even when the deterrents - the army, the police force, the nuclear bomb! - can so easily be turned on ourselves? Not just at the moment of conflict, but constantly (maybe increasingly) eroding our personal ability to be agents, in this increasingly complex public space?

Even as we acknowledge their role in the logic of popular sentiment, do we really need these old and tremulous structures and strategies any more - need being the key word here? Given that we are more able to technologically participate in the big questions of our age, should we not be curious about what might come next for this human civilisation in peril?

In terms of royal and military institutions, how can we respect the more personal and communal gratifications they provide? What fulfilment do they offer? What are the questions that the Queen and War answer - as ideas, as beliefs, as identity - and have answered for centuries? Of course, there are many books written in response to these age-old questions.

But given the resilience of these institutions, evidenced by their ability to dominate the headlines despite the ongoing crises of wellbeing and environmental collapse, how can we move on from the more toxic aspects of the solution they offer? As we know, the building is burning.

How can the emotional “human givens” of our nature inform us?

From the standpoint of emotional need - which might also be interpreted as motivation, or drive - some of these questions might be obvious. An easy and insightful tool here would be Ivan Tryrell and Jo Griffin's Human Givens framework.

Clearly both royalty and military answer a desire for security as well as collective status and belonging. If this sounds to you like a conservative perspective, consider Kier Starmer’s decision to go with 'Faith, Flag and Country' as a big political narrative. But do these givens also, in a more abstract way, answer our need for achievement - the longevity of a Queen still presiding over a Commonwealth (crumbling, yet still connected). And the promise of a 'win' over Russia (that might not materialise)

After an obvious reading, we might see more pluralistic answers. For example, our need for meaning and purpose could well, for some groups, represent a set of ideals to live up to (see Boris Johnson’s speech on integrity last Friday, unfathomably delivered by someone whose behaviour has been revealed to entirely contradict these edicts). Another way to answer those drives could be the need to take up arms against evil.

Poignantly, Ukrainian PM Zelensky's assiduous speech-making around the world - vital for his armed forces to remain viable - have played a big part in rousing the passions of Western populations. Other wars - Yemen, Syria, even Afghanistan – have notably failed to do so, for uncomfortable reasons. Not unlike Greta Thunberg, Zelensky’s ability to deliver an appeal directly to the people through the parliaments who serve them, has moved families everywhere to open their homes to Ukrainian refugees: people are proud to be the bulwarks of freedom.

Or, for another group, the slow demise of these institutions could be the unfolding story of deconstruction they need, as a backdrop to their own growing agency. For them, grasping the impact of Meghan Merkel on the previous monoculture of the Royal Family is game-changing. Being able to take on any form of politically sanctioned violence - such as Defund The Police - is a step in the direction of a more just society.

It's not too difficult to see how both Royalty and War answer our need to give and receive attention. On the one hand, those who do transfer their agency to the Royals or the Army want - need - to spend time gazing upon those they have invested in. Showing up to a street party on the one hand, or participating in Poppy Day on the other, give relief and strength to those that need reassurance that someone is in charge.

The Jubilee and the updates on the War are opportunities for the governing institutions to pay attention to a public story of democracy and fairness. Turning up to cheer the Queen sits alongside 'the war effort' as opportunities to show up for your country: to matter, whoever you are. It's a painfully smart strategy – the basic mechanics of patriotism.

Which, from the list of Human Givens, leaves us with intimacy: can either the Royal Family or the Army possibly answer this essential need in our lives? Not on the surface, no. However, our Arts institutions have done their level best to create that bridge for us. Take the tv series The Crown. Despite having no direct information from members of the Royal Family themselves, the script writers have developed a deeply coherent story around the vulnerabilities of each character and the outcomes for the nation.

For example, in the TV series, Prince Charles' struggle with an overbearing father, boarding school and the demands of his position to deny him the chance to marry for love, make him relatable to us – whether it’s all true or not. We are given the chance to feel that our own struggles with patriarchy, society and relationships are seen and shared.

Similarly, Hollywood's relentless glorifying and romanticising of War through showing the admirable struggles of soldiers or humanising leaders gives any viewer a way to identify personally with the otherwise baffling trajectory of murderous, military logic. How else do we get to feel 'good' about wiping out the enemy - always, itself, just a collection of young men with grieving parents.

Happening at a place-based community near you

So, to adapt the way a Human Givens psychosocial therapist might question a troubled client: now that we have identified how your addiction is getting your emotional needs met, can we think about getting them met in healthier ways? Of course, this is not a one-size fits all question and neither will the answers do for everyone. For some, community agency / citizens action networks (CANs) are already doing much of that work; for others, music and dancing is the way.

But beyond the personal, and looking at the needs above, can we see how they play out across the public space - even if they do not necessarily apply to ourselves (at least not on first glance)? And even if they do not when we think about the Queen and President Zelensky, maybe they do when we think about other power structures in our lives. For example, how our emotional needs are met by capitalism and consumerism. Or by watching endless movies about lurid murders or playing amoral games online?

By naming Planet A as a place to build a future from, we offer a space where the Given Human Resources - named by Tyrell and Griffin as bringing wholeness to our human capacity for design - can play their way into reinventing the future. Without altering our biological, scientifically-evidenced make-up can we now imagine ways to meet our needs without destroying the planet?

Or more ambitiously, can we respond to all the crises of our Western Civilisation at once by bringing more of ourselves as complex humans, into the public space? Inequality, loss of wellbeing, self-destructive wars in defence of ailing institutions, environmental and economic collapse - are they all symptoms of societies that do not acknowledge the 'given resources' of every human being?

In a recent Harvest event hosted in Kaplankaya, a fractal of the social and economic elites (by their own admission) gathered to ask themselves what their part might be in changing our current reality. How can they use their personal and material resources to accelerate transformation? Jamie Wheal, author of Recapture the Rapture described it here as a painful self-deconstruction that, ultimately, we should welcome as necessary. See here for our own contribution, landing Planet A as a chance to move forward together.

Next week, in a not dissimilar gathering called The Realisation Festival in St Giles, Salisbury, we will be participating in the question "Is War Natural"? We are already starting the process using the democracy tool pol.is to begin to disaggregate the personal, communal and worldly perspectives that might be present in the gathering crowd. Expect a report back next week.

Meantime, those same questions are being asked, in real time, at a place-based community taking shape near you. Civic Square in Birmingham invites social dreaming at the heart of building new structures of community empowerment. Transition Towns - through global networks - actively grows a more diverse and pluralistic narrative around transformation. Costa Rica Regenerativa using the soil as the focus for planetary bio-diversity or EcoCiv inviting Chinese narratives for a forthcoming ecocivilisation.

The inquiry has begun and is moving towards full throttle in the Summer of 2022.

Alternative Editorial: Love Not Love