Boy, can I sign on to this thesis: "First, I think we’ve heightened individualism at the expense of community." I've seen that so much in the field I've been closest to, public education. I am all for advocating for our own children's needs (I certainly did when my kids were in school), but I think a lot of folks have completely lost sight of some of the aims of public education--namely, the needs of our public as a whole.
I can also sign on to your remedies. I think they work well especially when we apply them to our every day interactions (such as the one in the farmer's market), with regular people we are seeing in real time, face to face. I think most of us just want to get along, and we want to be good people. Where I struggle is with those who I might categorize as "not so regular"--those with more than usual power or other resources--who, I think, do not always have good intentions. Some of those kind of people clearly do not, and one of their tactics is to get the rest of us to turn on each other. I'm not sure of what to do about that, other than vote, be purposeful about where and how I spend my time and money, and work to not let them make me lose my humanity and regard for others. Oh, and limit the time I spend online and the places I go there!
Appreciate the chance to think about these things, and I appreciate your reasoned (and reasonable) take on all of this.
I had another conversation today with someone about the apparent overload of self-absorption in her school interactions. We seldom know what's going on in others' lives, but at the surface it sure seems like the school setting has plenty of examples to offer!
As far as where we might apply these theories of change (if that's what they are), I suppose my great hope is that in bringing them to bear in our everyday interactions we stand the chance of bridging the divisions that others intentionally cultivate. You are smart to keep a tight grip on that humanity and to do whatever else it takes to keep yourself from falling for their traps. Your thoughtful replies are always much appreciated, Rita. Thank you!
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Malcolm. If you're willing, I'd like to better understand the ratio/outlier part of your comment. I feel like we're actually on the same page there, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.
As Benjamin Franklin said upon being asked as he left the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, "What kind of a government have you given us, sir?," "A republic, madame, if you can keep it." A "republic" is freely elected representative government for all citizens. There are two sides to the coin of Freedom...: Liberty and Responsibility. Yea for individualism, and yea for concern for community. Check the rage, and promote the balancing of reflection....
"If you can keep it..." INDEED! Such an apt quote, Charlie, and always good to recognize that our founding fathers understood how the citizenry held the keys to both the strength and fragility of our system of government. Thanks for commenting!
As I read it, it comes down to two conditions - one is apathy. The other is exhaustion. Both are driven by the continued ugly state of the world in which we live and in which we are constantly waterboarded.
If we could just focus on the good that is happening, gee, on the good that is, and invite folk into broadening that (be it environment, fair trade, homes for the homeless, moves against violence, volunteer aid - whatever), then would the world be a slightly better place?
I'll happily call myself naive, if that's what it takes, Prue. I've come to the conclusion that, for me personally, I have to both focus on the good and believe that small efforts have the potential to make a difference. That's what keeps me from going under! Grateful to chew and think with you, thanks!
I thought so, too, Rebecca, and I'm glad you read that one. Seems like an example of the grass always appearing greener on the other side. This bit really struck me: "The trouble with anarchy, though, is that it is inherently unstable – humans continually, and spontaneously, generate new rules governing behaviour, communication and economic exchange, and they do so as rapidly as old rules are dismantled."
I do think we need to let our children have more opportunities to make their own rules in their own games, and to be less constrained by formal game rules. But, that's a different topic.
I started ignoring moral outrage theatre back during the anti-apartheid movement. I was living in Zimbabwe at the time and while thousands protested the apartheid regime, Robert Mugabe, the president of Modern Socialist Zimbabwe (as the state-owned press referred to it) was off killing 20,000 of his own citizens for the crime of belonging to a different ethnic group and no one gave a damn. There were no protests or sanctions.
I remember someone saw Mugabe at a meeting in London and had the temerity to approach Mugabe and ask about the murders, only to be beaten into the gutter by Mugabe’s bodyguard.
The opinions stated most loudly in pursuit of a cause are, in my experience, the causes on the shakiest moral and or scientific grounds.
And when it comes to individualism versus community, I don’t think we can expect strong, resilient, caring communities without most people in the community being strong, resilient, and caring individuals.
"Moral outrage theatre" <-- I will forever think of it this way now. Your last paragraph is golden. If I edit that piece, I might slip that in, with proper credit of course! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Switter.
I appreciate the sentiment here, Alex, and recognize that there are presumed exceptions to every "rule." Maybe it's different for you, but I often feel myself and see others assuming ill intent without any evidence on which to base that judgement. Just the other day, patience thin after waiting 40 minutes to get a prescription filled (and hitting additional obstacles after that) I found myself just short of accusing a woman of cutting in line. I discovered that, in fact, she'd been in front of me all along.
