This evening, driving east on the way home from my office, I passed an office front church in a tiny strip mall. The name of the church was printed by an unskilled hand; papers, rags and cans littered the area around the front door. The name was Church of the Streets to Destiny. Now, as you might be able to tell just from the name of the church, the street I take home is an interesting one, the place where you find thieves peddling stolen goods, thugs, hired guns, streetwalkers, pimps, and drugdealers. This is an urban war zone and while the air is not filled with napalm, it is filled with diesel, meth fumes, garbage, and, were I poetic, lost dreams and hopes. Although my office is in a safe enough place -- a medical school -- that school is located a few blocks down the street from less savory places, places where you hate to hit a light just turning red as you know you will have to sit there for a moment or two, long enough to witness a major crime being committed--hopefully without being the victim.
When the west was first occupied by white folk -- the thieves, thugs, hired guns, streetwalkers, pimps, and drugdealers peddling snake oil and opium -- the west was its own rural war zone. It is my feeling that the west was civilized when men brought their wives west with them -- actually, and better said, when the wives insisted on coming along. They built churches, schools, historical societies and created charities, museums, musical events, craft fairs. The raw elements were either civilized, jailed, or pushed out to new territories.
So, my question regarding the church was whether or not it was created by women, hoping to bring god to a godless land, or by men, hoping to save souls and whatever else they wanted to do. While that little church might be successful in bringing order to a disorderly environment, one has to wonder if it has the potential to recover lost dreams and hopes that once formed part of what most people hope is their destiny.
11/17/2008
10/16/2008
Leaders and heroes: New meanings for old words
When I was very young, words like truth, honor, hero, and leader had meaning. When someone used one of these words, the way he or she used it matched a meaning that I understood. As I have gotten older, the meanings of these words have changed, and each year their new meaning seems to have gotten farther away from the old meanings.
Let's think about the word "truth." I remember reciting as a child when I believed that truth existed, "I take these truths to be self-evident....that all men are created equal...born with certain unalienable rights." Science now tells us that we cannot prove an hypothesis; we can, however, disprove or at least try to disprove or falsify it. We can find support for a hypothesis, but we cannot prove it. There is, in other words, untruth, but truth is not to be found, at least using science. I am, of course, assuming that even the laws of science will eventually come to be seen as incorrect or as only part of a solution. The idea that there is a truth, bigger than any of us, bigger than history, bigger than actual life -- that all of us, even those who are starving, dying, fighting, crying, suffering, neglected - are born with inalienable rights is, of course, the ideal. It is what we would like to be true. It used to be what we encouraged. Now we seem to encourage greed and self-indulgence to the point of being willing to soil even our own nest, the earth, to get a new babble to adorn our tiny fleeting corner of it.
It was startling when I discovered that the word "hero" no longer referred to someone, who undaunted, faced incredible odds and although perhaps losing in the end, never gave up trying to protect the vulnerable, to accomplish a deed that was basically altruistic. Hero today is often used to refer to someone in finds him or herself in a bad situation, but who died before he/she could make a choice of any course of action. Does just being in a dangerous situation mean we are a hero? I am sure that we, if we listen carefully, we would hear even hear the most superficial and vacuous of movie stars referred to as being called heroic, even when every action they have ever taken has had a self-absorbed end.
Today, and yesterday during the debate, we heard that a certain presidential candidate showed leadership. What I observed in that debate in particular, but also at other times, was not a leader, but a bully. How on earth is it possible to confuse bullying with leadership or presidential stature?
A democracy, my friend (friend,as this candidate likes to say), depends upon an educated electorate, a thoughtful voter. A bully, my friends, is not a leader. A bully is not presidential. A bully has a temper, a bully does not care for the vulnerable, in fact a bully looks for vulnerabilites and attacks them. Can we survive more years of yet another bully president?
In my book, I argued that there are two basic forms of leadership. There is hierarchical leadership, which is a type of servant leadership in which the powerful serves the powerless. It is a parental/maternal type role. Certainly, it must be true that mothers were the first hierarchs; the mother-child relationship was the first ranked relationship. Then, I argued, there are pecking orders. In a pecking order the one at the top is autonomous. He has no responsibilities to the weak. He has no responsibilities to those he "serves" other than the most mundane -- perhaps, like Peron, he need only look dignified in some odd sort of way.
I would go on forever about this, but it is pretty sad when our electorate is so easily duped, deluded, fooled into thinking that pretense, that bullying is a sign of dignity and leadership. One does have to question the success of our education system.
