An American Myth

Rugged individualism – that’s the pap we are fed with our mother’s milk, the driven person with a vision who takes on all odds and WINS. All pieces of this myth are vital.

Rugged Individualism
The only people who really tried to go it alone were the mountain men. They often “married” Indian women, and they had friends they depended upon too. Most settlers came in groups, lived in groups and families, raised barns together etc. This was certainly true of the pilgrims. Who did it alone? Billy the Kid? He had a “band” he ran with. Who did it all by themselves? Isn’t it about time we put that old saw to rest?

Driven with vision
This part has some truth to it. Many of the “visions” were to escape from bad debts, poverty, scrapes with the law, but such things did provide drive and were a kind of a vision. The dream of a few acres of land can’t be left out of the equitation as both a driver and a vision. Most of the “visions” were personal – about bettering an individual’s life and perhaps that of his family. Maybe that’s where the “rugged individualism” came from.

Takes on all odds
This piece is interesting because I believe it is al the heart of so much that‘s gone wrong. The premise underlying this belief is that everything is against us. This belief underscores the idea that we need to fight for everything – take it – in order to achieve anything of value. We certainly did live this way – and we still do. Holding this belief doesn’t make it true, or even effective. Like all force there are certain short-term gains. These gains hide the fact that there are long-term consequences, consequences we are still paying for. We fought the Indians, why? Because we didn’t believe they could be talked to and when we did make treaties with them we discovered that we would be denied our desires by our own commitments. It was easier to kill them than to act from integrity. Isn’t this a key to human nature, particularly in the west? We really want to be good and we really want others to be good to, but when our culture puts such a focus on “winning” it’s hard to be “good”. (See previous post on this topic.) We need moral support from others to act from our highest self. It’s all about the culture.

Winning
Ah, yes, winning. The need to come out on top as defined by this culture, which means with money or tangible goods that have been taken from someone else. Winning as the be all and end all of relationships is a teenage view of the world. In my model that I use when working with organizations it is the Eagles point of view. There are other points of view, but they are often drowned out by the hooting and hollering done by cheerleaders rooting for their home teams. In this culture we regard winning at any cost a long as you don’t get caught. Getting caught is the real sin, not the actions we take to win.



The New American Myth
If we rewrote this myth what would it be like? Would it sound something like this: America was founded on a vision of cooperative effort and he cheerful undertaking of difficult tasks by folks who wished to live peacefully with their neighbors and who created this peacefulness by living in integrity with both themselves and others. Is it too late for us to adopt this myth?

The Morality of Global Warming

If you haven’t seen “An Inconvenient Truth” yet, put it on your list! It is a very powerful movie and very well done. I learned something and I’ve been following global warming for many years,

Ethics, morality – what are the ethics and morality involved here? When my daughter came to visit we went to take a tour of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) The tour was interesting, but what was depressing was how many times the tour leader had to say that they (he) couldn’t discuss the research they (NCAR) are doing on the global climate. What kind of government would put pressure on scientists to prevent them from talking about their research? I know this is not new news, but it hurts doubly when it hits so close to home. Where is our out rage at this kind of behavior from the government? One of the gravest sins of this administration has been their willingness to change and hide scientific research. What other governments have done this kind of thing? Are WE to be in their league? The distortion of science is lying on a grand scale. The damage they are doing may last for years and maybe compounded as others make use of this faulty data. This is despicable behavior.

I work with a non-profit and when I researched our field in preparation for a grant proposal I discovered that the government had changed criteria so that they could do a “study” that would give them the numbers they wanted to allow them to claim success when all they did was ask different questions. Their “data” flew in the face of everyone else’s’ research. This had nothing to do with science, but everything to do with the image of this administration. At what cost? If I’d quoted the government “research” I would have eliminated the need for the grant!

Al Gore’s call to face up to the morality of global warming is perfect timing! Here is a real opportunity for western civilization to stand tall and claim the moral high ground. We can stand up and declare that our comfort is not worth the lives of millions of people and PROVE we care by our actions. In the future we will be able to say that we DO care for the people of the world and no one can deny the truth of that statement IF we take the actions needed to stop global warming.

Tim Flannery, author of Weather Makers, stated that to end global warming we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 70%. Someone asked what they, as an individual could do. He response was that if everyone who drove, drove a hybrid they would be reducing their personal emissions by 70%. What will YOUR next can be, and when will you buy it?

Integrity - the Missing Piece

For years I've looked at photos of North American Indians, Masi tribal people, Tibetan folks and wondered at the strength, confidence and inner peace that they seem to have. Why should this be so? When photos of native peoples are compared to those of "white folks" the difference is striking.

