what i believe - iv
By diana on Apr 19, 2010 | In poly-ticks
on personal responsibility.
I remember coming home from church with the family long ago and far away, and talking about welfare. My family is staunch Republican and conservative. I remember them making a comment about people getting money for doing nothing. Noel chimed in from the back seat, "If a man does not work, neither shall he eat." My parents applauded his political acuity.
I remember thinking, "Yeah. That's pretty simple. That makes sense." I was probably around 13 years old or so (which would have made Noel 15). This simple and beautiful answer to one of our biggest political arguments is so nice. It's clean. It's clear. It's unambiguous.
Years later, when I was still not involved in politics at all (at 33, I think), I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which pushes the idea of paying for services rendered and getting nothing for free (and the danger of "handouts"). When I finished it, I thought it was interesting, so I gave my copy to my parents. Despite the book's overt anti-religious bent and unusual ideas of sexual freedoms, they thought the book was fabulous. It argued--sometimes even eloquently--for the power of earning what you get, and getting nothing you haven't earned.
I'm not trying to misrepresent their position. Quite the opposite. But it's quite possible I simply do not understand where they stand on the issue of personal responsibility, in which case, I'm sure they will correct my misconceptions (here, hopefully).
I'll pause here to mention that anyone who hasn't seen The Blind Side should, as soon as possible, see this movie (click link for plot outline). Not only does it star Sandra Bullock--which is always wonderful, if I may say so in all my bias--but it's based on a true story and makes an interesting point. The movie illustrates very effectively what difference environment and influence can make in a person's life.
I'll also recommend a book called Outliers: The Story of Success, by Malcolm Gladwell (click link for synopsis). It presents several case studies of success, as well as a striking one of lack of success for comparison, and examines the factors that went into their success. I share some of the criticisms of this work; at the very least, I'd like to see more research in this area and I'd like to see the evidence which contradicts the thesis presented in equal light, but the points the book makes are fairly persuasive.
One more, then I'll press on with my take on personal responsibility. I have not read this book yet, but I've heard in some detail what it covers: Bridges Out of Poverty, by Ruby K. Payne (or A Framework for Understanding Poverty). In these books, Payne examines the hidden assumptions (the "common sense") of the average impoverished, middle-class, and wealthy person.
A couple of months ago, I asked here how much of your success you can attribute to your own efforts. We had an interesting conversation where we tried to quantify the unquantifiable (a given with this question which does nothing to diminish its interest value). I place my personal contributions at about 10%, but then, I acknowledge that, in the phrase I've used for years, I'm the luckiest bitch you'll ever meet.
A friend of mine on a discussion board where I post (Secular Cafe, in case you're interested), insisted that most of her success was due to her own efforts. She asked how I ever got what it took to put effort into anything if I thought my contributions only amounted to 10%. She seemed to believe I only exerted 10% effort. But that misses the point. I usually put 100% (contrary to popular phraseology, there is no more effort one can exert) into everything I do. If I didn't, then my personal contribution to my success would be less than 10%. (Assuming I didn't give 100% and instead gave only 80%, the equasion would be this: 80/100 * 10/100 = 4/5 * 1/10 = 4/50ths = 2/25ths or 8% of my success would be due to my own efforts).
So. Personal responsibility. Where does my responsibility end and others' begin?
I can't say I have a clear answer. I don't believe it's cut and dried. My experience (and education) has taught me that while there may be a few people who "have children for the government handout," they are few and far between. Plus, they're very, very bad at math (check to see what welfare moms really get; you'll find it appalling). Most people are impoverished and uneducated because they don't know how to be anything else: education is not a priority in their world, and when one's family and friends make a certain amount of money per year, he tends to assume he will make the same. If you don't believe me, ask yourself (assuming your roots are blue-collar) why you still think $60k (or even $100k) is a good salary. Among the wealthy, that's slummin'. But for you? It's a decent living.
The same rule applies to poor people.
About government programs: I hold myself responsible for me, but frankly, if I take an economic blow, I'm very happy to avail myself of the built-in unemployment safety net. And worst comes to worst? I'd swallow my pride and use food stamps and welfare if I needed them.
