I have not posted anything in a while. I've worked on two entries, but neither passed muster. But to prove I'm still in the blogging neighborhood, I offer this short entry on the quote of the day, highlighted in the emailed NY Times, April 27 edition.
I love it because first, I agree with it; second, it speaks to the ambiguity of life beyond full explanation or control; and, third, the quote itself is richly ironic. Army Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster is concerned with the growing use of PowerPoint presentations by military commanders. He said,
“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Effective but Immoral Words
I promised a follow up to my previous blog about the collateral damage of words. Holy Week and a week away for study has delayed me but, true to my word, here’s my new word on words.
Dr. Richard Lischer, a professor at Duke Divinity School, recently came to the church I serve, Second Presbyterian Church in Roanoke. In preparation for his coming, I taught a class using his book, The End of Words. At one point in my teaching, he inspired me to say:
When
what is said is serves
profit motives or special agendas;
and what is said is to the end of imposing black and white realities
on a complex world so as to establish sides-
a necessary prerequisite to one side winning…;
when
words become marketing tools meant to manipulate
and break down self esteem so the shamed will buy something
in order to be someone;
and words become weapons,
so that the louder and sharper they are
the more useful they are in winning;
then
those words have lost their moral meaning.
Unfortunately, those words, even without moral meaning, still can be effective. They work, but only because they appeal to our worst instincts.
I think rhetoric has deteriorated since 9/11. An ends-justifies-the-means ethic even more determines what leaders say because anxiety determines even more what we believe. In the aftermath of 9/11, our country went from one kind of naiveté born of decades of not being involved in a prolonged war, but only in in-and-out invasions, to a new kind of naiveté that thinks that enough shock and awe violence can keep something like terrorist attacks from ever happening again. In this new age of naiveté, we are deluded into thinking that the toughest talk is the wisest talk. Lischer quotes Yeats who might speak more to our day than his:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Talking tough is supposedly real leadership these days. Never mind, that some of these leaders don’t even know what tough is. Jesus was tough in going straight to Jerusalem knowing what awaited him. Abraham Lincoln was tough when he reminded the Union that the enemy prayed to the same God for victory. Robert E. Lee was tough when as the defeated general he worked for healing and peace. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were tough when they wouldn’t strike back but wouldn’t back down either. In their moments of being tough in working for reconciliation, they changed the world for the better.
But somehow the words and work of reconciliation doesn’t seem feasible anymore in the public marketplace. “Those kind of leaders are not appreciated in a black and white, zero tolerance, one percent doctrine, world.”
Yet those leaders are more needed than ever. History demonstrates that lasting stability and peace come not in winning according to some fabricated narrative of Us vs. Them that usually serves an agenda more than the greater good. Lasting stability and peace ultimately come through justice of a particular kind; justice with reconciliation as its goal.
So, here’s hoping for leaders who don’t confuse being tough with sounding tough.
*****
I appreciate those who have posted responses to previous posts, all of which were well stated and which I have taken to heart.
Dr. Richard Lischer, a professor at Duke Divinity School, recently came to the church I serve, Second Presbyterian Church in Roanoke. In preparation for his coming, I taught a class using his book, The End of Words. At one point in my teaching, he inspired me to say:
When
what is said is serves
profit motives or special agendas;
and what is said is to the end of imposing black and white realities
on a complex world so as to establish sides-
a necessary prerequisite to one side winning…;
when
words become marketing tools meant to manipulate
and break down self esteem so the shamed will buy something
in order to be someone;
and words become weapons,
so that the louder and sharper they are
the more useful they are in winning;
then
those words have lost their moral meaning.
Unfortunately, those words, even without moral meaning, still can be effective. They work, but only because they appeal to our worst instincts.
I think rhetoric has deteriorated since 9/11. An ends-justifies-the-means ethic even more determines what leaders say because anxiety determines even more what we believe. In the aftermath of 9/11, our country went from one kind of naiveté born of decades of not being involved in a prolonged war, but only in in-and-out invasions, to a new kind of naiveté that thinks that enough shock and awe violence can keep something like terrorist attacks from ever happening again. In this new age of naiveté, we are deluded into thinking that the toughest talk is the wisest talk. Lischer quotes Yeats who might speak more to our day than his:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Talking tough is supposedly real leadership these days. Never mind, that some of these leaders don’t even know what tough is. Jesus was tough in going straight to Jerusalem knowing what awaited him. Abraham Lincoln was tough when he reminded the Union that the enemy prayed to the same God for victory. Robert E. Lee was tough when as the defeated general he worked for healing and peace. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were tough when they wouldn’t strike back but wouldn’t back down either. In their moments of being tough in working for reconciliation, they changed the world for the better.
But somehow the words and work of reconciliation doesn’t seem feasible anymore in the public marketplace. “Those kind of leaders are not appreciated in a black and white, zero tolerance, one percent doctrine, world.”
Yet those leaders are more needed than ever. History demonstrates that lasting stability and peace come not in winning according to some fabricated narrative of Us vs. Them that usually serves an agenda more than the greater good. Lasting stability and peace ultimately come through justice of a particular kind; justice with reconciliation as its goal.
So, here’s hoping for leaders who don’t confuse being tough with sounding tough.
*****
I appreciate those who have posted responses to previous posts, all of which were well stated and which I have taken to heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
