SITE MENU
8 ESSAYS ON SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
& STUFF
by Tom Gnagey
Read them here.
>
1 - Simplifying Life by Adopting an Altruistic Philosophy of Living.
A short essay by Tom Gnagey
© 2008, 2012
SYNOPSIS:
Life is what you make it. Every motivational speaker I’ve ever heard and every motivational book I’ve ever read offered and supported that maxim in one form or another. It has several flaws that have seldom seen addressed. Perhaps that’s why so few folks really benefit from many of those programs for very long. They fail because their basic premise is that to be happy you need to be able to accumulate lots of stuff or possess great power. That creates a greed-driven society which always leads to division and unrest. The secret - or one of the most important secrets - is to advance into a simple life - downsize - in which people's welfare and happiness, and positive relationships become the driving force. I will explore altruism vs greed and what history has shown is the inevitable result of each.
ESSAY:
Life is what you make it. Every motivational speaker I’ve ever heard and every motivational book I’ve ever read offered and supported that maxim in one form or another.
It has several flaws that I’ve seldom seen addressed. Perhaps that’s why so few folks really benefit for very long from many of those programs. The first flaw, of course, is that those who proclaim it accept its unexplored truth at face value – always a dangerous approach to knowledge. They skip the most crucial part by never really defining the words within the adage. For example none of them really mean life. They mean living. Life is merely being alive. It takes no talent and certainly none of us can take credit for having been born – becoming alive. Living, on the other hand, suggests the ways in which one goes about being alive. So, in the least the saying should read, Living is what you make it. Still, several serious problems of implication remain.
For example, if one is living an average kind of life, the implication is that approach is really not good enough. They suggest that we are just settling for mediocrity and that is somehow bad or at least unacceptable – that there is something wrong with us for not wanting to rise above par. (Of course, if everybody did that, then par would change and all of us who rose above the old par would then be sharing the new par so the dilemma would be never ending.) Also, in virtually every case, the motivators proceed on the basic assumption that being money wealthy (or wealthier) and having lots of expensive stuff and leisure time is the ultimate goal we all should be seeking. Many of them promote the belief that true happiness can only flow from the accumulation of money and stuff. They assume that, in fact, everybody agrees with that at the outset. In fact, they believe that everyone should agree with that so never really question it.
Taken as a whole, these programs not only promote the ultimate in self-centered greed but they do their best to convince their students that is absolutely the best way for living their lives. HOGWASH! If everybody lived according to those dictates the human species and this planet, as a life-sustaining environment, would vanish within generations.
I spent some thirty years practicing clinical psychology, mostly with children and adolescents. I encouraged my young patients to always think about the options every situation or idea held and to follow those options to their logical conclusions so they could evaluate the big-picture outcome for them and mankind. It is perhaps the most crucial set of skills a human being can possess – first, the inclination to look for the full range of options and second the skill at playing them out in realistic fashion. It begins by asking a question such as: “If I (or if everybody) would do this, what will the probable outcomes be for humanity (or at least the part of humanity that will be touched by the action or idea.). Will anyone be hurt? Who will be helped? Will my involvement in the activity restrict or enhance my ability to improve the human condition?
That brings us to my basic assumption about living. Answer the question, “What is your basic, positive, hope – goal – for mankind as a whole?” If you don’t have one and could care less, you frighten me beyond every other force I can envision. In dozens of well put ways it has been stated that no man is an island, meaning we all effect each other; like it or not, planned or not, it is a basic truth of living within a social setting. Living among people who feel safe, happy, helpful, self-fulfilled, and more or less content, will provide the very best likelihood that we will be able to experience those same things. Life among people who fear for their safety and comfort, are unhappy, greedy, and awaken each to day to thorough going discontent about themselves and their lot in the world, and a person has virtually no chance of living a pleasant life.
There is, therefore, only one sensible approach to living: take good care of each other by taking those steps necessary to make living safe, comfortable, happy, and self-fulfilling for those with whom you live and associate (even all quite casually or tangentially). Need proof? Follow each of the negative aspects of living listed above to their various conclusions. For example, think about some of the options which discontent engenders. If I’m discontent because I have so little, I may well try to take what I need from you. If I am discontent with my job, I may become a very unproductive and unpleasant co-worker. If I am discontent with my status, I may well try to tear yours down, thereby making you seem less of a threat to me – less of a standard out there , which I also have to meet. If I am discontent being your child or spouse I may well hurt you or even abandon you. If I am just discontent about my living circumstance in general – being poor, sick, unemployed, old – I may strike out at society in general. I may randomly hurt out of vengeance. I may loot, burn buildings, vandalize anything that represents the ‘haves’ compared to my ‘have not’. Does it contribute to our well being to ignore the discontent of others? Absolutely not! Does it more likely contribute to our own unhappiness, fear, outrage, and insecurity? Of course it does.
Another example: Trace the options involved in how we treat others – even the most casual acquaintances. Suppose a store clerk or waitress makes some kind of error or seems far to slow while attending to us. What are our reaction options? Basically, there are three: Be supportive, get angry, or ignore it. (There is a fourth – help retrain the individual – but I will set that one aside here.) Trace the human consequences of each option. In such a situation we have the chance to make the other person’s life better or worse, don’t we. And what kind of folks do we understand make living better for all concerned? Those whose living situations get better not worse. Those whose feelings about themselves get better, not worse. Is there really a choice, then? If we choose to lambaste the person for their ineptness, we must examine our motives – they absolutely cannot be humanity friendly. Most likely they are very selfish. “I and my time are more important than anything about you and your situation at this moment,” “You are so much my inferior” (implying that is somehow bad and that it gives one the right to treat the other person badly) and so on. Perhaps our motive was to punish the person. If so, a thorough reading of the scientific research on punishment seems necessary. Bottom line: it only makes things worse – almost always. If it makes us feel better to have punished somebody we really need to investigate and evaluate our emotional orientation and interpersonal belief system. That approach can only contribute to the sad disintegration of human relations and thereby the species.
Each day we each have the inevitable opportunity to be a cog that either builds and enhances the overall positive human experience or that contributes to an unpleasant, hurtful human experience. There is another well-traveled saying: “What goes around, comes around.”
Nowhere is it truer than in building this human social experience that touches us all. Build a good living situation for others and the likelihood ours can be good is multiplied many fold. Contribute to (or ignore) a bad living situation for others and . . . Ouch!
Here’s how my thinking progresses on the subject. Nowhere in the known universe is there a being as advanced in its potential as the human being. Therefore, I hold it as the most precious being there is. We possess both positive and destructive potential. We are set apart in that we have the remarkable power to control our destructive side and build upon our positive side. We can love, be compassionate and helpful, contemplate our mortality, and plan for the welfare of future generations for which we care even though we will never know them. We can see humor in our lives and enjoy our own foibles. We can consciously choose to produce children because we want to nurture them and prepare them for a successful, happy, helpful life that will help sustain and improve the human species. We can choose to improve the human condition. We can feel compassion and take steps to correct the ills and injustices of society. No other known being has these awesome powers. To live lives that don’t strive to utilize these grand potentials is, I believe, unforgivable and will, I believe, cause the eventual destruction of the human species.
Now, let me try to connect the first and second halves of this piece.
If one truly believes in the ultimate preciousness of the human species and if one understands how a positive approach to human interaction is the only reasonable way to live – as one assists in the comfort, preservation, and improvement of humanity – then one’s personal goals become altruistic rather than selfish in nature. The acquisition of stuff for oneself becomes subordinate to working for the improved welfare of all people. Success can no longer be defined in terms of the vastness of our individual personal wealth, leisure time, or possessions, but must revolve around how well one is able to contribute to the improvement of the human condition. When not chasing wealth and stuff the amount of time spent earning can for many of us be cut by a third to a half. That frees up all kinds of time for one to use in other ways. (Interestingly, that’s one goal many people who work long, hard hours to accumulate wealth are striving to achieve – later on.)
One dimension allowed by less work has to do with personal development. If we are this phenomenal being it behooves us to develop and use our several innate potentials. We have the option to pick and choose which of our abilities and bents to use in sustaining us as well as for our avocational and pleasurable leisure time pursuits. When the accumulation of stuff and wealth become less important, time is freed up to investigate other interesting, fulfilling and enjoyable endeavors (that are available merely because we are this very special human being).
A second dimension allowed by spending less time working to support ones exaggerated needs, is that of working to improve the human condition through volunteer work, community involvement, looking after our neighbors, and so on. It also provides more time for family activities, interaction, and mutual appreciation. I am paraphrasing here but time after time my readers tell me that the process of downsizing their lives and looking beyond their own self-centered needs for happiness has been the most wonderful and fulfilling life activity in which they have ever engaged.
I find nothing as deep down rewarding as being able to look back over my day and know that I made a positive difference in the lives of those I touched. Getting a new car or bigger house, receiving an award or getting a bonus check, having a million dollars in the bank or closing a lucrative business deal, can never come close to the knowledge that I’ve made a positive difference in this world and somehow augmented the human condition.
It seems there may always be people who choose not to look beyond their own selfish needs and desires, and who seek to take advantage, pillage, guiltlessly harm, and in other ways discomfort or even devastate the rest of us. In almost all such cases it is a matter of the values by which they choose to live. The early exposure to the practice of positive, social values typically produces children and adults that live altruistic, helpful, forward looking lives. When the opposite occurs the entire human species suffers at their hands.
We see the gap widening between the very rich and the rest of society. We see power being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer folks who are accountable to fewer and fewer sources of control and oversight. What is the ultimate conclusion of that condition? What do the history books show it has always been? First, the suffering of the masses. Then: Revolution. Widespread death and destruction. Misery on massive scales. The collapse of the present and the typically bloody start up of a new society – all for the want of a generally altruistic commitment on our part. Will mankind never learn? My hope is that this time we will. It has become my passion in life. I hope it will become yours.
End Note: In the economy of this early 21st century, I understand that downsizing for millions of families is a meaningless alternative since they struggle to put food on the table and attend to even their minimal physical and medical needs. All quite realistically the adage that began this essay can never apply to them – Living is what you make it. They have insufficient education or training or are infirmed or possess skills no longer needed in the workplace. Their minimal budget needs are greater than they can possibly earn. It is not them, but forces beyond them that play a larger role in 'making their lives' what they are. This only highlights the critical need for the rest of us to assume a compassionate, altruistic stance in our philosophy, our goals and our behavior.
2 - AS THE HUMAN SPECIES GOES SPIRALING INTO OBLIVION
An Essay by
Tom Gnagey
(C) 2010
SYNOPSIS:
During my adult life as a psychologist, educator, and social philosopher, I have steadfastly believed that man has an innate good nature but that it must be appropriately nurtured (modeled and rewarded) for it to mature into a person’s primary guidance motive. I recognize that we humans have an inborn ‘trait’, which, while protecting the existence of the species, also easily overrides our capacity to display that potential good nature. It implies the absolute necessity to be wary of and avoid anything out in the world that has not yet been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be safe. That, by definition, represents all those things about which we have no or only limited knowledge and, in terms of this essay, focuses on other humans with whom we have limited contact and about whom we have limited knowledge. So, although our Prime Directive has worked well to preserve the human species down through the ages, it has not served society in such a stellar fashion as it has also, necessarily, spawned distrust, prejudice, hatred, and destruction.
ESSAY:
During my adult life as a psychologist, educator, and social philosopher, I have steadfastly believed that man has an innate good nature but that it must be appropriately nurtured (modeled and rewarded) for it to mature into a person’s primary guidance motive. I recognize that we humans have an inborn ‘trait’, which, while protecting the existence of the species, also easily overrides our capacity to display that potential good nature. In my books on Deep Mind Mastery, I refer to that trait as the mind’s Prime Directive – to keep its person alive at any cost. It is so basic that it can virtually never be overridden. (There are a few exceptions like risking all if ones child is in danger. Also, the brains of adolescent males don’t necessarily always abide by this principle.) It implies the absolute necessity to be wary of and avoid anything out in the world that has not yet been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be safe.
That, by definition, represents all those things about which we have no or only limited knowledge and, in terms of this essay, focuses on other humans with whom we have limited contact and about whom we have limited knowledge. So, although our Prime Directive has worked well to preserve the human species down through the ages, it has not served society in such a stellar fashion as it has also, necessarily, spawned distrust, prejudice, hatred, and destruction. Let me say more.
Considering the concept for only a moment one quickly understands that Prime Directive works in a counterproductive way when it comes to improving human relations. It poses a set of troublesome incompatible alternatives. To arrive at the place we feel comfortable with ‘new’ people, we must get to know them. To make sure we preserve our life, we must avoid them. (An oversimplification, of course, but illustrates the basic paradigm.)
In times of relative calm and backed by experiences, which show us that most folks, even new folks, are generally safe and even interesting and helpful, it becomes possible to cautiously approach new folks, get to know them, and eventually make them part of our safe repertoire. But, in a home or neighborhood or world in which fear reasonably leads to mistrust, we tend to isolate ourselves and our ‘group’ from those who are not easily determined to be like us. Until we get to know them we can’t trust them and until we trust them we can’t get to know them. This sets up the Spiral into Oblivion to which the title of this piece refers. The less safe we feel the more likely we are to avoid unfamiliar others – that absolutely necessary first step toward building environments based in peace and safety.
More than just avoiding those who are different, we feel the need to protect ourselves from them – or at least from the potential threat to us (the unproved safety factor) that they represent. In the less extreme reaction pattern we just avoid them. In the most extreme, we annihilate them.
Juxtaposed upon this most basic, Deep Mind-spawned, problem is the dilemma of beliefs and values. Everybody has beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad, allowable and not allowable, and so on, even if one hasn’t taken the time to specifically state them. Once accepted, they come to represent truth and the foundation of personal comfort to us. They become our source of stability. When we know something is right, it gives us a sense of security. The mind strives to maintain a state of equilibrium and so, when our concepts of right and wrong, good and bad are challenged, our belief system typically panics. (Excuse the anthropomorphizing.)
Some of us have been raised to welcome such challenges because we have come to see them as potential opportunities for personal growth. ‘Perhaps there is something of value in that other way of believing that I have missed along the way. I am, therefore, eager to explore it and see if I can grow from it.’ Most people, however, do not approach conflicting belief systems in that way. Most folks begin by rejecting new ideas out of hand because if those contrary beliefs aren’t wrong then their own current beliefs have to come into question. That quickly breeds fear and panic and the need to protect the status quo. We see it in conservatives vs liberals, evolutionists vs creationists, capitalists vs socialists, even adolescents vs parents, and recently, of course, the Judeo/Christian block vs the Muslim block. By and large, neither will allow themselves to study the opposing points of view with an open mind. Rather, they approach the new ideas with the sole intention of disproving them. It represents the epitome of egotistical, self-importance but, of course, that is built right into the very basis of our minding processes – “I and my survival are of prime importance.”
Some folks clearly do not want to understand opposing points of views, values, and beliefs because they are believed to clearly be wrong; their parents, their party, their government, their god has told them so. When the basis of someone’s belief system confirms that his is the only true system it becomes nearly impossible to engage him in useful discussions aimed at enhancing mutual enlightenment and in reducing prejudice, hate, fear, and misunderstanding. There can be but two outcomes: Massive isolation of ideological groupings leading over time to even less understanding and probably mistrust, and/ or open social turmoil, which continues to feed itself, boil, grow, and overflow.
Remember, periods and places in which safe, comfortable, friendly surroundings have been replaced by dangerous, uncomfortable, unfriendly surroundings, direct folks (from the most basic level of the Deep Mind) to at least pull back from others if not launch attacks against them for the purpose of either running them off or destroying them (keeping Number One safe). Today, across the planet, we see exactly this condition – unsafe conditions, fear, distrust, and despair. Add to this a nearly universal condition of squalor and infestation in many parts of the world (and in parts of our country) in which the most basic needs of the masses are not being met – safety, food, water, shelter, clothing, disease prevention – and the spiral grows well beyond our control.
What do we do? Where do we start? The answers seem clear. The mission may well be impossible. Closed minds will certainly destroy mankind. Interesting: the same directive which has thus far worked so well to preserve individual human beings may well work to destroy the whole of humanity.
[Deep Mind Mastery: Concise edition, by Tom Gnagey, available through bookstores and at www.TomsBookNook.com ]
3 - Two Faces of the Human Self-Preservation Instinct
Tom Gnagey © 2010
SYNOPSIS:
At the deepest – some would say most primitive – level of brain function, each human being is incontestably driven to preserve his own life. There may be three rarely engaged exceptions to this rule (presented and discussed) but aside from those rare occurrences, continuing to stay alive is our prime directive. It seems to me that fundamental drive can take one of two very different paths – one socially positive, constructive, and conducive to peace and compassion, and one socially negative, destructive and conducive to discord and violence. Sometimes the path an individual must follow is preordained by brain malfunction or chemical imbalances. That is a rare condition, apparently common mostly to violent criminals and tyrants. The rest of us are more or less free to choose the path we will take regarding our self-preservation behavioral path.
ESSAY:
At the deepest – some would say most primitive – level of brain function, each human being is incontestably driven to preserve his own life. There may be three rarely engaged exceptions to this rule: to absorb a danger in order to preserve the life of a loved one, to end one’s own suffering as in old age or terminal disease, or to escape from some apparently overpowering force or problem or situation that seems to render continued life intolerable. Aside from those rare occurrences, continuing to stay alive is our prime directive.
In my experience as a clinical psychologist and student of human behavior, that fundamental drive can take one of two very different paths – one socially positive, constructive, and conducive to peace and compassion, and one socially negative, destructive and conducive to discord and violence. Sometimes the path an individual must follow is preordained by brain malfunction or chemical imbalances. Those are relatively rare conditions, apparently common mostly in violent criminals and tyrants. The rest of us are more or less free to choose the path we will take regarding our approach to self-preservation.
I say ‘more or less’ because the environments in which we grow and learn about social possibilities and responsibilities influence us in ways that sometimes don’t really leave us free to choose our own path. The path that is modeled for us and preached at us when we are young often becomes nearly impossible to overcome. (That also has its positive and negative implications.)
Path One – socially positive – is defined by behavioral tendencies that see violent behavior as only the absolute, final, self-protective, resort. It is a learned response to our prime directive. ‘If attacked or clearly threatened I will protect myself. Otherwise, I will work to resolve conflicts in logical, socially acceptable, and species preserving ways.’ It develops during childhood, typically modeling similar behaviors consistently observed in the grown ups with whom we regularly come in contact. These homes are safe, fear-free, and dependable, and offer a calm, happy, place in which to interact. Discipline* (meaning learning to control ones behavior in ways that will be both personally and socially helpful), is fostered in such homes through the consistent, thoughtful application of rules and expectations. When rules and expectations are violated, plans are made to help the youngster come to understand the necessity for those conventions and to develop and practice behaviors that are consistent with them. In this way the child learns to value positive behavior and positive interactions, and understands why it is an essential part of living in a dependably secure social setting. (And most important, learns how to guide and direct himself – values he transports with him.)
Path Two – socially negative – is defined by behavioral tendencies that make force-wielding violent acts the behavior of choice. It is also (almost always) a learned response pattern. ‘I will not wait to be attacked. I will take preemptive measures and hurt him before he can hurt me. I will make others afraid of me so they will refrain from attacking me. That’s how I will adjust to my prime directive for self-preservation.’ It also develops during childhood, typically modeling similar behaviors consistently observed in the grownups and peers with whom the child regularly comes in contact. These homes (neighborhoods) do not convey the feeling of personal safety. They are not dependable and do not offer a calm, happy, fear-free, place in which to interact. Behavior of which the parent or older siblings disapprove is met with violence, designed to inflict significant pain on the ‘offender’. The theory is, the more severe the pain the more likely the person will behave appropriately (that is, according to the punisher's desire) in the future. Discipline, when fully external, teaches the child that the most direct and immediate way to control others is through fear, force and, fighting. There is no time spent teaching or modeling positive social values. Those who advocate and model them are belittled and seen as weak. Once the mind's prime survival directive gets attached to the negative approach, it becomes very difficult ( if really ever possible) to fully and dependably shift to the positive.
Both paths (positive and negative) meet the requirements of the human mind’s Prime Directive to preserve itself. The second takes the route of the sub-human life forms that live in the kill or be killed world. The first engages the higher, human, mental functions to ameliorate and logically guide ones innate behavior tendencies and adjustment patterns. True, it takes more time, effort, and study to follow the first but then this human species has the essential skills and intelligence at its disposal that no other species seems to have. Not to use them seems to either reflect ignorance, ineptitude, or laziness.
The Essential Questions Posed here: Will we follow the less than human path or will we follow the path allowed by our remarkable human skills and potential? Which will more likely ensure the continuation of the human species into a productive and peaceful tomorrow? (Those who are self-absorbed in their present, would, of course, never see the relevance of asking that second question.)
____
•
The concept, discipline, has come to be viewed inappropriately as being synonymous with punishment. That is a shortsighted, fully false, ‘lazy parent’, interpretation of the broader idea. Self-discipline must be our goal – it is guidance we produce from inside ourselves based on our positive values about ourselves and society. It allows for intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable change as conditions change. We carry it into every situation because it is a personally accepted part of our control center. External discipline forces one to behave in a certain way – dictated by somebody else – or be hurt, most typically through physical violence. It can only control inappropriate behaviors when the ‘enforcer-punisher’ is there to enforce the rule, or so things are set up in such a manner so that person will surely come to hear about any misbehavior. Without the enforcer (parent, policeman, teacher) present, one has no reason to (no internal control system to) maintain and manage ‘good’ behavior. It may be easier to hit a child and make him afraid of going against a parent’s wishes than it is to take the necessary time to help the child develop and accept, as his own, an ever-present, internal, guidance system (positive values) that follows him well beyond the enforcer’s presence. What do children from the violent dispensing homes learn so well, about how to handle interpersonal disputes? Quit simply, hit first. If that doesn't work, hit second(and so on!).
The concept, discipline, has come to be viewed inappropriately as being synonymous with punishment. That is a shortsighted, fully false, ‘lazy parent’, interpretation of the broader idea. Self-discipline must be our goal – it is guidance we produce from inside ourselves based on our positive values about ourselves and society. It allows for intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable change as conditions change. We carry it into every situation because it is a personally accepted part of our control center. External discipline forces one to behave in a certain way – dictated by somebody else – or be hurt, most typically through physical violence. It can only control inappropriate behaviors when the ‘enforcer-punisher’ is there to enforce the rule, or so things are set up in such a manner so that person will surely come to hear about any misbehavior. Without the enforcer (parent, policeman, teacher) present, one has no reason to (no internal control system to) maintain and manage ‘good’ behavior. It may be easier to hit a child and make him afraid of going against a parent’s wishes than it is to take the necessary time to help the child develop and accept, as his own, an ever-present, internal, guidance system (positive values) that follows him well beyond the enforcer’s presence. What do children from the violent dispensing homes learn so well, about how to handle interpersonal disputes? Quit simply, hit first. If that doesn't work, hit second(and so on!). Totalitarian societies and governments are based on the fear of external discipline (in that case meaning punishment). Free societies must be based on internal, self-discipline. Nobody ever grew up to be fully self-disciplined by being beaten into it! A child must believe, ‘I behave well because that is the best way to live my life and what I’ve seen modeled in my home supports that in every way’, not ‘I must behave well or get hurt and I have a string of spankings or beatings to prove it’. (In other words, I must sneak around in order to behave the way I really want to.)
As the child who is moving along the path toward self-discipline encounters new situations, he or she CAN make new, personally and socially positive and productive rules for himself. The child raised in an environment of external discipline has no way to accomplish that because he has always been told how he must act (or else!). He is seldom socially successful and typically reverts to punishing others in stressful situations. Those things lead to sad, unproductive, socially destructive lives and in the extreme (logical and actual) work to keep our prison system over-flowing.
4- PRECURSOR TO AN EFFECTIVE CONSERVATISM
What conservatives fail to recognize they must do FIRST.
An essay by Tom Gnagey
© 2010
SYNOPSIS:
In general, conservative cheerleaders overlook the most basic fact – the essential underpinning necessary for the success of their philosophy. It happens, perhaps, through ignorance, or lack of realistic broad focus, or because it requires such a huge amount of precisely planned, long term, really hard work placed on their individual conservative shoulders (rather than more comfortably on that of a less personal, progressive, easy spending, distant, governmental unit). It always begins with values. It always begins with the values children learn and accept as their own. Basic to the success of the conservative philosophy is the necessary general belief that men will act responsibly and with honor so they do not need to be regulated externally.
ESSAY:
A conservative, small government, which touts few regulations, few government assistance programs, and minimal taxes, can only succeed when the society supporting it adopts and scrupulously lives according to a philosophy based in positive social values. Without that base, the sea of innate, negative, human tendencies defined by greed, selfishness, revenge, and a lust for power will inevitably lead to a conservative society’s ruination. Only within the confines of universal honesty, compassion, mutual helpfulness, cooperation, and dedication to keep ignorance at bay, can a non-regulatory governing process work for long. Without those things, graft, fraud, deceit, and corruption will continue to grow unabated and commandeer the governing process.
