Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Charlottesville and the Shame and Blame Game

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Charlottesville, I believe we have yet again seen the biggest reason we don't have change on significant social issues in America. The reason is that we are much more interested in playing the blame game than in working toward substantive change. The blame game is much easier than working for change, because it creates the illusion that we have done something when we haven't accomplished a thing. In that way, the blame game is a lot like and the other petition sites that try to tell us signing one of their petitions is a powerful action. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Our love affair with blame is directly related to our love affair with shame. Shame is a toxic alternative to guilt, which is healthy. Guilt says, I did something wrong. Shame says, I am wrong, defective in my very being. Shame is used, to our detriment, every day by parents, managers, and
friends to control and manipulate others, and unfortunately many of us buy into it. You can hear it in our self-talk when we say things like, "I'm so stupid," or "I'm such a jerk," or "I can get anything right," and a host of other statements wherein we express our belief that we are not enough. One of the possible, and frequent, results is that we carry our shame and constantly look for places to dump that shame by projecting it onto others - which brings me back to Charlottesville and people's reaction to it.

One of the best examples of the blame game in the aftermath of Charlottesville was the statement that "all white people are responsible for Charlottesville." This is what a liberal shame dump looks like. Unless you are willing to say that all people of color are responsible for the kid of color who robs a convenience store, you can't say that all white people are responsible for Charlottesville. This tactic is all about people trying to move past what has happened as quickly as they can rather than looking at the real causes of tragedy and working to change them.

The Buddha is said to have taught about a man shot with a poison arrow. He said that if you are shot with a poison arrow, it's not the time to ask who shot it, what kind of poison it is, or where the arrow was made. Instead, you pull it out. The blame game keeps us focused on the past and not looking to what comes next, what we should do now. I can guarantee that the solution to any problem lies in the present moment, not in the past. The blame game operates completely in the past and keeps us stuck there. It is important to know how a problem developed, but it is much more important to work to solve the problem. To be successful at problem solving, we need to move from shame to a healthier understanding of ourselves and our actions.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Adventures in Missing the Point

While I generally am a supporter of Pope Francis, his latest announcement regarding "a new path" to Sainthood is, in my opinion, indicative of how far removed religious hierarchy is from the lives of average, everyday people. Here is the new pathway:
According to Vatican Radio, the new category has five criteria:
  1. Candidates must have freely and voluntarily offered their lives in the face of “a certain and soon-to-come death.”
  2. There must be a “close relation” between the candidate’s offering their life and his or her “premature death.”
  3. The person must have lived closely in alignment with “Christian virtues” before and up until their death.
  4. They must have a “reputation for holiness,” especially after their death.
  5. The candidate must have a miracle attributed to their intercession.
I wonder if anyone outside the hierarchy really gives a rat's behind about this. It raises the question of whether a person becomes a true Saint because a religious institution recognizes them as such, or whether such recognition is largely an after the fact recognition - more of a formality than anything else. Does God sit in an office somewhere, rather frustrated because some people are named Saints that God knows were really schmucks, but now God has no choice because the Church makes decisions God is obligated to follow?
Are you as excited as I am? No? What if I told you this? According to Catholic News Service:

Archbishop Marcello Bartolucci, secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Saints’ Causes, said the new category aims “to promote heroic Christian testimony, up to now without a specific process, precisely because it did not completely fit within the case of martyrdom or heroic virtues,”

I don't want to rain on anybody's parade. We all need examples to emulate, whether we are religious people, amateur athletes, or research scientists. On the other hand, I don't believe that this news that the Church has, in layman's terms, opened the doors to its Hall of Fame a bit wider will matter much to the poor, the hungry, the destitute, or the victims of oppression and/or violence. Nor do I believe anybody is going to read this news and decide that they really should lead a virtuous life and sacrifice it for another because there's a better chance they will get into the Hall of Fame for doing so now. It's just that I would like to see institutional religion stop wasting time and resources on decisions that really aren't impactful and concentrate instead on this it claims it exists to serve.

Besides, everybody knows that the Hall of Fame is a political institution. If it wasn't, Pete Rose would be in there.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Boycotts and Other Bad Ideas

Boycott Chinese businesses! Boycott countries with sweat shops! Don't eat at this restaurant because their political views aren't what I think they should be! Don't eat this or that because I don't!

Enough, already.

The truth is that when a nation imposes economic sanctions on another nation, only the poor are hurt. Rulers continue their same opulent lifestyle despite sanctions. Remember the years of economic sanctions on Iraq? Saddam Hussein didn't sell his palace to cut corners, he just made sure even less flowed to the average citizen. Similarly, Fidel Castro didn't go without during all the years of the U.S. trade embargo. Similarly, when we decide as a nation not to send medicine to other nations as some kind of punishment, the leader still gets antibiotics - but the poor people donxt.

The same is true of individual decisions we make. I fully support a free Tibet, but I recognize that it isn't going to happen because people decide not to buy Chinese goods (even if it was possible). I say that because Chinese leadership would not be effected by such a move, no matter how successful it was.

Here's the kicker: the fact the Chick-fil-a isn't on board with LGBT issues is (in America at least) within their rights. If I decide not to eat there because of that (and I don't eat there), I need to be aware that the person I am hurting the most is the minimum wage worker who, no matter how many showers she takes, smells like chicken. Why? That minimum wage worker who can't look a piece of chicken in the beak will be the first to lose her job. How many of those people will have to get hurt before the CEO feels an impact? I'm afraid a lot of them will become unemployed before the shareholders feel a pinch.

I'm not saying boycotts are always wrong. Boycotting Rush Limbaugh and similar idiots doesn't cause a lot of collateral damage. What I am saying is that we all need to make our own decisions to participate in boycotts or support economic sanctions. Choosing to opt out doesn't mean we don't care about the issues. It means that we have evaluated the broader impact of the suggested action and decided the ends don't justify the means in that particular case.

Many if not most of us are far too eager to attempt to compel others to do things rather than take the time needed to  convince them to do the same things. Force is alnost always faster, but it tends not to have a lasting effect and to create enemies in its wake. That more than offsets the gains made.

Friday, June 23, 2017

If it's worth doing...

Image result for lazy teenager mowing lawnThe old adage that "if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right"presupposes that the actor agrees that the thing is indeed worth doing. If the actor is a teenager, that's not a valid assumption. If you doubt that, come have a look at my lawn.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Book Review: Out of the Depths by Kenneth E. Kovacs

This book was just okay for me, perhaps because I was hoping for more Jung and less Calvin. Then again, I'm neither Presbyterian nor particularly fond of Calvin. I am sure the author values Jung even as I wish he had written (or perhaps I should say preached, since this book is a collection of sermons) more explicitly about how Jung informs his Christian understanding. I'm also not convinced that everything a Jungian analyst says or does sheds light on Jung. In the end, if you love good Presbyterian preaching you will like this book. If you're looking for Jungian insights into the Christian walk, you will come away feeling shortchanged.

Disclaimer: I received a complementary copy of this book through Speakeasy in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.