For the record, I do believe in personal responsibility. Very much. At the same time, I understand that others have had no breaks in life; all they've known is poverty and squalor. So...to those people out there screaming about personal responsibility: If you're against social programs and you lay a claim to personal responsibility, stop and consider what you consider yourself personally responsible for. If it's just for you and yours--frankly?--you're selfish. And probably very ignorant of people who aren't like you.
I also believe in personal responsibility. I believe I am responsible for me and mine, but also for others who have not been as lucky as I have (to be born to a family who cared for me, taught me values, didn't do drugs, taught me a work ethic, valued education, etc).
I was taught, growing up, that parents are responsible for their children. They mold us into who we are (whether that was exactly what they wanted or not--I'm not what my parents wanted, but they certainly molded me, for better and for worse). I don't understand how anyone can subscribe to this belief and at the same time feel that those who were raised in impoverished/criminal/drug-dealing households can be expected to be good citizens and "pull themselves up" by their bootstraps.
In short, I was taught personal responsibility. Surely my parents will acknowledge this. (That was what all the spankings and groundings were for, right?) How can you expect personal responsibility from those who have never been taught it? How can you expect them to value education and knowledge unless they are taught to do so? How can you expect them to view money the way you do--and this is a huge difference between each class--unless they are taught it?
Either you believe children are shaped by their providers or you don't. Which?
So when it comes to social programs--welfare, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more--I tend to believe that we who make more money than we need (as opposed to more than we want...vive la difference) have a responsibility to them and to society in general to help out as much as possible.
Yes, people abuse these programs. That is not a reason against the programs, though; it's a reason to put better safeguards on who receives aid. (If you have trouble seeing this, consider the possibility of getting rid of the criminal justice system and prisons because we sometimes punish the innocent; surely you wouldn't argue that all convicted criminals should be released based on that.) So..."I saw a woman buying two cartloads of steaks on food stamps" and comments like that are not arguments against food stamps per se; they're arguments against the culling process.
The other counterpoint I see coming is that I advocate "bigger government." I think I waxed quasi-eloquent on this point before. We're all in favor of "bigger government." We just disagree about which parts should be enlarged. Ask any Republican whether we need more or fewer military; you'll probably get the answer that we need more. That's more government, people.
People who are against government social programs tend to argue that the government is poorly managed and wastes money. I don't know for certain, so I'll concede the point. The problem is that, without these programs, all those non-profit organizations ("faith-based" or otherwise) out there aren't cutting it. Even if the government is squandering its money (which is usually a matter of opinion anyway), we still need these programs. Why? Because we are responsible for those who aren't as lucky as we are.
Just like Jesus, come to think of it. ;)
But "Jesus gave alms and helped the poor himself." True.* But let me ask you: If you consider yourself a Christian, do you roll down your window at traffic lights and give the homeless some money? Do you drop money in the hats of people begging on the sidewalk on your way to work? Do you take them in and offer them food and a clean bed? How about a job (not that Jesus ever did that)?
* I'm functioning under the assumption that the Jesus of the NT existed, which I'm not really convinced of.
A lot of us give to charities. I commend all who do this. I believe it's right to help others, and I applaud it in all its forms. I guess this is why I don't understand why a person is willing to give $200 a month to the homeless in Haiti but unwilling to be taxed an extra $10 a year to help the indigent in his own country.
d
23 comments
Hi Diana,
Because we are facing outrageous cuts to our quality public education to help pay for the Olympics, your part that talks about schools really resonates with me.
It’s not just that education is not a priority in the minds of some of the poor, education of the poor isn’t a priority in the minds of those who handle the purse strings. If school is dangerous, if the teachers don’t like teaching poor or native or black or yellow or brown kids, then what room does that leave for learning the academics? if you can’t afford the texts, the paper, the pencils or now the new necessity, a computer then where does that leave you?
Also, if you live in a neighbourhood where you can’t get enough sleep how able are you to learn? If you are malnourished, how ready is your mind to suck up knowledge. If mom can’t afford the rent so you keep moving every three months, how can even a really good school help you if you keep changing schools every three months?
