In awe

The concept of awe was at first just a word that meant surprise or delight. After reading this, however, its complexity is existent and its importance is noticed. For me, awe is a temporary feeling in a momentary instant that illuminate all other feelings, senses, and thoughts. It’s the presence of something magical. Schneider asks “from whom or what does this leap emerge?...Through struggle, intentional living, and openness, one can find awe-based faith (147). In working with the girls and boys at Canal I faced many instances that made me question my values, my beliefs, and especially myself. We all like to find those moments where we pat ourselves on the back with pride. But what about those moments where we face ourselves and realize some of things you built yourself up to be are not actually consistent as we thought? What about when we are put in a position we have always talked about being in, emphasizing with ease “how we react in that position.” Because the truth is, you have no idea what it will feel like until you are in the middle of it all. While I sat in these moments of despair and reflection, I decided to not judge myself or others, and just listen to what the kids wanted. I opened myself to them as well and told them truth about my life when they asked silly or even inappropriate questions. Yesterday was my final day, and I worked with my friend, her teacher gave me her progress report. She was receiving D’s in two classes. It was time for me to get a little serious with her. I pulled her aside and told her how much I loved working with her and how great and funny and intelligent she was. I acknowledged her struggles at home and her frustrations with test scores. I reminded her of what she had told me about getting out of the life she was in and encouraged her to allow school to be her vehicle for change. I asked her if she felt she was giving her best effort. She looked up and down and eventually said no, she would try harder. It was moment the relationship changed. I felt like a mother, but in this case, it seemed necessary. My roles change with her sometimes but I always remind her how much I care about her and want her to be happy. As a friend and source of encouragement, Schneider struck me with his sentence that (as a caretaker) “to foster and encourage diverse childhood experiences, from sadness to gladness, unsettlement to bliss, repulsion to zeal (149).

She needs to know “there was a witness who cared”(152) that if all else falls around I will be there for her no matter what the condition. This is the love my mother showed me and as a 19-year-old, I obviously don’t have a biological kid to pass it on to but will give my heart to my friend at Canal.

Trying to Scrutinize The Inscrutable

I really enjoyed the first few pages of the reading regarding the idea of the inscrutable. Schneider vividly described the concept as a way of “cultivating awe”. This idea in itself shows a bit of self-contradiction the way I interpret it, but it also more clearly explains the idea of the inscrutable. These concepts can’t be scrutinized, but merely perceived and believed in. This cultivates awe because since these things can’t be 100% proven, they rely on faith. Early on he basically says that, “beyond every bounded faith resides an evolving, indefinite faith.” Almost as to say, “faith begets faith,” because often in life there are things we can’t explain and we get hung up on finding an answer and though we seldom do, we find a comfort in something to believe in. The next concept he introduced was the idea of struggle. He says that, “The way to the inscrutable is through struggle. Struggle jolts the system, dents the armor, and jars the rails. But struggle is only the beginning. The shock and the awakening are only preparatory. The next crucial question is how and whether one pursues, engages with, and emerges from one’s struggle. To the degree one does, one can see beyond it; one can both acknowledge, identify with, and yet somehow be more that that with which one contends” (Pg. 144). Typically, in a time of crisis we are too staggered to step back from a given situation and see beyond the physical distress and into potential reasons why, or as Schneider would say “the inscrutable”. This quote, for me, suggests that struggle is what provokes the thoughts of “what if?” Even further than provoking, it allows for us to be able to understand things we would have not been challenged to comprehend without the struggle. As a person with a lot to struggle with, this quote speaks to me and inspires me. Later on in the reading he brings up the concept of faith again in terms of Buddhism. I really liked this passage because I incorporate Buddhism within my philosophy of life often and so the words seemed more real to me. “…Buddhism corresponds very closely to faith in the inscrutable. The Buddhist precepts of magnificence, mystery, and responsibility; and the Buddhist ideal of maximal disidentification, selfless right action, and godless piety, are all values that echo a fluid center and existential faith” (Pg. 168). As I was already aware of the extent of faith involved in Buddhism, this formally put it into words making it clear to understand. Faith in Buddhism to me speaks to concepts like meditation, and the plight toward Nirvana, because these things don’t exactly have a physical aspect to access, but rather, it is something within us to find… I am ending my reflection with this quote solely because I find the message along with the wording of it to be beautiful. “Nirvana is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn and unbecome… it is power, bliss, and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter and the place of unassailable safety… it is the real Truth and the supreme Reality… it is the Good, the supreme goal and the one and only consummation of our life, the eternal, hidden, and incomprehensible Peace” (Pg. 168).

