Compliance, Creativity, and Community

Many models exist that purport to describe the structure and functioning of a healthy community. To some degree, the diversity in the models can be attributed, at least in part, to the point of view of whoever has the power to define health and success for community participants. The preponderance of existing models are grounded in hierarchical structures, so that the accepted view is typically from the top down.

To illustrate: Much of religious thought posits a god “above” who determines what is best for all “below.” Such a god’s earthly representatives assume the superior position and promulgate the terms of morality and social success to those deemed inferior. That inferior group would include the rest of us. I might add, parenthetically, that these earthly representatives of the divine also assume the right to determine the use and fate of our planet, too.

Persons and groups with economic, political, or social power tend to replicate the top-down pattern of authority. (Corporations and super-wealthy individuals, kings and others with political power, and strict fathers, respectively.)

All who inhabit these superior positions assume as truth that they actually possess the vision, knowledge, and even wisdom to determine what is best for everyone else. With few exceptions, this model continues to hold sway in the present. Any person or group that attempts to challenge or de-legitimize this hierarchy of “benevolent dictators” is in for a fight.

There are many examples of creative, grass-roots movements and activities that have challenged the hierarchical status quo. Sadly, for the most part, they have ended up, either defeated, or more typically, co-opted into the prevailing model. Early Christianity, for example, was a threat to the culture of the Roman Empire, not because it represented some rival dominant power, but because the egalitarian nature of its community structure rendered unnecessary the prevailing pursuit of upward mobility. Because the Empire traded in coercive power, it could not countenance any system that devalued its might. The Empire eventually prevailed, not by destroying Christianity, but by embedding its own hierarchical power structure into the organization of the Church.

Several centuries later, The Protestant Reformation effectively challenged the Church’s presumption to divine power, and instead located that power in the faithful relationship between the the individual and the divine. Still, the system maintained the power structure by establishing the Bible as the incontrovertible word of the divine Father (up there!). The dominant power of interpretation simply re-rooted itself in new ecclesiastical structures.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the college-educated (G.I Bill?) middle class challenged the political and economic power structure of the “military-industrial complex,” particularly around the questionable morality of the War in Viet Nam. So, what subsequently happened to the energy of that extraordinary era of political activism? It appears to me that it got “bought off” by the lure of a kind of consumerism that kept people so focused on making money for their increasing standard of living (meaning, toys?) that there was no longer time left for nurturing or developing the capacity for ethical reflection. Wealth tends to speak with arrogance, teaching all other people and cultures that their cultural inheritance is less important than what they should be able to buy. At the same time, the power structure has put relentless pressure on our educational institutions, making them function more as skilled worker generators and less as places where people learn to think (or reflect on practical applications of ethics and morality).

For a time in the 20^th Century, liberation theology and feminist theology began to have growing influence on public opinion with regard to the needs of historically disenfranchised groups. But the prevailing power structure continues to work very hard to undermine the legitimacy of such a position (no matter what Jesus said about faithful responsibility to the poor). There still exist creative proponents of these unorthodox positions, but world events in the realms of economics, climate change, and natural disasters have served to distract us all from the deeper issues that might turn out to be more relevant to our long term well being and even survival.

Each of the above examples has articulated a perspective different from the hierarchical model of dominance. The power of love in community, the spirituality of the individual, the moral and ethical perspective of those who are forced to pay for wars that do not reflect their personal ethics, and the valuable experience of the world’s disenfranchised groups each give us unique and useful ways to determine and assess the elements of healthy community.

In short, it appears that radical creativity is the enemy of compliance. I wonder, given the state of the world, if we will teach our children simply to comply and fit into the existing system or if we will encourage their creativity and capacity for a healthier vision.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

“The Promised Land is within and among us.”

Community of Promise

Finding Hope and Vision in a Troubled World

Is it getting more difficult for you to watch the news? It is for me.
My problem is not that bad things happen in the world. Earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and collapsing economic systems are really old news. The record of history shows that such events have happened constantly somewhere in the world for millenia. My problem with the news today is the difficulty in finding any compelling or fundamentally hopeful vision through all the dust and smoke kicked up by present events. Yes, we hear about outpourings of generosity in response to disasters, and we hear about the resilience of the human spirit, but those expressions seem to deal with a relatively superficial morality. To my mind, such rhetorical flourishes don’t rise to the stature of truly hopeful vision.

