Results tagged “community” from Marilyn Sewell

In yesterday's NY Times (p. B1), we are told that "in a provocative new study, a pair of Nobel prize-winning economists, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, urge the adoption of new assessment tools that incorporate a broader concern for human welfare than just economic growth."  Mr. Stiglitz said on Tuesday during an interview with a number of journalists, "What you measure affects what you do.  If you don't measure the right thing, you don't do the right thing."

Excuse me for saying so, but how is this thinking "new and provocative"?  These ideas have been around for over 30 years.  Our problem is not economic analysis: it is a combination of (1) human nature ("coveteousness" and "greed," speaking theologically); (2) an appalling lack of analysis and leadership in the academy; and (3) ignorance and lack of political will by elected leaders.

Just a short history of some alternative economic thinkers.  In 1972 the Club of Rome study was published, in which limits to growth was questioned.  The study considered the ecological impact of growth and the creation of wealth in relation to non-renewable resources.

In 1978, Hazel Henderson, economist and futurist, published a book entitled Creating Alternative Futures, in which she questions the value of judging human well-being with a measurement of Gross National Product.  Since that time, she has continued to write and speak, developing her theories, encouraging a paradigm shift in economic thinking, and encouraging socially responsible behavior by corporations. 

In 1989, economist Herman Daly and theologian John Cobb co-authored a book on economic theory entitled For the Common Good, challenging the assumptions and theoretical fallacies of contemporary economic scholarship.  They recommended a shift from an economics based on individual self-interest to what they called an "economics for community."  They said that current models address the acquisition of goods and services, but say nothing about relationships.  (These two dare to believe that the disciplines of economics and theology have anything in common.)  The book is 492 pages of dense but exhilarating reading (in the opinion of one who slugged through it).

I could mention others--Simon Kuznets, creator of the concept Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which could be used to replace Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of economic growth.  The idea is that, for example, just because someone gets cancer from chemical pollution, thus generating wealth for doctors and hospitals--well, that's not really a sign of human progress and well-being.  So we need to look at both the costs and the benefits of growth.  In current economic models, the costs are called "externalities" and are not considered.

There is the Canadian scientist David Suzuki, who has been speaking internationally for over 15 years about the ecological limits of growth.  He has warned that societies typically can sustain only about 1.5%-3% new growth per year, without overwhelming their ecosystems.

Our Nobel prize winners say that we should not focus on goods and services produced, but on the material well-being of typical people.  We should measure such things as availability of health care and education, their report concludes.  That such statements should be considered "innovative" is a sign of where our society is, in terms of human services. 

It is true, as the article states, that the problem of any new measurement of economic well-being is the "how to" factor--how do we do such measurement?  It's relatively easy to measure GDP, but how about GPI?  How do we measure, for example, the hours that a parent spends tending to a child's needs--for no pay at all?  How do we measure the depression and devaluation of self-worth that often comes with unemployment?

The fact is that it is the most important elements of human life that are the most difficult to measure.  (Try measuring love, for example.  Or honor.  Or peace.)  But the difficulty of mathematical measurement does not excuse ignoring the economic realities of our lives and pretending that we are only what we get and spend.  And certainly some of what goes unmeasured is amenable to simple accounting: what does it cost a city to clean up a polluted site, for example.

Progressive economic voices, most outside the mainstream, have been telling us for many, many years that what we're measuring is an inaccurate reflection of our well-being.  Instead of remaining steeped in the conventional wisdom of their discipline, and composing mathematically verfiable articles for one another, economists should get down on the earth with the rest of us and help us structure an economic theory that corresponds to our existential realties.  Stiglitz and Sen have given encouragement to their colleagues to do just that.  I hope they take up the challenge.

 Share this

In my last reflection I commented on David Brooks' recent review (5/14) of Josua Wolf Shenk's essay "What Makes Us Happy," found in the current issue (June 2009) of the Atlantic.  Brooks says that the researcher, George Vaillant, discovered through his longitudinal study of the lives of Harvard men that "the only thing that really matters in life are (sic) your relationships to other people."  Brooks muses about Vaillant's life, a life lacking in warm relationship and intimacy, and concludes, "Even when we know something, it is hard to make it so."

