Two Views on the Future of Citizens

 

“What are the alternatives to family, culture, and religion?” I asked Ray and Paul a few days later, as the three of us were having coffee at Olé one morning. This time Paul was sitting with us. He was tall and skinny, his glasses kept sliding down his nose, and he had the habit of pushing them back with the wrong finger, giving you the impression that he was telling you something. Paul had a different way to go about things than we did. He said, “The alternative I propose is to have a system, devised by the state, which can do a better job than parents…, or culture…, or religion….” Paul stated. “If the government is made of better prepared individuals, who follow the science and are hired to regulate what parents and schools can do or not do, and what their children should learn, then children will grow in a healthier environment. These well-trained people will know better than the regular parents, especially when there is only one parent, with a dysfunctional family. If children suffer, it’s not their fault. Replace family, culture and religion with a wise and paternalistic Estate.”

He looked at the expression on our faces. He had just said we need to consider this as if all families are equally dysfunctional or for dysfunctionality to be the guide for everyone, then he went on.

“Another alternative is to do nothing. Let kids grow as they want. Leave it to nature or to science.”

“Sounds goofy, Paul. What else? Remember, when you think science, think Plato, think eugenics, think of black holes, think science producing the concept of ‘race’. Remember science is most often wrong at first. A bad scientific mistake will impact a generation.”

As if nothing was said, Paul continued.

“The key to the alternative that the two of you have expressed is to make the community realize that the well-being of the individual is dependent on the well-being of the community. The individual must be willing to sacrifice his own desires when they contradict the desires of the larger community, and to accomplish that, you must replace all offensive and negative behavior with acceptable standards.”

“Acceptable to whom? Who determines qualification of standards?”

“Elections.”

“I see.”

“The majority rules. Social Justice. True democracy,” Paul continued.

“Dress it up...”

“But when the majority rules, who takes care of the minority?” asked Ray, “When there is a conflict between the two, who determines the outcome?”

“The law, the Estate!” Paul replied and continued. “But if the majority is oppressive as it is now, their rulers may be oppressive, now and then it may be necessary to impose social justice for the common good, even if it hurts, individual sacrifice for the good of all. True Christianity.”

Ray and I laughed. Ray said, “I am joking now. I don’t assume to speak for Christianity, but I don’t think that is what they have in mind when they talk about sacrifice.” Then he asked Paul. “How do you resolve through social justice the dysfunctional families with no fathers in the home?”

“Social Justice means the fair distribution of wealth among everyone.”

“Sounds good! How do you do that and who does it?”

“The community, of course. Different institutions in society. Everyone who receives and benefits from the burden of cooperation. It is done through taxation, public health insurance, public schools, public services, labor laws, and the regulation of markets. All together under one control will insure fair distribution of wealth and equal opportunity.”

As I was listening to Paul, I kept thinking of what Alinsky had written: “clothe it with moral garments, phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Of the Common Welfare, Pursuit of Happiness, or Bread and Peace.” Here Paul was saying generalities like “community” “institutions in society” “everyone”, “cooperation”, “public health”, “public services”, “fair distribution of wealth”, “equal opportunity.” It all sounded as apple pie, but the specifics were missing. The rest of Alinsky message came across very clear: “You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue. The organizer’s objective is to demonize those who stand in the way of designs for change”.

“So will that prevent displacement in the Barrio?” I asked him.

Paul had to stop and think a second. “Of course! Social justice would correct the economic inequities present and help all the minorities in the Barrio receive what is due to them.”

“I like that. The owner of the construction company I have worked for will pay more taxes which will then go to the City, and then Dan Benitez, with the Department of Human and Community Development, will take care that everyone in the Barrio gets a fair share?”

Ray could not hide his smile.

Unaffected, Paul went on, “Social Justice recognizes the differences we have in gender, racial inequality, treatment of the disabled, justice for immigrants, for prisoners, for the environment.” 

Alinsky’s words again: “Clothe it with moral garments, phrased in general terms…”

“I got to say,” Interjected Ray, “that in theory, I like a lot what you are saying. Very much so. Plato said very similar things way back in ancient Greece and people have been trying to reach such goals ever since. I have two questions: The first is what about greed, the enemy from within, the Juanitos and the Williams of the world, the consultants from New York, the corrupted soul?”

