I disagree absolutely with Mr. Atherton's view that ethics is not "top-down." How an individual sees the world and forms (or fails to form) her morality is the result of an infinite layering of life circumstances and societal messages that starts at birth, and before. There is nothing that could be more "top-down."
Our own responsibility as individuals is to think as critically as we can about the world and our place in it, so that we can be as conscious as possible when we perceive the world around us, and can evaluate as independently as possible the messages we receive and the extent to which those messages have something valid to say about how we should act in the world. Many people understand their responsibility as citizens to think critically and act morally, and carry out their responsibility pretty well; many more do not understand this responsibility, or are nearly incapable of carrying it out, or both. Should the latter be ethically condemned? Mr. Atherton, I think, believes that they should. I believe that to be subject to ethical condemnation, you must be capable of acting differently. So I am more circumspect. I am not a psychologist, but to my intuition, subliminal influences are the most influential. In the 1950's and 1960's it was called alienation, "The Lonely Crowd." Now, it's called "cognitive dissonance." Guy Debord, French Situationist, speaking about the pathological society that results from the profound difference between the social realities we subliminally perceive and the happy stories we are told about ourselves by our political leaders, community pillars, media and textbooks, said: "The lie that may not be questioned is a form of madness." Our society is selfish and bullying. The historical record, to those who care to review it, shows how these values have determined our nation's behavior in the world. Under our economic system, for better or worse, wealth and success largely correlates with the ability either to manipulate others to make them think they want what you have to offer, or to limit others' options so that they must take what you have. This is not overtly violent, on the whole, but it is profoundly aggressive. Many, many individuals and institutions in our society are possessed of humane values and act on those values. But to do so is almost heroic given the background influence of our underlying societal values, which really have not come very far at all from the times when life was "nasty, brutish and short" and citizens amused themselves by drinking rough root liquors and prodding goat dung around a corner of the hovel with a stick. Do parents have a responsibility to help children develop morality and virtue? Of course. Do teachers and principals? Of course. When you are in public in the presence of children, do you have a responsibility to model moral behavior? Indeed. Do local governments have a moral responsibility to try to produce humane environments for their residents? Of course. If these do not produce a moral and virtuous child, can we just attribute that to the child's "personal failings"? Mr. Atherton appears to say yes. I say probably not. Our society, or at least most of the niches within it, weigh heavily against the production of moral and virtuous adults, let alone moral and virtuous 9-year-old kids. The notion that we just need the "right" candidate elected -- what Mr. Atherton suggests I am suggesting -- is the further thing from what I am saying. John Kerry and the Democratic party would not to any measurable degree turn against the aggressive systems that drive how economic and political power are distributed in our society. However, the genius of Karl Rove and the Republican Party lies in their recognition that the most powerful strategy is the appeal to, in effect, the worst in people: existential fear, selfishness, indeed sadism -- all of the features that manifest themselves in bullying behavior. Their ongoing maintenance of power (at least until Diebold has perfected real-time-remote-programmable touchscreen voting) rests on their ability to keep these features mobilized and prominent within the populace. It is for this reason that I do not think the next four years will be a favorable time to address bullying behavior on the playgrounds of Minneapolis, or anywhere else. Chuck Holtman Prospect Park Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:59:05 -0600 From: "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Mpls] RE: Bullying To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Chuck Holtman wrote: > Schoolyard bullies are "World Wide Wrestling wanna-be's"? > How about kids just living a dream of becoming President one > day? > > The fish rots from the head down. Unfortunately, the head > has just been given another 4 years to spread its rot. > > Bullying is not a personal failing of little boys. Little > boys are the vessel through which our culture expresses itself. I think that this is a misguided concept that permeates political perspectives in Minneapolis. Ethics is not a top-down processes. It fundamentally grounded in the actions, behavior, and decisions of individuals. Believing that if you just get the "right" candidate elected or the "right" party agenda implemented is a false god. It leads to the conclusion that unethical behavior is acceptable if executed in support of the right cause. In a theoretical sense, the only way that such an approach can work is if one party dominates the political process and such an outcome can only lead to injustice for those have been disenfranchised. The solution is to ingrain a fundamental respect for the rights of others and a social requirement for action in the defense of other individuals. This is a bottom-up process that is the responsibility of all citizens, not only the responsibility of our leaders. This plays out not only in politics, but also on the playground. Large evils are perpetrated by small decisions made by individuals, not just the actions of governments. Bullying is both a personal failing of little boys and the failure of our culture to actively enforce the rights of those who are bullied. But if you what to know where to assign responsibility for the failure of our culture to prevent such behavior look to those who have the most power to promote change. This power lies with individual school principals (as someone on the List cited) and with district administrators who have the power to enforce and defend standards and policies. And ultimately, the responsibility lies with the teacher on the playground and the individual driving by the school yard and has to make a decision whether to take action to prevent injustice. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