I just read Shenk's article and found it fascinating.  It was one of those on which I used a magic marker copiously.  Shenk gives summaries of various case studies throughout the article, and he also from time to time reports interesting conclusions which Vaillant came to during his intensive study.  A few of these are the following:

". . . a glimpse of any one moment in a life can be deeply misleading.  A man at 20 who appears the model of altruism may turn out to be a kind of emotional prodigy--or he may be ducking . . . <a> kind of engagement with reality. . . ; on the other extreme, a man at 20 who appears impossibly wounded may turn out to be gestating toward maturity."

". . . mature adaptations are a real-life alchemy, a way of turning the dross of emotional crises, pain, and deprivation into the gold of human connection, accomplishment, and creativity."

He sites the seven major factors that predict healthy aging, both physically and psychologically: employing mature adaptations, education, stable marriage, not smoking, not abusing alcohol, some exercise, and healthy weight.

But at no place was Vaillant more powerful and articulate, says Shenk, than when he describes the significance of love and intimacy in our lives.  Vaillant was asked in an interview in March 2008, "What have you learned from the Grant Study men?"  Vaillant responded: "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people."

Perhaps Vaillant was so keenly aware of the importance of relationship because his life has always been fraught with such difficulty in that arena.  So how is it that someone can know so much and yet find it so difficult to put into practice what he clearly understands?  Vaillant answers this question in a profound and moving statement in his book Adaptation to Life. Speaking of his male subjects not from a scientific, but more from a philosophical or even theological perspective, he writes: "Their lives were too human for science, too beautiful for numbers, too sad for diagnosis and too immortal for bound journals."

So yes, the process of learning to be fully human, the process of learning to love openly and deeply, is in the final analysis, a mystery.  We don't understand why we do what we do, or why we fail sometimes to become what we most earnestly desire to become. 

However, in my last reflection I did promise you an answer, and an answer I will give.  Love is the most powerful force that exists, and love can be taught.  It is best taught in the first 18 months of a child's life, and if a child is separated from mother during those years for any reason, or if a child is abused, or if a child is with parents who cannot for whatever reason nurture the child, then learning love later in life will prove difficult.  But except in the most profound cases of deprivation, it will not prove impossible. 

People who need to learn about love can do so by being with people who know how to love, in community and in intimate places in their lives.  Often helpers are needed--skilled psychotherapists for sure, spiritual advisors, massage therapists, yoga teachers, etc., etc.  A loving community is essential.  In the best of all worlds, the love-deprived person will be able at some point to enter into a long-term, intimate relationship with someone who is good at loving and who will love the person exactly as he or she is. 

Is there any guarantee?  In this world, there never is.  We just don't know.  But we can do our best to increase the odds.  We can love, and we can reach out for love.  In the end, we'll find that Vaillant is right--it's all that matters. 

 Share this

I recently received an anonymous letter.  Now no leader is immune to these things, and I've gotten a few in my day.  Generally they are nasty and often incoherent ravings which I don't bother reading.  This one was decidedly different.  This one was a cry for help.  But since I don't know who sent it, I can't respond.  I know only what she has told me about herself in a 3-page letter. 

M is a person not unlike many of you reading this blog.  She says she has a good sense of humor.  She is a single woman from a middle-class, two-parent family who has worked hard to create a good life for herself.  She has struggled successfully with health problems and problems of self-esteem for the past 10 years and has learned  to cope, in her words, "without self-medicating (food/alcohol/drugs)."

M successfully bought and sold her first house, making a tidy profit.  She re-educated herself about U.S. history from the working people's point of view and found her life's passion as an activist. She opened the first fair-trade shop in her area and created a peace movement in her hometown.  Having previously lived in Portland for a short time, she decided to move here and dedicate herself "to creating a just and equitable society with the good people  in the City of Roses."

But job hunting in Portland has been daunting.  After a life of successful employment, she can find nothing.  When she wrote the letter, she was less than two weeks from being kicked out of her rented room and needing to live in her van.  She needs money for food, medical care, and transportation.  She is asking herself the question, "How is it that an able-bodied person with good work skills and a positive mental and spiritual outlook . . . who comes from a solid middle-class family with loving and supportive parents be standing on an economic cliff, just waiting to be pushed off?"

Dear M--

Had you come to me for counseling, I would have given you a cup of tea.  We would have sat quietly together, and I would have listened.  I would have tried to get to know you not only by your words, but by your facial expressions, by the quality of your voice.  I would have tried to be fully present with you during our time together.  I might have said some of the following things:

I'm so sorry that you are in such a state of fear and pain.  You may feel alone in all of this, but so many people in our church and in Portland and all over the country are facing similar frightening circumstances.  You may feel alone also, because you're new to our city--but  there are many compassionate people who care, and some of them may be found in our church.  Come to the church and visit with one of the ministers, or a lay minister.

Please do not blame yourself for the situation you're facing--it's all too easy for an unemployed person to think that there's something wrong with them.  That's just not true.  Our unemployment rate is in the double-digits in this state--and those stats don't include all those who have given up looking for work and all those who are under-employed.  You've had problems with self-esteem in the past, and these same demons may reappear while you're going through this vulnerable period.  Keep telling yourself that you are not the problem.

In your letter you say that this economic crisis is proof that the current economic model is not viable.  I couldn't agree more.  We are trying to "bail out" a system that is corrupt and finally imploded upon itself.  We are going to have to reimagine how we want to be together as a people, and we're going to have to create an economic model that is inclusive of the well-being of all, not just the wealthy.  With your understanding of class and your commitment to change, you will be a part of creating that new future.

As to how we got in this fix--and it is a world-wide phenomenon, of course--the short answer is "sin."  Too many people were willing to look away from what they knew to be true, because they were being enriched by a system that had no integrity, that was bound to fail.  Government and business ane functionally interchangeable, and one might even say that the main purpose of government in this country is to protect and support big business.  Until the people say "no more!" shameful economic inequity will continue,  I hope that the bankers and money brokers and government officials who turned a blind eye to our economic disaster-in-the-making understand that real human beings like you--millions of them--are suffering terribly because of their selfishness and lack of responsibility.

The last question in your letter is "When will it end?"  I wish I could prophesy, and tell you.  But no one can, because the situation we are facing is unprecedented.  Thus far, we have been throwing old solutions at a new problem--kind of like treating AIDS with lots and lots of penicillin. 

I will tell you this--it will end, though, because human beings eventually figure stuff out.  All of us have to be a part of the new age that is coming.  In the meantime, find a community.  Know that you are not alone.  Know that you a good person.  Know that the future will open once again for you, as it has in the past.  

Bless you, my dear, wherever you are.  Though I don't know you, know that I'm thinking of you.

Marilyn 

 Share this

One of my congregants read a passage from the late Walter Lippmann today at a meeting, and I found his words both moving and relevant to our current political/financial crisis.  The passage is from Lippmann's essay "The False Gods," Today and Tomorrow, May 20, 1932.  In part, it reads: 

"What is it that has shaken the nerves of so many?  It is the doubt whether there exists among the people that trust in each other which is the first condition of intelligent leadership.  That is the root of the matter.  The particular projects which we debate so angrily are not so important.  The fate of the nation does not hang upon any of them.  But upon the power of the people to remain united for purposes which they respect, upon their capacity to have faith in themselves and in their objectives, much depends.  It is not the facts of the crisis which we have to fear.  They can be endured and dealt with.  It is demoralization alone that is dangerous.

"A demoralized people is one in which the individual has become isolated and is the prey of his own suspicions.  He trusts nobody and nothing, not even himself.  He believes nothing, except the worst of everybody and everything. He sees only confusion in himself and conspiracies in other men.  That is panic.  That is disintegration.  That is what comes when in some sudden emergency of their lives men (sic) find themselves unsupported by clear convictions that transcend their immediate and personal desires."

We have a situation now in this country in which nobody knows what to do, and nobody trusts the good will of our leadership.  In the face of the current financial meltdown, no more do we believe that "actually, someone is in charge; somebody knows more than I know about how things work--I need not worry."  Instead, it has come down to our "immediate and personal desires."  How does this crisis affect me?  Or, in the case of some people, "How can I profit from this crisis?"  Or in the case of some of our Congress people, "What must I say or do to be re-elected?"

We see conspiracies everywhere.  We fear that power given will be power misused.  What seemed perfectly clear a few weeks ago is no longer on the radar screen at all.  Hardly anyone is thinking like a citizen; many seem to being thinking how to gain advantage, rather than how to help and to heal.

The remedy?  Try honesty and trust.  Try integrity.  Try being sensitive to the needs of the poor.  "The world is flat," Thomas Freidman says, and all of us are one. All of us are one, yes, but not only in terms of our flow of money and goods, our fast-food joints, and our pop music--we are also one much more more literally, much closer to the flesh.  We cannot be separated, one from the other. What is good for one is good for all; what hurts one, hurts all.

We know that withdrawing honesty, trust, integrity from any relationship destroys that relationship.  We also know that whatever we do for ourselves alone is not enough, it is never enough.  We move through each day of our lives only with the support and care of many others.  The complex systems of families, communities, institutions, and governments that hold us are there only because of the common faith and trust of many who are present now and the many who came before. 

The power of the people depends upon our faith in something larger than our immediate needs and desires.  We need leaders of integrity and vision who can bring us together.  We need leaders who can summon us to a future that is worthy of our lives.

 Share this

One really nice thing about flying--perhaps the only nice thing these days--is the opportunity for a little quiet time.  If I can adequately discourage a loquacious seatmate, I generally settle into a thoughtful book of essays or a moving novel.  I often find myself making notes about future sermons, because any break in my usual world of stimulation and task-orientation gives rise to creativity.

And now I read (NY TImes, 9/14) that American Airlines is offering Aircell's in-flight internet access, called Gogo.  Oh, no!  Please, no Go-go!

Passengers are not allowed to use their enhanced laptops to make phone calls, but the capability is built in--so how long will it be before the techno-wizards figure out how to make that "emergency" phone call (to their business partner for strategy, to their girlfriend to make amends, or to their mom on her birthday)?  I venture to say, not long.  Maybe about 20 minutes after lift-off.

Now I understand the need to speak to others about important matters.  I do that all the time myself.  But I also rue the day when I began to listen to other people's conversations in restaurants, in grocery stores, at the pharmacy, in the quiet of the spa, while waiting at the coffee shop for my turn, while walking down the street, while taking a leisurely train trip.. 

A recent train trip to Seattle was perhaps the most offensive cell-phone experience I've had lately, when a young woman treated the rest of the car to her end of an anguished argument with her boyfriend.  After fifteen minutes, I got out of my seat, walked back to her, and said, "Excuse me, but do you know that everyone on this car can hear everything you are saying?"  She thanked me and hung up.

There is a principle we seem to somehow miss in American culture--the principle of considering not just individual desire, but how one's behavior might affect the community.  So someone is allowed to put up a building that is a painful contrast to surrounding historic structures.  Gasoline-powered leaf-blowers, used to render private sidewalks and yards pristine, invade our neighborhoods, and we all suffer from the noise.  Billboards face major roadways, where we cannot fail to see their messages, distracting us from driving and disturbing the beauty of the landscape.  Individuals should not be allowed to invade our senses of hearing, smell, vision, etc., for their own private purposes.

Quite honestly, the cell phone is one of the most disturbing evolutions of this generation, for me. Of course there are legitimate uses for the beast--for road emergencies, to keep up with errant children, to let someone know that you have been irrevocably delayed for whatever reason.  But they should be used in private.  If you count yourself my friend, please do not answer your cell phone while we're conversing, and I'm pouring out my heart to you about . . . whatever.  Congregants and visitors to the church, please do not interrupt the sermon ever again--or at least interrupt it at a funny moment, not when I'm trying to advise people about their immortal souls.  Or for God's sake, please don't allow your phone to ring during the memorial service, as happened in one service I was conducting, when the ring went on and on and on during a most solemn moment in the service.  Thanking you ahead of time.

One playful fellow I know likes to approach people who are having one-sided conversations outloud in public places and just get in on the conversation.  "So how is Sam, anyway?" he'll say to the person speaking on the cell phone.  He figures that if he's pursuant to the conversation, he wants to know the whole story.  I myself have fantasized about handing out a small card to cell phone offenders, with the following message: "Please don't involve me in your private conversation."  But then I feel petty and mean-spirited.  Cell phones turn me  petty and meanspirited, I suppose.  I should work on that.  Maybe meditate more.

But please, please, please, American Airlines!  Don't let them start using cell phones on airplanes.  We should all fly less anyway, to save our dear planet.  Well, if  passengers start talking on cell phones, I won't fly at all.  I can't bear it.

 Share this