In general, conservative cheerleaders overlook the most basic fact – the essential underpinning necessary to their philosophy. It happens, perhaps, through ignorance, or lack of realistic broad focus, or because it requires such a huge amount of precisely planned, long term, really hard work placed on their individual conservative shoulders (rather than more comfortably on that of a less personal, progressive, easy spending, distant, governmental unit). It always begins with values. It always begins with the values children learn and accept as their own. It always begins with the values children learn at home and accept as their own.
Basic to the success of the conservative philosophy is the necessary general belief that men will act responsibly and with honor so they do not need to be regulated externally. The history of our democracy has not shown that to be true. Conservatives must lay the foundation in values first. THEN move to change the governmental process. That doesn’t happen within a year or a senatorial term or even a generation. Children must grow to adulthood living among models that prove without any doubt how lives based on positive values – Mutually Responsible Facilitation – outshine all other approaches. The absolute necessity to overcome and control man’s competitive, self-centered, approach to social interaction must consistently become clear on a day to day, moment by moment, basis. Endorsing a societal bottom-line born in competition must be replaced by a bottom-line based in universal cooperation. A cooperative stance builds a responsible, mutually facilitating society in which winning and losing soon become archaic and unnecessary concepts – at best, irrelevant and unproductive. Competition builds a selfish, ‘I must be best’ – ‘I must win’ – ‘I (we) must crush our competition’ type of society in which most citizens are, therefore, losers by definition.
(Don’t quote to me the trite, fully unfounded, dictum that competition is essential for a robust society and economy. Those who proclaim that either just can’t see beyond the end of their own greedy noses or have not sincerely investigated the advantages of a society based on cooperation. Imagine what will happen when the greatest minds in the world begin cooperating to improve the human condition just because that is the right thing to do, with no thought of, or need for, gain other than the greatest reward there is – personal satisfaction from an altruistic job well done.)
In other words, the troublesome nature of the values, morals, and ethics evident in today’s society just won’t allow a successful conservative approach to government. A working conservatism requires universal integrity of all its citizens. Without it the proliferation of laws and regulations and incarceration of wrongdoers becomes an increasingly necessary development to protect people’s rights. (Interestingly, the massive expansion of prisons to ‘regulate’ wrong-doers is generally endorsed by conservatives – a necessary and inevitable outcome of initiating their philosophy without its proper underpinning in positive values.) The conservative’s desire to maintain control over his destiny and not be required to do the bidding of or be restricted by any force (government) external to himself, necessitates a life pattern that treats all men fairly according to some universally accepted definition of ‘fair’.
My best suggestion is that while we cooperatively and thoughtfully search together for such a definition, we begin the long term undertaking of building the essential positive value-based groundwork for our children that will be necessary to support such an eventual political enterprise. Since small government absolutely requires vast, highest quality, local volunteer efforts to replace expensive national or state supported service networks, that eager willingness to volunteer must also be instilled in our children. When we relieve government of the task of providing for the aged, the sick and otherwise infirmed, and the unemployed, a humane society cannot merely ignore those responsibilities but moves them to the individuals at the local level – neighbors helping neighbors as I remember it at work in the small towns where I grew up.
There is, of course, another present day problem for the conservative political philosophy. Perhaps the children in your family and in mine are sufficiently well cared for so they can come to see the wisdom in accepting a philosophy of life based in positive values. But what about those who live in conditions where stealing and violence must be their way of life if they are to survive? How does the society with a small, low tax-base, government, handle that? Aside from building tall walls around our encampments manned by armed militia, it has to be handled if any of us is to be able to live in a safe, comfortable, compassionate, productive, open society. I remember my conservative father saying, “No one is really safe until everyone is safe.” Conservatism may be honed so it works for the well established, dedicated, conservative, who is willing and able to remain or become self-sufficient, separate from governmental assistance. But what about the ghetto families or even the poorest families, which exist within all our small towns? They cannot be brought into the fold – as they must – until they have also established some degree of self-sufficiency. How does the conservative movement do that? Perhaps it becomes necessary to gradually move away from big government programs designed to successfully deal with poverty, lack of opportunity, old age services, and the violent subculture. Once the playing field is leveled and steps are put in place to keep it that way, then perhaps a smaller, less regulatory, government will be possible.
It is incumbent on me to clarify what I mean by positive social values. I do not refer to religious values. Attempting to use that diverse caldron of tenets as a basis would merely fuel more of the inter- and intra-religious contention that is currently destroying our society and our world. In essence, a positive social value as I intend the term is one that moves the human species forward in safety, comfort, helpfulness, inclusion, tolerance, and compassion. As a group they support individual growth as indicated and allowed by one’s skills, talents, and interests, and understand that ignorance and its advocates are the most insidious of the forces working to exterminate mankind from this planet.
To which specific values do I refer? Let me list a basic sample. I have discussed them at length in other publications, most recently the novel, The Weaving of Lelonia*. They are listed with the Positive Social Value in the left column and its opposite Negative Value in the right. FIRST, in a simple paragraph, define the nature of the society you want for yourself and hope to pass on to future generations. THEN, characterize a society based on each value in the pairs below. Which values support your vision? Which will tend to destroy or prevent it?
Positive Social Value Competitive Negative Value
Competitive Negative ValueLogical problem solving rather than physical techniques aggression
Cooperative rather than an unbridled competitive approach
Ability to delay gratification rather than the need for immediate gratification
A save and pay as you go approach rather than irresponsible use of credit
Respect for all property rather than lack of respect for others' property
Reverence and respect for life rather than disregard for Life and safety
Fair treatment and honesty rather than deceit and Dishonesty
Earning what you need and want, rather than merely taking it
Law-abiding behavior rather than law slipping
A semi-democratic approach rather than dictatorial, strong-arm, approach
Positive, value-based, openness - rather than
belief in mindless absolute right and wrong (I’m right and everybody else is wrong.)
Altruism rather than selfishness
Accurately informed decision making rather than uninformed decision making or lore-based decision making
Finding happiness through integrity rather than seeking it integrity through stuff, status, or power
Planning ahead rather than Monday morning quarter backing
Kids having adult confidantes rather than only having peer confidantes
Being known by ones good rather than trying to be reputation known as a somebody at any cost
Knowing one is a worthy being rather than having to keep trying to prove one is a worthy being
Kind-hearted rather than inconsiderate or otherwise hurtful
A user of precise language rather than imprecise Language
Health and fitness awareness rather than health unawareness
Explaining the world through rather than arbitrary cause and effect coincidence or ‘magic’
Analytic participation rather than a mindless, group mentality participation
Purposefully organized living style rather than chaotic/ haphazard living style
Peer plus family social orientation rather than peer-only social orientation
In the book mentioned above there is a detailed description of how one can go about helping people (kids in particular) arrive at (discover) the only logical conclusions regarding which of the above alternatives will contribute to a happy, safe, productive life and those which most certainly will not. The consistent, unshakable, positive parental model, of course, is the irreplaceable method for teaching values. (There must never be that, “Do as I say, not as I do” disclaimer. Kids always believe and internalize what they witness.) That book also provides a trial run of a value-based, social/political system (as an allegory set in a small country somewhere in time).
It is not my position that a conservative approach is less appropriate than a liberal approach. It seems to me progressives err in the opposite direction: believing that man is inevitably evil and therefore must be regulated and contained, that he is so inept that he must be provided for, and that people in general are not disposed to freely and eagerly help and assist their fellow man so must be required to (through tax supported programs run by the government). The solution must attempt to meld those aspects of conservatism and progressivism, which I believe reflect what has been shown to be historically and scientifically accurate about the positive potential of human nature. I call it Mutually Responsible Facilitation.
Simply put, my belief is that until mankind reaches the place in which each person is willing to embrace and live by socially positive values, not only will non-regulatory, conservative, social/political/economic systems always fail, but mankind will most certainly annihilate itself. (That second part renders the first unattainable, I suppose.)
On that happy note, I leave you to solve it all – always using facts and logic, not unfounded lore and whim.
5 - Designing a User Friendly Society
by
Tom Gnagey
(C) 1986,1996, 2010, U.S.A., by Tom Gnagey, All rights reserved.