I also maintain, though again, I'm sure there are exceptions, that if we are given the chance (or seek it) to have conversations with people -- yes, even the racists, bigots, etc. -- we'd likely find ourselves softening just enough to think a bit differently.
Exactly. In the line, you viewed yourself as a victim, discriminated against by a bad person. Your sense of entitlement was threatened. You resented the bad person for taking away your place in the social order. Or so you mistakenly thought of as your place. This happens when a person or group is encouraged to feel entitled and have no means of ascertaining their place.
Here at Ward 2 in DC there is disagreement about entitlements given by the taxpayers and property owners concerning public housing in the taxpayers neighborhood. The poor people and their supporters feel entitled to the free housing and the others feel they are cutting in line. Privilege without obligation.
'"Another pointedly said: “I am happy to go to restaurants near a homeless shelter…Michelin stars and all.”'
The blacks feel entitled. They demand privilege without obligation. Only the resident taxpayers have an obligation while the blacks have no obligation to conform to the white sense of social order.
This is why it's very dangerous, as you say, to confer privilege (a position in line) without demanding an obligation (waiting in turn). It creates a sense of resentment and envy. Also anger, sloth, etc.
Lots to consider here, Alex. I'm standing by the original premise (from which this line of discussion feels rather removed): Human connection matters. The old adage of not judging someone until you've walked in their shoes may not be realistic, for who among us can truly do that? But we can try to walk beside, to listen for understanding. To me, that's what "assume good intentions" is meant to inspire.
Well, I assume the people living in DC all "know" each other and are well intentioned. I mean,, they all vote the same party for mayor and all 13 council members.
Boy, can I sign on to this thesis: "First, I think we’ve heightened individualism at the expense of community." I've seen that so much in the field I've been closest to, public education. I am all for advocating for our own children's needs (I certainly did when my kids were in school), but I think a lot of folks have completely lost sight of some of the aims of public education--namely, the needs of our public as a whole.
I can also sign on to your remedies. I think they work well especially when we apply them to our every day interactions (such as the one in the farmer's market), with regular people we are seeing in real time, face to face. I think most of us just want to get along, and we want to be good people. Where I struggle is with those who I might categorize as "not so regular"--those with more than usual power or other resources--who, I think, do not always have good intentions. Some of those kind of people clearly do not, and one of their tactics is to get the rest of us to turn on each other. I'm not sure of what to do about that, other than vote, be purposeful about where and how I spend my time and money, and work to not let them make me lose my humanity and regard for others. Oh, and limit the time I spend online and the places I go there!
Appreciate the chance to think about these things, and I appreciate your reasoned (and reasonable) take on all of this.
I had another conversation today with someone about the apparent overload of self-absorption in her school interactions. We seldom know what's going on in others' lives, but at the surface it sure seems like the school setting has plenty of examples to offer!
As far as where we might apply these theories of change (if that's what they are), I suppose my great hope is that in bringing them to bear in our everyday interactions we stand the chance of bridging the divisions that others intentionally cultivate. You are smart to keep a tight grip on that humanity and to do whatever else it takes to keep yourself from falling for their traps. Your thoughtful replies are always much appreciated, Rita. Thank you!
I agree with your summary but crasher equals our group is a false equivalent.
Compare the ratio of good drivers to bad on the interstate.
The bad ones are an outlier.
The road to hell is not paved with good intentions but with the debris caused by the bad drivers.
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Malcolm. If you're willing, I'd like to better understand the ratio/outlier part of your comment. I feel like we're actually on the same page there, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.
I think there is a difference between active expression of views and just being pushy.
There are pushers and saboteurs in every crowd.
As Benjamin Franklin said upon being asked as he left the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, "What kind of a government have you given us, sir?," "A republic, madame, if you can keep it." A "republic" is freely elected representative government for all citizens. There are two sides to the coin of Freedom...: Liberty and Responsibility. Yea for individualism, and yea for concern for community. Check the rage, and promote the balancing of reflection....
"If you can keep it..." INDEED! Such an apt quote, Charlie, and always good to recognize that our founding fathers understood how the citizenry held the keys to both the strength and fragility of our system of government. Thanks for commenting!
“Contrary to what we might want to believe, science tells us that indignation on behalf of others is more self-serving than it is altruistic.”
💯
Good to have confirmation, right? 😅
This is a fantastic piece, Elizabeth! You capture the tension between American individualism and the need for community so well.
Thank you, Ayesha. I suppose the greatest challenge is in trying to keep the two balanced.
Gosh.
Such food for thought.
As I read it, it comes down to two conditions - one is apathy. The other is exhaustion. Both are driven by the continued ugly state of the world in which we live and in which we are constantly waterboarded.