Rediscovery of Awe

This reading really related to my service learning because it was about seeing people for who they really are. In service it is essenial to do this because if you only see people by their cover than you aren't seeing the real person. Throughout this experience I have realized that on the cover people seem hard to deal with and careless, but if you really get to know someone as I did in service learnng you begin to understand that under someones angry cover there is someone who is eager to learn and be accepted. I think this reading, and this class has reflected this.

From Abigail: Rediscovery of Awe

The reading got me thinking alot about having the capacity to be moved. I related this idea with my service becasue it is relevant. People with HIV are not seen with a compassionate eye, but instead with disgust ot horror. The capacity to be moved by the lives that individuals must live tells a lot about a person. Maybe it was there mistake by their actions to have AIDS, but maybe it was not. At MAP the idea to be moved and act for the better and be present in the lives of these individuals has taken place and it can be done anywhere else if we wanted to. To have faith in the impossible is also raised in the rediscovery of awe and it is a hard concept to grasp. If a thing seems impossible and unobtainable then faith is the last thing on a person's mind. Yet, faith can take a person a long way. Faith is what I believe the clients at MAP have, which has them living!

Open Up And Say Awe

Open Up And Say Awe
By Justin Salter
“But again, we must begin with caretakers, the culture, and the milieu. We must begin with the development of trust-the inner knowing that no matter how many times one has faltered or disappointed, someone was there who helped one survive and carry on. We need to know there was a witness who cared. This development of trust leads to a sense of internal freedom-a freedom of both accessibility and expressiveness.” (Pg152-153)
I decided to begin my text reflection with a quote that talked about beginning with caretakers because of my desire to be a nurse. Also, it had to do with my service learning facility. I have discovered awe in helping others, and I feel this quote applies to me. By helping others I feel free from my faults, imperfections, and I feel like my life is meaningful. Nurses start their therapeutic relationship with trust and on an intrapersonal level people must start with trust to believe and act according to what they “know” is right. By working with the elderly, I feel a sense of awe in that 1 person’s actions can make so many people happy. It gives me clarity in an unclear world.
"We cannot have magnificence without uncertainty and we cannot have mystery without hope" (Pg 161). This is a wonderful way to express this point in one sentence. It is the uncertainty of things like God, aliens, and death that make these things so magnificent. It doesn’t take certainty to believe, but it takes certainty to trust. It is the uncertain things that we try to explain with the magnificent which in itself I think is an example of awe. The same goes with mystery and hope. When something is unexplained, people naturally try to explain it with something hopeful, thus heaven and religion are the hope in the mystery of life. Where mystery is explained science is usually the reason, thus the conflict between science and religion. Hope is an example of awe as well because it is that someone that was there who helped many survive and carry on, as stated in the quote above regarding trust, yet it is something that has no physical evidence of being fact.
“Magnificence and mystery are crucial mooring points, key touchstones in the encounter with life.”(Pg 173) This trust in magnificence and mystery are the way people live, love, and learn. It is awesome to believe and wonder, yet it is awful to think you have all of the answers. The real “rediscovery of awe” comes into play when people think about how much of their lives are affected by the unknown, and the act of thinking in general. Thinking is what makes us different from one another, and the uncertainty of life allows us to think and search. If people had all the answers, people would stop thinking and the reality of awe would become an unknown thing.

Chris Hedges Speaks on Osama bin Laden’s Death

Note from Julia--I thought this was so relevant to our last reading that I wanted to post it--please note that the notes and prompt for Rediscovery of Awe are below this post.

