The Power of Words

Sticks and Stones (Wikimedia Commons)

Words have power.  For all that we learned as children to chant--"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!'--words can hurt.  They can uplift as well.  The power of words comes not only from what they mean, but how they are used and how they are understood.  We learn, also as children, to seek the denotative meaning of words.  It is only through experience that we learn the connotative meanings and, sometimes, how those connotative meanings send additional messages by how and by whom they are used.

A denotative meaning for "bitch" is the female dog (or wolf, fox, or otter).  How it morphed into an epithet for women, I have no idea, nor do I want to ponder too closely how a woman and dog became somehow similar in the male mind.  These days the word is hate speech--when used as a noun by a male (human) and directed at a female (human).  There are still contexts in which "bitch" can be used as a verb (express displeasure, grumble or complain) without any gender (denotative or connotative) attached to it--except that we have to acknowledge that the behavior being labeled by the verb is understood--if we think about it--to derive from the behavior of the female human who can be called a "bitch" by those males still brave enough to utter the word.

On the other hand, there are contexts in which the word can be used as a positive statement.  Women may choose to label themselves as a "bitch" as a statement of self-empowerment.  Tee shirts, buttons, bumper stickers--whatever medium can be used to assert that power--may read "Super Bitch," "Certified Bitch," and, a favorite, "That's Queen Bitch to you!"  And so on.

I'm thinking now about metaphors and how they shape our attitudes.  "Bitch" does not fit our formal concept of a metaphor, but it is a word used to identify a female animal extended to a new context:  a woman.  We often take words from events and experiences and stretch them to apply to some other thing or action or situation.  In this case, we are seeing a label for a particular animal anthropomorphized (correlating animal behavior to human behavior) to apply to a human with the effect, not only of equating the behaviors (animal and human), but also, and more importantly, to equate the human with the animal.  Once such an equivalence is made, we are thereby permitted to act toward the human as we would act toward the animal.  All too often that behavior is negative, abusive, demeaning.

I am not arguing against animal metaphors or similes, calling for a ban on their use.  Our language is enriched by our creative use of imagery from the world around us.  I am, however, suggesting that we might productively spend some time thinking about our casual use of animal epithets in relation to our fellow humans.  Why did we use that language?  Does this language reflect a tendency toward dehumanizing our fellow human?  Does this language reduce our commitment to respecting the inherent worth of the individual?  In this, I am only thinking in terms of our Ethical commitment to treat each other with integrity.  What are we saying when we use these words--dog, cat, horse, ass, pig, ox, cow, sheep, deer, fox, ape, baboon, rat, weasel, skunk, etc.--to describe another human being?  Is someone who "speaks (too) loudly" the same as someone who "brays like an ass"?  

This week in Scotusland

The Supreme Court confused me this week.  Not being a lawyer, I can't always follow the nuances of precedent and hair-splitting that goes on.  I pretty much go with what I understand to be "right" and then try to figure out whether we are progressing--or falling deeper into the black hole capitalistic fascism known as oligarchy.

Too much?  Ah, well.  My nuance button short-circuited with the Orlando murders.  That was too much for me to stand still for.

And speaking of which--one small step forward on gun control:  Voisine v. the United States expanded and/or clarified (can't tell which) the definition of reckless domestic violence so that persons convicted of such crimes are no longer eligible to purchase guns.  Not sure whether the Orlando shooter's domestic violence record would have prevented him from from purchasing guns had this ruling been in place before June 13, but the ruling will certainly help keep guns out of the hands of a few more people whose anger needs more management.

More press coverage went to the ruling on Texas' attempts to end legal abortion in this state with increasingly onerous (and medically unnecessary) requirements (link includes full text of ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt).  The implications of this ruling--against the State of Texas and for women's health, including the choice to end a pregnancy--will have repercussions in other states on these sorts of restrictions.  It won't end the culture war that surrounds a woman's right to control her own body without the interference of a third party.  Muslims (just for a commonly evident example) seek to begin their control of women's bodies on the outside with the requirement to veil.  Americans (dare I say Christians?) are more subtle, allowing the illusion of freedom and self-control in clothing choices (for now) while digging deeper to take over control of the essential female role of reproduction--making it pretty much mandatory every time a sperm can reach an ovum.  Rape, incest, pre-marital sex, marital rape--not important.  What is important is that sperm+ovum=government takeover for whatever uterus happens to be present.  (Well, I'm about to rant.  This is not my point today.  Deep breaths.)  I am personally long removed from this particular battleground--and yet I know it well.  This war isn't over.  More's the pity that we have to keep fighting the battles again and again when there are, frankly, bigger threats to the human race* than a medically safe procedure that some women choose to have for important personal reasons and others don't, also for important personal reasons.