Let's think about the word "truth." I remember reciting as a child when I believed that truth existed, "I take these truths to be self-evident....that all men are created equal...born with certain unalienable rights." Science now tells us that we cannot prove an hypothesis; we can, however, disprove or at least try to disprove or falsify it. We can find support for a hypothesis, but we cannot prove it. There is, in other words, untruth, but truth is not to be found, at least using science. I am, of course, assuming that even the laws of science will eventually come to be seen as incorrect or as only part of a solution. The idea that there is a truth, bigger than any of us, bigger than history, bigger than actual life -- that all of us, even those who are starving, dying, fighting, crying, suffering, neglected - are born with inalienable rights is, of course, the ideal. It is what we would like to be true. It used to be what we encouraged. Now we seem to encourage greed and self-indulgence to the point of being willing to soil even our own nest, the earth, to get a new babble to adorn our tiny fleeting corner of it.
It was startling when I discovered that the word "hero" no longer referred to someone, who undaunted, faced incredible odds and although perhaps losing in the end, never gave up trying to protect the vulnerable, to accomplish a deed that was basically altruistic. Hero today is often used to refer to someone in finds him or herself in a bad situation, but who died before he/she could make a choice of any course of action. Does just being in a dangerous situation mean we are a hero? I am sure that we, if we listen carefully, we would hear even hear the most superficial and vacuous of movie stars referred to as being called heroic, even when every action they have ever taken has had a self-absorbed end.
Today, and yesterday during the debate, we heard that a certain presidential candidate showed leadership. What I observed in that debate in particular, but also at other times, was not a leader, but a bully. How on earth is it possible to confuse bullying with leadership or presidential stature?
A democracy, my friend (friend,as this candidate likes to say), depends upon an educated electorate, a thoughtful voter. A bully, my friends, is not a leader. A bully is not presidential. A bully has a temper, a bully does not care for the vulnerable, in fact a bully looks for vulnerabilites and attacks them. Can we survive more years of yet another bully president?
In my book, I argued that there are two basic forms of leadership. There is hierarchical leadership, which is a type of servant leadership in which the powerful serves the powerless. It is a parental/maternal type role. Certainly, it must be true that mothers were the first hierarchs; the mother-child relationship was the first ranked relationship. Then, I argued, there are pecking orders. In a pecking order the one at the top is autonomous. He has no responsibilities to the weak. He has no responsibilities to those he "serves" other than the most mundane -- perhaps, like Peron, he need only look dignified in some odd sort of way.
I would go on forever about this, but it is pretty sad when our electorate is so easily duped, deluded, fooled into thinking that pretense, that bullying is a sign of dignity and leadership. One does have to question the success of our education system.
9/30/2008
The University and its Discontents
At one time, I understand, universities and cathedrals were once designed to be beautiful and built to engage the imagination and intellect and draw attention to things bigger than an individual, god in many cases, love in others, altruism in others, compassion, kindness, patience, logic, intellect.....
I suppose that it must be true that when universities dumped god and the virtues, and no other verb probably works as well, that universities came to be designed based on function -- get as many students through as efficiently as possible -- and not form -- beauty. Although many will not agree, beauty and the other virtues were lost in the shuffle, in the paradigm shift. When I studied art, in the university, the worst insult you could get from your instructor was that your art work was beautiful. Beautiful meant trite, unimaginative, patterned. If by mistake you did something beautiful, you were asked to take a pen or an eraser or a knife and slash lines through your "mistake." No one wanted to be compared with the more romantic painters. When I studied literature, our interpretations had to be those of the faculty or they were faulty.
However, what concerns me here is not the loss of beauty, although one might mourn its passing as one mourns the loss of one's belief in the goodness of mankind, my concern here is the limitation, the hedonism, the lack of substance of what we seem to have created. Some of my most intelligent students are the most foolish, they are those most driven to copy the ideas, voice, words, postures, dress, smell....of those they take on as role models because of their lifestyle or "intellectual" philosophy. I am bothered by the dearth of role models who are concerned for and attempt to protect those who copy them. I am not sure that those who copy sorority girls are behaving any less intelligently, as at least they are copying a model that has been successful in the endeavor of attracting an appropriate husband. I am not sure how our "intellect" model has held advantages for the students who copy that model.
I suppose that it must be true that when universities dumped god and the virtues, and no other verb probably works as well, that universities came to be designed based on function -- get as many students through as efficiently as possible -- and not form -- beauty. Although many will not agree, beauty and the other virtues were lost in the shuffle, in the paradigm shift. When I studied art, in the university, the worst insult you could get from your instructor was that your art work was beautiful. Beautiful meant trite, unimaginative, patterned. If by mistake you did something beautiful, you were asked to take a pen or an eraser or a knife and slash lines through your "mistake." No one wanted to be compared with the more romantic painters. When I studied literature, our interpretations had to be those of the faculty or they were faulty.
