One of the benefits of having a bit of a break is that when the tiredness wears off, you get the space to reflect on the past and think things through more clearly than is possible in the cauldron of immediate demand.
But, this also has a worrying, if not slightly depressing, element. I keep remembering things I have done and (more embarrasingly) said that I wish I hadn’t. I wonder how many people I have needlessly offended during my half-century of life. I wonder how often I have been misunderstood because of what I have said or done. And I cringe at things that probably now stick to any memory of me held by people who were on the wrong end of my opinions, judgements or statements. Like the shark in Jaws emerging when you least expect it to (ignore the give-away drumbeat), these memories pop up above the surface and cause me to wince.
However, this only demonstrates that growing up can’t be done without the growing up. The mistakes are what we learn from – and we also gradually learn that we can’t fix everything we have ever got wrong. Yet, recognising the failures at least maintains a degree of humility. Being human means an awful lot of looking back and wincing.
It is this ‘being human’ stuff that’s bothering me during my ‘reflective’ time. Take a couple of examples:
Obama makes his first State of the Union address amid the opprobrium of those who know they could do his job better. Critics – some of whom have done nothing for the ‘common good’ other than take other people apart – scream how disappointed they are in him, how all the hopes of a year ago have been dashed.
One year. In the context of eternity that is not… er … a long time. People make unrealistic demands of leaders, then pull them down when they fail in one or two areas. Some of the hopes put into Obama were stupidly unrealistic and he was bound to disappoint before he even started.
- Inequality between the richest and poorest has grown in the UK in the last forty years. The Tories scorn Labour’s record of the last 13 years, ignoring that the ratio went from 3-4 under Thatcher and the Tories. Harriet Harman went on BBC Radio 4 and made a statement of the blindingly obvious, but ignored by politicians and media: it takes generations to change cultures and behaviours, not a year or two within an electoral cycle that demands short-term gains for political advantage.
Harman is right. Such initiatives as Sure Start have made a massive difference to many children and families, but the benefits will not be seen until the behavioural expectations have run through a generation or two. The problem of getting a young man into meaningful employment when he is the third or fourth generation of unemployed men in his family circle is not one that is merely practical: it means changing a mindset of both community and individual over a long period of time.
This is not a party-political point; rather, it is an expression of frustration that our politics don’t encourage generational policy-making or long-term thinking because the electorate will want instant results and the popular media will encourage them to expect them. And then we are surprised or offended when we find our political leaders apparently making decisions for reasons of political expediency rather than the effective achievement of long-term goals (that might take three, four or even five electoral terms to even begin to work through). Instead, we rubbish those we don’t like, set ourselves up as the competent alternative, then prepare our excuses in advance when the ‘real world’ hits us.
Which is probably why so many people are sceptical of the competence or integrity of all politicians. The so-called ‘democratic deficit’ is more complex than we sometimes like to admit.
What is really scary, however, is the dehumanising of the people involved in politics and public life. Which, perhaps surprisingly, brings us to Brangelina.
I don’t know Brad Pitt and I don’t fancy Angelina Jolie. But I do know that they are married and have six children in their care. Yet international sport dictates that every detail of their private life and marital strife is available for public consumption and entertainment. And all this probably puts more pressure on the marriage.
It appears that we will only be satisfied when the marriage breaks up, Brad goes back to Jen (!), the kids grow up needing psychotherapy (but at least will be able to make a career from telling their story to the world) and we can all pass judgement on the people involved. Then we can move on to the next celebrity disaster and exploit our self-righteous voyeurism again – a sort of anaesthetic against dealing with our own human weaknesses, perhaps?
Call me naive, but I wonder about the human beings caught up in all this. I wonder about the dehumanising abuse we heap on those we can blame for whatever it is we don’t like about our lives or the world we live in. We can project our nastiness onto those we know cannot hit back.
I look back with horror on the cringy things I have said and done throughout my life. And that is only the things I do remember – there is probably much I have forgotten. But I thank God for those who let me make mistakes and forgave me, knowing that you have to take a long-term view and allow people the freedom – the space – to grow up and change and re-shape… and not be nailed to a reputation that belongs to the past.
I think it was Jesus who said that we can only expect forgiveness if we first forgive. And I guess we can only expect kindness and generosity if first we practise the discipline of being kind, generous and spacious to those we know to be failing. If we want a humane society, shouldn’t we first be prepared to live humanely?
January 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Great thoughts, from Obama to Bishoping to Brangelina. It is up to us to model forgiveness and patience, amidst our own pressures and demands. I find it good to give others a chance to be forgiving…
One point I am confused by: you don’t fancy Angelina? I don’t understand.
January 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I keep remembering things I have done and (more embarrasingly) said that I wish I hadn’t.
Surely you were, at the time, doing the best you can with the information and resources you had available. That the mistakes seem so cringe-worthy now is just a reflection of the additional experience you have now which informs your view of past actions… it is embarrassing, but as you say, it is part of being human.