[From his keynote address given to the Fifth Annual Symposium on Human Survival, Washington, DC, 8/8/86]
SYNOPSIS:
In a user friendly society all people have the right to safety, productivity, happiness, and whatever necessary care they are unable to provide for themselves. In a user friendly society everyone helps make life become wonder-filled for the others. Three personal styles tend to destroy such a society. One fosters and protects it.
ESSAY:
I once posed this problem to a college philosophy class: "If you were king of the World, and it was your sincere goal to build a completely peaceful, people-friendly planet, what one thing would you do to insure it?" A pre-ministerial student eagerly raised his hand. "I'd use everything in my power to force everyone to become pacifists." The class giggled, understanding that since true, purist, pacifists hold that any kind of violence - 'force' - is wrong, his solution had a major, built in, modeling problem.
However, approached in a more gentle, before the fact manner, rather than from his confrontational, forceful, after-the-fact manner, it may, indeed, have merit. Foster in the children - through adult modeling - personalities and value systems that cherish and practice peaceful problem solving, a willing mutual helpfulness, and a sense that all life is precious, and the deed just might get done.There is a point of view, apparent throughout the pages of history, that provides the skeleton for such a plan. I have come to call its two facets by the names, Reciprocal Esteem and Mutual Facilitation. Most simply it may stated this way: We all respect each others basic human rights, / and always only do to and for each other those things that we thoughtfully believe will be best for all concerned in the long run. The first half defines reciprocal esteem; the last half, mutual facilitation. (Let us set aside for the moment the remaining problem of agreeing on the definitions of the terms "basic human rights" and "best"!)This approach to living is actually practiced quite regularly and successfully in many homes and communes, and to some extent in certain small neighborhoods. It has never been very successful much beyond that range, however. Why not? Doesn't it make sense that a World filled with well cared for - that is happy, content, trustworthy, caring, productive, helpful - people, would be a pretty ideal place in which to live? Doesn't it also make sense that a World populated with the opposite - sad, untrusting, deceitful, hurtful, vengeful people - would be a pretty terrifying and stifling place in which to live? And yet, how often, down through history, has mankind opted to live in this second way? Almost always!Why? There may be no one easy answer, and then again, perhaps there is. The history books I've read, have quite clearly pointed out to me that every time man chooses to live by competition rather than by cooperation, society disintegrates, becoming a disagreeable, hurtful, fearsome place in which to live. On the one end there develops a very small, very powerful, very rich and very self-centered "upper" class. On the other end, a very large, very helpless, very poor, very angry and vengeful "lower" class develops. The day always finally arrives when the discontented, angry, poor guys overthrow the contented, self-absorbed, rich guys, and the process begins all over again. It is the progression of most major societies down through history.
And why do so many people seem so bent on becoming wealthy and powerful, and lording it over those who are not? Mainly, I believe, because they have been misled into believing that having lots of stuff and lots of control, are the dual secrets to happiness. I believe that is the biggest, ugliest, most disastrous, deception in human history.Happiness has nothing to do with the acquisition of either of those things. Happiness is strictly a matter of constructing a set of positive values that moves the human species on toward its ultimate positive development, and, then, living by those values day in and day out. (More simply: Continually trying your best to do good things for, and to do right by, your neighbors and yourself.) To do this brings a sense of integrity, and integrity is the only source of true, deep down, forever and ever inner happiness! There is no finer, spirit cleansing, feeling, than to lie in bed at night knowing that because of your own positive efforts during the day just past, the World is a better, gentler, happier, place than you had found it that morning. Read the history books. It's all there. And yet, generation after generation we insist on reinventing the happiness wheel all over again. And generation after generation we insist on building it all wrong. It's as if our necessarily vigilant and combative Cave Man brain - which served us well as we competed with the lower animals for survival - is still in charge of our social expectations. Not everyone builds it all wrong of course. Many families produce children who do have a realistic, positive perspective about the human social process. Others, sadly, do not. It has been my observation that people come in four general types, relative to all of this. One is the User. The User takes advantage of others, using them in whatever ways fit his selfish purposes, and without regard to the welfare of those other people. The Observer is a person who just sits on the sidelines of life, watching it pass by but without ever jumping in and getting involved or making a difference. Although he may never actually do specific harm to anyone, he most certainly makes no useful contribution to society. In some ways, his inaction may well be harmful, as he fails to support educational, charitable, political or research efforts that could benefit the rest of us. A third approach is that of the Destroyer, who takes what he wants regardless of who or what gets hurt, damaged, or eliminated in the process. As is obvious, none of these three categories is helpful to the survival of the human species or to the improvement of society. Instead, each one damages and consumes society.The fourth category is the Builder - the one who uses his uniquely human talents and insights to renew, improve, and enrich society and the human species. The Builder is always the calm, systematic problem solver, and never the blamer/ hater/ punisher/ revenge taker. It is my belief, that because, as human beings, we have the innate positive capacity to be Builders, (something no other species in the entire known universe possesses in the same way), it is therefore our responsibility and obligation to become Builders. Only the Builder can protect and improve the human species, and it seems important to me that we do just that. It also seems to me that each person should take advantage of his or her own special talents in order to become all that he can become as a human being. To do less, lets himself down – as well as the rest of us. It leaves him at the unfinished level of just another lower animal, willing to live in that kill or be killed realm.Even when one does not feel that he has an obligation to become all that the human being, which he is, can possibly become, he probably could agree that it would be wrong to interfere with another human being's right to try and become as fine and complete a human being as he or she can possibly become. I am going to suggest eight processes or values or beliefs - I call them tenets - which I believe will lead children (and adults) to become Builders, and which will keep them from getting trapped into one of the other three harmful, self destructive, less than fully human personal style categories. These, I suggest, are the basic pillars of a User Friendly Society.The First tenet states: I cannot ask anyone else to do helpful things for me, if I am not also willing to do helpful things for them or others. This is a prime characteristic of the Builder Personality, and is the exact opposite from the prime characteristic of the User, the Observer and the Destroyer, all three of whom always put their own selfish interests ahead of everyone else.Second, the Builder believes: I have the right to my life for as long as it naturally lasts and (under most circumstances) I must grant all others this same right. The User will protect someone's life only so long as that person is useful to him. The Destroyer sees what he wants and takes it, with no regard for the life or well-being of anyone standing in the way. The Observer would just passively watch as someone else was being harmed.A Third belief of the Builders of the World is this: In order to have become the good person who I am today, I have needed the help of many other people along the way, so I must therefore be willing to help others as they grow and mature and search after their way. The Users would certainly agree that they need the help of others, and constantly take advantage of others in this regard, but to then feel any obligation to be helpful in return, would make no sense to them. The Destroyers typically feel they are self-made men, so owe no one anything. The Observer is never tuned into giving, of course, and is usually so detached from others that he receives few requests for help.Fourth: Since I need to be able to completely trust those around me, (and since I am not willing to ask others to be ways for me that I am not also willing to be for them), I must be completely trustworthy in all my interactions with others. The whole concept of trust is virtually irrelevant to the Observer, since he avoids meaningful interaction of all kinds. The User works hard to gain your trust, so he can then take advantage of you and laugh in your face about your having been so gullible as to fall for his line. The Destroyer seldom makes any pretense of being trustworthy himself, and almost never trusts anyone else, which is how he must function in order to survive among his many enemies. (There may be one exception: When the Destroyer says he is going to harm you, you can trust that he will.)Fifth, the Builder fully understands that: In order to survive emotionally and have a good life, I need approval from others, and I must therefore do my part by giving that same kind of approval to others. Neither Users nor Destroyers approve of anyone else, and it is certainly doubtful that deep down inside, they even ever truly approve of themselves. Observers are often so lethargic that approval seems just too effort-filled and meaningless. None of these three negative personalities can ever know and understand the wonder-filled feeling of having won someone else's approval through those unique and priceless human traits of unselfish kindness, love, and appreciation.Sixth: Since I need good friends in order to survive and to enjoy life as a well adjusted person, I also must be, and, in fact, want to be a good friend to the others in my life. Again, due to the aloofness of the Observer, friendship is just immaterial. The User feeds on taking advantage of friendships, so, although he may appear to be quite expert at forming close personal relationships, they are always insincere and designed for his greedy benefit only. The Destroyer may engage in friendship-like relationships - strategic alliances would better describe them - in order to get what he wants. Destroyers never know the joys, responsibilities, and privileges of true friendship. All his relationships