Day after day, I read the newspaper articles on Gaza and Israel, and I ask myself, "What's the answer?" "What does an ethicist like myself have to say about such huge and long standing issues?" I ask myself, "What would I say if the politicos in Washington asked me for ethical input?" And I reply to myself, "Yes, but what do I know about politics? What do I know about how to prevent war, how to create peace, how to help countries get along with one another?" I will simply have to stick with what I do know, what I can do, and recognize that if I use all that I have, it will make a difference.
So, what do I know, and what can I do? What do you know, and what can you do? I have spent my career as a mental health professional, doing assessments and psychotherapy, and teaching graduate students to become counselors. What I know is how to help people heal from emotional struggles; how to help them to learn the life skills necessary for daily life, for success in school and work, for raising a family; and how to help them figure out and reach for their dreams. And I know that the world is a better place for the changes created when people grow in these ways. The world around the people I have helped is a more peaceful place. It is a more positive place. It is a place with healthier, less damaging relationships. It is a place where people can trust one another because they know that they have each communicated clearly and honestly with one another. It is a place where when conflict arises, they can trust that the other will work with them to clear it up, rather than disappearing or hating or stirring up trouble. And if I can't solve the war in the middle east, isn't it better to know that there at least some people who are living in greater peace, who are raising their children in a more loving environment, who are following their "call", and so are contributing to the world in some positive way?
What I also know is how to write and teach and develop curricula. And so I write this blog, and write virtue newsletters, and write books on life skills and character and optimal development. And I teach adjunct classes and continuing education classes, developing new curricula as the need arises. And if I can persuade those who read and who are students that "positive psychology" (that is, aiming for mental health, aiming for the best, encouraging optimal development, investing in becoming and creating people of character with strong ethical decision making skills) has value, then perhaps they too will take it out into the world with them, and will assist their clients and students and business partners and family members that being people of character matters. Perhaps they will become persuaded that investing in the "spirit" of life, in the "higher" things of life, makes a difference. Perhaps they will spread the news that if we each aim for the optimal in caring and trustworthiness and responsibility and courage and wisdom and fairness and respect and citizenship, if we take little steps each day, that we can create a better world around us, and that what is "better" will spread and keep on spreading, like the ripples that begin with a mere drop of water.
But it takes intention and inspiration and perhaps spirit to live out what I know, where I am, and to not despair over how short it falls. It takes courage to believe that if I live my life in integrity, if I intentionally aim for the best character, even when I can get away with less, if I encourage the children and parents that I see at school and church and Girl Scouts to do the same, that others will also be motivated to do the same, and that the "good" will spread. It takes trust that others will be just as concerned and motivated as I am, and that we can lean on one another, that we can encourage one another, and that this team effort can transform our schools and families and communities.
But if we don't have the courage to fully live into what we know, where we are, what hope is there? What other options do we have if we want things like wars in Gaza to end, people in the frozen north of the former Soviet Union countries to have access to oil to heat their homes, and the crime ridden neighborhoods around us to become safe?
Will you join me in saying that you will take the risk to invest in your own character and to support your family members and friends and co workers to invest in character? I believe Obama when he says that if we all join together, "Yes, we can" make a difference.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Path Out of Upheaval (July 2009)
Not a day goes by these days when I don't awaken to reports on NPR of the numbers of lives and businesses and communities in upheaval due to the economic crisis. Whether loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of retirement, or loss of companies, a large number of us are struggling to survive, and during the struggle, having to figure out how our lives will transform over the next few years. It helps to know that we are not alone, that the vast majority of us are not to blame. It helps to know that recessions turn around. It helps to know that, because so many people are being affected, we can commiserate, talk more openly with one another, and in doing so, build and experience a sense of community that may sometimes have been lacking before. And part of that community seems to be an increase in the degree to which people are reaching out to and caring for others in need, in the sense that we are all in this together and that we need to help one another, in the sense that we are all connected and that what one person does can't help but trickle out and down to the rest of the community. I see more people taking action politically and in service to make things better in our world.
While reading recently, I was introduced to some theological concepts expressed in Ronald Rolheiser's book, The Holy Longing, that I find pertinent to our current turmoil. I realize that not everyone will be familiar with or committed to Christian concepts, but bear with me for a moment while I share what has most moved me. Rolheiser speaks of the hope of the Pascal Mystery (that is, the series of events surrounding Christ's death and resurrection) for our lives in a way that I have found personally relevant, but think could be relevant to others and to our community at large as well. The series of events are Good Friday (when Christ dies on the cross), Easter Sunday (when He rises to new life on Earth), a 40 day period before the Ascension (when He rises to heaven), and the Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit is received by his disciples). Now I realize that these are esoteric ideas to those who don't share this faith, but stick with me for a moment.
Rolheiser parallels what are fundamental Christian events to the patterns of our lives in order to create hope. For instance, he points to the shock to our system of a "death" experience, whether loss of a home, a job, a marriage, a child, etc. (Good Friday). Sometime after that death experience - it may take a while -- we may have a sense of "rising" to a new life - some sense of meaning that our lives are to have, some calling that has been shaken loose by the loss, some reevaluation of what is really important in our lives (Easter). Consider, for example, the long effort to get a mandatory seat belt law passed in Florida by a man whose daughter died as a result of not wearing a seat belt. Consider the passion with which the founder of Mother's Against Drunk Driving developed her organization after her child was killed by a drunk driver. Each of these "callings" arose from tremendous personal tragedy.
But even if we have felt called to a new life, there may be a long period of time (the 40 days) in which we are living with both the death and the new life - We are experiencing the profound sense of loss, the wish to return to our previous life, the wish to all that we have been forced to leave behind. But we are also experiencing the hope of a new life, the hope generated by the new sense of meaning and call. We may wonder how long this struggle will last, the struggle to let go of what's past and to fully embrace what is to come. We may wonder why we continue to feel depressed or sad when the promise of something better is in front of us. We may not truly want to let go. We may have no clarity about the process involved in actually getting to that new life. And some friends and family members may urge us to let go and move on before we are truly ready, before we have fully grieved the loss.
At some point, however, we reach the time for embracing the new life. And Rolheiser parallels this to the Ascension - That is, we need to let the old go, allow it rise and die (at least in some form) in order to fully receive the spirit of the new life to come (Pentacost).
I find myself reassured by this sense of a life and death cycle. It feels hopeful, promising. It gives the sense that we all have to go through this sort of a cycle when we experience a loss. No one escapes experiencing losses. But there is the promise of something better at the end of the cycle that can encourage us to fully embrace the cycle.
It is holding onto the notion of this cycle that offers us a sense of promise about our country's (well, world's actually) current condition. Many people are losing. Many other people are reaching out to help them. Hope comes from knowing that "this too shall pass," from many people being in the same boat, and from focusing our blame externally rather than toward ourselves. Obama and other leaders have made bold sweeping promises about the government's determination to raise people from the holes that they have been dropped into, to a place of partial government help (unemployment compensation increases, for example) while what is to come is "created," and to give all of us time to discover what that better will be.
We need to do what's necessary to recognize the "death" or loss for what it is: painful, awful, hurtful, but only the first step in the cycle. We need to call out for guidance and vision about where we need to go and have the hope that it will come. We need to surround ourselves with supportive people or groups to hold us while we are in the waiting period, experiencing both the loss and the hope in an alternating pattern. And eventually we will need to give up the anger and hurt and pain, allow it rise and move away. When we have learned all we can from it and let it go, we will be able to fully receive the "spirit" of the new life, fully embrace a hopeful future. It will no doubt look different than we ever imagined.
In the picture as Rolheiser describes it, I find hope. I find encouragement to be patient with myself through the waiting period of not knowing where my path may lead. I find promise that new life will come. It seems to me that if we have faith that the future does indeed hold a "new life" for us, then we can allow ourselves to be here, now, where we need to be. We can embrace both the pain and the promise. We can be patient with ourselves and with others. In the letting go are both sadness and gentleness, hurt and patience, trust in ourselves, others, and the universe at large. In fact, we can celebrate the talent of the many working together to raise ourselves out of the mire in which we have found ourselves.
So whether it is the personal loss of a home or job or family member, or the group loss of a pastor or teacher or leader, or the company loss of assets or clients or the CEO, we have choices. We can choose fear and anger and reactivity which may energize us to take needed action. But when we lose energy and feel depressed, or sad, or lose hope, we may also need promise and vision and call to hold onto. We may need to embrace both our attachments to what we have lost, and our hope for what is to come. And we will need cojourneyers along the way to hold out a hand and remind us of who we are, what we are called to do, what the promise is. Eventually, we must make the choice to allow our loss to rise and move away so that we can receive the spirit of our new life. But while we await that point, perhaps it helps to know that a waiting period is expectable, and normal, and will not go on forever.
While reading recently, I was introduced to some theological concepts expressed in Ronald Rolheiser's book, The Holy Longing, that I find pertinent to our current turmoil. I realize that not everyone will be familiar with or committed to Christian concepts, but bear with me for a moment while I share what has most moved me. Rolheiser speaks of the hope of the Pascal Mystery (that is, the series of events surrounding Christ's death and resurrection) for our lives in a way that I have found personally relevant, but think could be relevant to others and to our community at large as well. The series of events are Good Friday (when Christ dies on the cross), Easter Sunday (when He rises to new life on Earth), a 40 day period before the Ascension (when He rises to heaven), and the Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit is received by his disciples). Now I realize that these are esoteric ideas to those who don't share this faith, but stick with me for a moment.
Rolheiser parallels what are fundamental Christian events to the patterns of our lives in order to create hope. For instance, he points to the shock to our system of a "death" experience, whether loss of a home, a job, a marriage, a child, etc. (Good Friday). Sometime after that death experience - it may take a while -- we may have a sense of "rising" to a new life - some sense of meaning that our lives are to have, some calling that has been shaken loose by the loss, some reevaluation of what is really important in our lives (Easter). Consider, for example, the long effort to get a mandatory seat belt law passed in Florida by a man whose daughter died as a result of not wearing a seat belt. Consider the passion with which the founder of Mother's Against Drunk Driving developed her organization after her child was killed by a drunk driver. Each of these "callings" arose from tremendous personal tragedy.
But even if we have felt called to a new life, there may be a long period of time (the 40 days) in which we are living with both the death and the new life - We are experiencing the profound sense of loss, the wish to return to our previous life, the wish to all that we have been forced to leave behind. But we are also experiencing the hope of a new life, the hope generated by the new sense of meaning and call. We may wonder how long this struggle will last, the struggle to let go of what's past and to fully embrace what is to come. We may wonder why we continue to feel depressed or sad when the promise of something better is in front of us. We may not truly want to let go. We may have no clarity about the process involved in actually getting to that new life. And some friends and family members may urge us to let go and move on before we are truly ready, before we have fully grieved the loss.
At some point, however, we reach the time for embracing the new life. And Rolheiser parallels this to the Ascension - That is, we need to let the old go, allow it rise and die (at least in some form) in order to fully receive the spirit of the new life to come (Pentacost).
I find myself reassured by this sense of a life and death cycle. It feels hopeful, promising. It gives the sense that we all have to go through this sort of a cycle when we experience a loss. No one escapes experiencing losses. But there is the promise of something better at the end of the cycle that can encourage us to fully embrace the cycle.
It is holding onto the notion of this cycle that offers us a sense of promise about our country's (well, world's actually) current condition. Many people are losing. Many other people are reaching out to help them. Hope comes from knowing that "this too shall pass," from many people being in the same boat, and from focusing our blame externally rather than toward ourselves. Obama and other leaders have made bold sweeping promises about the government's determination to raise people from the holes that they have been dropped into, to a place of partial government help (unemployment compensation increases, for example) while what is to come is "created," and to give all of us time to discover what that better will be.
We need to do what's necessary to recognize the "death" or loss for what it is: painful, awful, hurtful, but only the first step in the cycle. We need to call out for guidance and vision about where we need to go and have the hope that it will come. We need to surround ourselves with supportive people or groups to hold us while we are in the waiting period, experiencing both the loss and the hope in an alternating pattern. And eventually we will need to give up the anger and hurt and pain, allow it rise and move away. When we have learned all we can from it and let it go, we will be able to fully receive the "spirit" of the new life, fully embrace a hopeful future. It will no doubt look different than we ever imagined.
In the picture as Rolheiser describes it, I find hope. I find encouragement to be patient with myself through the waiting period of not knowing where my path may lead. I find promise that new life will come. It seems to me that if we have faith that the future does indeed hold a "new life" for us, then we can allow ourselves to be here, now, where we need to be. We can embrace both the pain and the promise. We can be patient with ourselves and with others. In the letting go are both sadness and gentleness, hurt and patience, trust in ourselves, others, and the universe at large. In fact, we can celebrate the talent of the many working together to raise ourselves out of the mire in which we have found ourselves.
So whether it is the personal loss of a home or job or family member, or the group loss of a pastor or teacher or leader, or the company loss of assets or clients or the CEO, we have choices. We can choose fear and anger and reactivity which may energize us to take needed action. But when we lose energy and feel depressed, or sad, or lose hope, we may also need promise and vision and call to hold onto. We may need to embrace both our attachments to what we have lost, and our hope for what is to come. And we will need cojourneyers along the way to hold out a hand and remind us of who we are, what we are called to do, what the promise is. Eventually, we must make the choice to allow our loss to rise and move away so that we can receive the spirit of our new life. But while we await that point, perhaps it helps to know that a waiting period is expectable, and normal, and will not go on forever.
Remaking America (March 2009)
Perhaps I am a little late with this blog about the inaugural address. But it still rings through my heart, and is resuscitated each time I receive an email or video from the Obama machine. I can only hope that you too were encouraged and enlivened and inspired by Obama's call to "remake America." And did you notice his call to character as central to this effort, that he rejected the false "choice between our safety and our ideals." Did you notice his call for justice, hope, virtue, humility, restraint, and depending on the "force of our example." He urged us to return to the truths upon which our success has always depended: honesty, courage, fair play, tolerance, curiosity, loyalty, patriotism, faith, determination, selflessness. I have rarely heard values and ideals ring so centrally in a politician's speech.
Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."
Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."
And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."
Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.
Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."
Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."
And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."
Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.
Presidential Thoughts on Respect and Fairness (November 2008)
It seemed fitting to begin this blog with a reflection on our country's newly elected president. I was one of the group who was overjoyed by Obama's election. And while I realize that everyone does not share my views, I thought you might be interested in some of my perspectives. Given our country's economic crisis, I, of course, wanted to vote for change. But Obama's election brings possibilities for change far larger than economic change and the ethical/character changes necessary for fixing our economic situation. Barack's election signals that America is willing to take a stand for fairness to all people, for respect for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. As one email I recently read stated, "Finally, we are winning the Civil War," or what was begun by ending slavery. As another said, "Harriett Tubman escaped so that Rosa could sit. Rosa sat so that Martin could stand. Martin stood so that Barack could run."
But my enthusiasm is far larger than a celebration of fairness and respect for people of different races. You see, if "we the people" are willing to respect people who are Black, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, or Native American, I see us as have reached a place of accepting, and perhaps even celebrating, other differences as well. It seems to me that Obama's election (and Hilary Clinton being in the running) also signals greater respect and acceptance of women, and gays, and the poor, and immigrants, and the many other groups who have been discriminated against throughout history.
Character and/or ethics includes respect for all people and fair distribution of goods. It means that everyone has access to goods - products, jobs, salaries, benefits, raises, promotions, housing, quality schooling -- and that any differences in distribution have to be justified (by such differences as qualifications, education, working more hours, etc).
America used to be considered a "melting pot." Well, a better analogy is a "salad." You see, in a melting pot, all differences are melted together into a common "mush" that we call "American." A "salad," instead, celebrates difference - all of the colors, the textures, the sizes of the ingredients contribute to the richness of the salad, and, for many of us, to its desireability. Even those who are not fond of salad have begun to realize that the best answers for our society come from the participation of many. The more differing perspectives are heard the better the chance of developing solutions that include all of the possibilities. The better the chance of ensuring that some groups of people are not hurt, and in fact, that more of us prosper.
But my enthusiasm is far larger than a celebration of fairness and respect for people of different races. You see, if "we the people" are willing to respect people who are Black, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, or Native American, I see us as have reached a place of accepting, and perhaps even celebrating, other differences as well. It seems to me that Obama's election (and Hilary Clinton being in the running) also signals greater respect and acceptance of women, and gays, and the poor, and immigrants, and the many other groups who have been discriminated against throughout history.
Character and/or ethics includes respect for all people and fair distribution of goods. It means that everyone has access to goods - products, jobs, salaries, benefits, raises, promotions, housing, quality schooling -- and that any differences in distribution have to be justified (by such differences as qualifications, education, working more hours, etc).
America used to be considered a "melting pot." Well, a better analogy is a "salad." You see, in a melting pot, all differences are melted together into a common "mush" that we call "American." A "salad," instead, celebrates difference - all of the colors, the textures, the sizes of the ingredients contribute to the richness of the salad, and, for many of us, to its desireability. Even those who are not fond of salad have begun to realize that the best answers for our society come from the participation of many. The more differing perspectives are heard the better the chance of developing solutions that include all of the possibilities. The better the chance of ensuring that some groups of people are not hurt, and in fact, that more of us prosper.
Loving and Doing "The Good" (January 2009)
I applaud the efforts that have recently been cited in my local news to encourage public officials (and all of the rest of us) toward more ethical behavior. It is time for us to take the gloves off, to move beyond complacency, and to realize that unless all of us act on behalf of character and ethics, we all suffer. There is no way in our society to separate ourselves from the effects of other people's unethical behavior; we have seen this in the devastation caused to our neighbors and friends and non-profit organizations by the unethical behavior of securities and investment professionals, realtors and mortgage brokers, and Bernie Madoff. We see it regularly in crime statistics and in the 15% more we pay at the cash register as a result of theft.
However, we can no longer point to "the other guy" as the offender when we have done little to create change ourselves, to behave ethically, or to teach our children to be people of character. We have had a "doing the minimum" or "doing what we can get away with" attitude, rather than a "doing the optimal" attitude, for too long. Clearly laws and ethics codes and procedures are not enough. Enron, and many other companies that have hurt employees, consumers, and the environment, have had ethics codes and procedures. They have often adopted them to comply with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines so that they can avoid huge fines should they get into trouble.
Yet, research indicates that laws and efforts at ethical compliance do not motivate ethical behavior. Unless values are infused throughout organizations from the top down, formal ethics procedures and awareness of laws do little to change individual or organizational behavior for the better. It is understood that ethical behavior requires first that we "know the good," thus the need for laws and regulations, codes and procedures. But these fall short in creating ethical behavior --we also have to "love the good" and "do the good." Preachers can preach "the good." Lawyers can define "the bad," or what we shouldn't do. Many can define and promote ethical behavior. But let's get the mental health professionals - experts in behavior change - to work on helping people to "love the good" and "do the good." Or better yet, let's all work together, using all of our skills, talents, and energy to "create the good," to aim for what's optimal, so that our children can inherit a better society to live in than we are currently experiencing.
However, we can no longer point to "the other guy" as the offender when we have done little to create change ourselves, to behave ethically, or to teach our children to be people of character. We have had a "doing the minimum" or "doing what we can get away with" attitude, rather than a "doing the optimal" attitude, for too long. Clearly laws and ethics codes and procedures are not enough. Enron, and many other companies that have hurt employees, consumers, and the environment, have had ethics codes and procedures. They have often adopted them to comply with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines so that they can avoid huge fines should they get into trouble.
Yet, research indicates that laws and efforts at ethical compliance do not motivate ethical behavior. Unless values are infused throughout organizations from the top down, formal ethics procedures and awareness of laws do little to change individual or organizational behavior for the better. It is understood that ethical behavior requires first that we "know the good," thus the need for laws and regulations, codes and procedures. But these fall short in creating ethical behavior --we also have to "love the good" and "do the good." Preachers can preach "the good." Lawyers can define "the bad," or what we shouldn't do. Many can define and promote ethical behavior. But let's get the mental health professionals - experts in behavior change - to work on helping people to "love the good" and "do the good." Or better yet, let's all work together, using all of our skills, talents, and energy to "create the good," to aim for what's optimal, so that our children can inherit a better society to live in than we are currently experiencing.
Our Better Angels (January 2009)
What a tremendous moment in history!! -- Martin Luther King's birthday falling one day before his success is demonstrated in the inauguration of Barack Obama, Black people and members of other historically oppressed groups traveling to Washington D.C. to celebrate a victory over oppression, and Obama taking up Martin Luther King's "torch" for service. I have always voted in the presidential elections, but rarely have I believed my vote for the presidency was anything more than voting for the lesser of two evils. Not this time! History is being made, and as a result of Obama's use of emails and the internet to include all of us, we can claim ownership in the history that is being made. We are part of it. And Obama shares the victory, telling us that we made it happen.
Obama also appeals to all of us to participate in solving the problems that America faces, claiming that it cannot be done without all of us taking part. Republican or Democrat, no one can argue the need for all of us to reach out in service to create better communities. No one can argue the need for ethics and character to infiltrate business and government, to lead people and organizations toward a higher good, to be the "fore" thought, rather than the after thought. No one can argue the need for parents and other adults to "teach the children well," to raise them to be people of character, to serve as role models, so that the next generation will inherit a better world, a safe world, an environmentally livable world.
And so, when Obama says, What's required is...an appeal not to our easy instincts, but to our better angels," we are inspired to think about what's best, not what's easiest, to consider the paths of angels (or what they represent) rather than the opposite, to become active, rather than reactive or complacent. No longer should we apologize for living "the good" (as in good character) life, for loving "the good," and for advocating that everyone around us pursue "the good." Of course, what is "good" or best is not always easy to decide. But that doesn't let us off the hook for choosing "the good" when it is apparent, for aiming for what is best in each situation we encounter.
So, what will be your first step? What is the good you will to pursue this week? We get to choose and act. No one else imposes this on us. My choice is to more consistently speak kindly and gently to friends and family members. What will your choice be?
Obama also appeals to all of us to participate in solving the problems that America faces, claiming that it cannot be done without all of us taking part. Republican or Democrat, no one can argue the need for all of us to reach out in service to create better communities. No one can argue the need for ethics and character to infiltrate business and government, to lead people and organizations toward a higher good, to be the "fore" thought, rather than the after thought. No one can argue the need for parents and other adults to "teach the children well," to raise them to be people of character, to serve as role models, so that the next generation will inherit a better world, a safe world, an environmentally livable world.
And so, when Obama says, What's required is...an appeal not to our easy instincts, but to our better angels," we are inspired to think about what's best, not what's easiest, to consider the paths of angels (or what they represent) rather than the opposite, to become active, rather than reactive or complacent. No longer should we apologize for living "the good" (as in good character) life, for loving "the good," and for advocating that everyone around us pursue "the good." Of course, what is "good" or best is not always easy to decide. But that doesn't let us off the hook for choosing "the good" when it is apparent, for aiming for what is best in each situation we encounter.
So, what will be your first step? What is the good you will to pursue this week? We get to choose and act. No one else imposes this on us. My choice is to more consistently speak kindly and gently to friends and family members. What will your choice be?
Aiming for a Kinder, Gentler Nation (April 2009)
Today, I attended an event on the Stigma of Mental Illness. I was struck by the damage that is caused by labels, by talking about people behind their backs, and by failing to be the loving, caring people that we have the ability to be. No one at this event was defining mental illness - I suppose we were all putting our own definitions into the pictures being created by the speaker. But participants seemed to share openly about their experiences with depression, addiction, bipolar disorder (manic-depression), obsessive-compulsive disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
The moderator, a well-known journalist in our area, reflected on how nice it was to be in a room full of people that she could talk openly with, that she could say, "I have alcoholism and bipolar disorder" without worrying about whether there would be a backlash. She had experienced a great deal of backlash in other settings, including where she worked, due to stigma. A teenager who grieved the death of her father also shared how hard it had been to tell her own mother that she was struggling emotionally. We all wondered if changing our language would help reduce the stigma - but it became clear that language changes would not be enough.
I shared my own struggles with what to do about a child-relative's disorder. As I told the group: "Her greatest fear is people knowing that she is different. If the other kids know she is different, they will make fun of her and will be mean to her. And so she keeps her struggles a secret." I proposed that we aim for creating mentally healthier environments for our children and for others, environments in which people demonstrate the character traits of caring, tenderness, respect, love, fairness, compassion, and sensitivity (please feel free to add to this list). Perhaps if we insisted that children in our schools behave with character, and taught them how, and rewarded them for achievement gained with character, my child-relative would not have to be so frightened about people knowing her fully, knowing about her "disorder."
