A recent Slate article got me to thinking (I'll be honest, I only read the first page). The internet has brought the immediacy of entertainment in the form of Netflix and iTunes, not to mention illegal avenues like torrents and file sharing. We have easy access to every song we would want to hear. It should be wonderful. I mean, this is what we wanted, right?
In a budget-cutting decision I made a few years back, I decided to limit myself to one CD a month. It wasn't a difficult adjustment to make and it changed my pursuit of music. I had two minor details that drove this so-called "pursuit". First, I buy cds, I only download mp3s when I must (I'll get to that). I like the cover art and it makes it easier to distinguish when I'm driving my car and looking for a particular album. Second, I buy used CDs. The price often comes down enough to make it equivalent to an iTunes album so it ends up being a wash.
It should be noted that not all CDs in a given store are used; most are not. CD stores, to begin with, are limited in the amount of CDs they can carry. I am intentionally limiting my supply which seems to go against all that is wonderful about the free market. But here's the caveat, the used CD market is dynamic; people are always bringing in their old CDs so that on any given day something different can be available.
When the first of the month came around and I couldn't find a used CD that I was interested in, I would come back throughout the month and browse the store. I usually found what I was looking for at some point and if not I would acquiesce to the iTunes Gods and download it. What I came to realize was that I enjoy looking for a used copy almost as much as listening to the damn thing.
I'm the same way with books. A colleague told me about a treasured, hard cover, first-edition book that he was lucky enough to have access to buy from a book store. I can't imagine shelling out cash for a first-edition book. I bought a beat up copy of Catch 22 from a used book store for $0.97 and I wear that like a badge. It's the same words on the inside as any first edition or signed copy!
After searching for any David Foster Wallace novels for years at used book stores, I gave up and requested Infinite Jest ($30 for a paperback) for my birthday. Several weeks later, in a used book store in Gloucester, I found it for $7 and I cannot help but feel jaded. Traveling and exploring used book stores in different areas has become a favorite past time of mine.
Having every song or book you could ever want kills the hunting game. It creates dissatisfaction and boredom. By limiting my options, I enjoy more of what I do have and always have something to look forward to.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Dichotomy of Catholicism
Recently, on more than one occasion, I have heard people refer to the different viewpoints of the Catholic church of which I will refer to as the interior and the exterior (see: Ken Wilber; Integral Theory ). The first view is the one I am most familiar with as I grew up in the Catholic faith: going to church on Sunday morning or Saturday evening, catechism Saturday morning, Lent in the spring, praying to the rosaries, and generally feeling guilty about anything that felt good. This view represents the collective grassroots view of social justice, strengthening our communities, care for God's planet, and tenacious regard for the poor. More than anything, this view is guided by the seven key themes of Catholic social teaching. This is the interior view.
The other view is based on the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church: the pope, bishops, clergy, Vatican I, Vatican II, the Council of Trent, priestly pedophilia, and Dan Brown novels. This is the view I came to become aware of when I came to live among a myriad of Protestants. This is the exterior view. Of the many laughable misconceptions I heard about Catholics, the one overarching theme was the lack of dissension among parishioners. The prevailing assumption seems to be that if one disagrees with the pope on any one issue, they would simply abandon their religion for a more convenient one. Therefore, any Catholic they meet stands behind every decision of the Pope 100 percent.
Working in a Baptist organization and attending several Protestant worship services gave me the opportunity to have both interior and exterior views of this branch of Christianity. I observed that many Protestants will often change churches solely based on proximity, even switching to a different branch of Protestantism without batting an eye. In reality, there is often little difference between the services of many Protestant churches. I think this explains their reluctance to accept a dissenting Catholic willing to stick by their church when there are other options.
In actuality, I know very few Catholics who will stand behind every decision of the pope, and they're fine with that. They are more interested in applying the themes of social teaching into their daily lives or acting as an agent of change to the churches' positions with which they disagree.
As with most cases of conflict, both parties' unwillingness to subject themselves to both interior and exterior views creates a lack of understanding. One view is not complete without the other.
The other view is based on the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church: the pope, bishops, clergy, Vatican I, Vatican II, the Council of Trent, priestly pedophilia, and Dan Brown novels. This is the view I came to become aware of when I came to live among a myriad of Protestants. This is the exterior view. Of the many laughable misconceptions I heard about Catholics, the one overarching theme was the lack of dissension among parishioners. The prevailing assumption seems to be that if one disagrees with the pope on any one issue, they would simply abandon their religion for a more convenient one. Therefore, any Catholic they meet stands behind every decision of the Pope 100 percent.