I also just added a video to the end of this post that is an incredible example of two mothers (one of a son who died in the World Trade Towers and one whose son was one of the attackers) reaching across the boundaries of the other through shared suffering and loss of 911.

Posted on May 1, 2011

Editor’s note: Chris Hedges made these remarks about Osama bin Laden’s death at a Truthdig fundraising event in Los Angeles on Sunday evening.

I know that because of this announcement, that reportedly Osama bin Laden was killed, Bob wanted me to say a few words about it … about al-Qaida. I spent a year of my life covering al-Qaida for The New York Times. It was the work in which I, and other investigative reporters, won the Pulitzer Prize. And I spent seven years of my life in the Middle East. I was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I’m an Arabic speaker. And when someone came over and told Jean and me the news, my stomach sank. I’m not in any way naïve about what al-Qaida is. It’s an organization that terrifies me. I know it intimately.

But I’m also intimately familiar with the collective humiliation that we have imposed on the Muslim world. The expansion of military occupation that took place throughout, in particular the Arab world, following 9/11 – and that this presence of American imperial bases, dotted, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Doha – is one that has done more to engender hatred and acts of terror than anything ever orchestrated by Osama bin Laden.

And the killing of bin Laden, who has absolutely no operational role in al-Qaida – that’s clear – he’s kind of a spiritual mentor, a kind of guide … he functions in many of the ways that Hitler functioned for the Nazi Party. We were just talking with Warren about Kershaw’s great biography of Hitler, which I read a few months ago, where you hold up a particular ideological ideal and strive for it. That was bin Laden’s role. But all actual acts of terror, which he may have signed off on, he no way planned.

I think that one of the most interesting aspects of the whole rise of al-Qaida is that when Saddam Hussein … and I covered the first Gulf War, went into Kuwait with the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, was in Basra during the Shiite uprising until I was captured and taken prisoner by the Iraqi Republican Guard. I like to say I was embedded with the Iraqi Republican Guard. Within that initial assault and occupation of Kuwait, bin Laden appealed to the Saudi government to come back and help organize the defense of his country. And he was turned down. And American troops came in and implanted themselves on Muslim soil.When I was in New York, as some of you were, on 9/11, I was in Times Square when the second plane hit. I walked into The New York Times, I stuffed notebooks in my pocket and walked down the West Side Highway and was at Ground Zero four hours later. I was there when Building 7 collapsed. And I watched as a nation drank deep from that very dark elixir of American nationalism … the flip side of nationalism is always racism, it’s about self-exaltation and the denigration of the other.

And it’s about forgetting that terrorism is a tactic. You can’t make war on terror. Terrorism has been with us since Sallust wrote about it in the Jugurthine Wars. And the only way to successfully fight terrorist groups is to isolate themselves, isolate those groups, within their own societies. And I was in the immediate days after 9/11 assigned to go out to Jersey City and the places where the hijackers had lived and begin to piece together their lives. I was then very soon transferred to Paris, where I covered all of al-Qaida’s operations in the Middle East and Europe.

So I was in the Middle East in the days after 9/11. And we had garnered the empathy of not only most of the world, but the Muslim world who were appalled at what had been done in the name of their religion. And we had major religious figures like Sheikh Tantawy, the head of al-Azhar – who died recently – who after the attacks of 9/11 not only denounced them as a crime against humanity, which they were, but denounced Osama bin Laden as a fraud … someone who had no right to issue fatwas or religious edicts, no religious legitimacy, no religious training. And the tragedy was that if we had the courage to be vulnerable, if we had built on that empathy, we would be far safer and more secure today than we are.

We responded exactly as these terrorist organizations wanted us to respond. They wanted us to speak the language of violence. What were the explosions that hit the World Trade Center, huge explosions and death above a city skyline? It was straight out of Hollywood. When Robert McNamara in 1965 began the massive bombing campaign of North Vietnam, he did it because he said he wanted to “send a message” to the North Vietnamese—a message that left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead.