My own ease with sharing openly about struggles or mental health issues in my family comes from being a therapist for many years. We therapists spend our lives talking about and relating to difficult emotions and life difficulties. We get comfortable with knowing the depths of people's pain, with knowing that their struggles are not dangerous to us, and with caring at deeper levels than the ordinary citizen might manage to do.
But the numbers of people who struggle, for various reasons - some chemical or physiological, some environmental -- means that most of the people that we encounter will, at some point in our interactions with them, be struggling. I am amazed at the "issues" faced by the parents I meet through my child's elementary school - we have learning disabilities, depression, anxiety, Ausberger's, family violence, and family alcoholism. Many children are in special programs or are receiving counseling. And yet the secretiveness continues.
I have often thought that if everyone knew everyone else's business, or if we passed around anonymous cards with everyone's struggles written on them, we would not be so judgmental. Everyone would know that they were not alone in their struggles; they could take turns being kind and reaching out to one another with support. The children and families that face these struggles need to connect with others who understand, who care, and who don't judge. They need to be relieved of the isolation that comes from fearing that if they share openly, they will be judged. They need to find others who can relate to them, and can offer resources or a kind word.
And perhaps if we all behaved in this way, people would actually heal! Wouldn't that be amazing? Or even if not fully healed, people might be more likely to seek and find the kind of help that could reduce or teach them to manage their symptoms. And they might be gathered into the warmth of a community that compensated for their difficulties (not everyone has to be good at everything) while acknowledging and making the most of their strengths and gifts - strengths and gifts that could compensate for some one else's limitations.
Fundamentally, I wonder why we tolerate schools, classrooms, businesses, colleges, service providers and other organizations and people who don't demonstrate the understanding and kindness that all of us need - if not always, then at certain key moments in our lives? Why do we sit back in our isolation, figuring that it isn't safe out there, so we will stick to ourselves, and not interact openly with anyone beyond the people we know well? Why do we say, "That's just the way s/he is," rather than recognizing when people are troubled and need us to care? Why do we stay disconnected and detached and pass the buck? Do we really believe that this will make our lives easier? Do we really believe that we are so powerless in creating better communities? Do we really think that we can get away with failing to be our "brother" or "sister's" keeper?
I am willing to commit myself, starting today, to intentionally looking for ways to build connections and to be more caring. Perhaps I will write a reminder on my phone's opening screen. Will you join me? What might happen if we each decided to do one more caring thing each day? Can we together aim for the optimal in our relationships with our neighbors, our coworkers, our teachers, our children, our relatives, our friends? And can we extend our circle of caring beyond that inner circle to those we meet on the street, in restaurants, or in stores? To those who clean our houses, mow our lawns, or fix our air conditioners? What are the possibilities if we all said, "Yes, we can!" to becoming a kinder and gentler nation?
The moderator, a well-known journalist in our area, reflected on how nice it was to be in a room full of people that she could talk openly with, that she could say, "I have alcoholism and bipolar disorder" without worrying about whether there would be a backlash. She had experienced a great deal of backlash in other settings, including where she worked, due to stigma. A teenager who grieved the death of her father also shared how hard it had been to tell her own mother that she was struggling emotionally. We all wondered if changing our language would help reduce the stigma - but it became clear that language changes would not be enough.
I shared my own struggles with what to do about a child-relative's disorder. As I told the group: "Her greatest fear is people knowing that she is different. If the other kids know she is different, they will make fun of her and will be mean to her. And so she keeps her struggles a secret." I proposed that we aim for creating mentally healthier environments for our children and for others, environments in which people demonstrate the character traits of caring, tenderness, respect, love, fairness, compassion, and sensitivity (please feel free to add to this list). Perhaps if we insisted that children in our schools behave with character, and taught them how, and rewarded them for achievement gained with character, my child-relative would not have to be so frightened about people knowing her fully, knowing about her "disorder."
My own ease with sharing openly about struggles or mental health issues in my family comes from being a therapist for many years. We therapists spend our lives talking about and relating to difficult emotions and life difficulties. We get comfortable with knowing the depths of people's pain, with knowing that their struggles are not dangerous to us, and with caring at deeper levels than the ordinary citizen might manage to do.
But the numbers of people who struggle, for various reasons - some chemical or physiological, some environmental -- means that most of the people that we encounter will, at some point in our interactions with them, be struggling. I am amazed at the "issues" faced by the parents I meet through my child's elementary school - we have learning disabilities, depression, anxiety, Ausberger's, family violence, and family alcoholism. Many children are in special programs or are receiving counseling. And yet the secretiveness continues.
I have often thought that if everyone knew everyone else's business, or if we passed around anonymous cards with everyone's struggles written on them, we would not be so judgmental. Everyone would know that they were not alone in their struggles; they could take turns being kind and reaching out to one another with support. The children and families that face these struggles need to connect with others who understand, who care, and who don't judge. They need to be relieved of the isolation that comes from fearing that if they share openly, they will be judged. They need to find others who can relate to them, and can offer resources or a kind word.
And perhaps if we all behaved in this way, people would actually heal! Wouldn't that be amazing? Or even if not fully healed, people might be more likely to seek and find the kind of help that could reduce or teach them to manage their symptoms. And they might be gathered into the warmth of a community that compensated for their difficulties (not everyone has to be good at everything) while acknowledging and making the most of their strengths and gifts - strengths and gifts that could compensate for some one else's limitations.
Fundamentally, I wonder why we tolerate schools, classrooms, businesses, colleges, service providers and other organizations and people who don't demonstrate the understanding and kindness that all of us need - if not always, then at certain key moments in our lives? Why do we sit back in our isolation, figuring that it isn't safe out there, so we will stick to ourselves, and not interact openly with anyone beyond the people we know well? Why do we say, "That's just the way s/he is," rather than recognizing when people are troubled and need us to care? Why do we stay disconnected and detached and pass the buck? Do we really believe that this will make our lives easier? Do we really believe that we are so powerless in creating better communities? Do we really think that we can get away with failing to be our "brother" or "sister's" keeper?
I am willing to commit myself, starting today, to intentionally looking for ways to build connections and to be more caring. Perhaps I will write a reminder on my phone's opening screen. Will you join me? What might happen if we each decided to do one more caring thing each day? Can we together aim for the optimal in our relationships with our neighbors, our coworkers, our teachers, our children, our relatives, our friends? And can we extend our circle of caring beyond that inner circle to those we meet on the street, in restaurants, or in stores? To those who clean our houses, mow our lawns, or fix our air conditioners? What are the possibilities if we all said, "Yes, we can!" to becoming a kinder and gentler nation?
Hope Dies Last (December 2008)
Studs Terkel, in an interview with Alex Kotlowitz of the AARP magazine, said that, unlike the Great Depression, hope was possible during this economic crisis because of the differences between the culture of the 1920's and our culture today. Terkel also pointed to what we could learn from the Great Depression.
Back in the 1920's, Terkel said, people thought "the man" knew. The "big boys" were in charge because they knew more; they had greater skills. And what a shock, he said, when the "wise men" blew it, when they didn't know what to do. When that happened, how could a person hope? Who could get the country out of a crisis if the people in charge didn't know how? Many people were furious. They blamed themselves. They lost their self-respect. They drank more. They fought more.
Some people weathered the crisis, though, and he describes how we might emulate them. Some drew hope from lending a hand or being on the receiving end of a hug. Other lessons learned during the Depression were "Don't blame yourself. Turn to others. Take part in the community."
We might also draw strength from they ways we are different from the people of the 1920's. For instance, now, Terkel said, people don't have a lot of trust in "the man." We are doubters. We agree with Terkel that "the big boys are not that bright." We are activists because during the 60's civil right movement and protests of the Vietnam war, we saw the power of activism. We decide for ourselves and determine our own fates more frequently, sometimes joining with others to have the impact we desire. And now, more than ever, Americans are raising their voices and, as Obama keeps reminding us, crying out for change.
So, what's it gonna be? When our jobs and mortgages are disappearing, when our neighbors are losing their homes, when we worry about our safety, what will we choose? Will we allow our fear to destroy our hope? Will we grab onto whatever we can get no matter whom it hurts? Will we let go of honor and love and caring and giving and all of the values we have cherished? Will we say, "Anything goes?"
