 |
| Just add people |
I've been broadening my "algorithm" to include more conservative voices. I want to be able to see both sides of issues, to avoid living in a silo where I am right all the time and never learn anything but what my own brain tells me. So, I read George Will a bit more often than I used to. So far so good. Sometimes I am shocked to find myself agreeing with him. Sometimes, it's more like "hmm, I didn't think of it that way."
Today's opinion piece in the New York Times was in the realm of: "Now hold on there, George!" Here's the trigger:
When you look at these trends through a political lens, the power of the autonomy ethos becomes clearer. In general, conservatives believe in economic freedom (low taxes, fewer regulations) but social obligations (faith, family, flag). Progressives tend to favor economic obligations to reduce inequality but more social autonomy to live whatever lifestyle you choose.
Could be a case over-simplification, could be my own over-reaction, but I was reading his discussion of the trends toward this "great detachment" that we seem to be experiencing in the US and nodding my head right up until he put the progressive label on me and then completely got it wrong.
Well, he got me wrong. And he got Ethical Culture wrong. That's probably because Ethical Culture is so tiny-small and more than a little bit of a hairball these days. So let me back up to the moment before my brain heard the sound of screeching brakes.
Will is arguing---along with Curt Collier and others who pay attention to the trends of the past half century or so---that social engagement is falling in the US and that that, to a large extent, is due to the emphasis on individualism and the elevation of efficiency and wealth as the two primary goals of life. (Neither of them have particularly emphasized the efficiency part, but it's hiding in plain sight when they talk/write about this.) These issues were factors in American society much before either of these guys---or most social scientists---quite figured it out.
Felix Adler spoke repeatedly about the mistake of centering one's life goals on the accumulation of wealth. He spoke of the duties that such accumulation created and the obligation to veer away from the hoarding mindset to one of sharing and investment in a better future. He also reminded us that, while our supreme aim is to become better, more ethical human beings, we could never do that without engaging with other human beings in relationships founded on mutual respect and concern. Efficiency and emphasis on individualism and the accumulation of wealth for its own sake were all factors that worked against us in becoming the ethical beings that we might want to be, and his whole platform was aimed toward overcoming those factors.
Or so it seems to me. Now I have to go back and document each point that I raise in that last paragraph, since these are impressions, the sense of Adler's writing---and my overall understanding of Ethical Culture---that have been formed in recent years by reading (and editing) some of the many lectures by Adler (and others) that have never made it very far outside of the building at 2 W. 64th Street in Manhattan.
When I do get that documentation accomplished, I should probably explain to George Will that it is not a political thing, but a worldview thing---a religious thing, if you will. Will is careful to note---
I want to reiterate something. These are averages. Be careful how you apply social science data to your individual life, because your life is filled with things social science can’t see: your unique circumstances, tastes, spirit.
---to which I reply "Well done, George!" But more love and more marriage are not necessarily the answer to our "great detachment." And neither of those things are political and should definitely not be turned into political positions. Indeed, I would be more pleased to have the "progressive" label a little less liberally applied to anyone to the left of Attila the Hun.
The Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century was assisted very strongly by the Ethical Culture Movement. No matter whether EC was in the driver's seat or part of the team pulling the wagon, Adler and his philosophy was part of the impetus to improve the community, and the focus was on creating and maintaining relationships across all of the boundaries that human biology and thought sought to create. That, I think, is why our great detachment has occurred: When we fail to see that social good based on ethics is, after all, social, we lose both the social and the good.
Our great detachment is accompanied by great division, as we divide ourselves into groups (conservative vs progressive!) (male vs female) (white vs non-white) (Christian vs non-Christian) (American vs non-American) (etc.) (and so on) (endlessly). When ethics is made central in our lives (and our thoughts), then every single thing that we do---drink water, eat food, wear clothes, breathe air, vote, buy a house, read a book (and so endlessly on)---connects us to other humans. Our awareness of that fact is the beginning of acknowleging and engaging in a relationship that links us to where the water came from, how we use it, where it goes when we are through with it, even the systems that turn hydrogen and oxygen into water. We are never alone when we take that sip of water.
Similarly, we are not alone when we walk through the grocery store, pushing our cart. Nor in our car driving to work. And so endlessly on. Will is emphasizing romance and love for a single other human as the significant factor in the great detachment, but the detachment is more fundamental. When we fail to see the human faces around us as persons with whom we (already!) have a connection, we fail to allow ourselves to experience the connection that we need to remain human, and we deny ourselves the opportunity to become our better selves.