A few nights ago I was watching "The Last Samurai" for the second time. This dichotomy is apparent in this film too. What is it about Western folks that they seem to lack this "nobility"? The phrase "noble savage" resonates with me, but what makes the difference? Watching the movie I suddenly "got it'.

In native cultures there is integration between the spirit and every day life. Nothing is separate it is all one. The cultures of native people support each individual in their striving to express their beliefs in every thing they do every day. Native people are committed to expressing their spiritual beliefs in their every day life. In the native world that constitutes success. In the West we are fragmented. Where native people are committed to expressing their spirituality in everything they do, we, in the West, have dual commitments, one to our spirituality and another to success. When we are pushed we tend to default to success and in doing so lose both. I believe that it is the active and continual integration that gives native people a strong and seemingly innate sense of integrity.

In an interview I saw on Televison with Bob Woodward I was struck by a statement he made. He said it would continue to be difficult for the media as long as the social convention prevents a person from saying when the President of the United States says something that is not true. This is a perfect example of collusion between our two commitments. To be "successful" you are required to collude with others and not call them on their prevarications. You are required to sacrifice your integrity for your success.

Frontline, in their story "The Dark side" offered an elegant exploration of just exactly this kind of situation. People choose between being a "good soldier" or a 'good friend" and their own integrity. The culture is set up to force this false choice and the immediate rewards go to those who choose "success".

This choice IS false. This is the sickness of America. I believe that the fundamentalists sense this and are fighting back in the only way they know how. There are two fundamental errors that militate against their success. The first is that they too buy the two commitments. One way they have chosen to address that is by integrating success as a measure of their spirituality. The problem is that they still choose success over their spiritual beliefs if a choice presents itself, thus defeating their intent. The second fault is that in order to create a culture that supports their efforts they are trying to force everyone to follow their beliefs. That can't and won't work. By choosing obedience over careful thought they prevent others from participating in their efforts.

The cure is to put one's spiritual beliefs first. This is not new news. Redefining success as doing that may be new. Without that redefinition there will not be a culture change. Culture change is something I know something about. Ethics is a cultural issue. The question is not IF we can be cured, but if we can be cured fast enough to survive the consequences we have set in motion with our confusion over these two commitments.

Surely this is a conundrum. People of “faith” are claiming preemptive rights over the well being and health of others by refusing to fill prescriptions that they don’t agree with. They are affectively inserting themselves between doctors and their patients. Is this an ethically sound request? The courts have prevented parents from denying their children medical treatment because they do not believe in it, from a faith stand point, are pharmacists any different than parents? So far the issue is about birth control, but how deep could such a stance go? How does one “prove” faith? Conscientious objectors have to go to great lengths to prove that their resistance to fighting is faith based, should pharmacists do likewise?

We are entering a time when we may have to exist in separate worlds. Will there be schools that only teach creationism and others that teach only evolution? Will there be pharmacies that will follow doctors orders and others that have the right to rewrite prescriptions? Will there be “faith-based” and secular divisions through out our fair land? Two phone books?

I remember a time when we were much more accepting of each other and when we worked to provide for the most diversity possible. When we struggled with Black rights there was a consensus that a divided world would not work. Will it work any better if the division is based on “faith” or “non-faith” concerns?

The truth is hat we love to hate because we don’t feel too good about ourselves and at least hating gives us someone to look down upon. Until we can learn to forgive ourselves for our limitations and failures (being un God like at times) we will have a hard time forgiving others. Worse than that, we will feel perfectly justified in tearing down and destroying things and people that force us to confront our own shortcomings. We will also feel justified in “rewarding” ourselves for taking such a high road – usually at the expense of others and or the environment. That entitlement attitude has done more to destroy our world than anything else I can think of. Masquerading as self-righteousness, greed gleeful in it’s destruction.


Kathryn

Ethics and Refusal to Treat

Surely this is a conundrum. People of “faith” are claiming preemptive rights over the well being and health of others by refusing to fill prescriptions that they don’t agree with. They are affectively inserting themselves between doctors and their patients. Is this an ethically sound request? The courts have prevented parents from denying their children medical treatment because they do not believe in it, from a faith stand point, are pharmacists any different than parents? So far the issue is about birth control, but how deep could such a stance go? How does one “prove” faith? Conscientious objectors have to go to great lengths to prove that their resistance to fighting is faith based, should pharmacists do likewise?

