Here are the notes that you can use to help you focus your discussion--notice that point 3 might provide you a good link to service, but please work in additional ideas from the text as well.
“Narcissism Moralized” A very simplistic breakdown of Alford’s concept: Primary narcissism is Freud’s description of the pre-egoic state in which the infant doesn’t differentiate him/herself from anything else in the world. This is a boundary-less experience of self-hood—the infant experiences him/herself as everything else. Freud also describes this as the “oceanic feeling” which is also associated with mystic experience—a sense of being merged with all reality. This experience of interconnection can then be seen as helping to form the ego ideal. The ego ideal is the perfect self to which the ego “should” strive to become. So, Alford is suggesting that a whistleblower’s conception of the perfect self is one that reflects the experience of primary narcissism in which one’s sense of self can’t be separated out from the larger reality. Thus, self-love, or the defense and the protection of this self is about protecting this greater whole with which one’s identity and selfhood is inextricably intertwined. The whistleblower is motivated to act out of desire to preserve the self, which is embedded/merged with the collective good. (See Alford, 76.)
Starting with the phenomenon: Like Arendt, Alford is starting with “appearances” or what the whistleblower does so that we may “reconsider what constitutes an ethical motive in light of ethical behavior” (65). Read this passage carefully as he is challenging the position of those who would say that narcissism in so a valid ethical motive. What follows will be his illustration of why he is proposing that narcissism moralized may be a new “ethical category” or source for moral behavior. Alford adds later on, “Why people act ethically is afar richer category and more mysterious phenomenon than we know, and our first category should be wonder, not judgment” (79). How does idea this fit with other readings?
Imagination/Empathy as a Bridge to the Other: Our imagination is not just about lightness and joy, but also about, as Alford cites Arendt, “the ability to take others into account” (67). How do you see this concept manifested in your service? Are you able to use your own moral imagination as a "bridge"?
What else stands out for you in Alford’s description of the five types of whistleblower stories? Please find quotes in each of these sections that encapsulate Alford’s meaning. Why is each “story” important to our own understanding of ethics?
Whistleblowers 83-138
Chapt. 5
Embodiment: “The difference between loyalty to universal principles (impartialism) and loyalty to ideal selves who embody these principles. . . The principles obtain value only as they are embodied in oneself” (84). As you know, from the course description, this course is trying to transmit philosophy not just as ideas about how we live, but HOW we live those ideas, “the principle become the self” 86). What is Alford saying about whistleblowers’ ethics in relation to other established theories? (pgs. 84-94). Find the significant phrases that help you to understand what Alford is saying about whistleblower ethics in comparison to each theory that he outlines. There are many notable points—go forth and find them yourself!
Sacrifice: “What is difficult is acting on this basis [empathy and concern for others] when the self must pay a terrible price . . . To risk this takes something more than empathy. It takes narcissism” (95). What if the whistleblower could choose? (Much of Alford’s theory about whistleblower motives implies that they either don’t see this as a choice or they don’t foresee consequences of the sort that actually occur. In the whistleblowers ideal, everyone else would share and act on these same principles—thus the whistleblower is also self-exiled from a world that doesn’t match his/her ideals). What would the whistleblower be left with if he/she didn’t blow the whistle and what do you think may be the biggest sacrifice? What does this choice remind you of? (I’m thinking of Arendt).
In these pages of whistleblowers there was a lot of information that was hard for me to understand, but there were a few points that stuck with me. The first is when Alford was talking about Narcissism and he said, “The Narcissist want to be whole, good, pure, and perfect. Besides the perfect this is something I want to be. I am not saying I am only thinking about myself, as I do care for other people, but it is very difficult to describe the difference between me and Narcissist. Another part of the reading I enjoyed was the part about two parties against a third. I never really thought of human nature this way, but it is true that if you have more people on your side you are most likely going to win. When a whistleblower risks it, they are risking it alone, unlike most people who risk it with a group or at least a partner. Hearing Don Bloom talk about the shame he felt was interesting, because after helping many people whom he didn’t know, he felt shame that he was ever a part of it. If you ask me, it should have been the others in the company who did nothing that should feel shame, not the one man who did the right thing and shut down a company doing nothing good for the “public.” A part of the reading that I found related to my service work at county was on pg. 71, when Alford talks about “resistance to the aggressor.” Seeing these words in the book made me think of the kids at County, because a lot of them show resistance to there teachers and elders and are going on a different path. I am not saying that the kids at county are whistleblowers, but am suggesting that there may be some same way of thinking between a whistle blower and a kid who refuses to do what most kids are doing at their age.
ReplyDelete