Thinking is a Serious Problem: Responsibilities and Consequences: The Lost Connection

Growing up in the 50’s meant something very different from growing up today. As children and teens we were provided with privileges (never, ever called rights---a topic for a future post) which adults generally agreed could aid in a young person’s growth into a responsible person. Being able to stay out a little later, use the family car, take a camping trip with friends were examples of what we got to do if our parents judged us worthy. Privileges meant explicit obligations. We could continue to do these things, or even add new ones, so long as we showed good judgment, behaved properly, and did not otherwise abuse the opportunity. If we violated any of these, the opportunity was withdrawn, at least for a while. There was a very clear connection between what we got to do as an opportunity and what we had to do in exchange---the obligation or responsibility.

Although not all adults’ views were identical, there was an unspoken consensus among parents, teachers, neighbors, religious leaders, and even newspapers about what was appropriate behavior for young people, and how to deal with behavior that did not meet that “standard.” Any adult, known to us or not, could reprimand us for misbehavior, and was expected to do so. Further, if my parents found out about a reprimand, I was in for another one at home. If I got into trouble at school, that entailed a loss of privileges at home in every case. No matter the source of the reprimand, except in very rare cases the word of the reprimanding adult was conclusive and final, especially if it came from a teacher or other socially important person. Consequences were enforced.

Arising directly out of the 60’s view that “if it feels good it is good,” we have discarded the consensus of responsible action, with a concomitant breakdown in behavior and civility in both young people and adults. A factor aiding this societal breakdown was an enormous expansion of “rights,” an essentially narcissistic view saying that whatever I want to do is a right, even if that is seen by others as inappropriate if not outright wrong. If I want to talk loudly in restaurant, that is my “right.” If I want to wear clothing that is offensive, that is my “right.”  If I want my kid to run amok at school, that is both my “right” and my kid’s as well.

Critically, and as I said in the last post, if your view is in opposition to mine, my “rights” prevail over yours under all conditions.  If you dislike or are offended by what I consider my “right,” too bad for you. The problem is yours. I am never to be held accountable for my behavior because it is a “right.”

The problems of rights without obligations have reached near catastrophic proportions in raising children. Starting from birth children have been accorded all sorts of “rights” by parents whose ability to set proper limits and hold their children accountable is bankrupt. The children, seeing a huge gap in the system of responsible behavior, have surged right through it, insisting with their parents’ often unwilling accommodation that they are in charge of the house, which they are, thus leading these mini-adults seeing the world as their entitlement---I get to do what I want, period.

 Even when rights expanded in legitimate ways, problems arose because of one huge failure---offering people new rights but forgetting that responsibilities must come with all rights. An interesting example of this started in high schools in the 70’s when young people were allowed to call teachers by their first names, have more freedom to select classes and wear unusual clothes, schedule classes at their whim, and leave campus more often. Nothing wrong with these, except for the fact that no responsibilities were attached, leading again to the idea that people could (should) have rights without any obligations.

Any right that is enshrined in our legal and governmental system comes with obligations to use the right properly. I can follow my religious dictates, but I cannot cause others troubles because they do not believe as I do. I may drive a car so long as I meet various driving and administrative (insurance, etc.) obligations. I may own and use a weapon so long as I follow important procedures for safety, etc. We all know that failure to exercise these rights properly generally means we will be held accountable. But the self-centered “rights” have no such connection, and American society has suffered badly because of it.

Overall, our society is characterized by a lack of personal restraint, of care for the wellbeing of others, and of adequate systems for holding people accountable for poor behavior. This has led to condition of little inter-personal respect, very high levels of incivility and crime, and increased levels of frustration and anger as legitimate social rights are trampled. Interestingly, the very people who will trounce you so that their “rights” prevail are often those who are adamant that our society needs more civility and respect. What they really mean is respect for and civility to them.

In his book, Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says,

“Human rights are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others. A society with unlimited rights is incapable of standing to adversity. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in…. A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.”

Thinking Is a Serious Problem: The Loss of Shock and Shame and Societal Disintegration

Cultures decline for a number of reasons, and among the more important of those are the loss of cohesiveness, of connection to others in the culture, and of shared values. The more separation and fragmentation that occurs, the more the culture starts to socially, politically and economically unravel. Eventually it disintegrates or, like Europe, gradually drizzles away its mojo. Fragmentation occurs in a culture, just as it does in a marriage, when people have the view that whatever they want is what they are entitled to, and will get come hell or high water, no matter the adverse impact on others---a setting in which impulse control is considered not just useless, but outright stupid.

