Get Happy

I think it’s possible to have arms-length friendship because that’s what I experience at work.  My supervisor (boss) and I are good friends, yet this doesn’t violate our professional relationship—we both know who's boss.  This understanding is what frees us to be friends.  Liberty would not be possible if we ever confused friendship with organizational equality—our working relationship does not prevent us from truth-telling equality on a personal level.  This undercuts my understanding of co-option.  Co-option is often touted in organizational literature as a tremendous problem in the integrity of oversight.  People who have the responsibility of professional independence are supposed to lose that independence of judgment through such things as friendly discourse, having meals together in which one side or the other occasionally treats, exchanging reasonable gifts at Christmas, sympathy and well wishes at times of grief, illness, or celebration--and so forth.  All these things which make living a delight (not to say deeply meaningful) are possible so long as the realities of rule are maintained.   Again, to be specific based upon personal experience, my boss came to my wedding, he expresses concern if I am ill, I enjoy the admiration and friendship of his wife, we exchange Christmas presents, to put it again simply, we are friends.  Yet this does not burden us, but frees us to be honest and truth telling.  My boss got on my case one time for being drowsy at work, for example.  Our friendship did not prevent him from confronting me when necessary.  I have nudged my boss now and then about things needing attention at work.  Difficult confrontations are facilitated by trust (not to say love) and a close working relationship.  In short, I think co-option is a sophisticated sounding concept that has serious problems.  It assumes that niceties that bring comfort, trust, and honesty to human relations are incompatible with organizational responsibilities.  I’m glad to know that’s not true.

I might add that this is also true I find at church where my Sunday school teacher is a friend to all, but in class is always in charge.  Don't sell short the human capacity to comprehend simultaneously the paradox of designated leader and personal friend.  Relax and rejoice--that's a great thing for everybody.  We are not regimented like ants, we are a special species, and we are made to be free and loving in mind and spirit.  Generosity is always possible and is the hallmark of humanity. Co-option is only a problem in appearance, not reality. This is not a friendship or human relationship problem; it is a personal problem in which individuals do not take their proper organizational roles seriously. It is important to get a true take on what redounds to organizational malfunction.

Print Page

Explosive Differences

Wars are essentially fights over control.  Therefore, to end wars it will be essential to find ways to legitimize control.  Democracy is an attempt to legitimize control and therefore obviate the necessity of war within the democratic state.  The Civil War in the US stands testimony that this is not always successful; irreconcilable differences based on tradition and belief tore the country apart.  The War was an attempt to reestablish control which was partially accomplished.  But, of course, control was not complete and compliance was in many ways successfully avoided.  The moral imperative of civil rights took decades to establish itself and to finally become enforceable by the sword of the state.  For the most part, unrest over living conditions in democracies fall short of rebellion against the legitimacy of the state itself, but rather register protests over the policies of the current representatives.    Protests are made in an effort to right the ship, not overturn it.

Alliances among states are a way to extend control beyond borders for protection and influence in the wild west of international relations.  Irreconcilable differences still exist here and hence mutual enmity becomes simply a reflection of extant reality.   Skirmishes and battles result.  Tremendous resources of all types are spent.  Driven by the deep human need for reciprocity, commitments tend to become unlimited.

A current wedge in human relations is cultural differences.  One culture is highly codified in behaviors that the opposing culture leaves to individual discretion.  Both sides derive a sense of righteousness and pride form their different approaches.     Tradition and belief form strong psychological imperatives for both camps.

The question arises, is the world big enough for both views?  Can both sides agree to disagree (like opposing parties in a democracy) and refrain from armed conflict?  Of course it cannot, because there is no overarching power or mechanism of legitimacy to enforce compliance;  additionally one side finds illegitimate any mechanism based upon representative democracy.    The present conflict is at base a zero sum game and the goodwill requisite for a nonbelligerent solution does not and cannot exist under current conditions; negative reciprocity will rule during this protracted and costly engagement.

Print Page

Saint Petersburg & The New Jerusalem

Today I was very proud of our City.  This was Scrub the Burg day and hundreds of youth spread mulch, pulled weeds, painted, and did other chores all about the city.  I ran into a group of the youth at TASCO lab.  They stopped there to cool off, take a break, and get water.  They were obviously having a good time and working hard. (In the afternoon, I saw a video complete with music of many of their activities done in the morning.)  Needless to say, there were boys and girls, and races of all types represented.  What made me especially proud was when a Parks Leisure Services manager came by.  He had on a Scrub the Burg T-shirt, and obviously because of his sweat and general appearance had been working hard; but he bore a happy frame of mind.  I said to myself, “Now there’s true leadership—not a forbidding potentate behind a big desk directing the youth to work, but getting out and being with them during the hottest and most humid part of the day.”  Sometimes I have felt that Saint Petersburg is the New Jerusalem.  Days like today bring this feeling back.  I don’t know why we want to think future bliss will be all ease and mauve.  I suspect that there is lots of work ahead in bold, primary colors.  From work flow creativity, generosity, and sharing.  In other words, the byproducts of work are essentially spiritual.  I suspect this dimension is a fundamental purpose of Scrub the Burg day.  It is certainly of equal value as spread mulch and pulled weeds. 

Print Page

Will It Last?

My blog today is something I wrote on 2/25/1999:   Will it last? --So far it has.

Will it last?

This feeling I have that at its core,

My country is better than the credit it gets.

Am I the only one daily amazed by the depth and breadth

Of simple kindness and humility before a common mortality?

Maybe it's where I work--at a civic center rather than an abortion clinic.

Maybe it's where I go to church--where people greet, not simply meet.

Maybe it's where I went to school--a professor I love could think lowly on his feet.

Maybe it's the family I'm in--family reunions bring everyone in.

Maybe it's the city I call home--a little sad but with deep wells of hope.

Maybe it's the young friends I have--they teach me everything old.

Maybe it's the friend that died--unscathed in my love by tragedy.

Maybe it's technology--I've never been convinced that it's a prison guard.

Maybe it's that my patriotism's bought and paid for by the goodies I get.

Maybe it's my health, my time of life, subconscious defenses, a little instability.

Whatever it is may it continue day by day until I'm dead,

For it does make a difference how I'm treated and the faces I meet,

And the sense of a purpose etched from the beginning of history,

A Promise Land, a place where people council in prayer,

To do better than exist and just get by,

But to trust and triumph in a Divine Will.

Print Page

Majority Rules, When It Shouldn't

We are on an international trip in a closed compartment with poor ventilation. Some decide they want to smoke; others don’t. So a vote is taken and those who do want to smoke outnumber those who don’t. In this instance majority rule should not prevail even though there is no state jurisdiction to appeal to. The health and safety of the minority must somehow prevail in importance. In this instance one must appeal to natural law. The majority has no right to harm a minority, and this is so by natural law. Of course in our situation without a state jurisdiction there is no one to enforce the law. But in situations where there are states, the duty clearly resides in the state of jurisdiction. Controversy will arise where the comfort and desires of the majority are posed against the needs and safety of the minority. Comfort and desires must not prevail. What is politically correct must not prevail. In the United States the Bill of Rights is often appealed to. Perhaps in this case the 9th Amendment would apply. “Rights retained by the people” would seemingly include the right for health and safety not to be needlessly jeopardized. “In 2000, Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the Ninth Amendment. He said that the Ninth Amendment refers to ‘a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law....a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law.’” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Print Page

Piety Profiling

I have a friend that recently went through a job application process with a law enforcement agency.  Besides a lengthy questionnaire about minute details of personal history and numerous references, there was a polygraph test full of skepticism and intimidation.  One would have to be forgiven in thinking the agency was looking for humans who were raised in a vacuum with its collateral of untried virtue.  I couldn’t help but wonder if Jesus could work there.  (Jesus, it will be remembered, got into trouble with the authorities for breaking religious code.)  The law enforcement agency seemed to be looking only for sins of commission (Have you broken any law or code?) and totally ignored sins of the heart—sins of omission when selfishness and prudishness destroy a more generous human spirit.  Give me the generous soul who has a spotted record any day over the parsimonious prude without a blemish.  I would be wary of the end result of piety profiling.  The agency might get what it deserves—piety without a person inside. 

Print Page

Getting Sloppy (Rationale Creep)

When I break the law or moral code it is usually the result of getting sloppy.  For instance this year I got a traffic ticket—a moving violation for not stopping at a stop sign.  How this developed was I began to get sloppy.  Stop signs on residential streets near my house and those near my work became very familiar, and I began to roll pass them without fully coming to a stop.  My intent and rule of action became not to stop unless I in advance saw traffic coming.  This then spread to other stop signs on busy and strange streets.  My personal rule of action no longer jived with state law.  I felt satisfied, since I was applying a rule, though just not the legal rule.  (The convenient rationale--as long as I applied my rule religiously, the state law didn’t matter.)  Often rationales are appeals to rules—simply our own self-interested rules.

At Publix this week I got a cart full of groceries, and put some soft drink cartons on the bottom rack of the cart because there was no room on top.  On checkout, I forgot about the drinks and didn’t realize they were not charged to me until I got out to the car.  I was tired (and sloppy) so drove away without paying.  My immediate rationale (and there is always a justifying rationale) was that Publix prices are more than their competitors on certain items, so this unpaid for item was just getting me justice.  Nice!  I shoplifted out of a sense of justice; just another phony rule of reciprocity.

Yesterday I got an atomic clock for my home.  It monitors the temperatures at two locations, the clock location and a remote location.  Both sensors require batteries—a total of 4 AA batteries.  I was at work and decided, since I sometimes run errands for my employer and don’t get paid (the reliable rationale), I would use their batteries in my clock.  This became another instance of getting sloppy on the back of selfish rationales.

Luckily amends are possible.  It was a relief in a way to get caught by the policeman for running the stop sign.  My rule was a dangerous rule, and it was only a matter of time before it ended in a serious accident.  I felt relief (as well as other emotions) the moment I saw lights flashing behind me.  I can still make amends at Publix and work.  This is necessary primarily to affirm that my rationales were purely selfish justifications, and to help avoid sloppiness and rationale creep in the future. 

Print Page