I find myself feeling scared and then angry at the state of the world – not at the natural disasters; those will happen; but at the general lack of profound reflection about the quality of community we might be capable of creating for ourselves – the kind of community that can maintain resilience in the face of crisis. In my anger, it’s tempting to point fingers in an attempt to identify who is to blame for this mess. It is no real surprise that blaming never really works, though according to Family Systems Theory the tendency to cast anxious blame in the face of crisis is normal enough. I find myself wondering if the time has come for me to throw up my hands in despair? Shall I toss a lifetime of optimism into the dustbin where it can hobnob with the rest of life’s disasters? Certainly, that is one option. But before doing it, perhaps I should explore exactly what I would be throwing away with my optimism.

If I choose to remain optimistic, it is necessary to determine the direction of my optimism. I have to figure out what vision operates as the foundation for my hope. I am reminded of all the high school valedictory speeches over the years that have exhorted fresh-faced graduates to create “a better world in which to live.” (The grammar of that phrase has never sounded quite right.) Still, that concept intrigues me: A better world! A better world? Better, how?

What is the direction of “better?” And is it possible to couch such a direction in profoundly hopeful vision rather than stale political rhetoric?

Humanity has always created (or discovered) visions that have been adopted by diverse cultures, often articulated and promulgated by charismatic figures. Too often, the power of the leader overwhelms the vision itself, and if it is being promoted on behalf of those in power, the vision can obscure, if not obfuscate, the often greedy self interest of the promoters.

Given these questions, I find myself wondering what validates any particular vision. Are some visions, then, better than others, or do the visions that find practical success merely reap the benefit of more effective promotion? Perhaps in this postmodern world where everything is subject to deconstruction, the variety of visions can all find themselves in the proverbial column with the heading: “There’s no accounting for taste.” Can all of our visions be reduced to the most potent combination of cleverness, intimidation, and wishful thinking (sometimes referred to as “false hope”)? Or can we evaluate our visions with more depth and creativity than that. The rest of this essay looks at some potential evaluative measures for our visions.
Here are three:

• Does a vision deal with real people who face real life issues? Many of the visions that have emerged and held sway over the millenia have done so in conjunction with religion: “The Peaceable Kingdom,” and “The Promised Land” from Judaism; “The Kingdom (or Realm) of God” from Christianity; and “Nirvana” from Buddhism to name a few. Many visions are essentially worldly, some are otherworldly, and some don’t have a “world” view at all. How does "worldliness" affect the usefulness of our visions?

• How does the relationship of the individual to the collective affect the usefulness of the vision? Visions vary enormously in how they deal with the individual in relationship to the collective. At one extreme is the importance of the survival of the individual or immediate family at all costs. At the other end of the spectrum is the value of individual sacrifice on behalf of the greater (collective) good. Some visions connect the extremes by positing the notion that healthy individuals make healthy communities and healthy communities foster the growth and development of healthy individuals. 

• How important is it for a vision to be “forward-looking?” Some visions look at potential well-being in the short term only, while others promote a deep concern for the future, “even to the seventh generation.”

Putting it all together, what vision(s) inform(s) your life and your economic, relational, and political stances? And if you find hope in your vision, what does it look like when you evaluate it by the above three criteria?

I would be interested in your answers to these questions, and I assume that others who read this blog would be interested as well.

I hope you will let us know what you think.

Wayne Gustafson
“The Promised Land is within and among us.”
Community of Promise

Putting Wealth and Community into Perspective

Well, big money wins again! Once again, the the wealthy are prospering and the rest of us are fighting over the crumbs. I read a disheartening statement in the news today. The article, by Geoff Mulvihill is called “Anger brews over government workers' benefits” reports, among other things, that government employees actually do have a slightly better economic deal than private sector workers. Here’s what the article says:

National data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that public-sector workers do better when it comes to pensions and benefits.

As of last September, professional and management workers in the private sector were making $34.91 in hourly salary; public sector professionals made $33.17 an hour.

The government entities spent 1.7 times as much on health care per employee-hour worked and nearly twice as much on retirement costs. Public-sector workers — who are more often represented by unions — are far more likely to have defined-benefit pensions with promises to pay for the retirees' whole lives.

So, here’s the deal: private sector workers make slightly more and public sector workers have better benefits. If we look exclusively at this data, we might be able to make a case for some adjustment. But first, let’s put these figures into some perspective.

Consider this: The richest 400 people in the country have a combined worth of about 1.37 Trillion dollars. That deserves a WOW, but there is an even more significant figure than that. Between 2009 and 2010 the net worth of our 400 wealthiest increased by 8%. First of all, who among the private or public sectors got an 8% raise between 2009 and 2010? In order to put the middle class wage struggle in perspective, let’s assume that 8% is the income for a year of the wealthiest 400.
An 8% increase from $1.27 trillion of $1.37 trillion is about $101.5 billion. That’s about $254 million for each of them.

There are 52 40-hour weeks in a year. So $254 million divided by 2080 hours per year shows us that each of our 400 wealthiest people made $121,995 per hour!!!!!!!!!!

(Someone might argue that the wealthy work hard for their money, so let’s assume, again for the sake of perspective that they work every available hour, never sleeping or taking any kind of a break from work. There are 24 hours times 365 days in a year, or 8760 hours. This means that this group makes $28967 per hour for every hour of the year! If the average worker’s whole economic package is about $50 per hour for 2080 hours per year, consider that the wealthy make more than 2400 times the amount the rest of us make in the same number of hours! (Try putting your own economic numbers into the calculation and see how you fare.)

Now, I ask you, given this obscene disparity, why should the $33 and $34 dollar per hour workers be encouraged to fight with each other about who has the better deal.

So Wayne, you might ask, what does this have to do with community? Well, in the political arena, it appears that the wealthy retain their power in part by fomenting a political situation that makes the rest of us enemies of each other as we fight over the economic crumbs. How can we ever build community when we are manipulated into such an adversarial relationship with the very people who should be our allies against a grossly unjust system? As long as we maintain our narrow focus on the tiny differences between the public and private sector, we will never even see the much more significant elements of systemic injustice.

That’s how I see it. What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson

“The Promised Land is within and among us.”

Community of Promise

Economic Struggles and Healthy Communities

I think everyone would agree that the news stories around the world are pretty startling. The battle over union rights in Wisconsin and the challenge to despotic governments in the Middle East and Northern Africa lead the list. While there are many perspectives that people use to understand and comment on these events, my perspective is that of healthy community. Very often political conflicts get framed as a battle between factions over the distribution of the economic pie. Clearly, that is a significant factor in Wisconsin as well as in Egypt, Libya, and other nations and states that find themselves in turmoil and upheaval. I certainly agree that economic distribution is a vital topic and a meaningful perspective, but it is not the only one, and ultimately it might not be the most important factor to consider as we try to figure out a healthy response to present conflicts.

Given the scope of this essay, I will confine my remarks to the situation in America (presently being played out on the Wisconsin political stage), although some of what I have to say may translate into other arenas as well. The distribution of wealth is important, but it sometimes causes people to confuse “standard of living” with “quality of life.” Quality of life requires healthy community and ample tolerance, if not respect, for the diversity within that community. I think that the rise of the American middle class has promoted healthier community and diversity, but their contribution to community has been far more than just their increased power as consumers. They have promoted creativity and myriad opportunities for people to be creative and relate to one another.. When we focus too much on economics and not enough on the elements of healthy community, we lose our most potent motivating force, and our lives become impoverished in every way. But let’s talk first about the economic situation.

My particular bias is that the economic disparity has swung way too far in the direction of corporations and the super wealthy, but even if political pressure eventually results in swinging the pendulum back towards the people, we are still left with a highly adversarial situation. If power to get one’s way is the only consideration, then the “other side” will always be preparing to push back. I think it is fair to say that since Franklin Roosevelt responded to the Depression by enabling the populous to get an economic foothold, thereby allowing the rise and empowerment of the middle class, the corporate wealthy have been pushing back. Certainly since the Reagan era, the middle class has consistently had its economic foundation undermined. And now, the economic right wing is planning to put the final “nail in the coffin” of middle class power by destroying the unions. If that is successful, then all the power will be with the corporate interests of the wealthy. It seems likely that those who are impoverished by the unrelenting tyranny of the wealthy will probably be motivated to respond in some way. Remember, push-back can go in both directions, but I question if the push for economic fairness alone is enough to restore a healthier community.

While I think the complete victory of corporate interests would be a dire outcome, most obviously in economic terms, my greater concern is that it virtually eliminates the possibility of having a healthy community. It makes ordinary working families, the ones that used to make up an educated and engaged segment of the community, into mere cogs in the corporate machine, with the benefits accruing only the wealthiest people. As bad as impoverishment is (and it is very bad, indeed,) it seems to me that dehumanizing and mechanizing people is much worse and can only act like a cancer, destroying the very body that is necessary for survival.

In Northern Africa and the Middle East, the political upheaval is fueled by people who have been systematically mechanized by their despotic leaders. I am embarrassed to say that America has benefited economically from our support of those despotic governments. (It’s about the oil, remember.) And, now the cancer of economic despotism is targeting us as well. Unless we can restore the sense of community and mutuality than any healthy body needs, we are doomed. Already, money has turned a large proportion of the political world against the very people they are presumably elected to serve. How long can it be before the “community’s immune system” reacts or even over-reacts. Violence is often the last resort of those who have no power and no hope. Please don’t interpret my last remark as promoting or justifying violence. In my opinion violence seldom if ever helps. Usually it makes matters worse. But if you remove all other means for people to survive, violence may be the only response left.

Given this scenario, do you think we will be able to go back to treating one another with the respect that is appropriate for fellow human beings, or are we doomed to be mechanized economic consumers whose only fate is ultimately to be consumed?

I am worried. What about you?

Wayne Gustafson
“The Promised Land is within and among us.”
Community of Promise

Family Systems Theory, Anxiety, and the Political Divide

I have found Family Systems Theory (FST) provides a most useful frame of reference for many of life’s dynamic and perhaps confusing situations. FST makes particular use of the function of anxiety in a system, demonstrating that the level of dysfunction in a system is directly related to its level of unprocessed anxiety. In my opinion, anxiety flooded systems have a hard time making wise decisions.

While the timing of dynamics may vary with the size of the system, the basic principles still apply. Anxiety has the same function in a whole country or culture as it does in a nuclear family. We live in a culture that is flooded with anxiety from a variety of sources. Some of it comes from the fundamentally dangerous nature of our current world. Danger from violence is the most easily identified source of our collective anxiety, but financial uncertainties and the cultural value of rugged individualism adds considerably to the mix. Furthermore, our arbitrary standards of “excellence” and productivity cause everything, and everyone, to be measured and compared. Can anything create any more systematic anxiety than that?

We can ask a couple of important questions about the anxiety problem:

1. Who benefits from the prevalence of high levels of anxiety in our communities? And
2. Is anxiety simply a natural consequence of our economic and cultural structure, or is it purposefully generated for unethical purposes?

For starters, it is apparent that anxiety generates lots of revenue. People don’t like to be anxious, so they will buy whatever product or service promises to reduce it. On the surface, it seems perfectly legitimate for a business to address such social distress, but of course, we need to ask whether the preferred remedy addresses the source of the anxiety or simply its symptomatic expression. Many remedies that work primarily at the symptomatic level can be addictive, physically, emotionally, or both. In that case, the remedy succeeds in creating more anxiety-based demand for the product or service. It is conceivable that some business interests might do this “in good faith,” honestly believing that what they sell is only valuable to consumers and is in no way dangerous to them. It also appears true that the more money is on the line, the greater the temptation to keep levels of anxiety artificially high.

While the above may be interesting, what does it have to do with the problem of the political divide?

It would be simple to conclude that the political right, with its obvious bias toward corporate interests, would have the greatest motivation to keep anxiety high. While the political left seems to champion the well-being of the people, it is unclear to me whether the left really addresses anxiety’s source, or if it, too, offers superficial, symptom-oriented solutions to troubled people, albeit unintentional.

What is crystal clear to me is that the two sides spend enormous amounts of time, energy, and money railing at each other about the shortcomings of the “enemy” position. Unless both sides can look more deeply at the sources of anxiety and not just symptomatic expressions and remedies, we will get nowhere. Of course, in the meantime, lots of money is still being made on goods and services. Hmmm?

That’s the dilemma as I see it. What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
“The Promised Land is within and among us.”
Community of Promise

Moral Development and the Political Divide

There is no question that the human mind is capable of astounding levels of growth and development, particularly in the realm of the intellect and the exercise of ingenuity. Since the beginning of the industrial age, the advances in technology to create tools for living demonstrates just how clever we can be. Today, I want to consider if we are capable of a comparable development in our moral/ethical foundations

In my opinion, moral and ethical development has lagged so far behind our intellectual development that we risk becoming overwhelmed, if not controlled, by our creations. (I am reminded of the popular sci-fi theme about robots taking over the world and destroying or enslaving their creators.) In some ways, Western culture’s mad pursuit of the latest gadget has distracted us and has tied up the energy necessary for the development of a healthier moral/ethical structure.

Before going any further with this thought, I want to clarify what I mean by moral/ethical. Too often, the idea of morality is used in a superficially judgmental way, resulting in what could be called “moralism.” Moralistic judgments are usually pointed at someone else’s behavior without benefit of sufficient context or experience. For example: It is being moralistic when a heterosexual person proclaims that homosexuality is wrong (or right, for that matter) without any knowledge about what it is like to experience same gender sexual orientation. There are even cases where people point moralistic judgments at themselves based on an arbitrary code of behavior without taking their own inner experience into proper account.

While moralistic codes may have the power to enforce behavioral compliance in a group, they do not build community. In my judgment, moralistic judgments actually undermine community. Clearly these last two statements reveal my bias: that building healthy community is a more worthwhile goal for humanity than enforcing behavioral compliance to arbitrary rules. A significant part of building healthy community involves the creation of a moral/ethical foundation that can grow as needed to balance our technological advances and to feed our souls and communities in ways that are impossible for technology. There’s that word “moral” again. Healthy morality is not the same as being moralistically judgmental. Healthy morality must be based on something other than rigid lists of dos and don’ts. Healthy morality, just like healthy community, must find a foundation in compassion and connection. Healthy morality is fundamentally relational.

The central question in this essay involves whether or not humanity is capable of growing and developing beyond moralism. I am particularly interested in how the development of a healthy morality is necessary to mitigate the excesses of the present world of politics. I am aware of two factors, at least, that can promote moral development. The first is time. Often the adolescent world view is relatively amoral, but people grow out of that view and into adulthood. The same process happens in groups, but the larger the group, the slower the process. Also, some people do not make it out of adolescence for a variety of reasons, and it is still not certain whether we will have time to outgrow our cultural adolescence. The second factor that can promote moral development is having to face consequences. The world is filled with challenges, and it could be argued that much of what we face is due to our cultural adolescent reactivity and lack of foresight. As we learn to deal with the effects of global warming, of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the fragility of the world economy and delivery systems for food and other necessities, we may discover a deeper moral foundation that demonstrates how connected we all are to each other and to the planet.

Clearly, we cannot simply wait for the “culture” to grow up. Healthy systems to some degree are products of healthy individuals who are capable of mutuality and non-coerciveness in their relationships. While I do not promote individualism (any more than moralism), individuals are still capable of maturing themselves. I would suggest that we each take responsibility for our ongoing moral development (none of us have yet arrived at full development because it is a lifelong process). I suggest that we develop the courage and ability not to be reactive to the reactivity around us. And finally, I suggest that we resist the temptation to think in a one-sided way about the political issues that have become so divisive.

I suggest a book that, while written for religious congregations, helps to define healthy, morally developed leadership: Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times: Remaining Calm and Courageous, No Matter What by Peter Steinke and also, A Failure of Nerve by Edwin Friedman.

Among other things, these books remind us that we need not be alone when we assume our responsibility as individuals to grow into adulthood.

This is how I see it. What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
The Promised Land is within and among us."
Community of Promise

Political Discourse and Images of God

Theological reflection can be used in a wide variety of ways. In many quarters it has gotten a bad name because of the way it sometimes makes apparently authoritative statements about the meaning of life’s events and its constituent parts (people, for example). The use of theology in this essay does not travel the authoritarian road, although I may imply something about the nature of that road. I am suggesting that how we see (or image) “God” has a direct influence on how we “do” politics.

Let me begin by articulating a few common images of God. The first one I call the “Santa Claus God.” According to this image, God is “making a list and checking it twice, going to find out who’s naughty and nice.” Furthermore, God brings good things to those who are deserving and visits lumps of coal (pollution and all) on those who are not deserving. To this “God,” obedience and good behavior are the highest values.

The second image of God is the “Genie in the Lamp (or Bottle).” According to this image, God’s role is to respond to direct requests, perhaps even orders, for whoever has the ability to rub the lamp properly. If you are among the uneducated or unskilled in “lamp rubbing,” or don’t have enough faith, then too bad for you.

A third image of God is an image most often described by the biblical prophets: God is like a nurturing mother who cares deeply for all “her” children. This “God” demands that her more affluent children carry out their responsibility to help the poorer ones.

A fourth image (that’s enough for now) sees God, not in human terms at all. This God is love, connection, relationship itself. The very principle of connectedness is divine.

Now that we have these four very different ways of conceptualizing or imaging God, lets return to Paul Krugman’s articulation of the “Two Moralities”(the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html)
Once again, here is how Krugman defines our present political split:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state – a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net – morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

So, which of the images of God would you say is embodied in each “morality?”

Rather that answering the question myself, I invite you to try it yourselves. Use the comment button below to give your answer. Let’s begin a discussion about the possibilities. Our sharing should prove to be rich and informative.

You might be wondering about the purpose of this exercise. It is my hope that we can use conversations like these to get underneath the divide and develop a clearer understanding of the more obvious and often intransigent positions. There is much on the line in our political world today. And money is only one measure of our stake. Our very ability to continue to live and thrive on the planet is at risk and is in no way guaranteed. It may be that quality of life becomes a more useful measure than standard of living as we assess the success or failure of our grand political experiment.

Let the conversation begin!

Wayne Gustafson
“The Promised Land is within and among us.”
Community of Promise