Or will we follow Turkel's advice and lend a hand, turn to others, and become a community? Will we use this crisis as a warning, and, as Obama's team keeps urging us, stand up for change? Will we stand up and say, "No more taking what you can get, when you can get it, in any way you can," because that sort of behavior got us where we are today. Will we stand up and say, "Pursuit of what's good for ourselves can only get us so far. Without caring for those around us and the environment and our education systems, without limiting our greed, we will all lose." Will we stand up and say, "Come, I will help you and you will help me. We need one another, now more than ever." Will we let go of our pride and our self- or other-blame and admit our need for help; in fact, can we come to realize that people are supposed to help one another, and so we should even expect to receive help. And can we develop the trust in the people around us, trust that people care and will be looking around for ways to help. Can we use this crisis as a time to become a community, to regain the benefits of being a community, to realize that the old metaphors of "individuals pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" no longer work or are relevant? Can we embrace our interdependence?
I say, YES, WE CAN! The only question left is "WILL WE?" I will! Will you join me?
Back in the 1920's, Terkel said, people thought "the man" knew. The "big boys" were in charge because they knew more; they had greater skills. And what a shock, he said, when the "wise men" blew it, when they didn't know what to do. When that happened, how could a person hope? Who could get the country out of a crisis if the people in charge didn't know how? Many people were furious. They blamed themselves. They lost their self-respect. They drank more. They fought more.
Some people weathered the crisis, though, and he describes how we might emulate them. Some drew hope from lending a hand or being on the receiving end of a hug. Other lessons learned during the Depression were "Don't blame yourself. Turn to others. Take part in the community."
We might also draw strength from they ways we are different from the people of the 1920's. For instance, now, Terkel said, people don't have a lot of trust in "the man." We are doubters. We agree with Terkel that "the big boys are not that bright." We are activists because during the 60's civil right movement and protests of the Vietnam war, we saw the power of activism. We decide for ourselves and determine our own fates more frequently, sometimes joining with others to have the impact we desire. And now, more than ever, Americans are raising their voices and, as Obama keeps reminding us, crying out for change.
So, what's it gonna be? When our jobs and mortgages are disappearing, when our neighbors are losing their homes, when we worry about our safety, what will we choose? Will we allow our fear to destroy our hope? Will we grab onto whatever we can get no matter whom it hurts? Will we let go of honor and love and caring and giving and all of the values we have cherished? Will we say, "Anything goes?"
Or will we follow Turkel's advice and lend a hand, turn to others, and become a community? Will we use this crisis as a warning, and, as Obama's team keeps urging us, stand up for change? Will we stand up and say, "No more taking what you can get, when you can get it, in any way you can," because that sort of behavior got us where we are today. Will we stand up and say, "Pursuit of what's good for ourselves can only get us so far. Without caring for those around us and the environment and our education systems, without limiting our greed, we will all lose." Will we stand up and say, "Come, I will help you and you will help me. We need one another, now more than ever." Will we let go of our pride and our self- or other-blame and admit our need for help; in fact, can we come to realize that people are supposed to help one another, and so we should even expect to receive help. And can we develop the trust in the people around us, trust that people care and will be looking around for ways to help. Can we use this crisis as a time to become a community, to regain the benefits of being a community, to realize that the old metaphors of "individuals pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" no longer work or are relevant? Can we embrace our interdependence?
I say, YES, WE CAN! The only question left is "WILL WE?" I will! Will you join me?
Independence No More (March 2009)
So, this was the week that Bernie Madoff went to jail, and people stood outside the courthouse to celebrate his getting his "just desserts." The extent of the damage caused by his behavior has boggled the minds of many of us, and made the rest of us wonder if there is any way to protect our investments. We wonder if being responsible and saving will actually pay off in the end. We are shocked that people got "taken" who know a lot more about finances and investments than we do. "If they got taken," we reason, "What chance is there to prevent ourselves from being taken?" In other words, Madoff's fraud and dishonesty shakes our sense of financial security. It increases our fears. It shakes our sense of trust in our institutions. It makes us wonder who we can trust.
I hope it also challenges our "live and let live" and "everyone gets to believe what they want to believe" and "every person for him/herself" mentalities. Consider the phenomenal impact of Madoff's choices, the trickle down impact of Madoff's behavior. For instance, wealthy people in Palm Beach have had to foreclose on their homes, and have wondered how they will support themselves now that their wealth is gone. Some of us may say, "Well, I am not sure if I care too much about people who have had more than their share all along." But I think that, upon careful reflection, we will realize all of the people that these folks kept employed: gardeners, house cleaners, pool care people, home repair workers, interior designers. These employees didn't deserve to lose their livelihoods! And consider how much wealthy people buy in their communities on a regular basis, and the impact on the local businesses that are losing that income: restaurants and bars, clothing stores, car dealerships, theatres, home furnishings stores, and repair companies. Those businesses didn't do anything wrong! They didn't deserve the chaos caused by Madoff's illegalities!
But perhaps most distressing to me are the losses to philanthropic work that have and will trickle down from the losses experienced by wealthy people. Contributions to the arts, to research on health problems like AIDS and breast cancer and altzheimer's, to public television and radio, and to service organizations are all in jeopardy. And while the arts and broadcasting industries add value to our lives, more upsetting are the losses of services to those who don't typically access that value: the hungry, the homeless, those who are losing their homes, the mentally and physically ill, and the children off all of these less advantaged people. And, of course, Madoff's scandal is not the only challenge to philanthropy these days. The financial and real estate industries share that blame.
I think our current ethical and legal and economic experiences are a profound wake up call for all Americans who still believe in pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, in independence as a way of life, and in "every person for him/herself." We need to realize that one person's illegal, unethical, or character-less behavior affects us all. We are not insulated from one another. We are all connected. My behavior affects my friends and neighbors, colleagues and family members. They then react in ways that affect all of their friends and neighbors, colleagues and family members. And so on, in a wider and wider web of influence. If my behavior is positive, inspiring, and character-full, then I will spread love and inspiration and hope and trust out into that web. However, if I make less inspired choices, then I poison the web, and that spreads fear and despair and mistrust and a "you better get while the getting is good" mentality. And as people take the first step down the "slippery slope" of taking what they want, even if the shouldn't, it becomes harder and harder to climb back up, and the crimes become bigger and bigger, and more and more dangerous and harmful.
Let's instead own the connections that are the reality of our current existence. Let's own them and relish them and challenge one another to be more than we have been. Let's declare, "Independence no more!" and celebrate our interdependence. Let's rise to the challenge of taking responsibility for more than ourselves and our own families. Let's realize that as long as one person, one community, one country in the world is suffering in disease, poverty, homelessness, crime, or poor education, then we are all at risk. We are all affected even if we are unaware of the impact. Did you know that we are all paying 17% more at the checkout stand just to make up for the theft experienced by retailers? I am sure that you can point to other costs of illegal or unethical behavior that many of us are paying daily, sometimes unknowingly.
Let's celebrate the ethical code that Obama requires federal employees to sign, even if it means it takes longer to find necessary employees. Let's support efforts by our current administration to get everyone involved in creating change, in empowering all Americans ("Yes We Can!"), in combating apathy, in building technology-assisted networks to keep people informed and to listen to citizens. Whatever political party we hail from, I think we need to rise to the challenge to reconnect ourselves with our neighbors, next door, down the street, downtown, on the "other side of town," on the other side of the country, and on the other side of the world. And once connected, we need to send positives out through that web, positives like trust, love, fairness, respect, honesty, responsibility, wisdom, courage, and integrity. We need to spread the wealth of character and material possessions and money. We need to reach out to community members and friends and family members who have lost jobs, or lost homes, and are struggling to survive this economic crisis. We need to stop blaming those who don't have what we do, stop our superiority complex, and realize that environment counts for a lot - and in this environment, many are over-challenged. If we won't take a stand and do it, who will? If we don't act now, then when?
I hope it also challenges our "live and let live" and "everyone gets to believe what they want to believe" and "every person for him/herself" mentalities. Consider the phenomenal impact of Madoff's choices, the trickle down impact of Madoff's behavior. For instance, wealthy people in Palm Beach have had to foreclose on their homes, and have wondered how they will support themselves now that their wealth is gone. Some of us may say, "Well, I am not sure if I care too much about people who have had more than their share all along." But I think that, upon careful reflection, we will realize all of the people that these folks kept employed: gardeners, house cleaners, pool care people, home repair workers, interior designers. These employees didn't deserve to lose their livelihoods! And consider how much wealthy people buy in their communities on a regular basis, and the impact on the local businesses that are losing that income: restaurants and bars, clothing stores, car dealerships, theatres, home furnishings stores, and repair companies. Those businesses didn't do anything wrong! They didn't deserve the chaos caused by Madoff's illegalities!