Both reflecting and causing the US's decline is the loss of two great words and the behavior attendant to them: Shock and Shame. Many important words have been lost or intentionally denied existence (political correctness, itself a contributor to decline), but these two are particularly emblematic of our culture's decline because their loss has been accompanied by diminished shared values around healthy social behavior. Separateness and difference are facts of life, but societal fragmentation increases when they are emphasized and fostered to the exclusion of unifying elements. When I was young both shock and shame were social tonics that we all more of less shared, ensuring a more cohesive society and generally better and more respectful behavior.

"Do not be proud of the fact that your grandmother was shocked at something which you are accustomed to seeing or hearing without being shocked.... It may be that your grandmother was an extremely lively and vital animal, and that you are a paralytic."

G.K. Chesterton said (in As I Was Saying):

 We seem to have lost the ability to be shocked (offended by something), perhaps as the ancient Romans also were by the continual assault on their senses of the ever-increasing brutality of the games. In this era of everything goes if it feels good, we are reduced to insensate reactions. Shock is troubling for many because it implies standards, anathema to those who allege there is no truth, and nothing may be judged in any way, one opinion or view being just as good as another (some challenge in getting Hitlerian or Stalinist actions incorporated into this scheme).

The loss of standards of civil behavior is just one example or our decline led by the absence of shock, but the loss could easily apply to art, TV, literature, or different cultures. Misogynist and homo-phobic rap lyrics offend few. Women-demeaning violent video games (think early versions of Grand Theft Auto) got little attention. What passes for attire in young girls, at huge odds with the idea of women not being sex objects, receives virtually no comment. Politicians’ sexual misbehavior gets a passing glance. TV shows in which people reach sadly for their 15 minutes by debasing themselves are found humorous. Athletes’ drug use and denials have become ho-hum. Children having melt-downs is seen as part of how children grow up, a natural occurrence. Very poor educational outcomes upsets few. No shock, just standard societal operating procedure.

In addition to having lost the ability to be shocked, many are cowed by the current trends and agree (or pretend) that people can do anything so long as it feels good to them. When no standards exist other than your own needs and wants, it is clear that shock is an outdated issue.

The other great S word we have lost is shame, embodying emotional distress because of a failure  to live up to accepted standards. Growing up I encountered both shame and embarrassment, and these exerted a significant force that usually (but not always) kept people in a more socially acceptable behavior pattern. Certain things, as the Brits are wont to say, are simply not done. If any such thing were done, it was costly---pointed out and critiqued in no uncertain terms, often causing considerable personal discomfort, also known as embarrassment, anathema to the no-truth crowd. People did not hesitate to express shock at improper behavior, intended to produce a sense of shame. A very effective social remedy for unpleasant actions indeed. However, as this social remedy has disappeared, our society has not-so-gradually descended into a form of social anarchy driven by my (and your) needs. Regarding this latter there is one simple rule---where your needs conflict with mine, yours lose hands down.

In my dreams I hypothesize that the loss of these two great words, and the behavioral philosophy they underpin, arose with Love Story, a book of such gargantuan awfulness that words fail. Or, as a prescient friend once said of it, possibly the worst book in the history of the universe. Most of you will recall the emotionally troubled and sadly immortal line, "Love means never having to say you are sorry." And from this it is but one small step to the reptilian sensibility that you don't have to say you're sorry for anything. In fact, in the world of “whatever I want is good,” if someone else has a problem with my behavior, it’s tough luck for them. Simply---I get to do whatever I want and I am never, ever to be held accountable. You are not to be shocked nor am I to experience shame.

As shock and shame have lost social force, so has humility, a trait now practically de rigueur to disavow. Conformance to social standards can be extreme, as has been the case in some Asian countries. But once we have passed a certain point in undermining such conformance we will pay the price. In addition to the breakdown in cohesion and the increase in disrespectful behavior at all levels, we have seen the growth of humility’s opposite---narcissism, which revels under the no-shock, no-shame view. Being entirely “me” focused, it carries separatism and uncivil behavior to the nth degree.