The thing about it that I find most upsetting is knowing that in time I will look back at some of the things I say and do now and still have cause to wince. It’s rather frightening to think that even next week I might have a completely different perspective on something. Doing anything seems risky in that context!
… changing a mindset of both community and individual over a long period of time.
This is not a party-political point; rather, it is an expression of frustration that our politics don’t encourage generational policy-making or long-term thinking because the electorate will want instant results and the popular media will encourage them to expect them.
Is it possible to legislate for long-term, positive changes in community mindsets?
I do believe such changes can happen but I am less convinced that they can be legislated in a top-down fashion. Yet the alternatives — much longer times between transfers of power, for example — don’t seem like they would solve the short-termism which many people decry. If the governing period is too long, leaders are pretty much invincible and can do what they like with little fear of losing out next time. If the governing period is too short, leaders can too easily be led to focus on keeping people happy in the short-term rather than making sustainable improvements.
I think even in a best-case scenario where a truly well-meaning and truly competent government brought in legislation that really was for the longer-term good of all the citizens in its care, it would still only go so far. Supporting beneficial changes is incredibly important, but can even the best governments instigate them? Even with fifty or a hundred or two hundred years, is it possible to legislate lovingkindness?
I’m not sure what I can do in that context… I vote when I can, and try to remain reasonably alert to what is going on in areas of legislation that particularly interest me, but mostly I let the government get on with governing. I try to be kind in my dealings and I try to do things that will result in long-term good, as far as I can discern what that might be.
I do hope that my own awareness of the tension between long-term and short-term or communal and selfish gains and the decisions I make about those issues in my professional and personal life might, as some sort of side effect, contribute to a wider change in mindset, a sort of contagious compassion — but that is not my primary motivation for acting as I do.
If we want a humane society, shouldn’t we first be prepared to live humanely?
Shouldn’t we be prepared to live humanely for the love of one another and God, rather than because we want any societal result?
Of course, awareness of the possible knock-on effect our actions might have on society is an important part of loving service, but it shouldn’t be the only consideration — or if it is, we should also have a lot of patience…
January 28, 2010 at 10:05 pm
“However, this only demonstrates that growing up can’t be done without the growing up.”
This is the best line I’ve read on the blogosphere, ever, I think. I hope you get another “bit of a break” soon.
I’m looking back on half a century, too. And more than half of that ordained. “Lord have mercy” has a keener ring to it than it used to.
You wondered whether to keep blogging the other day: your words, about your enthusiasm for the Lake District I love too; about the Church I love (and sometimes hate) too; about the messy business of human existence that I love (and sometimes hate) too, cause me to say, Bishop, please do. Thanks.
January 28, 2010 at 11:12 pm
In 1996 during the Clinton Administration the US
changed it’s welfare policy so that you could only claim benefits for 5 years in a lifetime.
It sounds incredibly harsh but had a remarkable outcome and proved that Ms. Harman is wrong that it takes generations to alter social attitudes.
It resulted in a massive increase in marriage particularly amongst the black community that had, up to then, seen a significant increase in multi father transient relationships.
Suddenly, for purely Darwinian reasons, it mattered that the father of your child was not just handsome or ” good in bed”. You now needed a faithful good provider. Wider family mattered. You might need them later: same with neighbours.
Something like 400,000 extra marriages were contracted and many more children have two parents.
I am sure we would all have worry about such change but it is a salutary reminder that welfare is in itself “social engineering” with serious negative consequences.
Shying from reform is not however, necessarily
kind or compassionate if it locks families under a generational glass ceiling.
January 29, 2010 at 10:46 am
Martin,
It would be interesting to know the divorce statistics for those 400 000 extra marriages, as well as how many of the resulting children are growing up in abusive or violent domestic situations because divorce seems too costly. I’d also love to know how access to contraception has influenced those same statistics: if a woman cannot get easy access to cheap contraception, takes some risks (perhaps under a fair amount of societal pressure) and conceives, she may feel that her only options are abortion or marriage if social welfare is not going to provide reliable subsistence for her child. I’m not sure how I feel about marriages made out of that kind of economic necessity — surely the risk of domestic violence is much higher for a couple who do marry in such circumstances.
While marriage does not guarantee divorce or domestic abuse, I do grow weary of the assumption that all marriages are good. I suppose the ideal marriage is one in which each partner sees something of the Divine in the other, and commits to loving, nurturing and protecting their partner — regardless of whether there are any children. And I suppose most marriages fall short of that, at least some of the time — but I don’t think it’s fair to punish people for their mistakes by locking them into an unhappy or violent marriage. I can’t say whether a ‘good’ divorce is better for a child than a ‘bad’ marriage, but the idea that a child should suffer at the hands of an abusive parent because the other parent is afraid of not having state welfare for long enough to support that child feels wrong to me.
Dropping people after five years of welfare seems awfully punitive: “We can’t fix you, so we’re going to let you fall through the cracks.” How does this reflect God’s mercy and love?