But perhaps most distressing to me are the losses to philanthropic work that have and will trickle down from the losses experienced by wealthy people. Contributions to the arts, to research on health problems like AIDS and breast cancer and altzheimer's, to public television and radio, and to service organizations are all in jeopardy. And while the arts and broadcasting industries add value to our lives, more upsetting are the losses of services to those who don't typically access that value: the hungry, the homeless, those who are losing their homes, the mentally and physically ill, and the children off all of these less advantaged people. And, of course, Madoff's scandal is not the only challenge to philanthropy these days. The financial and real estate industries share that blame.
I think our current ethical and legal and economic experiences are a profound wake up call for all Americans who still believe in pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, in independence as a way of life, and in "every person for him/herself." We need to realize that one person's illegal, unethical, or character-less behavior affects us all. We are not insulated from one another. We are all connected. My behavior affects my friends and neighbors, colleagues and family members. They then react in ways that affect all of their friends and neighbors, colleagues and family members. And so on, in a wider and wider web of influence. If my behavior is positive, inspiring, and character-full, then I will spread love and inspiration and hope and trust out into that web. However, if I make less inspired choices, then I poison the web, and that spreads fear and despair and mistrust and a "you better get while the getting is good" mentality. And as people take the first step down the "slippery slope" of taking what they want, even if the shouldn't, it becomes harder and harder to climb back up, and the crimes become bigger and bigger, and more and more dangerous and harmful.
Let's instead own the connections that are the reality of our current existence. Let's own them and relish them and challenge one another to be more than we have been. Let's declare, "Independence no more!" and celebrate our interdependence. Let's rise to the challenge of taking responsibility for more than ourselves and our own families. Let's realize that as long as one person, one community, one country in the world is suffering in disease, poverty, homelessness, crime, or poor education, then we are all at risk. We are all affected even if we are unaware of the impact. Did you know that we are all paying 17% more at the checkout stand just to make up for the theft experienced by retailers? I am sure that you can point to other costs of illegal or unethical behavior that many of us are paying daily, sometimes unknowingly.
Let's celebrate the ethical code that Obama requires federal employees to sign, even if it means it takes longer to find necessary employees. Let's support efforts by our current administration to get everyone involved in creating change, in empowering all Americans ("Yes We Can!"), in combating apathy, in building technology-assisted networks to keep people informed and to listen to citizens. Whatever political party we hail from, I think we need to rise to the challenge to reconnect ourselves with our neighbors, next door, down the street, downtown, on the "other side of town," on the other side of the country, and on the other side of the world. And once connected, we need to send positives out through that web, positives like trust, love, fairness, respect, honesty, responsibility, wisdom, courage, and integrity. We need to spread the wealth of character and material possessions and money. We need to reach out to community members and friends and family members who have lost jobs, or lost homes, and are struggling to survive this economic crisis. We need to stop blaming those who don't have what we do, stop our superiority complex, and realize that environment counts for a lot - and in this environment, many are over-challenged. If we won't take a stand and do it, who will? If we don't act now, then when?
Getting to Success (May 2009)
Discussions about ethics or character would be incomplete without a discussion of success. What do we define as success? What do we feel justified in doing to achieve success? Clearly, Bernie Madoff was not above lying and cheating and behaving illegally to achieve what he considered success. Similarly, the Palm Beach County (Florida) Commissioners who landed themselves in jail considered it acceptable to break the law in order to move themselves toward what they considered success. These folks seemed intent on taking short cuts to achieving power and gaining wealth, rather than putting in the work and time necessary. Further, national discussions about success at Guantanamo have focused Americans on what is acceptable in getting necessary information out of prisoners of war, and what will be considered torture. It seems that we may agree on the goals, but not always on the means!
But beyond what we shouldn't do is what we should do. I was struck last week by an article on "genius" that David Brooks wrote in the New York Times, in which he pointed to "genius" being the result of putting in hours and hours of practice in at a very young age. Rather than innate ability, he pointed to the substantial effort that distinguishes geniuses from their peers. He used Mozart and Tiger Woods as examples. He cited Daniel Coyle and Geoff Covin's review of the research on how genius comes about. For instance, in order to create genius, you would take a slightly above average child (in the desired area of genius), connect her or him with an expert mentor, with whom s/he might have an affinity (same race, religion, etc.), have her or him spend hours and hours reading about or studying the particular area of desired expertise, and then have her or him practice non-stop with an eye toward discovering and correcting errors. Finally, the mentor would provide a constant stream of feedback, correcting errors and making suggestions, in order to ingrain desired habits of thought.
He concludes, "The primary trait" when a person succeeds is not genetic hardwiring, "is not some mysterious genius. It's the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous, and boring practice routine." It strikes me that doing so requires a great deal of determination. And I wonder where that determination comes from. Coyle and Covin indicate that various life traumas can create a sense of insecurity, which in turn drives people desperately to achieve and to thus be valued. Of course, trauma can just as easily defeat people. Being recognized early for one's talent might motivate one to put in the work necessary to bring it to full fruition. A spiritual calling - which doesn't have to be religious, merely the sense that one was put on this earth for a particular purpose - might motivate a person to put forth the effort. But early and long term effort seems to be the key! I think a lack of other options might also inspire a person to expend great effort - consider the basketball stars who have emerged from the ghetto.
Overall, I was pretty inspired by the article - it seems that when researchers actually look at genius, logging lots of practice hours, being deliberate, highly invested, and willing to go the distance, may play more of a role than dumb luck (the luck of the genes). That should leave most of us with few excuses!! I think we need to ask ourselves what really matters, and then we need to invest ourselves fully, knowing that there are few shortcuts, few easy solutions, and that the "nose to the grindstone" image has value in creating success. But it is success achieved by paying our dues, not by cheating. Whatever persuaded us that we should "get it all" easily? That things worth having can be accomplished without a good deal of effort? Well, perhaps that is fodder for a future discussion...
But beyond what we shouldn't do is what we should do. I was struck last week by an article on "genius" that David Brooks wrote in the New York Times, in which he pointed to "genius" being the result of putting in hours and hours of practice in at a very young age. Rather than innate ability, he pointed to the substantial effort that distinguishes geniuses from their peers. He used Mozart and Tiger Woods as examples. He cited Daniel Coyle and Geoff Covin's review of the research on how genius comes about. For instance, in order to create genius, you would take a slightly above average child (in the desired area of genius), connect her or him with an expert mentor, with whom s/he might have an affinity (same race, religion, etc.), have her or him spend hours and hours reading about or studying the particular area of desired expertise, and then have her or him practice non-stop with an eye toward discovering and correcting errors. Finally, the mentor would provide a constant stream of feedback, correcting errors and making suggestions, in order to ingrain desired habits of thought.
He concludes, "The primary trait" when a person succeeds is not genetic hardwiring, "is not some mysterious genius. It's the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous, and boring practice routine." It strikes me that doing so requires a great deal of determination. And I wonder where that determination comes from. Coyle and Covin indicate that various life traumas can create a sense of insecurity, which in turn drives people desperately to achieve and to thus be valued. Of course, trauma can just as easily defeat people. Being recognized early for one's talent might motivate one to put in the work necessary to bring it to full fruition. A spiritual calling - which doesn't have to be religious, merely the sense that one was put on this earth for a particular purpose - might motivate a person to put forth the effort. But early and long term effort seems to be the key! I think a lack of other options might also inspire a person to expend great effort - consider the basketball stars who have emerged from the ghetto.
Overall, I was pretty inspired by the article - it seems that when researchers actually look at genius, logging lots of practice hours, being deliberate, highly invested, and willing to go the distance, may play more of a role than dumb luck (the luck of the genes). That should leave most of us with few excuses!! I think we need to ask ourselves what really matters, and then we need to invest ourselves fully, knowing that there are few shortcuts, few easy solutions, and that the "nose to the grindstone" image has value in creating success. But it is success achieved by paying our dues, not by cheating. Whatever persuaded us that we should "get it all" easily? That things worth having can be accomplished without a good deal of effort? Well, perhaps that is fodder for a future discussion...