Quality, supportive education is one step towards improving the lot of and reducing the dependantcy of the poor. A teacher’s annual salary with benefits is less than the cost of incarcerating someone for one year. A good teacher can save more than one child from the clutches of wayward life. Teachers are a bargain when it comes to social justice, crime reduction and even reducing vandalism. Engaged kids who have faith in themselves have a chance. Quality teachers are the ultimate bargain.
Keep up the thought-provoking blogging.
Lorraine
Great post, Lorraine. I’m just going to add that, while it’s wonderful that teachers are a bargain, they shouldn’t be such a GOOD bargain. Teachers are grossly underpaid, particularly in the public schools (at least, here they are).
d
Hi,
Here the scale is $40-80 K/annum plus good benefits and pension. What’s it like where you are?
Years back, I heard about the problem attracting families with children to Key West. As a possible solution, they went to a merit rather than simply seniority-based pay scale for teachers and paid them much more than the US norm. In the article I read, it worked. More families became part of the community.
Lorraine
I’m not sure what teachers make here, Lorraine. I have a couple of friends who teach in the public schools. Only one told me (long ago) what she made, and I was appalled. Even taking into account that she teaches in one of the lower-cost-of-living states, they paid her a pittance, in my view (I may not remember correctly, but I think she started at $28k). For a job you MUST take home with you for which the demands never end, it should start at twice that.
I’m interested in the merit-based system you mention. I wonder how it would work, exactly. How would they determine which teachers merit a position or a raise and which didn’t?
d
BTW…great quote a friend of mine posted on Facebook, worth reprinting here and preserving for posterity:
“It doesn’t matter whether you are liberal or conservative, but it’s dangerous to always think with exclamation points instead of question marks. Your stance on any particular issue is far less important than whether your worldview is a product of inquiry or incuriosity, whether you feel more comfortable questioning the crowd or blindly marching with it. No ideology has a monopoly on reality.” - Marty Beckerman
I know this is something I need to be reminded of regularly.
d
Diana,
Whoa, that’s a good one. I should have the part about exclamation points and question marks tattooed on the inside of my forearm where I can always see it.
“No ideology has a monopoly on reality.” Isn’t ideology about trying to make reality? Or at least push it around?
Dave
I was thinking the same thing, Dave. If I can remember the exclamation point vs. question mark part when I need it, I will have grown immeasurably as a person.
Interesting question. I always though of ideology as the lens through which we interpret the world (and for some, and I don’t necessarily exclude myself here, it is the lens through which we SEE the world). So I guess it makes sense to say that it’s how we “make” reality, come to think of it. Perhaps ideology might be better described as the truths we take to be self-evident which provide the basis for our understanding.
What do you think?
d
Diana,
I confess I haven’t been taught a widely accepted definition for “ideology.” But from the way it’s used lately in political news, I expected it to mean something like “forget what you infidels think, this is how WE run things.” Or maybe that’s just the impression you get when you get when you mix democracy with 24-hour news.
Dave
Public school teachers should make zero, because “public” schools are socialist endeavors and should be ended. It’s inconsistent to hate health care reform and allow your child to attend public school.
In fairness, Dave, I didn’t check a dictionary for my definition. I just offered my understanding.
I’m still interested in yours, if you’re game to share it. Think of it as broadening my horizons….
d
O come on, Marine.
Even people in socialist countries get paid something for what they do….don’t they?
d
“If you consider yourself a Christian, do you roll down your window at traffic lights and give the homeless some money?”
I did that the other day. I’m very selfish when I give to panhandlers, just a dollar or two, but I’m getting better at it. Once I gave a man with no legs–WITH NO LEGS–just a dollar. I had both a ten and a twenty in my pocket. Why not the twenty? I wouldn’t have missed it. But I was being selfish and capitalist. I’m trying harder nowadays.