These groups learned to speak the language we taught them. And our response was to speak in kind. The language of violence, the language of occupation—the occupation of the Middle East, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—has been the best recruiting tool al-Qaida has been handed. If it is correct that Osama bin Laden is dead, then it will spiral upwards with acts of suicidal vengeance. And I expect most probably on American soil. The tragedy of the Middle East is one where we proved incapable of communicating in any other language than the brute and brutal force of empire.

And empire finally, as Thucydides understood, is a disease. As Thucydides wrote, the tyranny that the Athenian empire imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. The disease of empire, according to Thucydides, would finally kill Athenian democracy. And the disease of empire, the disease of nationalism … these of course are mirrored in the anarchic violence of these groups, but one that locks us in a kind of frightening death spiral. So while I certainly fear al-Qaida, I know it’s intentions. I know how it works. I spent months of my life reconstructing every step Mohamed Atta took. While I don’t in any way minimize their danger, I despair. I despair that we as a country, as Nietzsche understood, have become a monster that we are attempting to fight.

Notes/Prompt for Rediscovery of Awe

Schneider describes what he calls "awe" or the "inscrutable" forces of our existence. For the religious this concept may be manifest as a god or gods, for the scientific-minded this may be the forces of nature, energy--forces that we cannot still entirely explain and certainly not completely control (although we often try!). My personal interpretation of "awe" has to do with our state of interconnectedness. Meaning, we are inherently part of a larger reality, whether or not we recognize or act on this state of being. We sense awe in those moments when we are awake to that experience--music, art, prayer, being in nature can all be catalysts for this sense of connection (Norman writes about this experience of "mystery" in the last chapter of On Humanism). At the same time, we may experience awe in all different ways, all the time--and this sense/worldview/experience, Schneider suggests, can serve as a moral compass to help us navigate the contradictory nature of the world and our own nature: "we cannot have magnificence without uncertainty and we cannot have mystery without hope" (161).
Schneider adds, "Linked with mystery is responsibility, the challenge to respond. It is precisely out of uncertainty that we are called to responsibility" (161).
Schneider than goes on to describe the "ethical task." He uses Paul Tillich's concept of "listening love" to describe the state of presence that serves as the foundation for balancing our emotional, intellectual, and our conditioned (coming out of our positionality) reactions and engaging in the process of "discernment."Thus, the first ethical task is the willingness to engage in the inner dialogue (the inner Socratic dialogue that Arendt calls, thinking! And Lehrer also describes this cognitive process in ("The Brain is an Argument"), to struggle with, even doubt ourselves at times as "stuggle jolts the system, dents the armor, and hars the rails" (144).
So, in a sense, we are back to the beginning of the class, listening to Martin Luther King speak truths that could hurt his cause, hurt him, but need to be said because he knows that the civil rights cause that he is leading is connected to all oppressed peoples in the world. Remember I also spoke with you about MLK's doubts and his own weaknesses and flaws?
The contradictions of our reality are both gift and burden because we are conscious, thinking beings. The very things that we fear about ourselves, are also our greatest resources--for example, our vulnerability (think On Kindness, Precarious Life). Our greatest ethical resource is our ability to think, to doubt, to question, to reflect--starting with ourselves. With this process comes the struggle with and recognition of our own contradictions. I think of these contradictions as the dynamic energy that makes us, us and allows us to continue to learn and grow. The more we accept that our unique individual selves are dependent on the larger reality with which we are inextricably linked, the more we will realize, as do the whistleblowers, that our own well-being is tied to the well-being of others, the earth, and maybe beyond!
So, there you have it--use the text, use service, and take it from here!