One might think:  "So far so good" for this week's rulings.  What's the problem?  Look at McDonnell V. United States.  In a unanimous ruling, the eight-member Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for bribery.  The Court agreed that he took the [bribery] money and did some favors (set up meetings) for the CEO of Star Scientific, but that he did nothing official to benefit the company.  Huh?  Take the money, make connections, and then walk out the room--nothing to see here?  $167K is a lot of "nothing"--unless making those connections was "something."  Isn't this what lobbyists do for their clients?  Setting up meetings with decision makers, shining the glow of one's credibility over the meeting, encouraging through that credibility the use of that meeting for some purpose beneficial to the client?  Surely all those lunches weren't held because the chicken salad was good.  Just saying.

I'm old enough to understand that some weeks we win, in others we lose.  In the grand scheme of history, we are winning--climbing down from the trees, walking away from cannibalism and some gross forms of brutality.  We wear clothes, bathe sometimes, use language in place of weapons (sometimes).  What I would like to see is some moral progress.  Or at least some clarification--in progressive steps--that we are making the world a better place.  Let me try:

• We say that ethics begins with a choice.  We are committed to that.
• In Voisine we see the Court saying that recklessness doesn't just happen--one chooses to be reckless.  Taking a gun in your hand and then acting recklessly is choosing to act in a way that endangers others whether or not you intend to cause harm.  From my perspective, this sets a standard for gun owners that should be inherent in gun ownership and use whether or not domestic violence is at issue.  
• In Whole Women's Health, "choice" has another layer of meaning, but the Court's ruling maintains the notion that the law allows women to choose how to manage their bodies--including their uteri--and that other laws should not be made to prevent that choice by reducing access to means to exercise that choice.  (Would that they had done that in Hobby Lobby, but I digress.)  
• In McDonnell, the choice to accept [bribe] money was held as neutral.  It would have become criminal only with a subsequent action that was criminal--or something like that.  I'm not so happy with this outcome, because I think it will have the practical effect of adding more money to the executive side of government when there is already too much money in politics.  It does that because the brake of conscience that exists when one is concerned as much about the appearance of impropriety as the impropriety itself is removed.  If money+action is illegal, how do we allow money and still monitor for the actions that make that money illegal?  If money without action is legal, then why disclose (or monitor) the money? It's all a bit above my knowledge level, but my gut says that this kind of choice will be dangerous for the republic.

Yeah, we win some, we lose some.  Progress is hard to see close up.

---------------
*It's the action, not the location, that I see as imperiling us.  Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa in my lifetime; Europe and the rest of Asia in living memory.

Do we need a poster for religious freedom?

Dunno.  Really reluctant to enter the religious freedom wars as they are currently being fought in the US.  It's always something, isn't it?  But this little image has popped up in my email a couple of times,

and someone in the chain of discussion quipped that "it looks like we have a poster!"  Mebbe so, mebbe not so much, but I--of course--have a thing or two to say about that.

First, I'd like to look at what "freedom of religion" covers.  And, first, I'd like to point out that freedom of whatever passes for religion in one's belief system ought to include a belief system.  If we support freedom of religion (as I do), then there's got to be something there to have any freedom of [it].  So I'd make the first bullet:

• Believing in any being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

This would allow for religious freedom for people who choose to believe in one or more gods/higher powers/deities or who choose not to believe in such beings but rather in one or more central idea(l)(s) which allows them to experience and express the functional benefits that are associated with "religion."  Whatever those benefits might be, I'm not going to speculate here (although I probably will do another day).  I'm just pointing out that freedom of religion should actually include religion.

Taking the counterpoint, consider the last bullet in the first section:  "Choosing not to participate in religion at all."  That could be a nice way to say that it's OK to be a "None" and not affiliate with any religious group or belief system.  But what about the "Nones" who flat out disbelieve in any being as a focus of religious belief, the so-called "atheists, agnostics, and skeptics"?  They are not "participating."  Is their lack of participation what is protected by religious freedom while their lack of belief is not?   Can freedom of religion include freedom from religion?

Personally, I think it should.  Rationally, I'm hung up on language a bit.  Those prepositions--"of," "from"--have distinct meanings which should not be conflated.  So how do we get "of" to include "from" here?  

