Last Sunday, it happened again. A lone gunman opened fire in a crowded nightclub and killed or injured almost one hundred people. Thousands of lives were changed because of that man's actions. Immediately the questions arose, such as: "Was it a terrorist action?" "Was it a hate crime?" "Is there a difference?" "Where did he get his guns?" Certainly, in the days since then, we've learned some of the answers to questions like those. Knowing those answers will not change what happened. And, as we've seen in the wake of similar events, knowing the answers probably won't result in any lasting change in public policies. Just as immediately, and regardless of any answers to the questions, fingers began pointing. It's the easy thing to do; fix the blame elsewhere. This serves to re-establish certainty and normalcy, the notion that the world works in a particular way where "those kind of people" do "those kinds of things". And, of course, usually, "those people" are different from "us". The manner of difference varies widely, but we know who WE are by who we ARE NOT. There's nothing new about any of this. Sociologists have pointed out this phenomenon for a long time, and have observed it in the scriptures and writings of just about every religion and people. The problem is that these "easy" solutions don't, ultimately, work. Oh, some quick fixes might achieve some short-term results. Most often they simply serve to help us become even more entrenched in our own position, within our own tribe. They arise out of a place of fear. And those who would "have their way" with us will appeal to that fear, and we, too often, will give in. It's just easier.
But what if we operated out of a place of hope? What if, when encountering difference, or something we just don't understand, we saw it as an opportunity for growth, a chance for a better future? What if, instead of putting up our dukes, we pulled up some chairs, poured some tea/coffee, and shared our aspirations? My experience in those kinds of settings is that the tribalism begins to recede once we get to know the other. Of course, that's more difficult. Not only do we have to be open to hear and understand the "enemy", we have to be open to understand ourselves! And it takes a lot of humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Such engagements will not prevent what happened last Sunday. Tragedies like that are, unfortunately, part of our human story. As we have advanced in technology (from the rock, to the arrow, to the gun, to the atomic bomb), we have simply made the toll more likely to be higher. But our response cannot be to throw up our hands in despair, and retreat to our dens of fear. We need to seek out those with whom we differ, set aside our individual agendas, and learn together what we would like to see as a future.
So, along with that tea/coffee, how 'bout a serving of humble pie.
Blessings,
Gary
In this week's episode of OnBeing, Krista Tippet hosts a conversation with Jonathan Haidt and Melvin Konner; the discussion is titled: "Capitalism and Moral Evolution." Haidt made his "mark' in the academic/philosophical world with his book, The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006). I found that book very provocative, as I did his subsequent book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2013). So I was really anticipating enjoying this interview. And I did . . . up to a point. As I listened to the three-way back-and-forth between Haidt, Tippet and Konner (who I'd not heard before), I became increasingly uneasy about some of the conclusions. One of the main points, asserted early on in the conversation, was that there is a great similarity between Darwin's theory of evolution and the economic theory of capitalism. Neither a biologist nor an economist, the easiest way I could understand it was in the phrase associated with Darwin, "the survival of the fittest": members of the plant and animal kingdoms travel through a long process of adaptation to a particular environment, in a sense, by trial and error. The argument made by Haidt was that capitalism (or the workings of the market) functions in much the same way: what works (i.e., makes money) survives; that which doesn't fades away (anyone remember "New Coke"?). One of Haidt's points is that capitalism -- one of the darling theories of the political right -- really functions to turn people into liberals. Not recalling his precise examples, he infers that capitalism may lead to exploitation of workers or the environment which then "fires up" a younger generation who take corrective action (usually championing more "liberal" causes: worker rights, environmentalism, etc.). I must admit that I found that a fairly interesting hypothesis. The longer I listened, however, and the more I thought about both Darwinian evolutionary theory, as well as the economic theory of capitalism, I realized that something -- from my point of view -- was missing. Let me be clear, I am no foe of either theory; I see how both of them have functioned. The fundamental flaw (or, perhaps, "lack") in both, however, is similar. Both have, at their base, the sense of self-interest. The "survival of the fittest" assumes that the species "desires" to survive for its own sake, and will adapt itself to do so. The "market" will rule, because the investor will adapt the product in order to maximize return/profit (and that benefits the investor). I know that there are folks who argue that there is only a material reason behind every human action, often making these from neuro-scientific evidence. Not being a scientist, I have little with which to rebut those claims. On the other hand, I do believe that humans can can rise above mere materiality. And in this conviction, I stand in concert with most religious traditions.
In a documentary the other night on PBS, Steven Hawking was using the help of some young adults to show how evolution could have occurred simply through the mixture of water, salt and amino acids. BUT, it took several drops of a solution containing bacteria to get anything going (and of course, the existence of bacteria wasn't questioned). But once the bacteria was added to the amino acid soup, all creation broke loose. And, so, I wonder what it would be like to insert "compassion" (a non-material, non-self-centered, impulse) into the petri dish of evolution and/or capitalism?
Might we evolve differently going forward? As we wind up this commencement season, that would be my prayer for those graduating, that they not be driven blindly by "evolutionary" selection, or the forces of the "market", but rather by a sense that everyone and everything is worthy of their care, that everyone and everything is worthy of being raised up. Simply because their hearts tell them that it is right and good so to do.Blessings,Gary