The Precarious Life They want Us to Live

Let’s face it; we live in a fast food, fast paced, a rat racing driven society, this is for a reason too. Information is spoon feed to the masses via the media censorship and the likes. What we see, or shall we say, what we don’t see, in war has lessen the impact it has on the individual in America. This is shown in her argument when she states, “The cry, “ there is no excuse for September 11” has become the means by which to stifle any serious public discussion of how US foreign policy has helped to create a world in which such acts of terror are possible.” Acts of terror on others for no apparent reason is likely one of the causes for such behavior. She says we fly our patriotic flag high in the air as a sign for the justification, and support of war of war/retaliation. The anti-intellectualism in America is hurting America and its citizens. The intellect or intelligence is a factor the people of power are afraid of; thinking and questions too much can be a threat. Knowledge is power; it’s this power threatens the control of the government. Furthermore, Anti-intellectualism is the numbing or dulling of the people’s mind for political gain. This keeps its people misinformed, desensitized, and callous towards others. Media, narratives, images of the war may functions as an aid for the moral justification for retaliation but its also serves as a tool for anti- intellectualism. The more and more images we get use to seeing in the airwaves, through our televisions, on the cover on the newsstands; the less, less affected we are by such experiences. These images become mundane to use over time; they have less have an emotional response to use; unless we are able to “put ourselves in someone’s position” aka positionality. These events seem so distant to use, because these tragedies are evident in our own backyard. In short, we must not only examine the information that we “access” to, but also examine the “other” perspective, which the “other” is actually the same as “us”, they are no different.

PHIL 1108/3108 Self, Community, and Service: Thinking and Action for Ethical Being: Prompt/Notes for Precarious Life

PHIL 1108/3108 Self, Community, and Service: Thinking and Action for Ethical Being: Prompt/Notes for Precarious Life: "Use these points to help you unpack ideas--please make sure that you find a connection to service. Make sure to notice where Butler identif..."

Sympathetic Identification

A lot of the time people will tend to not accept their opponents side. This is one of the main catalysts of disagreement. How can anyone expect to come to an agreement without looking at the situation from other points of view? Once in class, we all put something on the table and wrote down what we saw. We then moved seats and wrote down what we saw. We continued to change seats and note what we observed until it was obvious that you saw different things depending on where you were seated. If you are not willing to sit in a different position you will never be able to see what is actually happening.

In Precarious Life, Butler says "we tend to dismiss any effort at explanation, as if to explain these events would accord them rationality, as if to explain these events would involve us in a sympathetic identification with the oppressor" (8). People think that if you try and look at something from another point of view that you are automatically conforming to their beliefs. This is not true. Just because you attempt to understand where someone else is coming from, does not mean that you are going to completely transform your entire identity to live as they do. Butler states as, "Our fear of understanding a point of view belies a deeper fear that we shall be taken way by the thinking of the presumed enemy" (8). Understanding is the key to negotiation and one of the main aspects of being human. People have the ability to talk to one another, (even when we speak different languages) and if we are not willing to exercise this amazing ability then we are cutting out a huge aspect of life that can contribute to immense growth. Understanding, communication, acceptance, awareness, any way you want to put it, listening to others side, whatever, are all part of what give people the ability to survive in communities and civilizations.

In current times people have been talking about the idea of a "global community." How are we supposed to have a global community if we are not willing to accept the way other people think within our own communities? Understanding does not mean conformity. Understanding leads to communication, acceptance, learning, and maybe someday, the beginning of a global community.

An Eye For An Eye And A Tooth For A Tooth Leaves The Whole World Blind And Toothless

An Eye For An Eye And A Tooth For A Tooth Leaves The Whole World Blind And Toothless
By Justin Salter
It is important to think and critique the ways in which we receive information about violence for many reasons, as it is important to do so about all information people receive. First off, it is always important to check your sources. When the media is the source of information, it is likely it has the opinion of the people funding the station in which the media source is on. Second, it is important to think about the information because a person is only hearing on side (often the winning side) of the story. Lastly, it is important to think and critique information about violence, because usually retaliation is based off of this information, and with the governments track record of lying, it isn’t unreasonable to think maybe we are going to retaliate for an illegitimate cause.
“We reserve “acts of terror” for events such as September 11 attacks on the United States, distinguishing these acts of violence from those that might be justified through foreign policy decisions or public declarations of war. On the other hand, these terrorist acts were construed as “declarations of war” by the Bush administration, which then positioned the military response as a justified act of self-defense. In the meantime, there remains an ever-increasing ambiguity introduced by the very use of the term “terrorist,” which is then exploited by various powers at war with independence movements of various kinds.” (Pg4) What we forget is that some of our actions are seen as terrorist acts to other countries. America was founded on “Terrorist” acts against the king by the colonists. The only reason it is not viewed as wrong is because we were the winning side.
In terms of “Who counts as human?” (Pg20), Butler talks about people who have experienced loss, vulnerability, grief, and mourning. This is true, but I feel that I can say anyone who takes a breath counts as human since everyone does this too. I think in terms of us, who counts as a human is who we see and interact with directly. When we hear of a death in Yemen or Egypt, we just think of it as a number not an actual person that lost their life, because it doesn’t directly affect our lives.
“Let’s face it, we’re undone by each other. And if we’re not, we’re missing something” (23.) This quote is true about those “who count as human”, because we feed off of each other’s emotions. I know that by hearing stories of residents at Emeritus, I am able to open up to them as well. It helps me connect with them, and it helps them connect with me. This connection brings us closer together which also makes us more vulnerable for grieving for each other’s losses including life. Unfortunately, with the population I work with, this is a very coming thing for me to experience. Last year a resident named Margie died and it was a very difficult time for my girlfriend (who also volunteered there) and me. It was so difficult for my girlfriend that she hasn’t gone back since because she doesn’t want to make herself vulnerable anymore. Maybe the answer to world peace is everyone getting to know each other. That way everyone would count as a human, and people would be a lot less inclined to harm each other.

It's not that easy!

The United States came to be known as the great hegemony due to the wars that America has been in. American has learned to react quickly and efficiently; however, its not always the case. Due to the name that the United States has made for itself over the years among the world, even when its actions were not always the correct ones, it can not rewind or admit it was a bad choice. Instead, the U.S. sticks with that bad decision. From a personal side, the war overseas after September 11th hit me even more when it got closer to home. In 2007 my brother enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. In 2009, he was to go abroad to the war in Afghanistan. The many months he was overseas were the longest for my entire family. He always told us, while he was there, do not watch the news. Although the media does not do a good coverage of how things are there, it does give an incite. When he came back home, safe, I found out that things were worse than what the media portrays. So many of those acts are so unfair and inhumane. The same way innocent people suffered on Sept. 11th, so have many overseas.

Violence

Violence is something that we all crow up with whether or not we like it. These reading talks about violence and how we react to it, as a nation and as individuals, well at least I think. Growing up with violence on TV, in movies, and in real life is something that most Americans can relate too. This is the reason why violence and death, especially to people we can’t relate to besides the fact that we are both humans, is so easy for us to live with. That, on top of our human nature to do on, as one does to us has made us a nation and society full of violence. Like the reading says, 9-11 made a majority of people want to go to war with Afghanistan, when really it was small group of people that planned 9-11. It wasn’t till after the U.S. made noise that more people joined overseas to fight our hatred of them. The United States became what it is today by Violence, taking over the Native American’s and then battling the British for Independence. This is makes me think, we will be a country always willing to fight, because that is what made us into the Nation we are today. The nation we are today is full of violence, and this is where I am going to connect this reading to my Service Learning. While I don’t know most of the kids well enough, I think that violence is something they have all been around, from gangs to verbal violence, and the way they are has them react to violence in a different way than most Marin kids would. Most kids don’t look for violence, and when it comes, they usually try to hide. I don’t know if this is true, but I would believe that many of the kids at County are sometimes doing the opposite and looking for violence. The chance for them to show how tough they are, even just cussing out at teacher, may make their friends think higher of them. While in most schools if someone cusses out a teacher they are looked down upon and usually don’t have many friends, the kids at county get high fives after class. “To respond to violence with violence may well seem “justified” but is it finally a responsible solution.” This is a question that I may answer different to the kids at county and either maybe than other kids in the class, but that is what makes us humans and why we are so interesting.