must be viewed through the lens of suspicion and fear. Seventh: Keeping those around me well adjusted will increase my chances for a happy life, and since positive strokes and tenderness are needed for good adjustment, every day I will give large doses of those things to those around me. The Observers make no attempts to influence others in any meaningful way, so the underlying concept of this seventh tenet is meaningless to them. Users are often willing to join any cause that will promote their own personal comfort, so they will usually buy into the idea that making others better adjusted can make their own life easier. Destroyers don't buy the "helping" idea at all. When they find someone who irritates them, they just destroy them. Why mess around with rehabilitation when poof and they're out of the way forever? After all, the Destroyer never values the lives of those who stand in his way.And finally, the Eighth tenet: I have the right and obligation to become a competent, self-fulfilled human being (a Builder), and I must grant others this same right, and encourage them in their attempts. Users and Destroyers - not understanding about the sources of true happiness - see those of us who pursue personal excellence as total wimps, who fail to understand that the acquisition of bunches and bunches of stuff and the wielding of absolute power are all that really count in this life. The observer, not ever getting involved in life, may know he has the right to improve himself, but he certainly feels no obligation to ever do so.I am certain that by now you understand where I think humanity, and this precious World of ours is headed, if, generation after generation, we continue to produce Users, Destroyers and Observers instead of Builders. The only certain road I see to A User Friendly Society is through Reciprocal Esteem (caring about and respecting one another) and Mutual Facilitation (all people joined together in doing whatever it takes to provide a safe, happy, productive life for each and every human being now and for our future generations). This precludes a society principally based on interpersonal competition. Rather, I believe, it requires a foundation of cooperation based on the growth producing attributes of shared guardianship, mutual respect and individual - not governmental - responsibility.I am not advocating socialism, which in its purer forms precludes private ownership of property and businesses. With such a way of life comes the clear danger of losing ones identity as a precious, useful, beloved, creative, individual. Neither am I advocating disorganized anarchy – that is clearly contraindicated by what I am suggesting. I am advocating mutually responsible facilitation as a means of adjusting and tempering the basic, freedom-based democratic/capitalistic ideal which I find to be laden with tremendous possibilities for building a User Friendly Society. Perhaps it comes down to a matter of what one holds in highest esteem - the nature and quality of human beings themselves or the proliferation of the stuff with which they have to play.As a boy I knew the process simply as neighbors eagerly and freely giving of themselves to help neighbors. I was one of the lucky children who was raised in safety, with love, trust, responsibility, and a well focused sense of how precious it is to have this fleeting privilege to be a member of this extraordinary human race - The Family of Man.{The author's novel, The Weaving of Lelonia, postulates, as an allegory, a social/political society based on the principles of Mutual Facilitation and Reciprocal Esteem.]
6 - SOME IDEAS ABOUT WHY WE ARE FAILING
SO MISERABLY AND REGULARLY
IN OUR REHABILITATION EFFORTS AROUND THE WORLD
(And We Are!)
Tom Gnagey
Oct. 2009, 2013
SYNOPSIS:
A
criminal justice system based on punishment has no chance of working –
read the history books. A system based on prevention and meaningful,
well planned and carried out rehabilitation must be the answer. In both
the preventative and the rehabilitative phases, the most important, and
virtually universally overlooked, component is the teaching and
acceptance of a set of positive social values.
ESSAY:
INFORMATION: “Did you hear that John Jones got arrested for battery during the commission of a burglary?”
RESPONSE: “No, but I’m not surprised. Look at the home (neighborhood) he comes from.”
Conservatives and liberals (progressives) alike tend to give that response to that information. By doing so both agree that a ‘bad’ home or neighborhood environment tends to produce ‘bad’ youngsters who later grow into ‘bad’ adults. At that point, however, the two philosophies generally part company.
Liberals tend to take it to mean that since the person had little chance to learn how to be a ‘good’, productive, upstanding, sort, it is not so much him as it is his upbringing that is to ‘blame’ for his misbehavior. Following that path, more or less logically, they believe that, rather than being punished, such a person deserves a chance to get ‘fixed’ so he doesn’t have to behave that way in the future (continuing to hurt himself and others). Conservatives might even agree with that statement but the two just don’t agree on the definition of ‘fixed’.
The liberal takes it to mean society has a responsibility to help the inadequately socialized person acquire a new outlook on living – a new, positive, socially constructive, philosophy and legally self-sufficient way of living. That entails social intervention, psychological counseling, and prolonged, intensive, casework follow-up. It means that a new environment, job training or additional education may be necessary before the person has any real chance of turning his life around – turning it away from the self- and socially-defeating model with which he was raised and trained. It means providing adequate follow-up and support after the initial intervention and period of rehabilitation to make sure he is able to keep his life on a personally and socially positive path. It is generally accepted as being a far less costly and more successful approach than the costly warehousing, punishment-based, alternative.
The conservative takes ‘fix’ to mean – first and foremost – to punish him, partly so he’ll never do it again. With the vast body of research and anecdotal information weighing in to the contrary, they continue to believe that punishment makes people stop being ‘bad’ – in the long run. More than that, however, the conservative mentality believes that if someone misbehaves, by that fact alone, he deserves to be hurt (punished) first and foremost. (Why, if we know it doesn’t help by any long term measurement? I guess helping is less satisfying to these folks than hurting. Don’t go to the contention that punishment of offenders inhibits others from becoming offenders. No credible research suggests that holds true, again, in the long run, which is the only ‘run’ that really counts.) Subsequent to the absolutely required punishment, some conservatives will agree to try rehabilitation efforts – if they don't cost much.
It is why history books show us that conservative administrations tend to build jails and liberal administrations tend to build rehabilitation and mental health centers.
It is not suggested here that ‘criminals’ should not be held accountable for their malevolent, anti-social, acts. It is suggested that society should be held accountable for its responsibility to use our credible knowledge to help build a more effective, efficient, humanity-friendly, social order – an improved human condition. What should our goal be: a society of friendly, helpful people living together in peace and comfort, or a society in which ten percent of its citizens are regularly being punished in prison while a vast number of our streets and neighborhoods remain downright dangerous and a huge percent of our homes are fully unprepared to raise well adjusting, positively contributing, offspring?
If someone demonstrates that he or she cannot be trusted to live with and around others in such ways as to respect their rights to safety, comfort, and possessions, then that person should certainly be removed until it is reasonable to believe that his actions (newly, systematically, taught/learned) no longer threaten others. However, removal, in this sense, should never automatically equate to punishment. Punishment pushes most people deeper into anger and a revenge mentality. Periods and places of separation in which people learn that they are deserving of respect for what is good and comfortable about them, and who become effectively involved in well planned, individually tailored, rehabilitation programs can provide truly positive, anger and revenge reducing (if not eradicating) experiences.
Some, so called, hardcore criminals are most likely just that. Once separated from the rest of us, they will probably never be able to meet the necessary requirements to return to a society based on freedom and mutual respect and responsibility. Still, the idea that they are therefore deserving of a lifetime of continued punishment is absurd. Separation, definitely. Punishment in addition to that, definitely not. (There is a huge and growing body of knowledge documenting neurological and chemical disorders that are often at the base of such intransigent, incorrigible, behavior. Is an individual so afflicted in need of or deserving of punishment? Would we punish a child because he is (physiologically) autistic or has cerebral palsy or diabetes?)
Liberals have a track record of running programs on a shoestring mistakenly believing that something is bound to be better than nothing. That typically translates into the use of more easily hired, low salaried, neophytes (inadequately trained and experienced personnel), and fully inadequate long-term follow through and support. It is one reason their well intended and even aptly conceived efforts so often fall short or fail. Another (which we have seen in recent years) is that many well designed programs, which show excellent potential and, which, in fact, have well documented positive results, become the victim of conservative fiscal policy when that philosophy comes to power. For example, very successful after school programs for young people living in troubled environments have been cut in favor of putting more policemen on the streets – which of course does become necessary as those kids who were being positively occupied and trained are cut loose to return unsupervised into the boiling cauldron of anger, discontent, and criminal mentality from which they were spawned. There is, perhaps, no better way to 'prove' the need for expanded law enforcement than to build into society the necessity for a significant segment of folks to survive by engaging in criminal, hurtful, activities.
By the time a ‘criminal’ or other sort of ‘bad guy’ gets into the conservative’s long delayed program of post-punishment rehabilitation he has been castigated and beaten down so long that his anger and revenge motives have been fanned into ‘set-in-concrete’, stable, personality stances. How can he possibly trust that other people have his best interests at heart? Has he acquired any helpful skills or perspectives that will (even can) serve him well during retraining and reentry into society? Does his ever-present and well-distributed criminal record in any way enhance his chance for success in the outside world?
