I saw the film “Love Free or Die” about Episcopal Bishop
Gene Robinson in Baltimore today, and I’ll review it very soon (tomorrow).
But one thought struck me apart from the movie, particularly
adding on to posts May 4 and April 12.
In history, most people have indeed lived in tribal or
faith-related societies (sometimes nationalistic or communistic) based on the
idea that a common good lies above the individual and must be respected, partly
because societies, groups and families must compete to survive and a sometimes
hostile world, beyond the control of any one person. Most people have faced the pull of “altruism”
(as in Edward O. Wilson’s recent book about eusociality) from the group
requiring personal sacrifice, beyond the idea of simply taking responsibility
for the choices one makes.
Sometimes these “sacrifices” involve taking risks to “protect”
others (by no means limited to just one’s own children), and sometimes they
involve accepting the will of the group or family in determining the course of
one’s life rather than following one’s own personal talents and gifts. And sometimes they involve willingness to
show emotional openness and accept the company, sometime intimate company, of
others that one would not normally have chosen just on one’s own. The latter
has sometimes been particularly disturbing to me. It’s upsetting in part because I was not in
the past always “equal” to others in matters involving formation of or
recognition of relationships. So don’t
come to me now, just because it’s tough.
I was never quite an equal on the team before. The other idea is, I could accept something
like this if I thought everyone else had to.
That sounds like pretty much the moral code a lot of older
people grew up with. In the Vatican idea
of sexual morality, “infidelity” was an offense against the whole community,
not just a marriage partner, and “adultery by thought” was as much a sin as
anything. Any sexual pleasure at all
implied an openness to taking possible responsibility for others, where one
does not always know the potential “quality” of someone who could become
dependent. Sometimes the best one can do
is help another person live as well as possible, not achieve according to one’s
own standards of how one wants significant others in life to perform. Likewise, any stake in public life involved having
a stake in the lives of others, and responsibility for them. When one has become public, indifference
merges into hostility.
Of course, we can see where this kind of moral thinking can
lead. A somewhat authoritarian culture,
where the “most able” (and hardest working) are in charge and are responsible
for making sure everyone else’s life has “meaning” within the social
structure. In benevolent circumstances,
such a culture can seem stable and sustainable for a long time, and then
suddenly collapse. (What did happen to
the Soviet Union?)
Such a culture, as a paradox, also encourages “upward
affiliation” among those having trouble competing for position in the “tribe”. That can lead to focus on one’s own thoughts
and talents and a resentment of being expected to pay attention to people one
does not “choose” (the “best that I can do” syndrome.)
Individualism (and resultant libertarianism) is a modern
antidote to all this. Personal
responsibility becomes an absolute concept, and everyone becomes his or her own
moral agent. But common goals far by the
wayside, and non-competitive people drop on the floor, and may not survive at
all. Or they may become nihilistic or destructive, believing none of society’s
legal standards are meaningful because it’s impossible to earn what one has
without hidden dependence on others. An
overly individualistic society may not be sustainable either, and could break
down into lawlessness. That leads to another galling circumstance: forgiveness being expected for someone who has shown contempt.
There is no such thing as a perfect social-political system,
and there is no way not to sin. That may
be why we need Grace!
No comments:
Post a Comment