However, what concerns me here is not the loss of beauty, although one might mourn its passing as one mourns the loss of one's belief in the goodness of mankind, my concern here is the limitation, the hedonism, the lack of substance of what we seem to have created. Some of my most intelligent students are the most foolish, they are those most driven to copy the ideas, voice, words, postures, dress, smell....of those they take on as role models because of their lifestyle or "intellectual" philosophy. I am bothered by the dearth of role models who are concerned for and attempt to protect those who copy them. I am not sure that those who copy sorority girls are behaving any less intelligently, as at least they are copying a model that has been successful in the endeavor of attracting an appropriate husband. I am not sure how our "intellect" model has held advantages for the students who copy that model.
9/21/2008
New lamps for old ones
The old lamp served Aladdin well, bringing him riches, a kingdom and the love of a beautiful princess. She, seduced by the offer of a new lamp, exchanged his magic lamp for a bright new one. This was the plan of an evil wizard who wanted to get control of its power. Once he got the lamp, disaster followed until Aladdin managed to get the old lamp back.
This metaphor speaks clearly of abandoning traditions in favor of new, more exciting ways of doing things. In church today, and remember that churches are supposedly the bastions of conserving traditions, we heard that this is a time for abandoning traditions. There were smiles on faces, as we like the beautful princess, are eager to get rid of the old lamp, to replace with the new, shiny lamp. We, like the princess, see no value in the traditions we so happily abandon.
I have tried to figure out which traditions -- which old lamps -- are the ones we want to leave behind and which lamps we want to embrace. There must be method to our -- if not madness -- then our desire for the new. My conclusion to date is that we want to get rid of all the traditions that asked for duty, sacrifice, and perhaps even honor. We want to add new rules that allow greater personal freedom. That the price of that freedom may be high, does not seem to be anyone's concern.
This metaphor speaks clearly of abandoning traditions in favor of new, more exciting ways of doing things. In church today, and remember that churches are supposedly the bastions of conserving traditions, we heard that this is a time for abandoning traditions. There were smiles on faces, as we like the beautful princess, are eager to get rid of the old lamp, to replace with the new, shiny lamp. We, like the princess, see no value in the traditions we so happily abandon.
I have tried to figure out which traditions -- which old lamps -- are the ones we want to leave behind and which lamps we want to embrace. There must be method to our -- if not madness -- then our desire for the new. My conclusion to date is that we want to get rid of all the traditions that asked for duty, sacrifice, and perhaps even honor. We want to add new rules that allow greater personal freedom. That the price of that freedom may be high, does not seem to be anyone's concern.
9/02/2008
Role Models
Role model is yet another of the psychobabble terms that I generally abhor. However, the concept underlying the term is one with which I would agree, namely that humans are great copiers. The question, however, is who we decide to copy and when and what behaviors. I spoke today with a Frenchman who was telling me that he is writing a book about and in honor of his father who had been a famous surgeon in France. He said that when his father died, over 2000 people attended his funeral, the vast majority of those people he -- the Frenchman with whom I was talking -- had never met or heard his father mention. The people were there because his father never turned a patient away, even when that patient had no funds to pay. His generosity had touched many hearts. Despite his father's fame, his father's head was never turned and he remained a humble and patient man throughout his life. The Frenchman told me, and I listened carefully, that when he is confronted by situations that once would have upset him, he asks himself how his father would have responded. He then is able to respond as his father would have done.
How lucky he was to have such a role model. Many people do not. My guess, however, is that when they do, they want to honor that person. I felt much the same about my father and when he died I spent several years going in and out of the Amazon rainforest, as he had loved the rainforests in South America, and making a collection that I donated to a local museum in his name. So, I am not just interested in this copying behavior, but in our response to the death of one of our role models and our desire to pay homage to their lives. Could this be the origin of death rituals and monuments? I would think that the best homage is one made freely, but it seems clear that many mortuary monuments were built based on the use of force. Is this like trying to buy respect that one has not earned?
How lucky he was to have such a role model. Many people do not. My guess, however, is that when they do, they want to honor that person. I felt much the same about my father and when he died I spent several years going in and out of the Amazon rainforest, as he had loved the rainforests in South America, and making a collection that I donated to a local museum in his name. So, I am not just interested in this copying behavior, but in our response to the death of one of our role models and our desire to pay homage to their lives. Could this be the origin of death rituals and monuments? I would think that the best homage is one made freely, but it seems clear that many mortuary monuments were built based on the use of force. Is this like trying to buy respect that one has not earned?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)