I will always associate Ash Wednesday with the Latin expression “Memento Homo.” In the days before Vatican Two, all the Catholic Church rituals were conducted in Latin so we heard the Lenten admonition in a language that very few understood: Memento homo quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris – Remember, man, that dust thou art and into dust you will return!
The Ash Wednesday ceremony deals with the most basic human reality – we are all mortal; we are only around for a short time. This is not particularly a Christian insight because dealing with the inevitability of death, finding some sustaining perspective on human mortality, is part of the challenge of every culture and religion.
Throughout history, moralists and preachers have correctly seen death as the great leveler. James Shirley, an English writer who lived at the end of the sixteenth century, wrote a very powerful poem entitled Death the Leveler, which I learned by heart in high school. It starts: The glories of our blood and state/ Are shadows not substantial things;/ There is no armour against fate;/ Death lays his icy hands on kings./ Sceptre and crown/Must tumble down,/And in the dust be equal made/ With the poor crooked scythe and spade.
Modern Western culture is overwhelmingly materialistic. Money and the power that goes with it often lead to a state of near-denial of mortality. Happiness is tied to possessions, to the new car or boat, to the new home or homes that bring status and importance. There is surely a materialistic fallacy here because human contentment does not correlate with the amount of possessions we hold.
This is the big letdown of the modern acquisitive culture which often confuses our basic needs with our many “wants.” The Catholic ritual for Ash Wednesday reminds us of what, in a different context, a friend from Tyrone loved to call “the cold hard facts of life.” We are invited to see life from the perspective of eternity, to put aside the pomp and posturing, to drop our pretensions, to recognize the many masks we wear and to deal with the core issues of our humanity.
Penance is part of the Christian Lenten regimen. So, in my youth, a common question was “what are you giving up for Lent?” When I meet older Irish people who do not take sugar in their tea, I know that this has nothing to do with any anti-carb craze, but with a Lenten resolution from another era.
I gave up cigarettes once for Lent. I recall waiting patiently for Easter Sunday morning when I could again enjoy a drag from a Sweet Afton. I missed the “fags” so much for those forty days, that I never again attempted that Lenten penance, and, when I finally did quit, my decision was driven entirely by health considerations.
Giving-up the cigarettes or the booze for six weeks is a healthy practice that stresses the importance of self-control and builds character. However, in our present economic crisis, asking people who have lost their jobs and, maybe their homes to do without some luxury or other is a bit out-of-touch. So many people - and, especially, families, - are living on the edge that giving-up anything else is not on their agenda.
Many ethicists and preachers suggest that we should eschew the negative approach of doing without; instead, they say, the stress, during Lent, should be on performing charitable works. For instance, thousands of children die from starvation every day, a disgraceful and damning comment on our 21st century culture. The important challenge, from this perspective, surely is to work with and support such charities as CONCERN, GOAL or HOPe in their efforts to alleviate the terrible situation for children in Third-world countries.
I am reminded of the last lines in Shirley’s poem which stress this positive approach: Only the actions of the just/ Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
DARWIN
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are frequently spoken of as the three seminal thinkers of the 19th century. Freud’s stress on the importance of the unconscious mind and his focus on sexuality as a major driving force in people’s behavior set him apart as a revolutionary in promoting a new understanding of the the human psyche. However, the effectiveness of his therapeutic approach, called psychoanalysis, was seriously questioned even before his death in the 1930’s, and pure Freudian techniques are rarely used in therapy today.
Marx’s belief in class struggle, resulting in the inevitable triumph of the working-class and the establishment of a classless, communist system of government, grew in importance after Marx’s death in the 1880’s. His ideas resonated with many liberal thinkers who were tired of the crude excesses of the capitalist system at that time. However, the great communist experiments in Russia and its surrounding satellite countries, all avowedly Marxist, were disastrous for human freedom and workers’ rights. As a result, Karl Marx’s ideas – perhaps unfairly, because he never advocated terror and repression to achieve his utopian state – are now viewed negatively by most historians.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time much better than the ideas of either Marx or Freud. His masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago, revolutionized biology, stripping man of his perceived central uniqueness from the rest of life on the planet. Darwin did not invent the idea that, over millions of years, higher forms of life developed from simpler forms. This evolutionary theory was discussed widely in academic circles, especially in Europe, before Darwin wrote along the same lines.
What was different about Darwin’s thinking was his espousal of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. He argued that blind forces within nature determined the evolutionary process. What he called “natural selection” postulated that, usually, only the strongest members of each species thrive and reproduce. Thus, the weak offspring in every species are systematically eliminated, and only the aggressive ones can drive evolutionary development. This is a simplified description of what he called “the survival of the fittest” in the natural selection process.
Darwin’s support for blind evolution ran completely counter to the most common argument for the existence of God. Most theists, then and now, point to the order in nature as proof that, in the final analysis, there must be an orderer. Complex design calls for a sophisticated designer.
The creationist movement, especially in the United States rejects all, or most, of the Darwinian evolutionary beliefs. They see this mechanistic view of man as running completely contrary to their religious beliefs, which center on a personal omnipotent creator. Every year, we hear of school boards insisting that creationist beliefs be given equal time in biology classes. They seem to be confusing the theological query of why human life is the way it is with the how question, which is the only domain of the scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the eminent and popular scientist, who wrote The God Delusion in 2006, asks the core question about evolution: “Are mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?” Dawkins’ answer to this crucial question is in the affirmative. This, it seems to me, is where the big division takes place among scientists and, indeed, in the wider academic community. Is it possible that blind and undirected forces in matter somehow developed into a complex, conscious, reflective being? What confluence of inanimate forces could generate intelligent activity?
My imagination cannot stretch to affirm that a series of blind evolutionary accidents, encompassing millions of years, somehow resulted in human consciousness. On the other hand, thinking of an artisan god, who operates like a potter, changing and designing his artifacts, is also unsatisfactory. We are dealing here with the mystery of life in a universe that is complex, beyond our comprehension.
These are spiritual questions that have to be explored, far outside the realm of biology. The mystics in all traditions repeatedly tell us that their central insight into human existence is that all life is one, that the various forms of life are not really separate, that we are all, animate and inanimate, part of the one Life Force, which as the poet, Wordsworth, said “breathes through all things.”
I finish with a quotation from Albert Einstein which addresses the issues raised by Darwin and Dawkins. “Everyone who is seriously interested in science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are frequently spoken of as the three seminal thinkers of the 19th century. Freud’s stress on the importance of the unconscious mind and his focus on sexuality as a major driving force in people’s behavior set him apart as a revolutionary in promoting a new understanding of the the human psyche. However, the effectiveness of his therapeutic approach, called psychoanalysis, was seriously questioned even before his death in the 1930’s, and pure Freudian techniques are rarely used in therapy today.
Marx’s belief in class struggle, resulting in the inevitable triumph of the working-class and the establishment of a classless, communist system of government, grew in importance after Marx’s death in the 1880’s. His ideas resonated with many liberal thinkers who were tired of the crude excesses of the capitalist system at that time. However, the great communist experiments in Russia and its surrounding satellite countries, all avowedly Marxist, were disastrous for human freedom and workers’ rights. As a result, Karl Marx’s ideas – perhaps unfairly, because he never advocated terror and repression to achieve his utopian state – are now viewed negatively by most historians.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time much better than the ideas of either Marx or Freud. His masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago, revolutionized biology, stripping man of his perceived central uniqueness from the rest of life on the planet. Darwin did not invent the idea that, over millions of years, higher forms of life developed from simpler forms. This evolutionary theory was discussed widely in academic circles, especially in Europe, before Darwin wrote along the same lines.
What was different about Darwin’s thinking was his espousal of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. He argued that blind forces within nature determined the evolutionary process. What he called “natural selection” postulated that, usually, only the strongest members of each species thrive and reproduce. Thus, the weak offspring in every species are systematically eliminated, and only the aggressive ones can drive evolutionary development. This is a simplified description of what he called “the survival of the fittest” in the natural selection process.
Darwin’s support for blind evolution ran completely counter to the most common argument for the existence of God. Most theists, then and now, point to the order in nature as proof that, in the final analysis, there must be an orderer. Complex design calls for a sophisticated designer.
The creationist movement, especially in the United States rejects all, or most, of the Darwinian evolutionary beliefs. They see this mechanistic view of man as running completely contrary to their religious beliefs, which center on a personal omnipotent creator. Every year, we hear of school boards insisting that creationist beliefs be given equal time in biology classes. They seem to be confusing the theological query of why human life is the way it is with the how question, which is the only domain of the scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the eminent and popular scientist, who wrote The God Delusion in 2006, asks the core question about evolution: “Are mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?” Dawkins’ answer to this crucial question is in the affirmative. This, it seems to me, is where the big division takes place among scientists and, indeed, in the wider academic community. Is it possible that blind and undirected forces in matter somehow developed into a complex, conscious, reflective being? What confluence of inanimate forces could generate intelligent activity?