As long as liberals promulgate inadequately funded programs with insufficient follow through and improperly trained personnel – even if enthusiastic and well meaning – their programs are doomed to fail. As long as conservatives insist on punishment for punishment sake first, their programs are doomed to fail. The generally circulated statistics suggest that about eighteen percent of inmates who complete a rehab program actually benefit from it once on the outside. This is frequently interpreted to mean that 72% of inmates cannot benefit from such programs. I wonder if it might be better interpreted to mean that those poorly designed and inadequately staffed programs fail 72% of inmates.
What must we do?
To this writer, the most obvious long term solution is to fix the home environments and neighborhoods first. Build socially positive, productive, beings from the git go. In our society, the concept of prevention within the social realm has by and large been lost somewhere along the way – probably because society is continually overwhelmed by having to fix everything that is going wrong (often referred to as the ‘band aid’ approach). Society touts flu shots and vaccinations to prevent illness. It offers dental hygiene programs to prevent decay. It used to offer driver training in schools to prevent the needless killing of our teens and their victims – mostly gone now due to conservative fiscal policies. There are even wide spread programs aimed at preventing the birth of unwanted children. But effective, properly distributed, parenting intervention programs are virtually nonexistent. Where they do exist, most are doomed from the outset because they are ill-conceived and are ‘presented’ by outsiders who can’t really understand the parents’ situations, to segments of society that are fully unable to relate with and trust those who would intrude into their lives and belief systems and pretend to offer realistic answers. That aside, they are not even staffed by the best possible, most experienced, facilitators. More typically, in fact, they are staffed by far too young, poorly trained, inexperienced, inadequately supervised, newcomers, who can’t possibly be wise enough to make such a program work. (In my experience, most free and semi-free social-help programs are staffed by such folks who use it as a practice field – a resume-filling spring board to better work environments and higher pay. Is it any wonder that those who need the help come to genuinely and realistically mistrust the ability and effectiveness of the social service sector to provide any useful assistance?)
Use local (‘indigenous’) talent. Train a few insightful local leaders to train ‘their own’. Plan a program based on baby steps that recognizes and rewards ‘mildly improved’ rather than only ‘full-out success’. Let the locals determine what they define as success. Remove sermons that suggest, “My way is right and your way is wrong.” Help the parents search through a wide array of alternative values so they can accurately determine the obvious and inevitable outcomes of each. Give folks credit for being able to see what will work and what won’t. Let them design programs for change, again with guided exploration of possible and probable outcomes. The successful intervention program must demonstrate readily attainable alternatives to those things that are not working – acceptable social and educational activities for children and teens, work opportunities that hold promise of long-term personal and fiscal stability and growth, home grown programs and activities that permanently and absolutely increase safety within homes and neighborhoods, programs that demonstrate absolutely the value of taking one’s legitimate responsibilities as opposed to just turning and fleeing from them, and finally, finding ways of proving that it is essential to be able to forgo immediate satisfaction in the service of some vastly more important eventual goal.
Avoid the current bevy of programs in schools and churches that ask young people to give up the values with which they have been raised in favor of the ‘better set’ provided by (thrust on them by) outsiders. There is no surer way to fail than to wade in and tell somebody that what they have always believed is hogwash. It builds a wall that can seldom be overcome. It pits, ‘everybody I’ve ever known and trusted' against 'this new outsider’. “Don’t do drugs” (when everybody they have ever known has done drugs). “Just say no,” (when to do so means certain pain if not death). “Stay in school,” (when they don’t know anybody in their neighborhood who did that or they have been taught eggheads are to be looked down on, or when doing that means you can’t work to help support your family who depends on you in that way). This recitation can go on down the long list of well-intentioned but inadequately researched and formulated ‘do-gooder’ programs. The true sadness is that the failure of these dismal programs are too willingly taken as proof that preventative and rehab programs just don’t work.
Here’s the test. If a program says to its intended ‘users’, “My way is right and yours is wrong,” or, “My way means you’re good and your way means you’re bad,” it is doomed to failure. You are better off not presenting it, holding out, as it does, hope for an improved life that can never be.
As a society, we must rethink the function of the judicial system and change its focus from merely determining guilt or innocence, from doling out punishment, and from a competitive confrontation between accused and accuser, to a cooperative effort to make meaningful, lasting, changes and whenever possible establishing reasonable means to help the offender comfortably modify his beliefs and behaviors so he can live among the rest of us in peace and harmony within the reasonable limits of the law. The expanded focus of a trial, then, comes to include determining what can realistically be done based on tested and trusted data and procedures so this person never has to again present this problem, and so he can live and support himself appropriately within social expectations and requirements. (Actually, I suppose, that really is the supposed bottom line of the judicial system, now, isn’t it? It just doesn’t work because its most basic, hurt and punish assumptions about how to accomplish the necessary positive results go against everything factual that we know about human behavior.)
End Note: I’m an old guy. I’m allowed to rant a bit and speak in extremes! My self -appointed mission in life appears to be nudging us all to think through issues of social philosophy from new and perhaps unique perspectives. If you can’t thank me for that, at least forgive me!
To read a discussion of these concepts in the context of a broader social philosophy, see the book, Building A Positive Social Philosophy, by Tom Gnagey.
If you are interested to see how these ideas might play out if applied in a small country, read the author's short novel, The Weaving of Lelonia: a social/political allegory.
7 - Greedy People Unite!
Where Do You Stand on the Age Old Battle Between Greed and Altruism?
By Tom Gnagey
Sept 2011
SYNOPSIS:
Within this generation, and with very little effort,
together we can surely destroy every last vestige of mankind on this
planet. Or . . . (A very brief discussion of the alternatives follows.)
ESSAY:
GREEDY PEOPLE UNITE! Within this generation, and with very little effort, together we can surely destroy every last vestige of mankind on this planet. Or . . .
To be conceived naturally, a human baby must have a mother and a father. Conception – the continuation of the human species at the biological level – depends on cooperative effort – the most primitive form of social interaction. The parents must place the welfare of the baby first – above their own. That defines the natural paradigm of nature's requirements for the continuation of humankind. It also defines the natural paradigm known as altruism.
Altruism is the antithesis of greed. Humankind is innately set up in a lose/lose situation. Just as without altruism humanity perishes, with greed, humanity also perishes. Greed is a natural, inborn, human characteristic that resides in the most powerful part of the mind. Our 'prime directive' is to stay alive and that means having everything we need. The Deep Mind makes no differentiation between 'enough' and 'everything'. Its motto seems to be, “If a little is good, a lot is bound to be better.” In its overriding quest to preserve the individual, the human mind seems to be oblivious to the necessary social milieu in which it has to live and function. It literally can't see beyond the end of its nose.
Altruism is a learned characteristic* which is best acquired by consistently experiencing altruistic models (parents, siblings, teachers, acquaintances, role models, etc.). Altruism restricts and controls greed. Without the ability to appropriately temper and rein in the human’s innate drive to base ones existence on greed, greed runs rampant – carelessly and illogically ignoring the necessity for social cooperation. (The Deep Mind does not – cannot – act according to logic.) Greed feeds the natural competitive spirit which, when taken to an extreme, will destroy the human species. (There can only ever be one who is best. Everybody else is to a greater or lesser extent a loser. On the other hand, everybody can shine as a cooperator.)
Punishment for (of) greedy acts can suppress them (so long as the likelihood of being caught remains high) but punishment can never replace greed with altruism – the essential trait being posited here.
Man's only hope for survival in a happy, productive, logical, and fear-free fashion depends solely on thoughtful cooperation, the basic element of which is altruism. In a society which, through its unrelenting media barrage of violence, the revenge mentality, and the ubiquitous worship of competition, man's primal (and essential) greed is not only allowed to freely run its calamitous natural coarse but it is mindlessly encouraged.
Greed is a natural human function – that merely makes it essential not innately good in an unbridled sense. Join me in making it our primary daily goal to model an altruistic approach for living – do so at least a half dozen times every single day. You WILL change the part of the world you touch and contribute to the survival of the human species.
* * *
A true story from the year1944. Phillip was eight years old. His sister Amy was five. They lived on a farm in the Midwest. Amy was severely injured in a tractor accident. When the doctor arrived he asked Phillip to lay next to his sister on the kitchen table so he could transfer his blood into his sister. Without hesitation Phillip took his place on his back beside his sister. He reached out and held her hand.
