You’ve heard the old saying, about how the meat packing industry makes sausage right? If not look it up, Google is good for that. Politics is a uniquely human enterprise. Our institutions which we revere and hold in high esteem are filled with humans, people who are fallen, broken, and selfish. There are obviously exceptions. But a quick look down the halls of Congress it doesn’t take long to see that the men and women serving there are more interested in their reelection and their cozy relationships with special interest to be concerned with what’s right and wrong. In fact and in fairness to Congress who is equipped to lead a morally just and ethically centered life? I will admit those terms are loaded so let’s unpack them for a moment…
Morality on an anthropological level is a universal code that all reasonable people agree to follow. What’s interesting about this is there is no value judgment here. There is no good versus evil, or right versus wrong. It is simply a code that reasonable people agree to live by. Much like John Locke’s Social Contract we give up some things to live in an ordered society. Now morality is also understood to be normative, i.e. it has a specific code of conduct attached to it. In this case again reasonable individuals agree to order their lives and priorities around this set of normative rules. These can come from Religion, parents, schools, any institution that socializes its’ citizens. If we has Westerner who hold a dominate place in the global community agree to a certain set of norms we left those up as MORAL. We embrace a certain right and a specific wrong. We socialize our children through various mechanisms to hold to these “right and wrong” ideas. We expect others to also hold their offspring to the same standards, the idea of universal morality, and the idea that we all have a stake in an ordered society. By way of an example I would like to try and illuminate this point…
The news outlets are crucifying Joe Paterno and 5 other administrators at Penn State College who had knowledge of a sex abuse scandal committed by one of their former employees. The former employee has been indicted for sex crimes involving minors. I know we can all agree that the perpetrator of these horrific actions should be held accountable for his heinous crime. Now comes the moral question…The 5 men who knew about this 10 years ago and didn’t report it are morally accountable and some may even be legally responsible BUT let’s for a I moment look at the actions of one of these men in particular. There was a former PennStatefootball player who was serving as a graduate assistant at the time when he walked in on his former coach and mentor molesting a 10 year old boy. The graduate assistant took no physical action at the time and reported it to his superior Joe Paterno shortly their after. Joe Paterno filed a report to the AD and President of the College the next day. Now there are people in the media, particularly the sports media who believe the graduate assistant should have physically intervened on behalf of the child. And from a moral perspective it seems the high moral answer is for someone to advocate physical involvement at the time. I believe it is this “I would have do this” attitude that is causing me some hesitation. It is no doubt that those five men acting immorally, but it seems too easy to sit back and play Monday morning quarterback and attack them for their lack of action. It’s akin to someone saying today that 60 years ago they would have stood up to Hitler and not allowed him to commit the Holocaust. When in truth our human history is full of people who sit on the sidelines. Here in lies the problem…
Anthropologist Louis Leakey termed two distinct types of people, “Lumpers and Dividers”. Lumpers are big picture people. They see connections quickly and easily and thus draw large comprehensive theories that often bring together dissimilar parts. Dividers are the opposite they see specific detail and want smaller and smaller distinctions. Dividers want smaller and smaller associations. An example in the natural sciences would be the classification of animals. My daughter watches nature shows with me all the time and the other day asked why some sharks are different then other sharks, for her a shark is a shark, whether it is a Great White or a Lemon shark, for Hayden there is no difference. She is a “lumper”. I think this principle can be transferred to politics relatively easily. I would argue most of the members of Congress are “dividers” they become consumed with one or two pet issues losing focus on the larger universal principle that we all claim to hold to. The tragedy atPennStatehas made a large section of the public into lumpers. We all want to be judge and jury and then claim we are as brave and moral as John Wayne and no protocol and psychological trauma will stand in our way.
It is somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about a child being molested and completely ignore the equally heinous conditions thousands of children are mired in. I will stand front and center and yell my loudest in defense of children who are molested, BUT where IS the righteous anger and moral high ground when there are thousands of kids living in extreme poverty and attend public schools that are literally falling apart and are using dated books. See if it wasn’t obvious I am a lumper children suffering IS WRONG PERIOD. The politicians and analyst want to attack a certain strain of injustice they want to address specific wrongs. Could we address wrongs holistically and if we did would our outcomes be better? As tragic as sex molestation is and is horrific as thePennStatemans actions are aren’t we just as responsible to the children living in extreme poverty? Are our politicians making sausage? Are they making policy that fits awkwardly with other policies patching the dike right before it explodes?