Working in a Baptist organization and attending several Protestant worship services gave me the opportunity to have both interior and exterior views of this branch of Christianity. I observed that many Protestants will often change churches solely based on proximity, even switching to a different branch of Protestantism without batting an eye. In reality, there is often little difference between the services of many Protestant churches. I think this explains their reluctance to accept a dissenting Catholic willing to stick by their church when there are other options.
In actuality, I know very few Catholics who will stand behind every decision of the pope, and they're fine with that. They are more interested in applying the themes of social teaching into their daily lives or acting as an agent of change to the churches' positions with which they disagree.
As with most cases of conflict, both parties' unwillingness to subject themselves to both interior and exterior views creates a lack of understanding. One view is not complete without the other.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Cognitive Dissonance and the Principles of Non Violence.
My second post in a still-young blog and I am already mentioning cognitive dissonance again. But it's such a fascinating concept to me because I think it shapes so much of human behavior. Two recent events have caused me to look at it in a different light and they both deal with non violence. First, the Elms College commencement speaker will be Dr. John Paul Lederach, professor of international peacebuilding at Notre Dame. He developed a theory known as conflict transformation to find peaceful solutions in conflicted areas such as Northern Ireland, Nepal, and Colombia. I look forward to reading more about this theory. Second, I've been reading Viktor Frenkl's book Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy.
Frenkl's book reflects on his time as a concentration camp prisoner. It made me think about what causes people to treat others so horribly. When it comes to Islamic terrorism, the case is often made that they are simply "uneducated" and that is why they go to such extremes in committing their hateful acts. When information was leaked that the 911 pilots were college graduates, this theory lost a lot of steam. This is where I propose that, once again, cognitive dissonance plays a major role in human behavior. The terrorists are convinced that western influence poses a major threat to their way of life. Just like any creature, when humans feel threatened they will go to extremes to defend themselves and their culture. To justify blowing themselves up, as well as taking the lives of innocent Muslim women and children, they have to really hate Americans -- and they do.
So what caused the Auschwitz prison guards to treat the Jews so inhumanely? I believe there are two natural reactions that the prisoners took that allowed for the guards to continue their brutish behavior. One is hostility. It makes it easier to beat and send a prisoner to his death if they are openly violent and insulting. It justifies the behavior, at least in the Nazi's mind. This person is mean to me so it's okay to hit them. The other is inhumanity. Frenkl describes the second phase that all prisoners seem to succumb to that made them feel like nothing more than moving masses of flesh clinging to a thin skeletal frame. They became devoid of hope and happiness, and their expressions revealed this black hole of emotion. This only reinforced to the Nazis that it was okay to treat them the way they did because they didn't even seem to be real people.
So back to Dr. Lederach. In reading about him I was reminded about one of the most profound courses I took in college, World Views taught by Dr. Barry Gan. As a pacifist, Gan used the class to talk about global non-violent social movements. Gandhi believed that there was a human spirit that could be reached in everyone and that spirit did not want to harm other humans. Gan used to say "It's not 'do what I say or I'm going to hurt you.' It's 'do what I say or I'm going to make you hurt me.'" But this human spirit can be guarded by cognitive dissonance. If a prisoner displays hostility or lifelessness, a person can rationalize their inhumane treatment of said prisoner. The prisoner's best bet to reach that human spirit was to show natural loving kindness in the face of hatred, holding a mirror to its ugly mug (World Views did briefly discuss several isolated instances of non-violent movements effectively working on Nazi prison guards who then allowed them to escape).
Even though we are all prone to cognitive dissonance, recognizing it can help dissolve its nasty effects. And maybe the principles of nonviolence are they key to cutting through dissonance and finding the human soul. The true self is no self.
Frenkl's book reflects on his time as a concentration camp prisoner. It made me think about what causes people to treat others so horribly. When it comes to Islamic terrorism, the case is often made that they are simply "uneducated" and that is why they go to such extremes in committing their hateful acts. When information was leaked that the 911 pilots were college graduates, this theory lost a lot of steam. This is where I propose that, once again, cognitive dissonance plays a major role in human behavior. The terrorists are convinced that western influence poses a major threat to their way of life. Just like any creature, when humans feel threatened they will go to extremes to defend themselves and their culture. To justify blowing themselves up, as well as taking the lives of innocent Muslim women and children, they have to really hate Americans -- and they do.
