Lives That Matter (Update)

 

Indeed.

This is a short (haha haha haha) update to my previous post Lives That Matter.

Of course all lives matter.  That is not the question.

The real question is, are all lives actually treated as if they matter equally in society right now?

That is the true question.

We should be asking if:

• the poor are treated as if they matter as much as the rich;
• people of color are treated as if they matter as much as white people;
• women are treated as if they matter as much as men;
• the under-educated are treated as if they matter as much as educated;
• blue collar are treated as if they matter as much as white collar;
• non-heterosexuals are treated as if they matter as much as heterosexuals;
• political moderates are treated as if they matter as much as far left or far right;
• And so forth.

I covered this more in depth in the post On Critical Race Theory.

And if not, what does a leader do?  Do they ignore a fire by saying the office should not be on fire (of course it should it not), or do they accept that there is a fire and then go put it out?

Don't effective leaders constantly shift focus from one area that lacks and needs attention to another in order to constantly improve the whole organization?  (And they do this by putting more resources into the hands of those most capable of dealing with the issues, not by micro-managing.)

Effective leaders do not say, "That is not in accordance with our mission statement and culture, and therefore the problem does not exist."  That is turning a blind eye and only invites disaster.

The same can be said for hyper-inflated patriotism and nationalist propaganda.  We have high ideals in the United States that we should be proud of, and high standards we should continue to hold ourselves to.  But in doing so, we should also be honest with ourselves now and our history.  We should hold ourselves accountable for where we have come short of our ideals so that we can continually improve, as much as we are proud of our accomplishments.

Patriotism alone is not a problem.  Patriotism can be problematic under two conditions:

1.  If patriotism blinds.  Patriotism does not have to blind, but it can.

Patriotism could suffer cognitive biases such as ignoring your faults and highlighting your achievements,  Or conversely, ignoring the achievements of opposing views and highlighting their faults.  Every person and group of people commits cognitive biases.  That does not excuse it, but rather signifies the importance to critically examine ourselves so that we can overcome it as best as we can.  Only then can we see things more and more clearly, and because we see things more clearly, continually improve.

Propaganda blinds, and patriotism can bleed into propaganda on one end of the continuum.  Every nation engages in some form of propaganda with its own citizens, allies, and adversaries.  Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes it is just part of the culture.

Guess who gets to write the history, the cultural narrative, and the propaganda?  That's right, the victors and the dominant sub-culture.  In America that's wealthy, middle-age, white, Christian, heterosexual men.  That's not to say others do not get to participate, but the closer you are to this paradigm, to this special in-group, the more privileged you are, the more you get to participate in the molding of the culture, and also reaping of the benefits.

2.  If patriotism divides.  Patriotism does not have to divide, but it can.

Patriotism can divide internally, such as amongst the different classes of groups, and externally, such as nation against nation.

Are some leaders being divisive?  Casting spells of populism and demagoguery?  Ask yourself who and what motivation might they have?  If the citizens are fighting among themselves, it is like a strongman first tying up the homeowner so that he can then plunder the house.  A house divided cannot stand (Matthew 12:26) and the human race is one family, one house.  

Internal division:  You could focus too much attention on a problem that does not or hardly exists, to make a mountain out of a molehill.  That would be dividing internally.  But if the internal divisions are already there, if they do actually exist, then ignoring the problem isn't going to resolve the problem, either.  

There is no clear dividing line between those who are privileged and those who are not, but there are certain characteristics that afford more power and privilege than others.  These can rack-and-stack power and privilege for those who enjoy many of the characteristics or deny power and privilege for those who have few of the characteristics.  See my post on Critical Race Theory.

Those who enjoy more of these privileges will not experience as many hardships that come with power differentials.  Therefore, they will have a harder time seeing that privilege even exists and is a problem.  

Those who do not enjoy many privileges will experience more hardships that come with power differentials.  Therefore, they will have an easier time seeing that privilege exists and is a problem.  

This is not a criticism, since you are only aware of what you experience.  But it is something everyone can move beyond by expanding their perspective beyond the self and the people they most identify with.  Doing so with understanding, empathy, and compassion will lead us to realizing that there is a problem and ways of resolving it fairly for all.

It takes a finesse in dealing with an internal problem like this.  You do not want to fan the flames of the fire and encourage more division, but you also do not want go to the theater while the house burns down.  An effective leader navigates the tricky waters between the two.

We have inequalities in America that have grown out of hand.  People are crying out for reform a major overhaul in several areas.  We don't need or want a revolution or anything like that.  We don't need or want to be socialist or communist.  We just need to make our system work (more) fair again for once.

External division:  I'm referring here to nationalism versus globalism and isolationism versus alliances.

There is always an ebb and flow, a waxing and waning, between independence and interdependence, as I explained in part in my post On Harmony and Change.  But if you pull away too much from the whole, everyone suffers.  You then become part of a cancer, a seceding, and that ultimately benefits no one.  It's a lose-lose situation, the opposite of a win-win.