The Perspective: Mine.
The Date: 2021, almost a quarter of the century may no longer be considered “early,” but it feels like we still have a long way to go before we get mid- or late- 21C.
Reconsideration: Well, this is a first consideration for me, but M. M. Mangasarian gave “Our Besetting Sins” as a platform address during his tenure as Leader of the Ethical Culture Society of Chicago (1892-c1900). The text was then published in Series 2 of Ethical Addresses and Ethical Record (1896) after editorial review by at least, I suspect, Felix Adler and S. Burns Weston (publisher of the early volumes). No doubt the platform was considered by many before my own re-consideration.
My curiosity was initially piqued by the word “sin.” I didn’t think that Ethical Culture framed itself in these terms. Instead, while I do see “moral” used with (uncomfortable) frequency in early Ethical Culture publications, those morals seem most often to be framed positively as ideals to which we might aspire--and are strongly urged to do so. Talking about sin seems to fit in more with Mangasarian’s earlier turn as a Presbyterian minister than his then role as an Ethical Culture Leader. Nonetheless, I was curious to see what he might be identifying as sin and how it might differ from the favorite sins of Christianity.
As a quick aside, we are most of us familiar with the list of Seven Deadly Sins (even if we can’t remember all their names): Pride, Greed, Wrath, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, and Sloth. There is a lesser known (to me) list of sins which oppose the similarly lesser known (to me) list of Seven Capital Virtues, which I add here for contrast: Lust, Worship-of-the-old-gods, Greed, Discord, Indulgence, Wrath, and Pride. Not exactly the same, but there is overlap.
Now for Mangasarian’s sins. He lists eight: Impertinent Curiosity, Rudeness, Ostentation, Envy, Pride, Flattery, Evil Speaking, and Anger. In a simple comparison, all three lists include Pride and Anger/Wrath. The Capital Sins omits Envy and Sloth from the Deadly Sins list and adds Worship-of-the-old-gods and Discord. Mangasarian brings back Envy in his list, but adds five new sins, dropping Lust, Gluttony, and Greed.
Each of Mangasarian’s sins is considered in multiple variations along with some reflection on causes and sources as well as effect(s) on those who are on the receiving end of such sinful behavior. In several cases, Mangasarian is careful to distinguish the sinful version of a behavior (anger) and its more virtuous relative (righteous indignation). In all cases, Mangasarian’s language is eloquent, descriptive, and, at times, poetic. The “standard” sins--Pride, Envy, Anger--are thoroughly discussed and revealed to be damaging both to oneself and to relationships. The effects that behaviors driven by these sins have on relationships is well within the realm of Ethical Culture’s concern. The emphasis that Ethical Culture places on community, on working together toward common goals, and on individual worth can be buttressed by discussion of excesses and selfish intentions driven by these sins of emotion and attitude. (However, I note here that Mangasarian’s discussion did not extend to such emphases as would now be more commonly be addressed. More on this below.)
Mangasarian’s more modern sins focus more directly on social relationships and how they are damaged by social aggressions and displays. At the top of Mangasarian’s list is impertinent curiosity, which he describes as a pushy intrusion into someone’s personal affairs, without legitimate reason, and often with the result of spreading that personal information about. While this sin seems similar to a later item on the list, evil speaking, Mangasarian deems the latter to be much more serious. He distinguishes it from impertinent curiosity and the careless spreading of personal information by clarifying that the more evil version may contain no fact at all, consisting often of mere innuendo and suggestion. The former might be inadvertent with no planned ill effect; the latter often is initiated with the intention of discrediting those who are the object of such evil speech. He condemns also those who tolerate this sort of speech as being equally sinful and finds the frequent insistence on anonymity (“Don’t tell anyone I said this.”) both evil and cowardly.
Following impertinent curiosity, Mangasarian adds rudeness, which he mostly describes as unkind words stemming from thoughtless lack of consideration of the feelings of the object of one’s speech. In particular, he abhors the joke that makes one’s companion its butt, disguising insults and hurt with a thin veil of humor. Ostentation is next on the list, referring to excessive display of possessions. He condemns the showy displays of ostentation as superficial, with nothing of substance to back them up for worth or merit. Ostentation may be intended to instill envy, which is another sin, borne of fear and jealousy. Finally, flattery, not a well-deserved compliment, but the excessive praise given without cause or merit for the sake of one’s own purposes or gain, rounds out Mangasarian’s sins. Both the flatterer and the willing recipient of flattery are called out for the hollowed out accolades that are no more than sycophantic blarney aimed toward personal gain.
All five of these “new” sins are likely to diminish or even damage the community that is important to Ethical Culture, although Mangasarian does not present them in these terms. Instead he views them as human flaws to which we are all vulnerable. We may at any time succumb to one or the other of these sins, much to our shame and chagrin, but, he notes, we can always aspire to improve our behavior. Such improvement leads one toward a more ideal behavior, which is more refined, more controlled, more self-aware, more considerate than the careless or devious communication that reflects these modern sins. In doing so, Mangasarian seems to reflect his personal views without apparent reference to the broader thought of Ethical Culture. Mangasarian focuses on individual relationships and the harm caused by these sins to the doer and those individuals who are directly affected by the bad behavior rather than looking at the community to be found in the Ethical Society or in the Ethical Culture Movement as a whole. He bypasses a chance to emphasize the worth of the individual within and to the community and the damage that poor relationships and a fragmented community can have on the ability to work together toward common goals or progressive change.
I find that last sentence to be not a criticism of Mangasarian’s sins nor of his analysis of them, but a reflection of reconsideration conducted with the perspective that the passing of an entire century can provide. Mangasarian wrote at the end of the 19th century. I write in the first quarter of the 21st century. In that time, Ethical Culture, as a movement, has decreased its focus on the ideal and increased its focus on the material. If we are able to speak in terms of sin in this century, we would, I believe, do so within an entirely different framework, looking more at dysfunction, dysphoria, and division and ignore ideals altogether as impossible to achieve. What, I now wonder, would we in Ethical Culture consider to be a sin in this day and age?
Work Cited
Mangasarian, M. M. “"Our Besetting Sins."” Ethical Addresses and Ethical Record, vol. 2, S. Burns Weston, 1896, pp. 31-48. Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/ethicaladdresses02ameruoft/page/n9/mode/2up. Accessed 6 September 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment