The anathema of caring

People who care have it tough: they're laughed at, derided, criticized, maligned, and, worst of all, ignored. Still, there are not just a few of us who are concerned that the current trajectory of developments may bode ill for us all. No, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist. In fact, most conspiracy theorists aren't ... they're just called that, and then we don't have to deal with them. Truth be told, we're being beaten down by our own silence.

A lot of things in our world are broken, from our economic system to our idea of society, from our idea of community to our notion of something as simple as sharing, or even caring. The world suffers as we sit idly by and lament that there's nothing any of us can do about anything. We couldn't be more wrong.

If you care -- about anything -- you have to know that you will have a tough go of it. Most folks don't care that you care and most folks, when push comes to shove, will try to prevent you from caring. Sometimes it's a simple "it's not your problem", to the more general "you can't do anything about that", to the grotesque "why should anyone think they can live off my dime"? Oh, we love to sift and sort, to pick and choose, to declare these folks are "in" and those are "out", but all we're doing is demeaning ourselves.

We can't solve the world's problems, but we can solve our own and the problems of those near to us, and by this, I just don't mean those related to us. In the English translation of the Bible, there is lots of talk about "neighbors", as in "love your neighbor as yourself" and more. In German, this is translated as "the next one"; that is, the one to whom you are in closest proximity, physically. In other words, your neighbor (and this is clearly laid out in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) is whoever is near you, and, especially, who needs you at any given time.

Popular wisdom will tell you that you'll only be taken advantage of. Most of your neighbors will tell you not to get sucked in by the con. And almost everyone else will tell you that you are a fool for even thinking about caring in the first place. What kind of world is that?

Most people thrive on the acceptance of those whom they care about, be they relatives or actual neighbors. If we want the world to be a better place, we have to get beyond that. Whether you are put down, ridiculed, or looked at askance for helping others in need, doesn't matter in the end. It only matters whether you were willing to stand up and to act because you knew it was the right thing to do.

Personally, I don't care where you start, be it in our own family and neighborhood, or be it in the country in which you live or the world at large. At some point, we all have to care about more than just ourselves, regardless of what others may think. That, of course, takes courage. And you need courage to care. You need even more courage to do something about your feelings.

And I know that most of you feel you are doing your fair share already, but I'm here to tell you that you are not. None of us do enough. All of us are capable of more. And all of us will be guilty, if we don't follow our hearts instead of our brains. The choice is yours

Just a handful of years

No one should get the idea that I'm making fun of people who love their country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am merely saying that I, personally, don't understand the fascination, because you are born where you are born by mere chance and whatever it is you call your country today might something very different tomorrow.

What I suspect lies behind these feelings, though, may be worth thinking about, namely, our common, individual desire to belong: to be a part of something meaningful, to be accepted, to know there is something greater than ourselves, something that gives us a feeling of safety, security, and being welcome ... somewhere we are not just lone, often lost, individuals, isolated, alienated, and lonely.

We humans are, at bottom, social creatures. We need and desire the company of others. We're not rugged individualists who can survive on our own (well, except for a couple of eccentric hermits). We function best in groups, and this is OK. It's what makes us what we are and it is something we need to seriously recognize and acknowledge, not merely hoot and holler about from time to time. It's never about just "I" or "me", part of being human is knowing and embracing "we". Studies have shown that we do best in groups that do not exceed about 150 individuals. Fortunately, for us, each of our 150-people groupings overlap with other 150-people groupings of people in our group. While the intensity of the relationship decreases, the principle of relationship remains: we cooperate, we try to get along with one another, not necessarily compete. Cooperation is the natural state of being, not competition.

Obviously, that's not how things are in the world today, for a whole litany of reasons, most of them bad ones. It is unfortunate that things have developed this way, for our world is not a better place for it. We have inverted the natural state of things, from cooperation to competition, and while we have made great advances in some areas, we have ruined and destroyed a lot along the way. I think we can get just as far, less destructively, if we are true to who we are. It's time to change our minds and shake off that which is simply alien to our nature.

If anything, this simple message is at the heart of just about everything I have been posting on this blog for the last five years. The official anniversary is tomorrow. A lot of words have flowed over the network in that time, to be sure, but when one writes, one always wonders whether one is making any sense as well. Anyone who has ever tried to find something worthwhile to say for any period of time, regardless how short, knows precisely what I'm talking about. For some, five years is nothing, but for others it's half a decade, a significant chunk of life. I would be lying if I said I was weary of writing, but it is not always easy to find the right words to say what it is I really mean. Sometimes it flows, and sometimes it is simply very frustrating.

On this occasion, then, I would like to thank all of you who bother to read these posts. Whether you agree or not does not matter: I write so that you can read, and I appreciate that you do. For those whose feel their toes have been stepped on, I'm sorry, but I can only call things as I see them. I would be doing both you and me a disservice to simply be agreeable all the time. We're allowed to and should disagree on things, for it is only in the interaction, in the dialog, that truth may be found.

None of us is born with the Truth. We all have it search for it together.

The "I'm-just-me" fallacy

So, what do you want me to do about it; I'm just one person?

Yep, each and every one of us (at least I hope so) is just one person. Just like the Beatles once sang, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." This should be the oop-oop-dee-doop moment. Yes, each and every one of us is just one person, and yes, each and every large-scale problem we face is bigger than any one of us, so why do we even think that any one of us should even attempt to propose the solution? We needn't. We shouldn't.

For us moderns, though, this fallacy is a little more problematic. We simply don't do things all by ourselves. Even when we say we do (and we've been hearing more than enough about that in all the campaigning that's going on in America), we don't. Everybody gets help from someone or from some group of people, and practically everybody gives some kind of help to someone somewhere, maybe even to more than one person. We humans are social creatures and we simply don't do very well on our own. The problem is, we simply have to own up to the fact that we're not in any of this alone.

I don't know when this fear of groups came about. Americans, for example, are staunch supporters of individualism, but there are no bigger fan groupings than there (and if you don't believe me, go to a major American sporting event of any kind, any time, anywhere). So where's the problem? Why isn't it possible to get together with others and actually do something to make things better. Oh, sure, there are some of you who think that's what you do in supporting your political party or its candidate, by voting, or any number of other little non-actions that are really not collective efforts at all. Barns didn't get raised in America 150 years ago because it was up to everyone to build his own barn, and natural-catastrophe victims don't get helped because I happen to have an extra blanket around the house. No, these kinds of things get done because we join together with others to make sure they happen. Acting collectively is not a bad thing. Anything can be bad if abused, so why do we disparage the idea when what it is that we really have an issue with is the abuse of the idea?

The point is, it is never just you. You are never all on your own. You are never alone. You may think you are. It may feel like you are. But if you look, you'll find like-minded individuals who will help out. You have to go out and find them, you have to get together with them, and you have to get busy.

Yes, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." Just admit it.

Individualism?

Yes, who decides who gets what, when and why, and how much for how long? These are the proverbial flies in the ointment, aren't they? You see, all this talk about equality and freedom is just fine ... until we get down to the nitty-gritty; that is, when it's about us, individually. We all know how that goes, don't we? Or do we?

The individual has come to play a very significant role in our thinking, not just because most of us tend to be bigger egoists that we like to admit, but because it has been told we're important, special, unique, or whatever all our lives. We somehow feel that everything and everything should be about us ... well, some do, but we all think we need to play a very central role in whatever happens wherever we happen to be.

Americans, in particular, have been brainwashed with the John-Wayne and Rambo individualists. The whole notion of Rugged Individualism was raised to an ideal almost as important, and as unquestioned, as the American Dream. It practically achieved the status of a "given", something we never really even think about anymore. The problem is, it is precisely these "givens" that we should be questioning. There never was such a type, and all that we have left is the hype. Staking out a claim in unknown lands was an act of hubris, not individualism. There were people there before who knew all about that land, but what's mine is mine, and, so the rugged individualist, what's yours is mine. It never really worked, but even if it did, it certainly doesn't work anymore. What is more, the idea of individualism itself is simply incompatible with we're-in-this-all-together, which is what we are slowly coming to realize ... reluctantly, admittedly, but to realize nevertheless.

What we should have realized by now, however, is that we are, and should be uniquely different from those around us. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all anything. It's not individuality – and that's what we're talking about here – that's the problem, it's the individualism. It's just too close to egoism.

As is so often the case, it's the "-isms" that get us in the end.

Lighter tomorrows

If you've given something up ... if you've shifted your attention away from yourself to someone else, then you've got to feel lighter. You see how simple it all can be.

Yeah, yeah, I know ... all you do is sacrifice yourself for others. Who doesn't? All we all do is give and give and give and everybody we know just takes and takes and takes. No wonder the world is so screwed up. If everyone were like me ... right.

That's where we always get stuck, isn't it? We just love to think that we're just fine and everyone else is the problem. That's only partially true. Yes, everyone else is a problem, but we're the problem, too. There are no exceptions. Master George said it best: you're born, you're guilty, end of story. That's right. Being present is the admission of guilt. You're here, you're part of the problem.

The funny part is, contrary to popular belief, no one has ever expected you to change the world all on your own. You can't. You just aren't that important. Why place that burden on yourself? It's really simple ... and obvious ... if you stop to think about it.

Humans are one of nature's creatures who is most helpless when born. We are not capable of living on our own for quite some time (and some people never manage to mature that far, but that's another story). We aren't suited to eat "outside" (mom) food till around nine months after we show up. We can't walk till around then either, and we have no idea where to go anyway. We spend years depending on our parents for everything: food, shelter, clothing. We can't function without learning lots of useful and useless things in school, and even then, we don't grow or hunt our own food, most of us don't know how to cook. We are, and remain, highly dependent upon others for our mere survival. It's time to simply acknowledge this simple fact.

The point is that nature has made us dependent on others. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how we are, by nature. All that bullshit about individualism, rugged or otherwise, is just that: bullshit. You are not any more of an individual than anyone else, and in the end, we are our own selves, that is true, but we are selves who cannot live without others. The sooner we own up to that simple fact, the sooner things even stand a chance of getting better.

The myth of the individual

Human beings are odd creatures. We have the longest post-natal dependency of any primate, maybe of any mammal. After all, we are carried internally by our mothers for nine months; it's nine more months till we can even walk (if we're doing well), and if things are going according to plan, we can eat most of what the adults are eating, if it is prepared properly. Some of us never learn to obtain and make food for ourselves (fast food doesn't count ... it may not even be "food"). We can't construct our own dwellings ... well, we really have to ask ourselves what we are capable of doing on our own at all.

On the other hand, we were given supposedly large brains. That is, we ended up with brains that are allegedly capable of more intellectual processing power than any of our mammalian relatives, that provide us with some sort of evolutionary advantage, that make us just "smarter". Anyone who stops to look out into the world quickly realizes that this must be a generalized statement, for there are just too many individual instances in which this apparently does not apply. Nevertheless, some maintain that we compensate for physical and hence environmental disadvantages by compensating with intelligence.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that this is the case. What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? Why is it that we human beings have been able to subjugate nature, as we have (whether the way in which we have done it was good or not is a different issue altogether), and rise to the top of the "food chain" when we are really so apparently unsuited for life in the natural world?

If we stop and reflect for a moment instead of just repeating the platitudes we're so often fed, it slowly becomes apparent that humans have been evolutionarily so successful because they don't have to rely on themselves in any way. Let's go back. We aren't mobile on our own for nine months, we can still easily get lost in strange surroundings at nine years. We can't do anything really and don't know anything till we are taught -- by others, either in the family, community, or, in the West, in school. We can't fend for ourselves, we don't grow our own food, we can't build our own dwellings, we don't make our own clothes. We just buy it, if possible, whenever we need it.

We can do this, of course, because we, as a species, are smart enough to utilize the division of labor relatively effectively and because we have the ability to cooperate with others. There is a growing body of evidence (see David Sloan Wilson, My New Scientist [online], Magazine Issue 2824, August 3, 2011) that group selection, for example, predominates over individual selection in evolution. In other words, the very idea that cooperation is in all probability a more powerful evolutionary factor than competition should give us pause to think about the role we ascribe to the individual in our modern society.

Modern western society, in particular industrialized society, places an inordinate amount of emphasis on the individual. Capitalism itself is the new religion of the individual. It is the CEO who makes or breaks the company, hence the need to reward him or her appropriately. It is the individual investor who makes or breaks his own success. It is the quarterback (alone) who leads the team to victory; it is the coach (alone) who causes the team to fail. It is the individual gold medalist who receives more praise at the championships than the relay team. It is the individual who makes or breaks himself in the competition of life. I grew up having this pounded into my own head, from John Wayne to Ronald Reagan, but it never quite made sense to me.

No, the idea of the lone individual meeting and overcoming the odds is as illusory as the ancient myths in which gods on Olympus (or wherever) intervened in the affairs of humans. The individual is just him or herself. No more, no less. This individual is worth respect and admiration as long as whatever s/he does benefits the group that allows that person to stand forth and shine, but no more. The individual who aggrandizes him or herself at the expense of others, though, deserves simply to be ostracized. If you really believe you can do it all on your own, then go out on your own and show us you can do it. If we want to stop a good portion of the insanity that we seem to be overwhelmed with these days, then maybe we only need to put things back into their proper perspective: WE is and always will be more important than ME.