So what caused the Auschwitz prison guards to treat the Jews so inhumanely? I believe there are two natural reactions that the prisoners took that allowed for the guards to continue their brutish behavior. One is hostility. It makes it easier to beat and send a prisoner to his death if they are openly violent and insulting. It justifies the behavior, at least in the Nazi's mind. This person is mean to me so it's okay to hit them. The other is inhumanity. Frenkl describes the second phase that all prisoners seem to succumb to that made them feel like nothing more than moving masses of flesh clinging to a thin skeletal frame. They became devoid of hope and happiness, and their expressions revealed this black hole of emotion. This only reinforced to the Nazis that it was okay to treat them the way they did because they didn't even seem to be real people.
So back to Dr. Lederach. In reading about him I was reminded about one of the most profound courses I took in college, World Views taught by Dr. Barry Gan. As a pacifist, Gan used the class to talk about global non-violent social movements. Gandhi believed that there was a human spirit that could be reached in everyone and that spirit did not want to harm other humans. Gan used to say "It's not 'do what I say or I'm going to hurt you.' It's 'do what I say or I'm going to make you hurt me.'" But this human spirit can be guarded by cognitive dissonance. If a prisoner displays hostility or lifelessness, a person can rationalize their inhumane treatment of said prisoner. The prisoner's best bet to reach that human spirit was to show natural loving kindness in the face of hatred, holding a mirror to its ugly mug (World Views did briefly discuss several isolated instances of non-violent movements effectively working on Nazi prison guards who then allowed them to escape).
Even though we are all prone to cognitive dissonance, recognizing it can help dissolve its nasty effects. And maybe the principles of nonviolence are they key to cutting through dissonance and finding the human soul. The true self is no self.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Can the next generation of business leaders change the world?
One of my assignments at my new job is to help develop the language of our new M.B.A. program set to launch this fall. Since there are several M.B.A. programs in the college-rich pioneer valley of western Massachusetts, our distinguishing factor is our Catholic identity and commitment to social justice.
Therefore, one of our models is the famously Catholic Notre Dame and its M.B.A. program. In addition to being considered one of the top graduate business programs in the country, it uses language in its course descriptions that reflects its religious values. Phrases like "ethical issues" "societal concerns" and "global impact" are disseminated throughout the text.
Browsing through Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business web site, I became convinced that they were committed to cultivating ethical-minded businesss students who would go out and change the world. Imagine a society of business leaders who thought about the well being and safety of their clients and the impact of each decision they made. I think about local coffee-house owners that only buy fair-trade beans. I think of massive philanthropists like Newman's Own or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Other times, I'm not so optimistic. Such an idealistic world requires all business owners to behave in the same manner; including ethical concerns into their cost-benefit analyses. All it takes is one business to cut corners and produce a smaller retail price that pushes the more ethical entrepreneurs out on the streets. Then, the fair-trade buyers of the world with a savvy marketing team are really the only ones that survive.
I think of a successful insurance business. What makes them successful? Is it creating low competitive rates? Is it providing broad coverage? No, these things only get people in the door. What leads to long-term success is limiting risk. The insurance salesman that can spot a potential client and determine "you are likely to have an accident that is going to be an expensive claim," and deny that person coverage, is going to be a succesful salesman.
Is that morally rightous? No. Does it lower the risk pool and the rates for all the other clients? Of course. The insurance salesman that takes on that client for eithical reasons is going to run out of business. How can they survive in this economy?
And yet the Mendoza's undergraduate program is still rated number one in the country. Either the country's brightest minds are attracted to the humane aspects of its program or the creaters of the program itself feel their moral values are of great importance and necessary in today's world.
I wonder if the next generation of business leaders will carry this commitment to the dignity of all human persons with them as they shape our country. I wonder if this buisness model can be a successful one. More importantly, I wonder if the patrons of our country will support it.
I believe that wealth is a finite source. To bring others out of poverty is going to cost us and I'm not sure how much we are willing to give up.
Therefore, one of our models is the famously Catholic Notre Dame and its M.B.A. program. In addition to being considered one of the top graduate business programs in the country, it uses language in its course descriptions that reflects its religious values. Phrases like "ethical issues" "societal concerns" and "global impact" are disseminated throughout the text.
