My mother-in-law moved
from New England to Kansas in a covered wagon. She watched her children jet
their way around the globe and pass through the door from the space age and transition into the
unexplored information age. Today, we pedal hard to keep pace; thus, Taylor
Chapman walked into a Dunkin’ Donuts shop with her phone in hand. Once
inside, she recorded an eight-minute video transaction with a clerk, launched it
globally and received 6.5 million views in return.
In this fast-paced fluidity,
people are “testing out the boundaries” of what seems to have suddenly become a
“new political climate,” concludes Stephen O’Connor, Louisville Psychiatrist.
Such circumstances, avoidable and otherwise, push us into potential hurricane
winds as 2017 becomes reality. Viewing our differences as adversarial, and
people different from us as adversaries, we demographically dissect ourselves ethnically,
politically, and religiously, not to mention economically.
The more we defend this
behavior, the more we lose our sense of the common good, which leaves us swimming
in shark-infested waters with questionable ability, unpredictable behavior, and
untested equipment. That is troubling, to say the least!
Stephen Carter has given
thoughtful and constructive thought to this business of relating to one
another: Civility Manners Morals and the Etiquette of Democracy Carter/Basic
Books/NY/1998). I find his thinking helpful for facing the next four years of
our national history. His theme of civility is a quality I find much needed
today but very short in supply. Carter suggests, “Nasty language, whether vulgar or violent or simply bigoted, does nothing to
encourage a thoughtful and reasoned response. It sparks anger or shame but not
dialogue. So it makes it harder for us to talk to each other, and thus hurts
democracy.”
If this is true, we are
in for some troubled conversations, for if everyone is to be heard today, we will
each need to earn the right to be heard by first becoming good listeners. With
that in mind, we will need to stick to the thought(s) being discussed; we will
find it necessary to value the rights of the person speaking (or writing); and
we will attack ideas only, and intentionally avoid attacking the people speaking
[or writing].
Such behavior of civility
should be the norm of a good team member whether one is red, yellow, black, or
white; rich or poor; citizen or emigrant. Carter believes “If we fail to distinguish desire from right, we will not understand
that rights are sensible and wise only within particular contexts that give
them meaning” (p. 69). To this he would add) “And once we are persuaded that we have no background values in common,
it is a very small step to being persuaded that we are not a people at all.”
(p.95).
Carter points to a
principle reason for our social fragmentation when he concludes too many people
“feel” deprived of their proper social status, be it an issue of color, economics,
religion, or morality. They feel “their accepted place” in our society has been
replaced--wrongly displaced
Civility becomes a very
personal issue. It suggests a common code of social behavior, and whether or
not we will intentionally live lawfully. Civility is a word that divides us
between people who practice civil discourse and live responsibly by intent, and
people who by choice reject civility, preferring to live only by their own
moral code.
For whatever reason,
individual responsibility to maintain “law and order” seems to be in short
supply today, leaving everybody free to blame everyone else for whatever the
perceived problems might be. Here, Carter draws a sharp distinction; he writes,
“Our ability to discipline ourselves to do what is right rather than what we
desire is what distinguishes us from animals” (p. 111).
While we debate peripheral
issues of whether or not we are Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians;
socialists or capitalists; and we argue that we are a Republic rather than a
Democracy, the real question seems to be “Are we going to live like human
beings who act thoughtfully, constructively, and intentionally, or will we live
like animals that exist by whatever instinct that animal has?
I‘m reminded of Mama
Skunk and her two little skunks, In and Out. One day “In” got lost. Mama ordered
“Out” to find “In”. Don’t come back without him, she declared. It did not take
long before Out found In and the two little skunks returned home together. When
Mama asked Out how he found In so quickly, he quickly replied, “In-stinct!”
Playing a huge role in
our individual behavior today is a mass communication system that drives our
behavior considerably. Thus Carter writes: “So if we glorify killing in our
films and our music, select aggressive metaphors in everyday speech, and
declare that our every cause is a war, we are proclaiming ourselves to be
people of violence” (p. 154).
“Television has grown so
violent over the past two decades,” concludes Carter, “that no serious
researcher any longer doubts that over exposure to televised images of violence
helps transform gentle children into brutal adults” (p. 158).
I have no comprehensive
cure-all, no panacea, but I offer two areas pf personal behavior in which every
single person will make a personal choice as to which side of the fence they will
stand on.
1) We will be civil in
all our relationships—by intent. Or, we will reject civility and choose division, disharmony, chaos, and destruction of the social
structure by which we relate to each other.
2) We will take charge of
our entertainment menu and feed our minds a diet of what is good and pure and
purposeful, or we will reject that poppycock
and assert our right of war, violence, and self-seeking destruction that will eventually
destroy our social fabric and leave us wishing for a return to freedom, with liberty,
and justice for all.
Recalling the comment referenced
earlier by Stephen O’Connor, perhaps we should give some credence to the “new
political climate” and hear his conclusion, which was “And its sort of up to
the rest of us to appropriately push back and say that’s not acceptable
behavior” (Winchester Sun, 1-7-17-A5).
From Warner’s World, this is
walkingwithwarner.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment