I have not turned to David Brooks, New York Times columnist, for a while. But I continue to read him and be helped with his insights. He has been working on the idea of character, community and culture for some time now. Much of his work lines up with the things I think about and which I write. He is more famous!
Brooks is one of those people who have a first-rate mind and has obviously leveraged a very good education with some deep life experience to be able to look at life and conclude things many of us would never discern. It seems he has experienced the wonder of being pretty famous and realizing that is not ultimately the most satisfying thing in life. I suspect this is what drives his desire to keep on and to keep thinking more deeply.
In a recent column appropriately entitled, “Screw the Virus,” Brooks make an interesting distinction, which I would like to share and pursue. In the first place he notes, “Judging from my social network, the absence of social connection is making everybody more ardent for it.” I think he is exactly right, if I can judge from comments my students and my older friends are making. Now that we are deprived of the normal little aspects of social interaction, we realize how much we are missing. But Brooks also observes, “People are geniuses at finding a way to touch each other even when they can’t.” So true!
It is at this point Brooks offer the distinction I want to lift up. He tells us “Through plague eyes I realize there’s an important distinction between social connection and social solidarity.” I was eager to read more. “Social connection means feeling empathetic toward others and being kind to them. That’s fine in normal times.” I take some time to ponder this. I have been blessed with many social connections. I feel fortunate to have so many current students in my life and intentionally call them friends. They are friends because I want friends when they graduate and go on with their lives. I have friends, who are social connections, from churches, schools, etc. I am no different than most of you.
Brooks then turns to social solidarity, which he says, “is more tenacious.” I love the way he defines this: “It’s an active commitment to the common good---the kind of thing needed in times like now.” Let me take time to quote further Brooks’ thought. About social solidarity he claims, “It starts with a belief in the infinite dignity of each human person but sees people embedded in webs of mutual obligation---to one another and to all creation. It celebrates the individual and the whole together, and to the nth degree.”
If I personalize this, I realize Brooks’ claim of the infinite dignity of all humans relates to how Quakers always begin with the affirmation that “there is that of God in every person.” In good times this belief is really just “head stuff.” I can say I believe it, but there is no challenge to act it out—at least for most of us. But now that times have become more demanding, we are challenged. It is not fun to stay isolated. The temptation is to think we are exceptional. Stupidly this means I will be ok; somehow God will spare me any pain. Or similar logics that take us in dumb directions are never good.
I like how Brooks cynical puts down of what he calls “the whole culture of autonomy.” He says about this culture of autonomy that it “seems immature.” This is the culture that says, “I’m free to be myself.” We all know people who think and say whatever they want, they can have. This is not what Brooks means by social solidarity. Even though they may be socially connected, they have no sense of nor respect of social solidarity. They are selfish.
One more comment from Brooks speaks to me. He says, “Social solidarity is not a feeling; it’s an active virtue.” I have written a great deal about virtue over the years and know this is one theme Brooks and I have in common. I like how he calls social solidarity a virtue. A virtue aims at the good. It is always moral and ethical. Virtue is the way we become people of character. Lord knows and we do too, we need more character and more character these days. The last thing we need are people without character.
It may seem like I have not been doing anything with religion or spirituality in all this reflection. I would argue, however, it has been present all along, although without either word, religion or spirituality. So much of what Brooks is- resonates with what Jesus says about community and the building of the kingdom. It is easy to see how Brooks is going to suggest loving each other---every “other” makes perfect sense. The good news about love is it’s reciprocal. If someone else feels committed to loving, then I am the recipient and beneficiary!
Social solidarity means we are all in it together. This is not a racial thing; it is not even a national thing. It truly is global. This is about the one family of God. I want to embrace that and begin to live both globally and spiritually.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/opinion/coronavirus-isolation.html
Brooks is one of those people who have a first-rate mind and has obviously leveraged a very good education with some deep life experience to be able to look at life and conclude things many of us would never discern. It seems he has experienced the wonder of being pretty famous and realizing that is not ultimately the most satisfying thing in life. I suspect this is what drives his desire to keep on and to keep thinking more deeply.
In a recent column appropriately entitled, “Screw the Virus,” Brooks make an interesting distinction, which I would like to share and pursue. In the first place he notes, “Judging from my social network, the absence of social connection is making everybody more ardent for it.” I think he is exactly right, if I can judge from comments my students and my older friends are making. Now that we are deprived of the normal little aspects of social interaction, we realize how much we are missing. But Brooks also observes, “People are geniuses at finding a way to touch each other even when they can’t.” So true!
It is at this point Brooks offer the distinction I want to lift up. He tells us “Through plague eyes I realize there’s an important distinction between social connection and social solidarity.” I was eager to read more. “Social connection means feeling empathetic toward others and being kind to them. That’s fine in normal times.” I take some time to ponder this. I have been blessed with many social connections. I feel fortunate to have so many current students in my life and intentionally call them friends. They are friends because I want friends when they graduate and go on with their lives. I have friends, who are social connections, from churches, schools, etc. I am no different than most of you.
Brooks then turns to social solidarity, which he says, “is more tenacious.” I love the way he defines this: “It’s an active commitment to the common good---the kind of thing needed in times like now.” Let me take time to quote further Brooks’ thought. About social solidarity he claims, “It starts with a belief in the infinite dignity of each human person but sees people embedded in webs of mutual obligation---to one another and to all creation. It celebrates the individual and the whole together, and to the nth degree.”
If I personalize this, I realize Brooks’ claim of the infinite dignity of all humans relates to how Quakers always begin with the affirmation that “there is that of God in every person.” In good times this belief is really just “head stuff.” I can say I believe it, but there is no challenge to act it out—at least for most of us. But now that times have become more demanding, we are challenged. It is not fun to stay isolated. The temptation is to think we are exceptional. Stupidly this means I will be ok; somehow God will spare me any pain. Or similar logics that take us in dumb directions are never good.
I like how Brooks cynical puts down of what he calls “the whole culture of autonomy.” He says about this culture of autonomy that it “seems immature.” This is the culture that says, “I’m free to be myself.” We all know people who think and say whatever they want, they can have. This is not what Brooks means by social solidarity. Even though they may be socially connected, they have no sense of nor respect of social solidarity. They are selfish.
One more comment from Brooks speaks to me. He says, “Social solidarity is not a feeling; it’s an active virtue.” I have written a great deal about virtue over the years and know this is one theme Brooks and I have in common. I like how he calls social solidarity a virtue. A virtue aims at the good. It is always moral and ethical. Virtue is the way we become people of character. Lord knows and we do too, we need more character and more character these days. The last thing we need are people without character.
It may seem like I have not been doing anything with religion or spirituality in all this reflection. I would argue, however, it has been present all along, although without either word, religion or spirituality. So much of what Brooks is- resonates with what Jesus says about community and the building of the kingdom. It is easy to see how Brooks is going to suggest loving each other---every “other” makes perfect sense. The good news about love is it’s reciprocal. If someone else feels committed to loving, then I am the recipient and beneficiary!
Social solidarity means we are all in it together. This is not a racial thing; it is not even a national thing. It truly is global. This is about the one family of God. I want to embrace that and begin to live both globally and spiritually.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/opinion/coronavirus-isolation.html
Comments
Post a Comment