Browsing through Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business web site, I became convinced that they were committed to cultivating ethical-minded businesss students who would go out and change the world. Imagine a society of business leaders who thought about the well being and safety of their clients and the impact of each decision they made. I think about local coffee-house owners that only buy fair-trade beans. I think of massive philanthropists like Newman's Own or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Other times, I'm not so optimistic. Such an idealistic world requires all business owners to behave in the same manner; including ethical concerns into their cost-benefit analyses. All it takes is one business to cut corners and produce a smaller retail price that pushes the more ethical entrepreneurs out on the streets. Then, the fair-trade buyers of the world with a savvy marketing team are really the only ones that survive.
I think of a successful insurance business. What makes them successful? Is it creating low competitive rates? Is it providing broad coverage? No, these things only get people in the door. What leads to long-term success is limiting risk. The insurance salesman that can spot a potential client and determine "you are likely to have an accident that is going to be an expensive claim," and deny that person coverage, is going to be a succesful salesman.
Is that morally rightous? No. Does it lower the risk pool and the rates for all the other clients? Of course. The insurance salesman that takes on that client for eithical reasons is going to run out of business. How can they survive in this economy?
And yet the Mendoza's undergraduate program is still rated number one in the country. Either the country's brightest minds are attracted to the humane aspects of its program or the creaters of the program itself feel their moral values are of great importance and necessary in today's world.
I wonder if the next generation of business leaders will carry this commitment to the dignity of all human persons with them as they shape our country. I wonder if this buisness model can be a successful one. More importantly, I wonder if the patrons of our country will support it.
I believe that wealth is a finite source. To bring others out of poverty is going to cost us and I'm not sure how much we are willing to give up.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Puzzle Pieces of Our Lives
I recently left a job of four years in Virginia to move back to Massachusetts where I lived for 17 years of my life. I left behind low-paying employment, benefits that left much to be desired, an inferior health care system and an absence of family. I also left behind a low-stress work environment, low cost of living, four beautiful seasons and, as I slowly came to realize my last week, many close friends.
Roanoke Virginia never felt like home and my wife and I had trouble making friends. Most people were either older than us, had kids or both. For the most part, my wife and I spent our weekends watching movies, drinking coffee at Barnes & Noble and mostly keeping to ourselves -- and that was fine.
Which is why it was so astonishing to watch how emotional people became as the days of my departure approached. A woman who worked on another floor presented me with a going-away gift that she had personally bought for me. Our interactions typically consisted of her asking if I had made any coffee that morning.
The office manager in my department, on three separate occasions, mentioned how much she was going to miss me, emphasizing the sadness of the Monday following my exodus. When picking up a purchase order from her office I would make small talk, but rarely did our communications go any further.
My supervisor's eyes became misty when the department treated me to lunch and he handed me a card with an almost-too-generous amount of cash. He had much more trouble reigning in his tears as he shook my hand on the last day. I borrowed his truck when moving a year ago but, for the most part, we never hung out when the work day ended.
Being a Navy brat, I was living in my fourth state by the time I was four years old. I left a close group of friends behind to travel seven hours to college in western New York. Four years later, I left my college friends, mostly from Buffalo and Rochester, upon graduation. Then, I left everyone when I got married and moved 600 miles away to Virginia. By the time I moved back to Massachusetts, I was quite comfortable with the concept of leaving people for an indefinite amount of time.
What I've come to realize is that, no matter how detached I feel, I am a significant part of other people's lives. When I voluntarily remove myself from their lives it is going to affect them (and I'm sure some people were happy to see me removed from theirs) in some way.
One of my criticisms of Ayn Rand's objectivism is her concept of autonomy. She believed that man should be completely free to pursue his own happiness. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is just one way of looking at reality.
It fails to put man into context and acknowledge the complex web of strings which attaches him to his community. The Buddist doctrine of dependent origination states that "phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect." We are all tied together by various degrees of separation, whether we like it or not.
I do agree with Rand's assessment that man's ultimate goal is his own happiness. However, it doesn't take a sage to realize that that goal is often impeded by the happiness of those around us.
Roanoke Virginia never felt like home and my wife and I had trouble making friends. Most people were either older than us, had kids or both. For the most part, my wife and I spent our weekends watching movies, drinking coffee at Barnes & Noble and mostly keeping to ourselves -- and that was fine.