Paul didn’t know the people Ray was referring to.

“Well, that is why you have to give more money to the government, so that the state can have the resources and regulations to prevent people from interfering with true social justice.”

“I see. And how do you solve, through social justice, the problems of dysfunctional families without fathers in the home? For the second question, let me say first that it is heartening to see that people warm up to the concept of social justice as you describe it, which means that their hearts are in the right place, but what about their brain? The Catholic Church says that in social justice what is important is the sanctity of human person and life, and they include the unborn in this sanctity…,”

“No!” interrupted Paul, “Social justice refers to the right of woman to choose.”

“… I would agree if the right to choose includes with whom and how to sleep with, and no to be injected with semen, as part of social justice.” Ray continued, “The more people who recognize openly that we do have a multitude of injustices to correct the better. Our society is not perfect yet, but don’t we find that when you talk about the collective, it is farming out responsibility to everyone and therefore to no one? Diluting human life into a collective consciousness where there is no accountability, except to the arbiter, the Estate? Why would the George Millers or the Dan Benitez of the world be more just, just because they may dress up their agenda with ‘Social Justice’?”

Paul was uncomfortable, he pushed his glasses with his finger higher up his nose.  “I see that you want to personalize everything. If you like and support the racism that we have today, then you cannot like social justice[xxxviii].”

That should have put an end to the conversation we were having. Sugar in the gas tank. It sounded like if he was saying, “If you don’t agree with me, and I am good, then you are bad.” Accusations of racism will often follow. He had shifted the negative action of the few into a justification for his entire point of view. This kind of arguing is counterproductive, but it fits well with Alinsky’s advice, “You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue. The organizer’s objective is to demonize those who stand in the way of designs for change.” Paul was getting there, from liberalism to radicalism. Paul pretended to be oblivious to what he had done and went on. “I have grown up in a capitalistic society full of greed and corporate control of politics.”

“Agree.” I said.

“Agree.” Echoed Ray.

Ray and I nodded our heads in consent. We all agreed since we had all said the same thing often. The corruption of crony capitalism is among the worst, and both parties and the bureaucrats waggle on it, but such mutual agreement was short lived.

Paul continued; “So, I consider capitalism a cause of domination, male supremacy, racism and sexism, all of which are required for control by power-hungry individuals. I think that individualism is sinful. It allows for corruption….”

“I thought you said that a woman can say “my body my choice.” That is pure pro-individualism.” Interrupted Ray.

Unperturbed, Paul continued, “…We impose globalization to overcome the exploitation of others that forces them to have to come here, across the borders, and work for slave wages for the benefit of our landlords, they should not have to come. I don’t know why you guys would support capitalism for that matter. Globalization should be a redistribution of the world’s wealth through the taxation of those who corrupt the environment, controlled by the scientists, who know better how to save the environment, and the world.”

Despite I had a different view of capitalism, since in my view the reason that racism and sexism exist is not because capitalism requires it, notwithstanding this conversation left me very distraught. According to Paul, everything I was doing in the Barrio was a mistake. I do listen to people. Was he correct? His solution would be to call the work needed in the Barrio “social justice” and put it on the hands of those we had been fighting against. Or worst, to fight against all authority and replace it with what? A new and improved authority? Go back to conservative authoritarian feudalism? Who determines what social justice is anyway? And keep in mind that those radicals that favor taking control always want to have incompetent people under them, at the head of organizations, they reject competence for competence would reject them. That is called “the promotion of mediocrity for the good of all.” But why? Because, it is easier to keep control over the incompetent, they know you know but will not fire them.

Ray said to me he was confused, “by some of the Catholic view where they mix individual responsibility with the collective interpretation of ‘distribution’ of what others have produced.”  Then he concluded. “As you have said, I prefer social principles and self-responsibility at personal levels.”  

To that I added, “Me too, so as not to hide behind others.”

Disagreeing Paul said, “So, why don’t you want to recognize our responsibility to the environment, and to the poor who will be the most affected by environmental contamination?”

In pursuing his argument, Paul ignored my position, and maybe Ray’ as well, and instead, tied me up with his interpretation of what he thought of others and of what “his” uneducated collective did that I didn’t want to “recognize.” He ignored that I did say, “I can only take it upon myself to do my part” and “I can only give away what is mine. That is responsible. Rather than someone deciding for me what is my part.” He didn’t realize he was being intolerant of alternatives, and he pre-judged my position to satisfy his bias.