"Atheism" is, I would say, part of the spectrum of religious belief.  Religious belief is something of a continuum.  On one end there is an extreme of belief (in whatever) that thoroughly consumes the believer in all aspects of life and attention.  The stereotype of the ascetic hermit who meditates or prays almost unendingly, leaving as much as physically and mentally possible the present world, in order to focus on/join with the object of belief (whether being or ideal) seems to fit the one extreme.  In this case behavior is reflective of belief--that a focus exists and that acting in such a manner is the best way to worship/experience/achieve the desired state in relation to that focus.  On the other end of the continuum, there is an affirmative disbelief, a denial, that any being exists that can or should serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors. That may be reflected in behavior that simply ignores--by word and deed--any being of religious focus.  It may be reflected in both word and deed that denies the existence of such beings and, moreover, demands that expressions of belief in their existence be removed from the secular environment.  The latter is more extreme than the former, I think, but both still can be considered--no doubt under great protest by those who find themselves on this end of the continuum--as religious beliefs.

Yup.  I'm actually saying that atheists actually have religion (just as they have some really fine music, the blues included).  They have looked at other belief systems, rejected them, and hold their own (varied) beliefs about the nature of the universe (including its origin), the nature of humankind (including its origin), their personal values, future, end-of-life--and on and on through the gamut of issues that are explained (or not) by assorted religious belief systems.  Their beliefs don't--won't--look like the beliefs of other more organized religions, but they are religious beliefs because they focus on the issues that religions try to resolve.  "Religion" is, after all, merely a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought, just as "kinship" is a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought.  

So I'm thinking I'd modify the new first bullet by adding a new second:

• Believing in a(ny) being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors
• Believing that no being exists to serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

I need to think about the "ideal" part a little more, so I'm leaving it out of the negative end of the religious continuum, for the time being anyway.

What do you think?  Are atheists on the religious continuum?  If so, does our "of/from" problem disappear, since I'm basically saying that freedom of religion should make the affirmative disbelief in a supreme being a protected religious belief?  Religious practice is another subject altogether--about which more another day.

Spelling God With Two O's

That's the name of a slender book of essays, written by Arthur Dobrin, who first began having colloquies as a form of meeting for ethical societies.  How helpful to have found a free download of the book.  I found it on one of my meandering wanders through the internet that had one purpose but ended up some place else. In this case, the "landing" was a serendipitous encounter with something I will probably make a morning ritual.  OK, I don't actually have a morning ritual, but I want one, and it could become much more interesting than what's going on right now.

Dobrin's book is a collection of essays on values and essential concepts.  He names the value, provides an inspirational quote from another writer or thinker (including but certainly not limited to Felix Adler), and then explores the idea from several perspectives.  For example, tolerance:

Since we all have our preferences and savor life in different ways and are certain that our ways are natural and right, it is impossible to like or to approve of everyone and everything they do. Still it is possible be tolerant of them. You may never want to meet them but you grant them the right to live as they choose. You don’t envy them and may dislike them but you allow them to live as they want. Not every way is worthy of appreciation but everyone has the right to bad taste.

Dobrin notes that not everything should be tolerated--deliberately causing pain, harming innocents, etc.--but that tolerance is a (minor) virtue that makes living in a diverse society better for all of us.

I think I will be reading this book as soon as I can get it onto one of my reading devices.  If I fail with the morning routine thing (pretty much a given), I can at least read one of these brief essays whenever I find myself waiting or dining alone or just needing to spend a little time working on my life.

Meeting by conversation

One form of meeting for the Ethical Society of Austin is called a Colloquy.  This is an old Middle English word, more used in the 19th century than the current one.  It comes, of course, from a Latin word, colloquium.  In my mind, colloquium has a more academic feel; colloquy, apparently, has a more religious connotation.  Both words mean "conversation" (of the more formal sort), but each seems to have found its more favored niche of use.

In ESOA, the Colloquy is actually a formal conversation.  The format is deceptively relaxed, given the very defined structure under which the conversation occurs.  The moderator (these days that would be Adam Gravois) introduces the topic and lays down the ground rules.  This conversation involves, he always reminds us, our listening skills.  We are not to interrupt or respond to what is being said, although we may respond at the end of the session during the discussion period.  One person, any person who wants to volunteer, begins.  Then the person to his/her right speaks, following counterclockwise around the circle until everyone who wants to speak has had a turn.  At that point we take a moment to think about what has been said.  If there is time, we can all then discuss one point or another that has been raised in the circle, validating, expanding, countering.

In the loosest sense Colloquy might be considered, as it is in religious circles, to be a conversation regarding theological questions or to resolve religious doctrinal differences, but only in the sense that the concepts and ideals under consideration deal with some of our deepest values and are approached by each of us from a different perspective. Colloquy functions to direct our thinking on fundamental concepts--love, tolerance, success, family, etc.--so that we define, as we may not have before, the concept in our own lives at the same time we are allowed to hear how others define and experience the concept.  In the welcoming fellowship of ESOA, deep emotions and intimate secrets are sometimes shared, adding to the sense of community--even family--that the society provides for its members. While not the purpose of Colloquy, this latter function might be considered a benefit.

