Phil's Little Blog on the Prairie

At the end of her book Connecting with Our Children: Guiding Principles for Parents in a Troubled World, psychiatrist Roberta M. Gilbert writes this about the founder of family systems theory: “Dr. Murray Bowen, days before his death, said, to an audience, ‘You have inherited a world of tribulation—take it and do the best you can with it.’” She goes on to say that she believes Bowen “was talking about the regressive society we are living in.” I don’t know about you, but I agree with both Bowen and Gilbert. We have inherited a world of tribulation, and we are living in a regressive society. And I also agree with Gilbert’s take on what we need to do about it.

The only way I know to affect the regressive tendencies of society is for high-level people, with a knowledge of family systems principles, to rear their families according to what they know about relationships and less along the lines of reactivity or the dictates of the regression. From these families, leaders could emerge with an interest in leading civilization up and out of regression. They would know that the problems that have been created by humans can be solved by humans. They could find solutions based on principles rather than on anxiety. They could teach about staying on course instead of giving in to the ever-present regressive forces.

And what are these regressive forces? At the top of my list is what Mary Pipher calls “toxic media” (characterized by “omnipresent ads, tawdry sex and ever more graphic violence”—see Pipher’s article in the UU World). But a close second for me are the purveyors of the kind of Strict Father Morality George Lakoff writes about in Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. These are people like James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who believe, in Lakoff’s words, that

God has dominance over human beings.
Human beings have dominance over nature (animals, plants, and natural objects).
Adults have dominance over children.
Men have dominance over women.

These are, in my opinion, decidedly regressive beliefs. And we are paying the price for their dominance right now. In order to counter these forces—both the toxic media and the regressive beliefs of right-wing fundamentalists—we need to offer an alternative. And I agree with Bill Sinkford, UUA president, when he says we are it.

In the face of the well-organized and well-funded dominance of the fundamentalist religious right in the public square, I believe that we are called to offer a liberal religious alternative. I am not willing, nor should you be, to cede the moral high ground to religious fundamentalists, of any faith tradition, who preach that there is only one way to be religious, only one scripture worthy of being followed, only one way to be a family, only one way to lead a good life. There must be a liberal religious alternative. And, my friends, we're it.

And nowhere is what we offer more important than in raising and nurturing children. To that end, I’m looking forward to reading Embracing Parents: How Your Congregation Can Strengthen Families by Jolene and Eugene Roehlkepartain. Here’s what the Search Institute (the group Eugene Roehlkepartian works with) says about the book:

A poll of 1,005 parents in the United States which was released in November 2002 by Search Institute and the YMCA of the USA, found five key findings:

Most parents surveyed are going it alone.
Many parents interviewed lack a strong relationship with a spouse or partner.
A majority of parents surveyed feel successful as parents most of the time.
Most parents polled face ongoing challenges.
Many things these parents say would help them as parents are easy things others can do.

When churches use these findings, they will find out that not only will these strategies benefit families but they also will benefit their church. Embracing Parents challenges pastors and other church leaders to expand their vision, to become proactive in meeting the needs of families, and to provide a key place where parents and their children can grow.

Includes key research findings, true stories, quizzes, checklists, and practical tools that congregations can use to become more effective. Even the most experienced pastor and church leader will find new ways to strengthen their families—and their church.

I’m looking forward to finding out how our UU congregations can help embrace the parents and strengthen the families we already have.
|

Last week I offered a copy of George Lakoff's latest book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, to the first person who could identify the sixth type of progressive Lakoff added to the original five he listed in the Afterword of the second edition of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. I'm happy to report that we have a winner: Emily from Kansas. Your book should be arriving soon, Emily!

So, what is Lakoff's sixth type of progessive? (By the way, of course there's more than six; as Lakoff says, "From sociological or political perspectives, there seem to be dozens, if not hundreds, of types of liberals and progressives. But from a cognitive perspective, defined by modes of thought, there are just six.") Well, in addition to the five I listed in last week's post (Socio-economic Progressives, Identity Politics Progressives, Greens, Civil Liberties Progressives, and Anti-Authoritarian Progressives), there are also Spiritual progressives. Here, then, is Lakoff's revised list (from "Creating a Progressive Values Movement," on the Rockridge Institute's website--a similar list can also be found in the first chapter of Don't Think of an Elephant, "Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse"):

Socio-economic: All issues are a matter of money and class.
Identity Politics: Our group deserves its share now.
Environmentalists: Respect for the earth and a healthy future.
Civil Libertarians: Freedoms are threatened and have to be protected.
Spiritual progressives: Religion and spirituality nurture us and are central to a fulfilling life.
Anti-authoritarians: We have to fight the illegitimate use of authority.

Now in Moral Politics, Lakoff said that "each major group focuses on real issues, but the most important issue of all--raising children--is left out." And he's right--at least about those original five types of progressives. Are the Democratic Socialists of America going to make raising children their number one priority? How about the Sierra Club? Or the ACLU? Or Amnesty International? Or the NAACP? No, no, no, no, and no. As Lakoff said, "Nurturant Parenting is neither a socioeconomic question, nor an issue of identity politics, nor an ecological concern, nor a question of civil liberties, nor an authoritarian political concern."

