The essence of the Atlas syndrome is
that we feel more responsibility than we can bear. So we have to balance our
burden and our carrying power at the highest level of both impact and
satisfaction. We should bite off as much as we can chew, while staying healthy.
We should not stretch our load to the limits of our carrying capacity, or we
would grow too tired, and deteriorate our future carrying capacity.
Our
challenges should be really challenging, making us want to confront them, to
exert ourselves, not to waste ourselves. We should not become frustrated and
unhappy in carrying out our responsibilities. Stimulation and happiness are
great sources of energy. Solving problems, meeting challenges, offering
successful responses, provide at least as much energy as they take. And that is
what we need - plenty of energy. We should carry our burden ‘with a light step,
as gentlemen go’.
We
can try to increase our understanding of the problems we face, our sense of
discrimination to sift the important from the less important, the essential
from the accidental, and to distinguish causes from effects and identify the
loops by which effects become causes and vice versa. We need to gain a
helicopter view, a global view, without losing sight of the particulars. There
is no sense in becoming aware of more problems if we cannot map them, both practically
and meaningfully. This approach takes both intelligence and guts.
If
we lack one of those qualities, we may end up with merely an ideology, the poor
man’s substitute for a vision. An ideology makes us aware of the problems of
the world in terms of simple causes and effects, good people and bad people,
clear-cut do’s and don’ts. But instead of becoming aware of the facts and
problems first, we get a package deal, becoming aware of problems and their solutions
simultaneously. Then we may feel that unless we buy this package deal, we will
be doomed to ambivalence and impotence and therefore irrelevance.
So
ideology appears to be an attractive offer if we are willing to pay the price
of exchanging an independent mind for a program. Such an exchange is akin to
selling our birthright for a pottage of lentils, something civilized people don’t
do (nor have done to them).
In
looking at the world, we cannot escape personal viewpoints and therefore subjective
choices. But we can put these personal views to empirical test and critical review
and still be strong and effective in our action. We can, that is, if we have
guts. In this case, that means guts of mind.
A
personal and flexible viewpoint differs from an ideology, like a personal dress
differs from a uniform.
Now
if you need a uniform, or if you think that uniforms are needed, or if you
simply like a uniform, choose one that fits you and make sure it is of good
quality. I will make some suggestions to help you choose. Think of these suggestions
as a consumer guide to picking social or political ideologies. I recommend
judging such ideologies by five criteria.
The
first criterion is the extent to which social and political appeals are based
on negative emotions, on fear, anger, hate, envy, contempt or despair. The more
that such emotions are present, the more we should avoid these appeals. Such suspect
appeals may take many forms: from contempt for opponents, to establishing order
by inspiring terror in opponents; from envy and anger toward those who are
better off, to fear for foreigners (xenophobia); from prophesying doom unless
the prescribed solution is taken, to ascribing vile and base motives to those
who refuse the solution.
The
second, related criterion is how much understanding and empathy are extended to
those who do not adhere to the ideology or oppose it. Be suspicious of scapegoating.
Such an attitude is the main indicator for lack of empathy. Of course we may
oppose outrageous and barbaric behavior, as long as we do not see such behavior
as coming from inherently wicked people.
The
ultimate in this lack of empathy occurs when those in power exterminate people
instead of certain types of behavior. Throughout history, entire peoples have
been decimated or exterminated for their alleged behavior or alleged
characteristics. Beware when leaders portray other people as inhuman
barbarians, and their own followers as a noble herd, full of goodwill. Carl
Gustav Jung and Erich Neumann have explored the destructive psychology of
scapegoating. Politics is full of scapegoating, but it is not a political
disease. It is rather a social and individual disease, and a malignant one at
that. Scapegoating has to be overcome, and every sign of overcoming it is
welcome.
Joe
Camplisson, a community development man who was in the thick of ugly sectarian
heat and human misery in Belfast, wrote in 1974:
It is not these people
Way out there
We are the people
Here and now
And we are the people
That have the finger on the
trigger.
The third criterion for judging
ideologies is their appeal to positive emotions such as hope and joy, as long
as these ideologies do not need to direct negative emotions toward scapegoats.
An ideology better promises pie in the sky than the destruction of enemies.
Still, the use of hope is dangerous. What will happen when hope is not
fulfilled? Hope is especially dangerous with a collectivist approach.
The
fourth criterion is the presence or absence of great collectives, staging great
events, be they marches, rallies, or even mass prayer meetings or mass peace
demonstrations. Mobs are dangerous political foundations, even when they are
full of goodwill. The distance between ‘Hosanna!’ and ‘Crucify him!’ is
disturbingly small.
The
fifth criterion is the extent to which an ideology appeals to personal freedom
and responsibility.
These
five criteria suggest the presence or absence of incumbent destructive and
fanatical elements. The twin criteria of appealing to negative emotions, and
scapegoating, I find most helpful in analyzing political statements. These
criteria offer a simple and powerful tool to weed out useless and even
dangerous ideas, proposals, politicians and sometimes even parties.
Limitation of one’s own response
seems an easy way out, but it usually is not for sensitive people. The world
with its problems is each day encroaching into our lives through television,
internet, radio, and newspapers. You may find it difficult to concentrate on your
immediate surroundings instead of diluting yourself on the world. If you find
that the world is still weighing on you, but you do not have the energy and
talent to improve it, there are still ways to contribute. I will return to
those ways in the last chapter.
If
you have attention to spare, or cannot ignore the problems that you see, don’t
bog yourself down with problems that keep staring you in the face, or you will
only feed negative emotions. Think rather about the people who try to fight or
to solve those problems. If the fact that people are still being tortured is
nagging at you, become informed about the people who are fighting such torture.
Think of them and support them. You can more easily walk about with feelings of
sympathy for those who fight atrocities, than with feelings of hate for those
who commit atrocities, or with feelings of hopelessness when thinking of those
that suffer atrocities. If you cannot beat the problem, you can at least mentally
join those who try to beat it. Such a choice will boost your energy rather than
drain it.
A simple gift of money to a
worthwhile cause is better than endless pondering about the ugliness of the
world. Such pondering just makes us misers, adding to the ugliness. We should
direct, not fragment or dilute our energy. It is better to give small sums
repeatedly to the same personally and consciously chosen cause, about which we
stay informed, than to contribute to many things that we can hardly can tell
from one another. We will still be aware of a world full of problems, but
perhaps then we can stand it, because the small things we do may grant us some
satisfaction.
The
difference between people with small talents who really use them, and people
with great talents who use them, is small. The real difference is between people
who care and those who do not. Some people do not care because they cannot,
others because they will not. That difference is also great, but difficult to
perceive.
Satisfaction
brings the energy to do some more small things. It works more effectively than
does overshooting yourself, as people with inflated egos are apt to do. They
set goals for themselves that they can never reach, and by that habit they
screen themselves from failure because they can always blame the circumstances,
if not the world. So their superiority feelings are protected and they live on,
barren, with elevated, but vulnerable self-regard. Ostentatiously trying
to make deals that overrun his credit is the way a showman buries his talent.
Let us trade with what we have, whatever the amount. ‘The rest is prayer,
observance and discipline’.
What
then - apart from writing or reading books like this one - is the profile of a
civilized, humane, rational, effective citizen who feels responsible for the
world, makes a contribution and does not turn away or suffer from being Atlas?
It is someone who has found the golden mean:
1.
between optimism and pessimism;
2.
between passivity and frenzy;
3.
between meaningless and powerless political engagement.
It
also means submitting private interests to the public interest without
abandoning private interests or private judgment. Socially, it means common
sense and responsibility; politically, it means statesmanship.
No
matter how crushing the circumstances, if we find the role that really suits
us, we will have, in several respects, the best of both worlds. We will find
the peace of mind of contemplation in the midst of action. We will enjoy
ourselves while exerting ourselves. We will be tremendously conscious of
ourselves while forgetting ourselves. We will carry the world, with a light
step.
These
are diary notes of Winston Churchill. The date is May 10. The year is
1940:
‘As I went to bed at about
3 A.M., I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the
authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I were walking
with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this
hour and for this trial.’
Relief. The opposite of an Atlas
syndrome. We may not have Churchill’s stature, nor will we be ever in his
position, but every man or woman can reach such a point in a task that fits
like a glove. First we must discover our destiny, which means we have to know
both the world and ourselves. This may not be easy.
Around
1936 the political role of Churchill seemed to have finished. Most saw him as
an opinionated and cantankerous old man who drank too much. If acute,
professional political commentators were so mistaken about a man who had
already been so long in the public eye, how can we be sure that we know our own
destiny?
So
let us find our destiny and be resilient and resourceful.
We are the people
Here and now
And we are the people
That have the finger on the trigger!From: The Ten Global Challenges: How People Make the World. An Essay on Politics, Civilization and Humanity. Ordering the book
No comments:
Post a Comment