(Apparently, today, I am thinking about things in list form…)
If you associate with a large group, you will eventually be challenged to defend the actions of others who also claim membership to the group. You will be called upon to defend a person who has done something crazy, hostile, uncivil or even evil.
Consider:
- Muslims who are peaceful must defend their beliefs when accused of following the same religion as terrorists.
- Tea Party promoters must defend their beliefs when accused of joining a group also supported by people who make racists comments or statements.
- Catholics must defend their beliefs in the face of public scandals regarding a church that shelters and defends child molesters.
- Mormons must defend their beliefs about monogamous marriage while some claiming to be Mormons create polygamous communities.
- Members of both established political parties must defend their beliefs when politicians engage in unethical and/or illegal behaviors.
Some thoughts on what these things suggest to me:
- Integrity and ethical behavior start with the individual. Organizations, no matter what kind is being discussed, are not people. They are collections of people who each, individually, contribute to the collective through their actions and words.
- Individuals may do things that break from the stated or understood beliefs of the organization. These things (de facto), unchallenged, show that the stated (de jure) or understood beliefs of the organization are false or are changing.
- Individuals within the organization can do two things in these circumstances when they arise. They can be silent, which implies that they agree with the newly propsed ideal. They can speak up and act, making it clear that they oppose these new ideals.
- To have integrity and a consistent ethical system, individuals must (a) decide what they believe, (b) act on that belief and (c) be willing to explain that belief when challenged.
Either: You are in a group where membership is fluid and there’s no central body that defines who is in or out of the organization. Thus, you need to determine what to do when person who claims to belong then does something that runs counter to your beliefs.
Or: You are in a group where membership is controlled, usually by a small group who exhert near-absolute power over what constitutes the organization’s membership and officially stated beliefs. Thus, you need to determine what to do when the organization (or officially mandated person in a position of power) does something that runs counter to your beliefs.
In the first challenge, facing both the Muslim and Tea Party communities, you can only do one thing: state your beliefs when challenged. As a member of an organization that isn’t run by a hierarchical power structure, the organization is influenced and shaped by the actions and words of each member…pulling and tugging at it to try to bring it to a place where the individual feels is appropriate.
In the second case, your only option when a person in power makes a change that runs counter to your core beliefs is to leave the organization. The only power you have is to use your ability to depart. Departing the organization reduces its influence in the world. Even if departure is statistically trivial, remember that one person may be statistically trivial but measurably influential in real terms. An example is Martin Luther.
I both cases, integrity is critical. The person must understand what they feel are their critical, core beliefs. When they act, they do so in accord with those beliefs. When they speak, they explain those beliefs. As such, they influence the world and the organizations to which they claim allegiance.
We don’t have a responsibility to defend the crazy things other people say, but we do have to understand why we don’t agree with their crazy and to explain this to others.
{ 1 comment }