Society at this day in age has started on a downhill trend. This trend can be characterized by the increased sense of pessimism and negativity that public sentiment encourages. Like the Penn State uproar over Joe Paterno; it is much easier for people to find fault with publically revered people than the average person. If Paterno had been an unknown high-school football coach, would the backlash have been half as bad? Society as a whole takes pleasure in building people up as honored individuals then just as easily tearing them down for not living up to the superhero complex which it has envisioned. Politicians, as leaders in the public’s view, are susceptible to the roaring cyclone of society and are easily ripped to shreds.
To this point, I don’t believe that politicians have a choice but to divide morality into smaller and smaller categories in order to not face the hostile response that the public is ready to give in case the politicians don’t meet their standards. As a way to appease the public, politicians are able to key in on certain issues that Americans as a whole feel “immoral”, and pass legislation to discourage or outlaw that issue. Being “successful” in the eyes of the public may take only a few bills on certain taboo subjects. If politicians were to take on morality holistically, they would be in the hot seat far more often and be accountable for more of their actions. One singular person can be convicted of a crime of sexual molestation, but if hunger is treated the same way, now every single American is to blame. To face the facts, we as a whole don’t particularly like to “take one for the team”, it’s must easier to place the blame elsewhere. Politicians are dividers so that they can save themselves from public disapproval.
The levels of morality that society places on certain actions or beliefs are completely different to each person. Growing up in the Bible Belt of the South is much different than that of the highly diverse Northeast. Everyone has different models on which they base their moral standards. Personally, I feel as if all suffering is one in the same, but it’s not quite that easy. When, as a child, you’re taught wrong and right, there a different degrees of wrong. Touching the stove and stealing are both wrong, but for different reasons. Most people over-generalize distinctions like this, so as to create different levels of morality as adults. Having a hungry child is wrong but sexually abusing a child is “more” wrong?
These so-called higher levels of morality are what Congressmen try to target when they do divide up morality. Targeting the issue society as a whole feels is wrong, is a way to gain support and avoid hostility.
I am Joe Paterno. With moderation of course, but 3 years ago I was in the same situation, almost exactly. Personally, I made the right decision for what my limitations as a 14-year-old girl could extend to. My best friend from Memphis, Tennessee, whom I spent 24/7 with for an 6 entire weeks at summer camp had been molested for the past 5 years. Before this summer we were only mere acquaintances. Every single night for 6 weeks, he told me every detail of how this experience had physically, emotionally, socially, mentally: completely changed his entire life at that point. He has so much longer to live and this is only the beginning. He stopped being my friend after a few months because I wouldn’t stop talking to him about it…being the only person he’s ever told; whom else would he talk to? People have to talk about their emotions or else the results can be much worse down the road. Months turned into years, yet unfortunately haunting thoughts never turned into actions. I was too young and he was so far away. I had names, I had details, I had dreams…I had mental images. I told my parents, my camp counselor, and my camp director; I told those who mattered and could make a difference… but they didn’t. Fortunately now he’s received help, but for the longest time and even today, I still somewhat feel like a failure: as a friend, as a Jewish individual, and as a decent human being. For that, I am Joe Paterno.
Being impoverished and being taken advantage of sexually are entirely different things. Although I have neither experienced poverty nor molestation, but I have seen the consequences of both, which can be the similar, but at the same time so very different. On a psychological level, poverty can cause lack of motivation, developmental delays, abuse and neglect, and physical health problems. Molestation can cause schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and addictions to mind-altering substances. Though they are both unfortunate circumstances, they are not the same, but should both be addressed and never forgotten. John Locke’s argument for the right of the majority is the theoretical ground for the distinction between duty to society and duty to government, the distinction that permits an argument for resistance without anarchy. When the designated government dissolves, men remain obligated to society acting through majority rule. Joe Paterno and affiliates of this act, are not 14-years-old, and had the ability and power to make a difference in the young boy’s life. Their wait only provided time for more innocent victims to be affected by these devastating acts. Government and selfishness unquestionably ruled in this category.
With much thought given, I believe I have found that I am a Lumper. I have realized that although Lumpers see the “big picture,” in my case, I piece together all of the factors that make the big picture possible. Therefore, I am also a Divider, but my organizational skills allow me to create the big picture through perfecting the smaller outlets. Although the fight is not over, the Penn State catastrophe has produced several guilty subjects in different angles of society. Those who made it “someone else’s problem”, those who committed the crime, and those who will forever feel the guilt for not standing up. They are all guilty if not in the eyes of the government, then personally, morally, and/or entirely.