Which is why it was so astonishing to watch how emotional people became as the days of my departure approached. A woman who worked on another floor presented me with a going-away gift that she had personally bought for me. Our interactions typically consisted of her asking if I had made any coffee that morning.
The office manager in my department, on three separate occasions, mentioned how much she was going to miss me, emphasizing the sadness of the Monday following my exodus. When picking up a purchase order from her office I would make small talk, but rarely did our communications go any further.
My supervisor's eyes became misty when the department treated me to lunch and he handed me a card with an almost-too-generous amount of cash. He had much more trouble reigning in his tears as he shook my hand on the last day. I borrowed his truck when moving a year ago but, for the most part, we never hung out when the work day ended.
Being a Navy brat, I was living in my fourth state by the time I was four years old. I left a close group of friends behind to travel seven hours to college in western New York. Four years later, I left my college friends, mostly from Buffalo and Rochester, upon graduation. Then, I left everyone when I got married and moved 600 miles away to Virginia. By the time I moved back to Massachusetts, I was quite comfortable with the concept of leaving people for an indefinite amount of time.
What I've come to realize is that, no matter how detached I feel, I am a significant part of other people's lives. When I voluntarily remove myself from their lives it is going to affect them (and I'm sure some people were happy to see me removed from theirs) in some way.
One of my criticisms of Ayn Rand's objectivism is her concept of autonomy. She believed that man should be completely free to pursue his own happiness. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is just one way of looking at reality.
It fails to put man into context and acknowledge the complex web of strings which attaches him to his community. The Buddist doctrine of dependent origination states that "phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect." We are all tied together by various degrees of separation, whether we like it or not.
I do agree with Rand's assessment that man's ultimate goal is his own happiness. However, it doesn't take a sage to realize that that goal is often impeded by the happiness of those around us.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Why Can't They Just Be Crazy?
The title is Chris Rock's response to the media's questioning of what role music and film might have played in the Columbine shootings. I like Rock's whole bit, but it recalls a paradigm shift in our culture: modernism to postmodernism, the individual to the environment, nature to nurture.
According to Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, there are four ways of looking at reality. Without delving too much into verbose explanations, I will just say that any particular view only paints a fraction of the picture.
If you haven't figured out the inspiration for this blog post then the words "Arizona" "Loughner" and "Sarah Palin crosshairs" probably have no meaning to you. Yes, I am taking about the Arizona shootings and the left-right blame game that quickly followed.
In addition to Jon Stewart and David Brooks' more eloquent takes on the tragedy, I was really moved by this piece from Robin Wright. Make no mistake, Loughner was crazy and it is hard to find a tie between him and the Glenn Beck's of the world. He made a conscious decision to start that terrible tragedy. This is the modern/nature/personal responsibility side of the argument. But Wright makes an interesting point.
"But it doesn’t matter who Loughner got the idea from or whether you consider it left wing or right wing. The point is that Americans who wildly depict other Americans as dark conspirators, as the enemy, are in fact increasing the chances, however marginally, that those Americans will be attacked."
There is no evidence that Loughner ever watched Glenn Beck's show, or even Fox News for that matter. People are certainly free to watch what they want and believe what they want. That, however, does not absolve Beck from the influences of his actions (I also hold the Keith Olbermann's of the world in the same regard).
Wright Continues:
"My own view is that if you decide to go kill a bunch of innocent people, it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re not a picture of mental health. But that doesn’t sever the link between you and the people who inspired you, or insulate them from responsibility. Glenn Beck knows that there are lots of unbalanced people out there, and that his message reaches some of them.
This doesn’t make him morally culpable for the way these people react to things he says that are true. It doesn’t even make him responsible for the things he says that are false but that he sincerely believes are true. But it does make him responsible for things he says that are false and concocted to mislead gullible people."
A year or so ago the following video began circulating around the internet.
In it, we see a young, chipper, gregarious Glenn Beck. So what has changed between that guy and the teary-eyed, big-government-bogeyman, conspiracy-theory pundit we see now? Not much. Glenn Beck is doing what he has always done; utilizing a personality that sells. After seeing this video, I changed my opinion on Beck. I don't think he's crazy or stupid or believes even half of what comes out of his mouth. He's just become a master of demagoguery who knows how to tell a mass market what they want to hear.