Empathy: The Ground of Moral Behavior (April 2009)
Major spreads in our local newspapers have detailed the tragedy of losing 21 polo ponies to incompetent or perhaps illegal pharmaceutical compounding. I have been struck by pictures of grieving owners, and have myself empathized with their pain, and felt the craziness of such an unnecessary loss. It seems that pain caused unnecessarily to animals draws out our feelings of compassion and empathy.
Similarly, our Girl Scout troop visited the local animal shelter to do a service project this week, and the girls found themselves drawn to adopt the "poor puppies and kitties" who had been mistreated and needed homes. The girls came home and very effectively persuaded moms (myself included) to visit and to adopt. I felt the pain of the little four pound puppy who had been in the shelter for three weeks recovering from illness and mistreatment. Why would anyone mistreat or harm these helpless little beings?
While I don't want to diminish any feelings we may have toward these animals, I do want to pose questions about our empathy failures with human beings. And I want to do so, not from a feeling of superiority, but from an acknowledgement that I need to be more empathic with the people I care about, and even with those whom I probably should care more about.
Empathy is "feeling with" people, the ability to get inside another's skin and know what they are experiencing. It is touted as essential to our ethical or moral development and as what motivates us to behave morally or ethically. Empathy is the internal feeling that urges us to behave well toward others. It is the internal response to the question, "How would you feel if someone else did that (something of questionable moral character) to you?"
And yet, how often do we leave our empathy behind? When we are angry at the boss or an employee, do we remember to consider what their feelings are likely to be in response to our anger, or do we focus only on our own? When a family member or colleague fails to take care of their responsibilities, do we start yelling? Or do we take time to consider whether our chastisement is warranted, or whether they have a good reason for the failure, reasons that need to be considered and discussed as part of the effort to get the responsibilities taken care of?
I have complained to my daughter's elementary school principal about the amount of yelling that goes on at her school, and have even transferred my daughter out of a classroom in which the teacher regularly yelled at children. Yelling isn't what is taught as a classroom management strategy in teacher education programs, and what is taught works very effectively. Although I understand that teachers may become frustrated at times, I wonder if the yellers are taking the time to anticipate what the children on the receiving end of the yelling will feel. After all, as adults, shouldn't we be able to put our children's or students' needs and feelings before our own, even if we are angry or upset?
I made a Lenten promise to my daughter to stop being as irritable or harsh with her when she misbehaves. As a former family therapist, I know that harshness is not a recommended parenting or change creation strategy. And I find that all it takes to put my harshness aside is empathizing with her feelings - thinking ahead about how she will feel if I "blast" her. Should we be any less concerned about the feelings of our neighbors, our coworkers, our boss, our church members, or our employees?
If our answer is "No, of course not," then I would challenge you to take the questions a step further - What about people we don't know? People at a distance? What about the homeless person on your street corner, or the illegal immigrant who mows your lawn? What about the neighbor who lost her job, or the single parent struggling to care for three children? What about that friend who has become largely housebound due to a disability? What about the professional family who has become homeless because dad lost his job, the mortgage payments went sky high, and there are no other family members to step up and help?
Or might we consider a lack of empathy to have played a part in our current crisis? Was Bernie Madoff considering the feelings of the people whose money he took? Were the mortgage brokers who provided loans for people who were going to find it really hard to stay solvent thinking about the long term feelings or experiences of the people who wanted to borrow money? Were the lenders and realtors and financial mavens thinking about the long term risks of what they were doing, the risks that people would lose their homes, their retirement, their life savings, their jobs?
I am reminded of Robert Fulghum's book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten (2004), in which he reminds us of Kindergarten's rules - Share Everything, Don't Hit Other People, Play Fair, Clean Up Your Own Mess, Don't Take Things That Aren't Yours. If we asked people why they follow these rules, wouldn't they remind us that we would want others to behave this way toward us? Wouldn't putting ourselves in another's place, and thus empathizing with her or him, keep us from doing wrong? Aren't we encouraged to do the right thing by our empathy with others? How much better might our relationships be if we started from a place of empathy rather than our "rights?" If we can empathize even with the horses or the shelter animals, can't we do the same for other human beings? Can we encourage ourselves to extend our empathy just a little further each week? Let's hear a rousing chorus of our nation's current positive attitude: "Yes, we can!"
Similarly, our Girl Scout troop visited the local animal shelter to do a service project this week, and the girls found themselves drawn to adopt the "poor puppies and kitties" who had been mistreated and needed homes. The girls came home and very effectively persuaded moms (myself included) to visit and to adopt. I felt the pain of the little four pound puppy who had been in the shelter for three weeks recovering from illness and mistreatment. Why would anyone mistreat or harm these helpless little beings?
While I don't want to diminish any feelings we may have toward these animals, I do want to pose questions about our empathy failures with human beings. And I want to do so, not from a feeling of superiority, but from an acknowledgement that I need to be more empathic with the people I care about, and even with those whom I probably should care more about.
Empathy is "feeling with" people, the ability to get inside another's skin and know what they are experiencing. It is touted as essential to our ethical or moral development and as what motivates us to behave morally or ethically. Empathy is the internal feeling that urges us to behave well toward others. It is the internal response to the question, "How would you feel if someone else did that (something of questionable moral character) to you?"
And yet, how often do we leave our empathy behind? When we are angry at the boss or an employee, do we remember to consider what their feelings are likely to be in response to our anger, or do we focus only on our own? When a family member or colleague fails to take care of their responsibilities, do we start yelling? Or do we take time to consider whether our chastisement is warranted, or whether they have a good reason for the failure, reasons that need to be considered and discussed as part of the effort to get the responsibilities taken care of?
I have complained to my daughter's elementary school principal about the amount of yelling that goes on at her school, and have even transferred my daughter out of a classroom in which the teacher regularly yelled at children. Yelling isn't what is taught as a classroom management strategy in teacher education programs, and what is taught works very effectively. Although I understand that teachers may become frustrated at times, I wonder if the yellers are taking the time to anticipate what the children on the receiving end of the yelling will feel. After all, as adults, shouldn't we be able to put our children's or students' needs and feelings before our own, even if we are angry or upset?
I made a Lenten promise to my daughter to stop being as irritable or harsh with her when she misbehaves. As a former family therapist, I know that harshness is not a recommended parenting or change creation strategy. And I find that all it takes to put my harshness aside is empathizing with her feelings - thinking ahead about how she will feel if I "blast" her. Should we be any less concerned about the feelings of our neighbors, our coworkers, our boss, our church members, or our employees?
If our answer is "No, of course not," then I would challenge you to take the questions a step further - What about people we don't know? People at a distance? What about the homeless person on your street corner, or the illegal immigrant who mows your lawn? What about the neighbor who lost her job, or the single parent struggling to care for three children? What about that friend who has become largely housebound due to a disability? What about the professional family who has become homeless because dad lost his job, the mortgage payments went sky high, and there are no other family members to step up and help?
Or might we consider a lack of empathy to have played a part in our current crisis? Was Bernie Madoff considering the feelings of the people whose money he took? Were the mortgage brokers who provided loans for people who were going to find it really hard to stay solvent thinking about the long term feelings or experiences of the people who wanted to borrow money? Were the lenders and realtors and financial mavens thinking about the long term risks of what they were doing, the risks that people would lose their homes, their retirement, their life savings, their jobs?
I am reminded of Robert Fulghum's book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten (2004), in which he reminds us of Kindergarten's rules - Share Everything, Don't Hit Other People, Play Fair, Clean Up Your Own Mess, Don't Take Things That Aren't Yours. If we asked people why they follow these rules, wouldn't they remind us that we would want others to behave this way toward us? Wouldn't putting ourselves in another's place, and thus empathizing with her or him, keep us from doing wrong? Aren't we encouraged to do the right thing by our empathy with others? How much better might our relationships be if we started from a place of empathy rather than our "rights?" If we can empathize even with the horses or the shelter animals, can't we do the same for other human beings? Can we encourage ourselves to extend our empathy just a little further each week? Let's hear a rousing chorus of our nation's current positive attitude: "Yes, we can!"