I do not know the history of Colloquy in ethical culture.  Felix Adler proposed that society meetings consist primarily of lecture.  This is in keeping, I think, with the times.  Pre-electronic, certainly.  But also toward the end of the lyceum movement, which, for a while, provided venues for adult education from various public speakers.  Rhetoric and oratory provided intellectual entertainment as well as education in nineteenth-century America, and "conversation" would likely have been less valued as a means to consider the High Ideas that Adler intended to be the focus of ethical culture.  The concept of colloquy was certainly available, but its then context--religious discussion, especially for resolution of doctrinal differences--may have made it seem inappropriate for someone who asserted the importance of "Deed before creed."

However formal conversation might have crept into the repertoire of meeting types for ESOA, it does seem an appropriate tool for getting to the core of our values and ideals.  In the days and sometimes weeks before a Colloquy, knowing the topic, the audience/participant is already thinking about the concept. Knowing that he/she will be called upon to speak--preferably briefly--in real terms as the topic relates to one's own experience--the audience/participant is already thinking of what to say.  That entails reexamination of the concept as an abstraction:  What does this word really mean?  Then one begins to recall, to think about, to experience once more the events and people who have been a part of one's life.  This can be painful.  My own comments in Colloquy are often prefaced by "I didn't want to come today," "I really hate this topic," "This is hard."  The abstraction of "family" may present itself as a Norman Rockwell painting in our minds, but the reality of our own lives may include death, divorce, anger, abdication of roles, neglect, abuse, money issues, distance (emotional and physical)--and on through the seemingly endless list of how birth families can become weapons of mental destruction.  Or, if we are lucky, we do find love, closeness, marriage (or remarriage), children (grands and greats as well), comfort, joy--and on through the happily endless list of how birth--and chosen--families can become treasures of great worth.  In this effort, we re-examine our lives through the lens of the Colloquy's topic to get at its meaning in  the reality that we live.

Once Colloquy begins, we listen carefully as our fellows talk.  We talk about tolerance (and intolerance) in terms of limits and focus, revealing to ourselves those points of friction in society that demand boundaries or deserve our forbearance or which are mere historical artifacts that need to pass away quickly. We talk about love in terms of its sources, its types, its quantity, its presence or absence and find for ourselves new understanding of the value of this emotion in our own lives.  We talk about success and find that common definitions may not suit us, may indeed harm us, and learn of more ethical ways to define success in our lives and our world.  In the Colloquy format, the audience/participant becomes the speaker, and it is the thinking of the audience/participant that is reflected in the conversation.  The group produces the outline (albeit unstructured) of talking points and draws its conclusions about the meanings presented.

The first ESOA meeting that I attended was a Colloquy on cycles.  I had never seen this type of meeting before, not as a means to enlightenment, but I do love to talk.  Listening was harder in that meeting, because I had to think of what I might say to all these strangers, right?  As the conversation moved around the circle, I learned a little bit about these very human humanists and saw that--just maybe--I might fit in.  I have great fondness for these Colloquies now.  Yes, they have made me feel closer to the others in the Society, something I cherish.  They also made me think about some really hard issues in a more thoughtful and systematic way.  And they still do.  Long after the initial conversation is over, I am more aware of these concepts, looking at them with new eyes, thanks in part to the perspectives gained from other participants in the conversation.

Adler's Founding Address

Ethical culture, as an organized religion and cultural movement, is coming up on its 140th anniversary.  I am still learning about ethical culture, still growing as a person, so I spend a little time now and then looking for more resources to add to my own sparse knowledge about it.  One fine resource that I have found is the website of the American Ethical Union (AEU), the national organization to which the Ethical Society of Austin (ESOA) is allied, ESOA's parent organization, if you will.  AEU has been digitizing and posting various addresses and writings of Felix Adler, founder of ethical culture, on its website.  One such address is Adler's "Founding Address" given on May 15, 1876.

I am still reading and digesting Adler's words, am still, indeed, in the beginning of the address where he is laying out the conditions of the world which cry out to him of the need for this new religious organization.  Without yet considering what he seeks to establish, it is worthwhile to pause to consider what and why he seeks to establish something new.  And, given my already proud admission of being a lover of words, the language, dear ones, the language!