When Beck has as strong an influence as he does, he has to be aware of the effect of his incendiary words. What people choose to expose themselves to paints a part of their environment. Not the entire picture but certainly enough to wield an influence. This is the postmodern/nurture view of reality.
So maybe political pundits had nothing to do with any of this and Loughner killed despite the knowledge of their words. Despite his apparent mental illness, however,Loughner got his conspiracy ideas from somewhere. But the question we should be asking is: do pundits give people the tools, metaphorically speaking, to commit violent acts? Is preying on the unreasonable fears and biases of a fringe political group worth the fanfare if it pushes them to hateful crimes.
So why can't he just be crazy? Because his crazy is partly due to his environment. Because we are his environment. Because to ignore our influence, is to distance ourselves from his sins. That would be the convenient thing to do, but rarely is the convenient thing the right thing.
According to Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, there are four ways of looking at reality. Without delving too much into verbose explanations, I will just say that any particular view only paints a fraction of the picture.
If you haven't figured out the inspiration for this blog post then the words "Arizona" "Loughner" and "Sarah Palin crosshairs" probably have no meaning to you. Yes, I am taking about the Arizona shootings and the left-right blame game that quickly followed.
In addition to Jon Stewart and David Brooks' more eloquent takes on the tragedy, I was really moved by this piece from Robin Wright. Make no mistake, Loughner was crazy and it is hard to find a tie between him and the Glenn Beck's of the world. He made a conscious decision to start that terrible tragedy. This is the modern/nature/personal responsibility side of the argument. But Wright makes an interesting point.
"But it doesn’t matter who Loughner got the idea from or whether you consider it left wing or right wing. The point is that Americans who wildly depict other Americans as dark conspirators, as the enemy, are in fact increasing the chances, however marginally, that those Americans will be attacked."
There is no evidence that Loughner ever watched Glenn Beck's show, or even Fox News for that matter. People are certainly free to watch what they want and believe what they want. That, however, does not absolve Beck from the influences of his actions (I also hold the Keith Olbermann's of the world in the same regard).
Wright Continues:
"My own view is that if you decide to go kill a bunch of innocent people, it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re not a picture of mental health. But that doesn’t sever the link between you and the people who inspired you, or insulate them from responsibility. Glenn Beck knows that there are lots of unbalanced people out there, and that his message reaches some of them.
This doesn’t make him morally culpable for the way these people react to things he says that are true. It doesn’t even make him responsible for the things he says that are false but that he sincerely believes are true. But it does make him responsible for things he says that are false and concocted to mislead gullible people."
A year or so ago the following video began circulating around the internet.
In it, we see a young, chipper, gregarious Glenn Beck. So what has changed between that guy and the teary-eyed, big-government-bogeyman, conspiracy-theory pundit we see now? Not much. Glenn Beck is doing what he has always done; utilizing a personality that sells. After seeing this video, I changed my opinion on Beck. I don't think he's crazy or stupid or believes even half of what comes out of his mouth. He's just become a master of demagoguery who knows how to tell a mass market what they want to hear.
When Beck has as strong an influence as he does, he has to be aware of the effect of his incendiary words. What people choose to expose themselves to paints a part of their environment. Not the entire picture but certainly enough to wield an influence. This is the postmodern/nurture view of reality.
So maybe political pundits had nothing to do with any of this and Loughner killed despite the knowledge of their words. Despite his apparent mental illness, however,Loughner got his conspiracy ideas from somewhere. But the question we should be asking is: do pundits give people the tools, metaphorically speaking, to commit violent acts? Is preying on the unreasonable fears and biases of a fringe political group worth the fanfare if it pushes them to hateful crimes.
So why can't he just be crazy? Because his crazy is partly due to his environment. Because we are his environment. Because to ignore our influence, is to distance ourselves from his sins. That would be the convenient thing to do, but rarely is the convenient thing the right thing.
Friday, January 7, 2011
I Used to Think I Knew What the Civil War Was Fought Over
The nonpartisan fact-checker PolitiFact has debunked the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans PR rep Ray McBerry for his claim "'You’ll find blacks in almost every regiment throughout the South who fought right alongside white Southerners [during the Civil War]."
I always find these assertions that the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery to be one of my favorite examples of cognitive dissonance. Wikipedia states that "cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously." People justify, blame and deny to reduce this dissonance.