Disney Does It Right (November 2008)
Well, after all of the reading I have done on business ethics, I have become sensitized to what an ethical business looks like from the consumer perspective. And, of course, I have had a number of conversations about the need to improve with businesses who have fallen short. I have even, as you might imagine, terminated relationships with businesses that have fallen far short. But I was pleasantly surprised this week by the performance of a business that I had, up to this point, thought was overly commercialized, overly superficial; a business that I had avoided for a number of reasons.
My family and I just spent a week at Disney World, and from my observations they outperformed many businesses in living out good character or ethics. Every employee we had contact with greeted us in a friendly, enthusiastic manner, with a smile, and questioned with interest how our vacation was going. Never did I receive an "I don't know" or experience an indifferent or unhelpful attitude in response to a question. Service was always prompt, despite the crowds of the Thanksgiving holiday. And I was amazed at the crowd management, particularly given the holiday - despite the masses that were clearly apparent, never did we have to wait more than a few minutes for transportation or food service or entry to events.
In addition to terrific customer service, everything we attended reflected values that I think ought to be promulgated. Respect for diversity was reflected in the number of disabled people enjoying and working at the parks and the accommodations provided for them. It was also evident in the wide range of diverse cultures represented in employees and performers - "cast members," as they are referred to. Further, whether it was Epcot or Animal Kingdom, consideration for the environment and for the animal world were clearly apparent. We were all encouraged to do more to sustain our planet and had many opportunities to learn how to do so. Healthy food for children and adults was also available at the restaurants we went to. I don't think the carrot sticks, raisens, and apple sauce sides that were offered to accompany children's meals are even available to my daughter at her elementary school.
And in every show we attended, cast members were upbeat and cheerful and enthusiastic and had a positive attitude about life. They encouraged children to pursue their dreams, to work hard, to persist until the best goal could be reached. They encouraged and demonstrated caring and kindness and respect for all people and the natural world. And they did it in playful, entertaining, and often humorous way. Epcot, in its Candlelight Processional and concert, even did what many companies consider too great a risk - they acknowledged the religious element of this season by telling the Christ story. Even if it isn't the only story or everyone's story, they seemed to be saying, it is a story worth telling, and an important part of many people's history and lives. I was happy to have my child at Disney World - the values illustrated there were clear, did not detract from what I am trying to teach her, and were values I would be happy to see reflected in every part of our society.
The big question is why they aren't reflected in very business, school, government, and community organization. If Disney - which is clearly a very profitable and enormous enterprise - can do it, why can't everyone else? Now, I am sure that someone can probably dig up some dirt about Disney. I understand Walt wasn't all that delightful. But if the lowest members in the chain of command at Disney - those picking up the garbage and cleaning the bathrooms for minimum wage - can reflect such positive attitudes and values, the values must now be infused throughout the organization from the top down. Can't we all start today deciding on and living out values that create a better working environment and better physical and mental health for ourselves and everyone around us? Can't we all live as though our children or mothers or the evening news were watching us? I say, "Yes, we can!"
My family and I just spent a week at Disney World, and from my observations they outperformed many businesses in living out good character or ethics. Every employee we had contact with greeted us in a friendly, enthusiastic manner, with a smile, and questioned with interest how our vacation was going. Never did I receive an "I don't know" or experience an indifferent or unhelpful attitude in response to a question. Service was always prompt, despite the crowds of the Thanksgiving holiday. And I was amazed at the crowd management, particularly given the holiday - despite the masses that were clearly apparent, never did we have to wait more than a few minutes for transportation or food service or entry to events.
In addition to terrific customer service, everything we attended reflected values that I think ought to be promulgated. Respect for diversity was reflected in the number of disabled people enjoying and working at the parks and the accommodations provided for them. It was also evident in the wide range of diverse cultures represented in employees and performers - "cast members," as they are referred to. Further, whether it was Epcot or Animal Kingdom, consideration for the environment and for the animal world were clearly apparent. We were all encouraged to do more to sustain our planet and had many opportunities to learn how to do so. Healthy food for children and adults was also available at the restaurants we went to. I don't think the carrot sticks, raisens, and apple sauce sides that were offered to accompany children's meals are even available to my daughter at her elementary school.
And in every show we attended, cast members were upbeat and cheerful and enthusiastic and had a positive attitude about life. They encouraged children to pursue their dreams, to work hard, to persist until the best goal could be reached. They encouraged and demonstrated caring and kindness and respect for all people and the natural world. And they did it in playful, entertaining, and often humorous way. Epcot, in its Candlelight Processional and concert, even did what many companies consider too great a risk - they acknowledged the religious element of this season by telling the Christ story. Even if it isn't the only story or everyone's story, they seemed to be saying, it is a story worth telling, and an important part of many people's history and lives. I was happy to have my child at Disney World - the values illustrated there were clear, did not detract from what I am trying to teach her, and were values I would be happy to see reflected in every part of our society.
The big question is why they aren't reflected in very business, school, government, and community organization. If Disney - which is clearly a very profitable and enormous enterprise - can do it, why can't everyone else? Now, I am sure that someone can probably dig up some dirt about Disney. I understand Walt wasn't all that delightful. But if the lowest members in the chain of command at Disney - those picking up the garbage and cleaning the bathrooms for minimum wage - can reflect such positive attitudes and values, the values must now be infused throughout the organization from the top down. Can't we all start today deciding on and living out values that create a better working environment and better physical and mental health for ourselves and everyone around us? Can't we all live as though our children or mothers or the evening news were watching us? I say, "Yes, we can!"
Disagreeing, with Respect (October 2008)
In this week's Palm Beach Post, a discussion about a political conflict in a nearby county generated an interesting response from a man at a party. He said, "I wish that we could disagree without being so disagreeable." The article's author wondered if that had ever been possible in that particular county. Isn't that a sad commentary on our times? That we can't disagree very easily and still remain friends, still work on needed projects, still feel like part of the same community? Why do you suppose that is? What makes us draw lines in the dirt and dare people to cross them? What makes it so hard for us to be able to state what we feel or believe or want, and, if it conflicts with what someone else feels or believes or wants, merely use the difference as an opportunity for growth or learning?
Well, we therapists have our perspectives on this, although we may not do conflict any better ourselves: In order to deal with conflict in healthy ways, we need to have confidence in ourselves. We need to know that "I" will be okay and will exist even if someone different from who "I" am comes into my proverbial neighborhood. When that "I" is strong enough, it can't be threatened by another "I". And that's what we are talking about here, aren't we? When conflict turns into divisions, it is because someone is feeling threatened. Someone figures that they are going to lose, get run over, not be respected. But when I have full respect for myself, I know that I will not disappear just because someone disagrees with me. And when I am not feeling threatened, I can be respectful of other people, fully hear them, care about their perspective, and consider how each of our perspectives might be honored and cared for and supported.
In fact, if I am sure that I am not perfect and not "all knowing," then I ought to want to hear other perspectives in order to learn, in order to expand my horizons, in order to move beyond my limitations. But in order to do that, I have to have respect for other people, particularly those who are different from me. I have to acknowledge that there are other people "out there" who know something, who have valuable things to offer, and who can teach me. I have to be open, rather than closed off. And I have to believe that being able to disagree without being disagreeable is something to aspire to. I'm going to work at this kind of respect for myself and for other people. Will you take the challenge to do so as well?
Well, we therapists have our perspectives on this, although we may not do conflict any better ourselves: In order to deal with conflict in healthy ways, we need to have confidence in ourselves. We need to know that "I" will be okay and will exist even if someone different from who "I" am comes into my proverbial neighborhood. When that "I" is strong enough, it can't be threatened by another "I". And that's what we are talking about here, aren't we? When conflict turns into divisions, it is because someone is feeling threatened. Someone figures that they are going to lose, get run over, not be respected. But when I have full respect for myself, I know that I will not disappear just because someone disagrees with me. And when I am not feeling threatened, I can be respectful of other people, fully hear them, care about their perspective, and consider how each of our perspectives might be honored and cared for and supported.
In fact, if I am sure that I am not perfect and not "all knowing," then I ought to want to hear other perspectives in order to learn, in order to expand my horizons, in order to move beyond my limitations. But in order to do that, I have to have respect for other people, particularly those who are different from me. I have to acknowledge that there are other people "out there" who know something, who have valuable things to offer, and who can teach me. I have to be open, rather than closed off. And I have to believe that being able to disagree without being disagreeable is something to aspire to. I'm going to work at this kind of respect for myself and for other people. Will you take the challenge to do so as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