I had heard Paul’s argument at the University of Oregon. I always thought that humans had to take better care of the environment as well as the people in it, but not to be done by a corrupted government. Worse, by a global government, since “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

My friend Ray opened his hands wide to indicate he was going to answer, but then before he did, he sat back in his chair, took a deep breath, another gulp of cold beer, and while we waited, carefully choosing his words, he threw us a curve as he began to say while licking his lips and closing his arms. “Let’s not confuse the influence of a socially rather than a physically contaminated environment. Motivation to improve arises from the inside out, oftentimes part of a culture. While social environmental influence, like growing up in a fatherless family, where every day may be filled with crime, corruption, and indifference, comes from the outside in. When the government begins to push in the wrong direction, eliminating motivation, we begin to confuse imposed detrimental environmental elements with culture. Globalization is decimating our social environment to be replaced by money hungry feudalism, or worst, imperialism and fascism, dressed as benevolent socialism ‘clothed with moral garments, phrased in general terms…’  in the clothes of ‘world order’ and dressed up with ‘saving the environment’.” 

“The reduction of discrimination and racism starts in the individual soul.” I was going back to my original argument.

Looking at me sideways, Ray continued, “As for experiences in the environment, I have seen kids stopped by the police, and I could tell from the beginning, depending on the personality of the kid and his upbringing, how the encounter would end; the police always won. After a confrontation starts at that point, it is harder to look for solutions, by then the conflict has exploded in a hostile direction. The solution always starts with the family, even if or when the policeman is wrong.”

“Agree… If you destroy the family, you destroy the most valuable possibility for law and order. That goes for the kid as it goes for the policeman when he was a kid. So, where do you start? With culture or with environment?” 

“What I learned in Oregon”, Ray was born in Oregon, “was that we are placing too much emphasis on ecological environment for saving the globe and not enough on our children’s social growing-up environment, which we are ever so slowly contaminating. The answer is not global, it is local.”

From my psychological training I could see this loud and clear. Our social environment has been contaminated more than our ecological environment. From the architect’s side. I wondered how the design of home and urban life could enhance a culture, or annihilate it, especially if the government is in charge, as it has been with the American Indians.

Two very different urban lifestyles can be seen by comparing two cultures and their historic dwellings: the pueblo dwelling by the Hopis, and the individual dwellings by the Navajos. Yet, here different doesn’t mean better, unless you specify better for whom. Then Ray turned to Paul,

“If we learn in the Barrio to take control of our surroundings and to count on the police, not as a replacement for our duty, not for them to do our job, but as a support, then you can see that if you uphold law and order in your neighborhood by proper upbringing, enforcement becomes your friend.”

“What we need is to control guns. There are too many guns.” Paul said.

“Is gun control the right or wrong approach?” Ray continued still looking at Paul. “During the colonial times, conservatives in favor of the King of England, were also in favor of gun control. The King’s subjects only wanted soldiers to have guns. In feudal times, kings and nobilities didn’t want the general population to have weapons, except while serving in the army. Tyrants are fond of not letting the population have any kind of weapons that can be used against them. The Founding Fathers were very liberal, and they wrote in the Constitution the Right to Bear Arms, a very liberal and radical idea at the time when the world was controlled by the nobility or the Elite, just as they are trying to do now.” Then looking at me, he said, “I like your idea of the neighborhood taking the control of its own safety, it is self-determination.” 

I went further, “Now, we know how welfare disrupts and destroys families. We elect officials who promoted welfare, which by destroying families results in an increase in violence by bad people, and now they talk about controlling the guns of good normal people and using their social justice without protecting the community from the violence that has resulted from the actions of the bad people. A vicious cycle.”

“I don’t see it that way,” Paul interrupted, who had been quiet for a while. “It is not for you to control your surroundings, which is why we have the injustices we have today. It is not the job of your next-door neighbor. It is the Estate that needs to keep law and order, like in China, and not even the local police, but the federal government, so that the law has more control and more equal distribution.” 

Was Paul kidding? Letting air out of his lungs, to be polite, Ray said, “Thanks Paul, and thanks to people like you who keeps reminding us of it.” Ray always gave credit even when credit was in doubt. I liked that of him.