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withdrawn, at least for a while.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.
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.”