If we could just focus on the good that is happening, gee, on the good that is, and invite folk into broadening that (be it environment, fair trade, homes for the homeless, moves against violence, volunteer aid - whatever), then would the world be a slightly better place?
Perhaps I'm too naive...
I'll happily call myself naive, if that's what it takes, Prue. I've come to the conclusion that, for me personally, I have to both focus on the good and believe that small efforts have the potential to make a difference. That's what keeps me from going under! Grateful to chew and think with you, thanks!
Wow, Elizabeth, great post! Also, I followed that link to how 'humans don't thrive in chaos' - fascinating article. 😊
I thought so, too, Rebecca, and I'm glad you read that one. Seems like an example of the grass always appearing greener on the other side. This bit really struck me: "The trouble with anarchy, though, is that it is inherently unstable – humans continually, and spontaneously, generate new rules governing behaviour, communication and economic exchange, and they do so as rapidly as old rules are dismantled."
I do think we need to let our children have more opportunities to make their own rules in their own games, and to be less constrained by formal game rules. But, that's a different topic.
Thanks for chiming in!
I started ignoring moral outrage theatre back during the anti-apartheid movement. I was living in Zimbabwe at the time and while thousands protested the apartheid regime, Robert Mugabe, the president of Modern Socialist Zimbabwe (as the state-owned press referred to it) was off killing 20,000 of his own citizens for the crime of belonging to a different ethnic group and no one gave a damn. There were no protests or sanctions.
I remember someone saw Mugabe at a meeting in London and had the temerity to approach Mugabe and ask about the murders, only to be beaten into the gutter by Mugabe’s bodyguard.
The opinions stated most loudly in pursuit of a cause are, in my experience, the causes on the shakiest moral and or scientific grounds.
And when it comes to individualism versus community, I don’t think we can expect strong, resilient, caring communities without most people in the community being strong, resilient, and caring individuals.
"Moral outrage theatre" <-- I will forever think of it this way now. Your last paragraph is golden. If I edit that piece, I might slip that in, with proper credit of course! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Switter.
"Assume good intentions, help others get ahead."
What about all the racists, haters, bigots, sexists, homophobes, etc. Surely, we don't want them to "get ahead!"
I appreciate the sentiment here, Alex, and recognize that there are presumed exceptions to every "rule." Maybe it's different for you, but I often feel myself and see others assuming ill intent without any evidence on which to base that judgement. Just the other day, patience thin after waiting 40 minutes to get a prescription filled (and hitting additional obstacles after that) I found myself just short of accusing a woman of cutting in line. I discovered that, in fact, she'd been in front of me all along.
I also maintain, though again, I'm sure there are exceptions, that if we are given the chance (or seek it) to have conversations with people -- yes, even the racists, bigots, etc. -- we'd likely find ourselves softening just enough to think a bit differently.
Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etIqln7vT4w
Thanks for your comment.
Exactly. In the line, you viewed yourself as a victim, discriminated against by a bad person. Your sense of entitlement was threatened. You resented the bad person for taking away your place in the social order. Or so you mistakenly thought of as your place. This happens when a person or group is encouraged to feel entitled and have no means of ascertaining their place.
Here at Ward 2 in DC there is disagreement about entitlements given by the taxpayers and property owners concerning public housing in the taxpayers neighborhood. The poor people and their supporters feel entitled to the free housing and the others feel they are cutting in line. Privilege without obligation.
'"Another pointedly said: “I am happy to go to restaurants near a homeless shelter…Michelin stars and all.”'
https://dcist.com/story/23/07/06/gwu-dorm-shelter-for-medically-vulnerable-brooke-pinto/
Others don't feel an obligation nor do they feel privielged in Ward 3:
"Gore notes, too, the importance of righting the neighborhood’s history of exclusion and racism against Black residents."
https://dcist.com/story/23/12/13/dc-chevy-chase-community-center-housing/
The blacks feel entitled. They demand privilege without obligation. Only the resident taxpayers have an obligation while the blacks have no obligation to conform to the white sense of social order.
This is why it's very dangerous, as you say, to confer privilege (a position in line) without demanding an obligation (waiting in turn). It creates a sense of resentment and envy. Also anger, sloth, etc.
Lots to consider here, Alex. I'm standing by the original premise (from which this line of discussion feels rather removed): Human connection matters. The old adage of not judging someone until you've walked in their shoes may not be realistic, for who among us can truly do that? But we can try to walk beside, to listen for understanding. To me, that's what "assume good intentions" is meant to inspire.
Well, I assume the people living in DC all "know" each other and are well intentioned. I mean,, they all vote the same party for mayor and all 13 council members.