The broader context for Adler's address is interesting in itself.  He only alludes to strife, corruption, and the general disarray of society and its institutions.  With very little detailed knowledge of history we already know that, in 1876, the United States was still undergoing the social upheaval of the Civil War which "ended" just 11 years before.  Adler also alluded to "this festal epoch of [the Nation's] marriage to Liberty," 1876 being the nation's first centennial.  One can imagine this to be an anniversary of great moment in the minds of a people who had just shed so much blood to maintain its unity, giving them even more pause to think about the principles on which the nation had been founded.  Lincoln was assassinated, his vice-president and successor impeached, his Commanding General elected president and presiding over an administration widely criticized for its corruption.  Rutherford B. Hayes, president at the time of Adler's address, was proposing reforms to which Adler refers directly:

But the renovation of our Civil Service, the reform of our Primaries, and whatever other measures may be devised, they all depend in the last instance upon the fidelity of those to whom their execution must be entrusted. They will all fail unless the root of the evil be attacked, unless the conscience of men be aroused, the confusion of right and wrong checked, and the loftier purposes of our being again brought powerfully home to the hearts of the people.

Adler cites a reduction in moral presence from already established religious institutions ("Morality, long accustomed to the watchful tutelage of faith, finds this connection loosened or severed. . . ").  He spends even more time addressing "a fierce craving desire for gain [that] has taken possession of the commercial world . . ."  He calls for a "powerful check and counterpoise, lest the pursuit of gain be enhanced to an importance never rightfully its own, lest, in proportion as we enhance our comfort and well-being, comfort and well-being become the main objects of existence, and life's grander motives and meanings be forgotten."

In the latter statement, Adler parallels my own thinking--that we are not merely animals who live by consuming, excreting, and making whoopee--that we have minds and consciousness of our own being and the world around us and so can and should contemplate the nature of ourselves and our world, preferably to act to make of them both the best that they can be.  Adler says it so much more elegantly, of course, the language of his day being more specifically shaped for rhetorical effect and circumlocution, while the language of our day is more truncated, direct, and coarsened.

The Founding Address has echoes in the present in the greed of commerce, the ubiquitous pursuit of happiness at the expense of higher values, the concerns of public policy and the corruption of policy makers, the need to provide real moral direction to our children.  I will continue studying this address for its content but also for its perspective.  I'm sure I will find more in this address that speaks to me/us today.

Mindfulness and mindful living

At a recent meeting of the Ethical Society of Austin, the platform focused on mindfulness.  Our guest speaker, Dr. David Zuniga, a practicing psychologist/ordained Buddhist priest, shared the concept of mindfulness from several perspectives, spoke of its origins and gradual expansion in American society, and touched on several practical benefits of mindfulness.  After explaining various techniques for engaging in mindfulness, Dr. Zuniga led the group in a practical exercise in mindfulness.

I was still confused.

I have heard of "mindfulness" before.  Who hasn't?  In the last few years, the word is everywhere.  I have even incorporated the term into my vocabulary.  After hearing Dr. Zuniga's presentation, however, I began to wonder if I hadn't missed something important about the word.

A quick search shows me that my suspicion of error has some validity.  Two definitions are offered:

1. the quality or state of being conscious or aware of something. . . .
2. a mental state achieved by focusing one's awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one's feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations, used as a therapeutic technique.

I have been using--and understanding--"mindfulness" in the everyday, ordinary sense of conscious awareness, thinking that living mindfully would entail making an effort to actively see and then seek understanding of the people and events around me.  I would have taken my sense of the word from the adjectival form, mindful, itself a synonym for a nice array of words for paying attention (aware) with a touch of wariness (chary).  Adding "ness" on the end, would just make the term an abstraction of the activities described by mindful and, perhaps, take us back to the root word "mind," with its heavy emphasis on the brain and mentation.

One might even take in the elements of the root that are verbs:  "I don't mind the weather when I have a cozy fire;" "Don't mind what other people say;" "Mind the gap."  In this sense, we are looking at an element of "caring" as well as of "paying attention."

Since I am more familiar with these aspects of the word, I am more at ease thinking of them in terms of how we might apply this version of mindfulness to living an ethical life.  I will have to study a bit more to become comfortable with the second definition and how it might be applied to my life at a later time.  In the meantime, I want to look at "living mindfully" as living with attention to detail and context and meaning.  I would take it beyond the present moment to incorporate past as well as future.  Notwithstanding the mental/thought elements associated with the term, I would also extend the concept to action.

For example, I am thinking that living mindfully would include shopping mindfully, driving mindfully, treating others mindfully, and so on.  Mindfulness in this sense is quite congruent with the commitments we make in Ethical Culture.  I will be exploring some of these aspects of living mindfully in later posts.