My imagination cannot stretch to affirm that a series of blind evolutionary accidents, encompassing millions of years, somehow resulted in human consciousness. On the other hand, thinking of an artisan god, who operates like a potter, changing and designing his artifacts, is also unsatisfactory. We are dealing here with the mystery of life in a universe that is complex, beyond our comprehension.
These are spiritual questions that have to be explored, far outside the realm of biology. The mystics in all traditions repeatedly tell us that their central insight into human existence is that all life is one, that the various forms of life are not really separate, that we are all, animate and inanimate, part of the one Life Force, which as the poet, Wordsworth, said “breathes through all things.”
I finish with a quotation from Albert Einstein which addresses the issues raised by Darwin and Dawkins. “Everyone who is seriously interested in science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Saturday, February 14, 2009
ADOLESCENT NEEDS
I have worked with adolescents for my entire professional career, as a teacher and school counselor. In addition, my wife, Aileen, and I reared three daughters and dealt – as well as we could – with their teenage travails. The reader might think that all of my professional dealings with adolescents would have made me some kind of ideal parent in dealing with my own kids during their teenage years. I am sure that my educational background and training did help at times, but Aileen, who never studied the psychology of adolescence, dealt better with the various crises that arose than I did.
The first requirement for any adult dealing with teenagers is that he must respect the child. The kids that I worked with in the South Bronx often talked about teachers or other adults who "dissed" them; they felt put down, diminished, by these people. To make progress with any child, he must feel that his thoughts and feelings are important – and, this must hold true even when the child is acting out or being awkward.
Some educators approach their job as a vocation; they often have a spiritual perspective on their work. For instance, a teacher who is motivated by Christian ideals will see his students as God’s children, and thus he will view them all as equal and worthy of the highest respect. Such a teacher realizes that the kind of favoritism that is often bestowed on the talented athlete or the gifted student is inappropriate and unfair to the rest of the class, especially to the young person who is struggling with class work and who does not distinguish himself in any co-curricular activities. The educators who play favorites – and most do to one degree or another – convey a very shallow message to students, namely that accidental factors, like good looks or prowess in some sport, somehow merits a high level of teacher respect.
Of course, one must be realistic about these matters. Teachers are human and they will have their likes and dislikes in any class. However, these preferences should be camouflaged to the extent that each student’s worth is affirmed. The "teacher’s pet" syndrome should be avoided because it does not enhance student or teacher.
It is devastating for students to see themselves as failures. In the high schools in the Bronx, more than half of the students do not graduate, and, unfortunately, the statistics for the male population are much worse. This level of failure militates seriously against a positive school spirit and leads to very damaging consequences for the young people who are failing and, indeed, for society as a whole. It should not surprise us that over 90% of the jail population in the United States are school dropouts.
Young people need affirmation. Experiencing success in school is vital for a positive, healthy self-image. When the educational system is marking so many students as failures, based on the criterion of high school graduation, then major changes are called for. While the status quo of massive failure is obviously not acceptable, it is always easier to describe and identify a problem than to suggest workable solutions.
In a recent blog, titled “Dealing with the Dropout Problem,” I suggested three areas that I think would yield real progress in combating this pandemic of school failure, which prevails especially in the big cities. My brother Fran, also a retired educator, who lives in Australia, posted a comment on that blog that bears repeating. He argued very cogently against a one-size-fits-all approach to educational success. He blames this insistence on standardized testing of all students, which he deems a hangover from an outdated industrial model, for the widespread school failure.
Many students from inner-city backgrounds do not have their needs met at home. Usually, this is not a negative reflection on the adult(s) in the home. Very often, the young people are growing up in a chaotic situation where the mother is working long hours in a low-paying job and the siblings "make do" with fast food and minimal supervision. Teenagers need a certain level of order to complete homework assignments. They need adult guidance to understand the importance of accepting limits to their behavior as they move through the turbulent years of adolescence.
Without some level of consistent adult supervision, young people can easily drift into gangs, whose leaders will insist on following the wrong kind of rules. Drugs provide an easy and attractive alternative to school and family pressures. "Crazy mixed-up kids" seeking some kind of meaningful identity are easy prey for the false promises of the street.
Well-organized after-school programs should exist in every community, especially in the inner-city. I was in charge of a Peer Tutoring Program for many years in the South Bronx. Successful students were paid the minimum wage for helping struggling students, when the regular school day ended. After a while, quite a number of students used the program to complete their homework, often sitting and collaborating with a friend. I provided a healthy snack after the first hour of tutoring ended; this break helped the students to get comfortable with each other and with me. Overall, it was a positive and worthwhile experience, which I look back on with satisfaction.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote often about the importance of moderation in all human endeavors. He highlighted the importance of staying away from extremes, of finding virtue in the center. This stress on a balanced, common-sense approach to dealing with teenage needs is crucial. Caring and protectiveness must not descend to mollycoddling; tough love has a place occasionally, but insisting on strictness at all times can become a kind of adult tyranny; and, most of all, school and family rules must never prevent a teen from establishing his own identity, from starting to fly on his own.
I have worked with adolescents for my entire professional career, as a teacher and school counselor. In addition, my wife, Aileen, and I reared three daughters and dealt – as well as we could – with their teenage travails. The reader might think that all of my professional dealings with adolescents would have made me some kind of ideal parent in dealing with my own kids during their teenage years. I am sure that my educational background and training did help at times, but Aileen, who never studied the psychology of adolescence, dealt better with the various crises that arose than I did.
The first requirement for any adult dealing with teenagers is that he must respect the child. The kids that I worked with in the South Bronx often talked about teachers or other adults who "dissed" them; they felt put down, diminished, by these people. To make progress with any child, he must feel that his thoughts and feelings are important – and, this must hold true even when the child is acting out or being awkward.
Some educators approach their job as a vocation; they often have a spiritual perspective on their work. For instance, a teacher who is motivated by Christian ideals will see his students as God’s children, and thus he will view them all as equal and worthy of the highest respect. Such a teacher realizes that the kind of favoritism that is often bestowed on the talented athlete or the gifted student is inappropriate and unfair to the rest of the class, especially to the young person who is struggling with class work and who does not distinguish himself in any co-curricular activities. The educators who play favorites – and most do to one degree or another – convey a very shallow message to students, namely that accidental factors, like good looks or prowess in some sport, somehow merits a high level of teacher respect.
Of course, one must be realistic about these matters. Teachers are human and they will have their likes and dislikes in any class. However, these preferences should be camouflaged to the extent that each student’s worth is affirmed. The "teacher’s pet" syndrome should be avoided because it does not enhance student or teacher.
It is devastating for students to see themselves as failures. In the high schools in the Bronx, more than half of the students do not graduate, and, unfortunately, the statistics for the male population are much worse. This level of failure militates seriously against a positive school spirit and leads to very damaging consequences for the young people who are failing and, indeed, for society as a whole. It should not surprise us that over 90% of the jail population in the United States are school dropouts.
Young people need affirmation. Experiencing success in school is vital for a positive, healthy self-image. When the educational system is marking so many students as failures, based on the criterion of high school graduation, then major changes are called for. While the status quo of massive failure is obviously not acceptable, it is always easier to describe and identify a problem than to suggest workable solutions.
In a recent blog, titled “Dealing with the Dropout Problem,” I suggested three areas that I think would yield real progress in combating this pandemic of school failure, which prevails especially in the big cities. My brother Fran, also a retired educator, who lives in Australia, posted a comment on that blog that bears repeating. He argued very cogently against a one-size-fits-all approach to educational success. He blames this insistence on standardized testing of all students, which he deems a hangover from an outdated industrial model, for the widespread school failure.
Many students from inner-city backgrounds do not have their needs met at home. Usually, this is not a negative reflection on the adult(s) in the home. Very often, the young people are growing up in a chaotic situation where the mother is working long hours in a low-paying job and the siblings "make do" with fast food and minimal supervision. Teenagers need a certain level of order to complete homework assignments. They need adult guidance to understand the importance of accepting limits to their behavior as they move through the turbulent years of adolescence.
Without some level of consistent adult supervision, young people can easily drift into gangs, whose leaders will insist on following the wrong kind of rules. Drugs provide an easy and attractive alternative to school and family pressures. "Crazy mixed-up kids" seeking some kind of meaningful identity are easy prey for the false promises of the street.
Well-organized after-school programs should exist in every community, especially in the inner-city. I was in charge of a Peer Tutoring Program for many years in the South Bronx. Successful students were paid the minimum wage for helping struggling students, when the regular school day ended. After a while, quite a number of students used the program to complete their homework, often sitting and collaborating with a friend. I provided a healthy snack after the first hour of tutoring ended; this break helped the students to get comfortable with each other and with me. Overall, it was a positive and worthwhile experience, which I look back on with satisfaction.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote often about the importance of moderation in all human endeavors. He highlighted the importance of staying away from extremes, of finding virtue in the center. This stress on a balanced, common-sense approach to dealing with teenage needs is crucial. Caring and protectiveness must not descend to mollycoddling; tough love has a place occasionally, but insisting on strictness at all times can become a kind of adult tyranny; and, most of all, school and family rules must never prevent a teen from establishing his own identity, from starting to fly on his own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