Although, I was talking to Father Nick down the street once, and he said he won’t give money to folks who come to his church begging money. He promises them HELP, and food, but no money. Because if he gives them money, they usually just keep coming back to hit him up, when he’s busy with his parishioners and can’t really fight much… he would get them jobs if he could, he’d do anything for them, but not money. So there are times I think when it is prudent to refuse money to the poor– but only if you offer to help in another way.
As for gov’t, what do I care? I’m an anarchist. ;)
We all have hypocrisies, contradictions. Don’t some vegans wear leather shoes?
It’s all about where we draw the line.
Sometimes the labels just get in the way of practical compassion.
Socialism: Capitalism
Helping as a group: Making money off the sick.
Fair and equal access: Money buys your way to the front of the line.
I can’t fathom living in a place where one couldn’t afford cancer care, heart surgery or life-saving chemo. It seems so heartless. Anyone here who doesn’t like our system can make the 20 minute drive to the border and avail themselves of US health care. Few do.
Back to education, I grew up in a city with no private schools. The schools for the gifted and the slow-learners were within the public system. Poor children were quietly given their bus tickets for the city transit we all took. Years later, I found out they were also given the milk tickets that the rest of us bought, so we all had the same thing to drink with the sandwiches we brought from home. Not only was it about equality of access, it was about maintaining everyone’s dignity. It was quality public education.
I wonder if the oligarchy had had private schools to which to send their children whether the support would have been there for our public schools, if the political will would have been there to provide these much needed special services. I doubt it.
Lorraine
Ha! I’m a vegan who wears leather shoes. :) And jackets, and belts, for that matter.
But I think I get your point. The difference lies in why we choose any given ideology, yes?
d
Diana,
My take on ideology is that it colors what we think the world should be like, not just in effects (i.e. zero unemployment) but in causes (i.e. because nobody’s lazy). People with different ideologies may see the same situation but believe it exists for different reasons, and will respond in different ways to change it to what they think is the most desirable outcome - even though they may both strive for the same result. Or not.
I guess what I’ve just said includes your definition, but to me ideology is as ideology does - to simply observe and apply one’s spin is just being opinionated.
Dave
Hi,
Not so much in why we chose a given ideology but where we choose to draw the line, to what degree we will take it. Some are pacifists but argue with every neighbour they’ve ever had, or beat the dog, or love ultimate fighting but there are some pacifists who won’t even kill a housefly. It’s all in where we draw the line because it’s almost impossible to carry an ideology to its extreme lengths. I hope that clarifies what I meant. (In an early writing class, I remember the teacher saying a writer can never say, “What I meant was..")
Lorraine
You kind of mixed several ideas in this blog, but they certainly are related.
You think the share of your success that you earn by giving it your ALL is only 10%? Try this: stop giving by 100%, (and give zero) I’d be willing to bet that your success rate FALLS by much MORE than 10%. If you stop “working” on your success and do nothing, your success will FALL by 100%. Want to reevaluate?
I think “success” is less like a pie chart with static percentages, and more alike a highway of moving cars. Our upbringing only gets us so far along the road, and it’s up to us to move the rest of the way. If we stop trying, or take an unwise detour, we can quickly get lost or fall behind. Others who may not have the “head start” can catch up, if they are shown what to do and if they believe that they can. How can we help others believe that they can make it? How can we show them the way? It’s more than just education. In some cases, cultural norms must be battled. But political correctness and moral relativity tells us that it’s wrong to tell someone else that “their way is bad” even if “their way” is what is keeping them from being successful.
There’s much more on this topic, but I have a database to finish. :/ I’ll try to get to the other points later, as well as your most recent post. :) I appreciate the time you put into your thoughts. I bought Atlas Shrugged a while back, but it could take me a year to read it, judging from its heft.
I remember when I first moved in, and Diana asked me that very question. “How much of my success do I think is attributable to my own efforts?” After thinking about it for a few moments, I said “about 10 percent.” I find it very interesting that Diana had the same estimation for herself.