It is, however, a religious and spiritual concern. And that's something conservatives know all to well--just see where www.family.org takes you. In Lakoff's words, "Allowing conservatives virtual free reign to give advice to parents on the raising of children is a national disaster--and liberals should be deeply ashamed for allowing it to happen." Well, I'm a liberal, and I am ashamed. I'm also a liberal religious person of faith, and the shame I feel about our liberal religious institutions' failure to make raising children a priority is even greater. Truth is, I believe that our inability to agree on this issue is one of the main reasons why mainstream Protestant denominations are declining and why we Unitarian Universalists are seeing a decrease in the number of children enrolled in our religious education programs.

Indeed, Lakoff hints that it is the Spiritual Progressives who must take the lead here. Why? Because in order to raise what he calls "real" children, children who "become responsible, empathetic adults," we need to create and sustain an environment where those values are a priority. And while "all types of progressives adhere to the central moral values of empathy and responsibility," according to Lakoff, "the differences from different priorities are from other values." Here's how Lakoff lays it out in "Creating a Progressive Values Movement" (it's long, but please read this--it gets to the heart of the matter):

Socioeconomic progressives believe that the most important considerations involve money and class. The best solutions are therefore economic and social class solutions.

These progressives believe that economic inequality lies at the heart of most societal problems, and therefore that redressing economic inequality is the best solution. Crime, infant mortality, low education levels — most, if not all, social maladies — would be greatly reduced if people were more equal economically.

Fairness is the key value here, along with equality and opportunity: Fairness fundamentally demands that every American be given an equal chance at economic success.

Identity Politics progressives are those who either belong to or identify with a particular oppressed group who desires their liberation and an end to oppression.

All progressives agree on the importance of liberation for such groups. It doesn't matter whether the focus is on correcting the injustices of the past or taking a more global stance that oppression is wrong regardless of group affiliation. All oppression is wrong, and to right the wrongs means extending rights to everyone in society equally.

The shared values of responsibility, fairness, trust, cooperation and community-building all figure prominently in extending rights to all.

Environmentalists focus on the sustainability of the earth and the natural environment, the sacredness of nature, and protecting native peoples.

At the heart of environmentalism is the value of sustainability. We want all life to continue on this planet, and this means that we must stop doing damage to it. This is the only way to ensure that future generations will be able to live healthy, fulfilling lives. It is also the only way to show proper respect for the source of all life. Furthermore, we have to protect the rights of native peoples.

To live sustainably means being good stewards. This in turns means:

Doing as little damage as possible to the planet: selective logging, using renewable energy, minimizing pollution.
Finding ways to undo the damage we do: recycling, permaculture, reseeding of logged forests.

Looking at these commitments in terms of broader progressive values, environmentalism is about nurturance and the future: nurturance of the planet and of future generations. Empathy and protection are the primary values.

Civil libertarians: These progressives focus on the notion that human beings have a fundamental right to live their lives without harassment and harm being inflicted on them by arbitrary power. Issues of freedom, liberty, democracy (equal sharing of power), and individual rights are paramount.

Government, as the ultimate holder of power, is the greatest potential threat to these freedoms. Thus, civil libertarians believe, we must be on guard at all times for even small threats to our civil liberties, because the slope down to authoritarianism is very slippery. Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote sums up the central commitment of civil libertarians: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Protection is the central value here. Individuals are vulnerable to mistreatment, and should be protected, and freedoms themselves must be protected. Responsibility, Fairness, and Opportunity are also important: with freedom comes the imperative to use that freedom responsibly, and it is essential that freedom be available to everyone in a fair and equal manner.

Spiritual progressives focus on the nurturant aspects of religion and spirituality. Service, compassion, and community, connects spiritual progressives to other people and the world, and are central to their spiritual practice.

Nurturant spirituality comes in many forms: for Christians, a nurturant God transmits nurturant values through grace and love; for Jews, Tikkun olam & mdash; a duty to heal the world; for Buddhists, a vow of campassion for all beings.

For spiritual progressives, empathy is the paramount value and responsibility is central to the spirtual practice of maintaining communities and service to others. Spiritual progressives, of course, seek meaningful fulfillment in life for themselves and others.

Anti-authoritarians: Civil libertarians and anti-authoritarians share a deep distrust of authority. Where civil libertarians specifically emphasize the interplay between the government and individual freedom, anti-authoritarians point to the larger problem of authority in general: how people and organizations with more power can threaten and harm those with less power. Authority figures here are broadly conceived: they can be large corporations, police departments, even parents.

The central values for anti-authoritarians are fairness, freedom from oppression, and protection of those oppressed. It’s just plain wrong to use power to harm or oppress others, regardless of the particular societal arena in which the power dynamic plays out. Anti-authoritarians also pursue honest and open communication as a defense against the control of information by anti-authoritarian forces.

Note that it is only among Spiritual Progressives that both empathy and responsibility are high priorities, which tells me that if liberals are to have any chance of promoting their values over the values the conservatives, liberal religious communities of faith must make raising children their number one priority. And how do we do this? By supporting families both within our religious institutions and in the wider community. I've heard that the UUA has devoted $250,000 for the two-year Consultation on Ministry to and with Youth process. That's great! However, the crucial time for parents to instill values occurs before the teenage years. According to the Center for Applied Motivation, "much of [the] parenting work of providing values is completed by the time [a] child reaches age eleven or twelve." How much are we spending to support liberal religious families instill progressive spiritual values in their children? Take a look at the UUA's FY06 Budget. Your guess is as good as mine.
|