An hour later the deed was done. Amy would recover. Doc removed the rubber tube that had joined them, and applied gauze and tape to cover the punctures. Amy's mother carried her to her bedroom. As the doctor cleaned up and put his equipment into his black leather bag he noticed that Phillip had not moved from the table.
“Are you alright?” he inquired of the boy.
“I'm fine, doc. I was just wondering how many minutes until I'll be dead.”
If mankind is to survive and have its chance at becoming everything positive it has the potential to become, we must, today, begin taking our lead from young Phillip – unquestionably altruism's quintessential poster boy for the ages.
* Man does have what might be referred to as a 'mothering instinct' which amounts to a very focused, altruistic-like trait, aimed specifically at protecting our offspring – probably little more than an extension of our own prime directive to survive at all costs. It is a brain function shared with other mammals. It does not automatically transfer or expand to our human interaction as a whole and, in general, it emerges far too late in life to help preserve our species. (Without specific social requirements and training related to cooperation and altruism, adolescent males would have surely killed off the human species thousands of years ago!)
8 - Two Faces of the Human Self-Preservation Instinct
Tom Gnagey © 2010
SYNOPSIS:
The essay contrasts the personal and social ramifications of living a life based on hurting others compared with helping others. Interestingly, both approaches satisfy the HUman Deep Mind's prime directive – keep my person alive. An in-depth look at discipline, in its finest and most accurate sense, is offered.
ESSAY:
At the deepest – some would say most primitive – level of brain function, each human being is incontestably driven to preserve his own life. There may be three rarely engaged exceptions to this rule: to absorb a danger in order to preserve the life of a loved one, to end one’s own suffering as in old age or terminal disease, or to escape from some apparently overpowering force or problem or situation that seems to render continued life intolerable. Aside from those rare occurrences, continuing to stay alive is our prime directive.
In my experience as a clinical psychologist and student of human behavior, that fundamental drive can take one of two very different paths – one socially positive, constructive, and conducive to peace and compassion, and one socially negative, destructive and conducive to discord and violence. Sometimes the path an individual must follow is preordained by brain malfunction or chemical imbalances. Those are relatively rare conditions, apparently common mostly in violent criminals and tyrants. The rest of us are more or less free to choose the path we will take regarding our approach to self-preservation.
I say ‘more or less’ because the environments in which we grow and learn about social possibilities and responsibilities influence us in ways that sometimes don’t really leave us free to choose our own path. The path that is modeled for us and preached at us when we are young often becomes nearly impossible to overcome. (That also has its positive and negative implications.)
Path One – socially positive – is defined by behavioral tendencies that see violent behavior as only the absolute, final, self-protective, resort. It is a learned response to our prime directive. ‘If attacked or clearly threatened I will protect myself. Otherwise, I will work to resolve conflicts in logical, socially acceptable, and species preserving ways.’ It develops during childhood, typically modeling similar behaviors consistently observed in the grown ups with whom we regularly come in contact. These homes are safe, fear-free, and dependable, and offer a calm, happy, place in which to interact. Discipline* (meaning learning to control ones behavior in ways that will be both personally and socially helpful), is fostered in such homes through the consistent, thoughtful application of rules and expectations. When rules and expectations are violated, plans are made to help the youngster come to understand the necessity for those conventions and to develop and practice behaviors that are consistent with them. In this way the child learns to value positive behavior and positive interactions, and understands why it is an essential part of living in a dependably secure social setting. (And most important, learns how to guide and direct himself – values he transports with him.)
Path Two – socially negative – is defined by behavioral tendencies that make force-wielding violent acts the behavior of choice. It is also (almost always) a learned response pattern. ‘I will not wait to be attacked. I will take preemptive measures and hurt him before he can hurt me. I will make others afraid of me so they will refrain from attacking me. That’s how I will adjust to my prime directive for self-preservation.’ It also develops during childhood, typically modeling similar behaviors consistently observed in the grownups and peers with whom the child regularly comes in contact. These homes (neighborhoods) do not convey the feeling of personal safety. They are not dependable and do not offer a calm, happy, fear-free, place in which to interact. Behavior of which the parent or older siblings disapprove is met with violence, designed to inflict significant pain on the ‘offender’. The theory is, the more severe the pain the more likely the person will behave appropriately (that is, according to the punisher's desire) in the future. Discipline, when fully external, teaches the child that the most direct and immediate way to control others is through fear, force and, fighting. There is no time spent teaching or modeling positive social values. Those who advocate and model them are belittled and seen as weak. Once the mind's prime survival directive gets attached to the negative approach, it becomes very difficult ( if really ever possible) to fully and dependably shift to the positive.
Both paths (positive and negative) meet the requirements of the human mind’s Prime Directive to preserve itself. The second takes the route of the sub-human life forms that live in the kill or be killed world. The first engages the higher, human, mental functions to ameliorate and logically guide ones innate behavior tendencies and adjustment patterns. True, it takes more time, effort, and study to follow the first but then this human species has the essential skills and intelligence at its disposal that no other species seems to have. Not to use them seems to either reflect ignorance, ineptitude, or laziness.
The Essential Questions Posed here: Will we follow the less than human path or will we follow the path allowed by our remarkable human skills and potential? Which will more likely ensure the continuation of the human species into a productive and peaceful tomorrow? (Those who are self-absorbed in their present, would, of course, never see the relevance of asking that second question.)
____
•The concept, discipline, has come to be viewed inappropriately as being synonymous with punishment. That is a shortsighted, fully false, ‘lazy parent’, interpretation of the broader idea. Self-discipline must be our goal – it is guidance we produce from inside ourselves based on our positive values about ourselves and society. It allows for intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable change as conditions change. We carry it into every situation because it is a personally accepted part of our control center. External discipline forces one to behave in a certain way – dictated by somebody else – or be hurt, most typically through physical violence. It can only control inappropriate behaviors when the ‘enforcer-punisher’ is there to enforce the rule, or so things are set up in such a manner so that person will surely come to hear about any misbehavior. Without the enforcer (parent, policeman, teacher) present, one has no reason to (no internal control system to) maintain and manage ‘good’ behavior. It may be easier to hit a child and make him afraid of going against a parent’s wishes than it is to take the necessary time to help the child develop and accept, as his own, an ever-present, internal, guidance system (positive values) that follows him well beyond the enforcer’s presence. What do children from the violent dispensing homes learn so well, about how to handle interpersonal disputes? Quit simply, hit first. If that doesn't work, hit second(and so on!).
The concept, discipline, has come to be viewed inappropriately as being synonymous with punishment. That is a shortsighted, fully false, ‘lazy parent’, interpretation of the broader idea. Self-discipline must be our goal – it is guidance we produce from inside ourselves based on our positive values about ourselves and society. It allows for intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable change as conditions change. We carry it into every situation because it is a personally accepted part of our control center. External discipline forces one to behave in a certain way – dictated by somebody else – or be hurt, most typically through physical violence. It can only control inappropriate behaviors when the ‘enforcer-punisher’ is there to enforce the rule, or so things are set up in such a manner so that person will surely come to hear about any misbehavior. Without the enforcer (parent, policeman, teacher) present, one has no reason to (no internal control system to) maintain and manage ‘good’ behavior. It may be easier to hit a child and make him afraid of going against a parent’s wishes than it is to take the necessary time to help the child develop and accept, as his own, an ever-present, internal, guidance system (positive values) that follows him well beyond the enforcer’s presence. What do children from the violent dispensing homes learn so well, about how to handle interpersonal disputes? Quit simply, hit first. If that doesn't work, hit second(and so on!). Totalitarian societies and governments are based on the fear of external discipline (in that case meaning punishment). Free societies must be based on internal, self-discipline. Nobody ever grew up to be fully self-disciplined by being beaten into it! A child must believe, ‘I behave well because that is the best way to live my life and what I’ve seen modeled in my home supports that in every way’, not ‘I must behave well or get hurt and I have a string of spankings or beatings to prove it’. (In other words, I must sneak around in order to behave the way I really want to.) As the child who is moving along the path toward self-discipline encounters new situations, he or she CAN make new, personally and socially positive and productive rules for himself. The child raised in an environment of external discipline has no way to accomplish that because he has always been told how he must act (or else!). He is seldom socially successful and typically reverts to punishing others in stressful situations. Those things lead to sad, unproductive, socially destructive lives and in the extreme (logical and actual) work to keep our prison system over-flowing.