Now if I didn’t put forth any effort at anything, the successes I’ve had in life would probably completely evaporate. I wouldn’t have 90% of what I have now (if what you mean by success is educational achievement or money or something else along those lines). So there’s some elasticity in that measure. A lot, actually. Just because a person who doesn’t try at all ends up with nothing at all doesn’t mean that one who does work hard achieved everything on his or her own. The hard work only gets you in the door; it’s the opportunities presented you by others and by your circumstances (many if not most of which are outside your personal control, like your upbringing and social status) that gets you the rest of what you have. Hard work and personal responsibility are certainly necessary for success, but I think they’re far from sufficient. Ten percent sounds about right to me, but then that’s something really hard to put an actual number on.
On second thought, there could be another way of phrasing my response. Maybe it’s not the hard work that opens the door to success (and social status/upbringing etc.) that gets you the rest of the way. It could very well be the other way around. Maybe it’s the other way around. You’re presented (or not) with all of these opportunities and having a good work ethic just seals the deal. Actually now that I think about it, that may be an even better way of looking at it. It’s an interesting question, though: “What comes first, work ethic or opportunity?”
I think I agree that upbringing and status open the door for you, or at least bring you TO the first door, there are many doors in life.
People who work hard are “given” more opportunities, are they not? Do employers like to promote slackers? Do colleges give more scholarships to students who’ve worked and studied hard? People who work hard “earn” opportunities . . . to work even harder.
If we tell people they can’t achieve success because of their class or ethnicity, “because that’s 90% of it” . . . we are doing them a GREAT disservice. There are plenty of examples of people who succeed in spite of a poor beginning, because they believed they could and WORKED at it. Many of them are immigrants who weren’t taught the political correctness that they should be coddled because of minority (or some other) status.
It’s okay to feel blessed or lucky for how we got started. But it’s wrong to tell OTHERS they have little chance to succeed because they didn’t get the same start. Believe in the human spirit, ingenuity and determination, and spread that belief to others! We need more successful people so that we CAN help those who truly cannot help themselves.
Travis makes some good points. My answer to his last question would be that either alone gets one nowhere. Both are necessary to succeed, however one defines success.
Lorraine
HI,
Becky makes some good points. I’m not sure how it works in the US but in Canada we officially have no class system, no one of higher status than anyone else. In reality, we have an unofficial and often unconscious class system. It is based on how considerate one is of others eg, saying “please” and “thank you", dental health, cleanliness, and grammar. If you go into a job interview with badly crooked or decayed teeth it will be hard to get the job. The same if you go into an interview for a university place using poor grammar. These are not always within a person’s control; they are an economic opportunity issue. If you go to a school where the teachers don’t have time to correct everyone’s grammar. If you can’t afford good dental health, you are sunk.
Things may be different in the US but I do see many people struggling hard to overcome disadvantages beyond their control. A mom with a poor education, working two full time jobs, riding buses to and from work and daycare may be working hard, she may be working smart but she won’t necessarily end up economically advantaged as a result of her hard work. It is sometimes possible to overcome being dealt a very bad hand but not always possible.
We are incredibly privileged and that is what has let us into the front door. What we do once there is up to us. Some don’t even get a map to that front door.
Lorraine
Some of you are making the assumption that the responsibility of teaching social mores falls–strictly–on educators. It does not and cannot. Teachers only have the level of authority that society gives them, and that authority generally resides in teaching the basics–reading, writing, ‘rithmetic, and history. If lucky, social studies–with an actual examination of people’s and government’s roles in our society–is taught. If teachers move outside this realm of responsibility by addressing specific instances of neglect, abuse, etc, their credibilty will be questioned by administrators and parents alike. “How dare you intrude in my home?” parents will say. “You don’t know the whole story, and, besides, you’re only getting your facts from my child who has a been a problem all of his or her life.” In the face of such criticism, and potential school district lawsuits, administrators may downplay the severity of the situation and ask the teacher to back off. Even stretching the assigned curriculum to teach proper behavior can earn teachers an often ill-deserved backlash.
Folks need to remember that parents are the primary source of educating their children on proper behavior. Yet, here lies the catch-22 in homes with parents ill-prepared or unwilling to do so. Until we are willing to actually back teachers, they will not be able to make a strong, public difference.
| « 4/20 | hypothermia ii » |