If marriage is an economic necessity then why not treat it as such? My household consists of my housemate (a good friend of mine) and my partner; this is a temporary rather than life-long arrangement, but one undertaken with a degree of commitment and care, and with an effort to balance economic considerations with mutual goodwill and awareness of our own and one another’s needs. We learn to live together because the three of us can build a better life together than any one or two of us could on our own, partly for simple reasons of efficiency and housing costs. This is not a marriage, and I do not propose that the very different relationships I have with my partner and my housemate are of better quality than a good marriage; but I do respectfully submit that this is a much healthier and happier situation than some of the abusive marriages I have seen. I would classify our household as a family, of sorts. I also grow weary of the assumption that the only good family relationships are based around marriage; that simply hasn’t been my experience.
January 29, 2010 at 11:25 am
[...] via Brangelina and the real world « Nick Baines’s Blog. [...]
January 30, 2010 at 8:14 am
Song,
I do not have follow up statistics, and suspect there is no way of identifying and following up the outcomes of these or any other subset of marriages.
My source incidentally is the book by former US Senator Rick Santorum whose book ” It takes a Family” was a response to Hillary Clinton’s book
based upon the oft quoted African. Proverb ” It takes a Village to raise a child”.
His was a compassionate and I found, a convincing case that wellmeaning liberal policy designed to support the wefare of the poor has ended up subverting the valuable institution of the family.
It caused me to begin a difficult and at times somewhat painful re-think of my own resposibility as a then liberal thinker, for the social breakdown I saw all around me as a family lawyer, with a specialism in child protection.
In your understandable worries ( which I share) about the effects after the end of the 5 years, this is not a practical place for detail, Genuine disability is exempted, I understand and do not forget, in the States, the fact that you do not have a right to unqualified/ unquestioning State support is not the end of the matter. There is a huge charitable sector – often Church based- but what seems less satisfactory being discretionary,
has two elements. It is personal ( the good Samaritan does not enjoin the establishment of an unqualified unlimited indefinite set of rights ) and it did not subvert the victim’ s own sense of personal responsibility and autonomy).
There is much more that can be said.
Serious Christian thinkers and leaders do have a duty to reflect widely. The UK society has been designed by the liberal establishment for nearly 50 years. They/we must own the consequencies
and review the direction of travel. As a children’s lawyer I take seriously the fact that we have some of the least happy children in western societies, there is a drug/ binge drinking culture, high relationship breakdown, ( though interestingly 90% of young people say they want to marry). In Glasgow we have a massive history
of financial input with third world mortality rates.
Generational worklessness contributes significantly to reduced personal responsibility that feeds into children seeking validation in gangs and substance abuse promiscuity and violence. Abortion rates here are higher than in many comparable countries.
The decline of a sense of personal responsibility
is likely to be a factor. When the State rather than the Family becomes the basic building block of society the outcomes do not seem encouraging.
I hope this sketches out how my thinking is not punitive in origin but compassionate. When I said that State provision is a form of social engineering I lay the ground for a responsible critique of outcomes of liberal social policy. ” Progressive” thinkers sometimes speak as if their approach is one of unalloyed success and moral rectitude. Christians know we live in a fallen world.
British social probl
January 31, 2010 at 6:00 am
Martin, thanks for your comment. I thought it a tragedy that Rick Santorum lost his seat in 2006, in the anti-Bush backlash, as he was one of the most thoughtful and creative – and pro-life – Christian senators there has been in a long time, amongst a pretty undistinguished bunch. However, he keeps thinking and writing, and I hope he will keep shaping debate.
That Obama is turning out to be a fallen idol didn’t surprise me in the least; what did surprise me was that older, otherwise informed people would be taken in by the metrosexual spectacle of a slim young black man with a resonant voice who was still in his first term as a senator, who spoke vapid generalities about ‘hope and change’, who had no executive experience and had never authored any major legislation either, and who broke his public promise on public campaign finance as soon as several hundred million dollars of unsourced money came his way – allowing him to outspend McCain more than two to one. What he did have was his voting record (when he did vote), which revealed him as the most consistently liberal senator (in Illinois and Washington), particularly on things like partial birth abortion; and some rather creepy Chicago associations over many years, like Weatherman Bill Ayers and ‘Rev’ Jeremish Wright.
If any British readers want to know what a distinguished classicist-historian *and* a Registered Democrat thinks about Obama, they could do worse than look at “Victor David Hanson’s Private Papers” website.
The moral for a Christian seems pretty obvious to me: judge a person not by his appearance or even his words, but his character revealed by his actions and decisions.
January 31, 2010 at 6:29 am
On Obama, here’s a new piece by Professor Hanson showing the serious mismatch between Obama’s rhetoric and his actual deeds:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson013010.html
February 3, 2010 at 11:17 am
[...] Baines has some things to say about Brangelina (Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for the culturally insulated). He’s not gossiping about their [...]