The people who argue the state's rights theory (mostly white southerners) are conflicted. They know slavery is wrong (or at least don't want to admit otherwise) yet don't want to lend any credence to the north, bigger government, or anything that tramples upon their concept of freedom. Therefore they seek to convince themselves that the war was fought for some reason other than slavery, even going as far as to seek "evidence" that slaves fought alongside their masters.
State's rights certainly was a prominent factor for the Civil War. After all, it was the southern colonies' attempts at secession that began the war. If you stop looking there, it makes sense. If you look at this New York Times' piece revealing the language in some of the states' declaration of causes, it makes it harder to ignore the impact of slavery.
In fact, slavery is a very conflicting issue in America. It is a major supplier of dissonance to the two documents that (mostly conservative) Americans hold dear to their hearts: the Constitution and the Bible. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is completely tolerant of slavery. If we, as a society, agree that slavery is wrong (and if not, feel free to stop reading this blog), then we must accept one of three options regarding the Bible:
1.) God is wrong about slavery
2.) We are wrong slavery
3.) Whoever wrote the Bible is wrong about slavery
I've never conducted a survey but I can imagine that I'd be in the majority of people who accept the third option. This means that we have to pick and choose that in which we believe.
This also means that to accept the words of the framers of the Constitution as gospel (a phrase that loses a little weight given my previous conclusion) is to accept the tolerance of slavery. However, if we can acknowledge that there were flaws in the morality of the framers and that the world is an infinitely more complex place now than in the 1700s, we can begin to accept that we will need to be more pragmatic thinkers as we make our decisions.
Our past is certainly not something to be ignored. The framers of the Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds our country has ever seen. The words of the Bible provided civility and peace to societies and the minds of individuals that may have fallen into chaos. However, if we cannot transcend the wisdom of our ancestors and make the world a better place, we do them no good.
We also shouldn't berate those who exhibit this type of cognitive dissonance. As humans, we are all prone to this type of behavior in some fashion. What we should do is become more aware of these mental obstacles so that we can transcend them as we search for truth. Or wait for Christopher Nolan to make a movie about it.
I always find these assertions that the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery to be one of my favorite examples of cognitive dissonance. Wikipedia states that "cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously." People justify, blame and deny to reduce this dissonance.
The people who argue the state's rights theory (mostly white southerners) are conflicted. They know slavery is wrong (or at least don't want to admit otherwise) yet don't want to lend any credence to the north, bigger government, or anything that tramples upon their concept of freedom. Therefore they seek to convince themselves that the war was fought for some reason other than slavery, even going as far as to seek "evidence" that slaves fought alongside their masters.
State's rights certainly was a prominent factor for the Civil War. After all, it was the southern colonies' attempts at secession that began the war. If you stop looking there, it makes sense. If you look at this New York Times' piece revealing the language in some of the states' declaration of causes, it makes it harder to ignore the impact of slavery.
In fact, slavery is a very conflicting issue in America. It is a major supplier of dissonance to the two documents that (mostly conservative) Americans hold dear to their hearts: the Constitution and the Bible. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is completely tolerant of slavery. If we, as a society, agree that slavery is wrong (and if not, feel free to stop reading this blog), then we must accept one of three options regarding the Bible:
1.) God is wrong about slavery
2.) We are wrong slavery
3.) Whoever wrote the Bible is wrong about slavery
I've never conducted a survey but I can imagine that I'd be in the majority of people who accept the third option. This means that we have to pick and choose that in which we believe.
This also means that to accept the words of the framers of the Constitution as gospel (a phrase that loses a little weight given my previous conclusion) is to accept the tolerance of slavery. However, if we can acknowledge that there were flaws in the morality of the framers and that the world is an infinitely more complex place now than in the 1700s, we can begin to accept that we will need to be more pragmatic thinkers as we make our decisions.
Our past is certainly not something to be ignored. The framers of the Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds our country has ever seen. The words of the Bible provided civility and peace to societies and the minds of individuals that may have fallen into chaos. However, if we cannot transcend the wisdom of our ancestors and make the world a better place, we do them no good.
We also shouldn't berate those who exhibit this type of cognitive dissonance. As humans, we are all prone to this type of behavior in some fashion. What we should do is become more aware of these mental obstacles so that we can transcend them as we search for truth. Or wait for Christopher Nolan to make a movie about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)