We are entering a time when we may have to exist in separate worlds. Will there be schools that only teach creationism and others that teach only evolution? Will there be pharmacies that will follow doctors orders and others that have the right to rewrite prescriptions? Will there be “faith-based” and secular divisions through out our fair land? Two phone books?

I remember a time when we were much more accepting of each other and when we worked to provide for the most diversity possible. When we struggled with Black rights there was a consensus that a divided world would not work. Will it work any better if the division is based on “faith” or “non-faith” concerns?

The truth is hat we love to hate because we don’t feel too good about ourselves and at least hating gives us someone to look down upon. Until we can learn to forgive ourselves for our limitations and failures (being un God like at times) we will have a hard time forgiving others. Worse than that, we will feel perfectly justified in tearing down and destroying things and people that force us to confront our own shortcomings. We will also feel justified in “rewarding” ourselves for taking such a high road – usually at the expense of others and or the environment. That entitlement attitude has done more to destroy our world than anything else I can think of. Masquerading as self-righteousness, greed gleeful in it’s destruction.


Kathryn

The Ethics of Blindness

Watching Frontline last night I was heartened by the clarity with which they chronicled the atrocious antics in Washington. The two major dilemmas we are facing have to do with 1) really seeing what is going on and 2) managing the social reality of calling the pot black when all of the social conventions preclude us from doing so.

The wonderful interview with Bob Woodward touched on the second point, oh so briefly. He saw a major dilemma of the press was how to say, courteously, that the president is not telling the truth.

The agony of both George Tenant and Colin Powell is exactly that. Both seemed to choose NOT seeing the truth in order to spare themselves from having to speak it. In an article in AARP, Powell does just that. By spewing the “party line” that no one knew the truth about Iraq he does not need to face his personal treatment and can maintain his belief in his own loyalty.

Loyalty is such a corruptor. Perhaps Mr. Powell should ask himself just what is he being loyal to? There are two possibilities of note that I see; the country or the president. Which seems to be the most important? Which would keep his integrity intact? It’s much easier to be blind than to be ethical.

Kathryn

Ethics and the Resistance to Trust

Surely this is a conundrum. People of “faith” are claiming preemptive rights over the well being and health of others by refusing to fill prescriptions that they don’t agree with. They are affectively inserting themselves between doctors and their patients. Is this an ethically sound request? The courts have prevented parents from denying their children medical treatment because they do not believe in it. From a faith stand point, are pharmacists any different than parents? So far the issue is about birth control, but how deep could such a stance go? How does one “prove” faith? Conscientious objectors have to go to great lengths to prove that their resistance to fighting is faith based, should pharmacists do likewise?

We are entering a time when we may have to exist in separate worlds. Will there be schools that only teach creationism and others that teach only evolution? Will there be pharmacies that will follow doctors orders and others that have the right to rewrite prescriptions? Will there be “faith-based” and secular divisions through out our fair land? Two phone books?

I remember a time when we were much more accepting of each other and when we worked to provide for the most diversity possible. When we struggled with Black rights there was a consensus that a divided world would not work. Will it work any better if the division is based on “faith” or “non-faith” concerns?

The truth is that we love to hate because we don’t feel too good about ourselves and at least hating gives us someone to look down upon. Until we can learn to forgive ourselves for our limitations and failures (being un God like at times) we will have a hard time forgiving others. Worse than that, we will feel perfectly justified in tearing down and destroying things and people that force us to confront our own shortcomings. We will also feel justified in “rewarding” ourselves for taking such a high road – usually at the expense of others and or the environment. That entitlement attitude has done more to destroy our world than anything else I can think of. Masquerading as self-righteousness, greed is gleeful in it’s destruction.


Kathryn

Utilitarian or Kant?

Rushworth Kidder, in his recent newsletter talks about the tension between Utilitarian and Kantian ethics. I think that there is a deeper issue. So many ethical thinkers have been afraid of including the spiritual. I would say that the spirit of place has a relity and a treasure that it is ethical to protect and enhance. That spirit of place is what connects us to our spirit and withut it I question if our species can survive. If we do not honor place, then we cannot honor ourselves. If we do honor ourselves we cannot honor either others or place, and we are doomed. So for me the question is not which of the two above mentioned views are correct, but how to see clearly the real ethical question, which I hold as how to keep our spirits alive and fresh and engaged in the world in ways that enhance our spirit and the spirit of place. it might be that this could be seen as a utilitarian argument, but I see it as reframing the question of ethics. Perhaps it is utilitarian to see living, glowing spirit as the "end", but such a defination, for me, clarifies the kinds of confusions Rushworth mentions in his article.

Warmly,

Kathryn

Visit