My new friend

I believe that an underlying theme throughout this section relates to our previous readings regarding collective responsibility, connection, community, mourning, politics and the United States’ (Or individually) responsibility to the global context. Like the essay asserts, I could reflect on America’s recent actions in the war and our place as a nation, a puzzle piece in the world. While this is absolutely important, I don’t quite FEEL the connection. While it is my fault that I do not actively participate or educate myself about politics and international relations, I feel that my place in the world right now is right where I am and exactly what I am doing. My service-learning was simply to tutor impoverished youth, mostly of Latino descent, of the middle school age. Sounds pretty easy and straightforward, right? Well it’s not. My service has become much more than that.

(In the following account, I am changing the girls name)

Laura is 13 and is the seventh grade at a local middle school. She is Guatemalan. She is undocumented. My initial judgment of her was that she was an average, self-consumed, materialistic teenager like I was at that age. I would work with her and she liked me because I let her get away without working on homework for 2 hours straight. I would chat in between math problems, switch off typing definitions with her, and read or summarize or history out loud, while explaining in a context of something she could relate to. This challenge was not simple. For days, and even now, I grapple with the idea of motivation and education. How do you motivate children, especially those in poverty, to want to learn, to be able to differentiate between the life they live now and their future opportunities?
As time has passed, Laura has told me more about her family life. It started with questions about friends and boys, then my parents. Slowly she revealed to me that her home-life was not stable nor a happy place. Her mom hits her often when she is mad or when Laura talks back. The step-father has hit the2 year old baby. The one-room apartment houses 2 uncles in the living room and the single bedroom has the baby, Laura, her younger sister, her mom and her step dad. Once, I asked if she wanted to come to dinner here at Dominican. As we drove to her apartment afterwards, she told me she was not ready to go home, she wanted to just drive in circles for a little bit. My heart was crushed.
Many people have recently asked me “why don’t you tell? You need to tell!”
I don’t tell because it is not that simple. She is aware of her situation and she is aware of her options. She doesn’t feel in dire danger and she is not ready to go to a foster home. Laura is a very intelligent, persevering, determined, YOUNG girl. Although many would say it is my responsibility to tell, I do not think interrupting her life is the best option at the moment. Her family is illegal, and therefore in telling authorities, they could get deported. Sometimes, when CPS gets involved they make the situation much, much worse. Foster children often grow up angrier. There are also many more complex issues involved. I do my best to stay involved with her and be her friend, not an adult, authoritarian figure. After I explained to her my position and my desired obligation to tell, she insisted that I don’t yet. She wants to try to make things better in her household first. Although she is young, I respect her opinion. In America society, we often think, that adults know what is best. In America, we often think that we as American know what is best. I refuse to act impulsively anymore. I refuse to think of my notions of how life should be and what should be done are correct.
I will continue to remind Laura that she is beautiful, smart, tough, and great. I will continue to keep my eyes open for signs of extreme violence or danger and I will act when the time is right. I will also encourage Laura to make decisions, and realize options are always there. I will also, continue to be her tutor in school, her vent with drama, her advice, her answers, but most of all her friend. I respect her as an individual, and not simply as someone younger and therefore lower than myself, but a girl who has just as much to teach me about life as I have to offer her.
“Let’s face it, We’re undone by each other …” (23).

Prompt/Notes for Precarious Life

Use these points to help you unpack ideas--please make sure that you find a connection to service.

Make sure to notice where Butler identifies issues and presents alternative formulations, often in the form of questions, sometimes as very clear statements.

The rise of anti-intellectualism—what does Butler mean by this/how does she illustrate this phenomenon/ what are the implications?
Terminology and framing of events: why is it crucial to think/critique the ways in information (through language/narratives/images etc) that we receive about violence: “the frame works both to preclude certain kinds of questions [and] historical inquiries, and to function as a moral justification for retaliation” (4). Find examples of the dangers and the alternatives that Butler suggests.

Find other places in the text to unpack what Butler mean when she asks, “Can we find another meaning, and another possibility, for the decentering of the first-person narrative within the global framework?” (7).


Butler asks, “What social conditions help to form the very ways that choice and deliberation proceed? . . .” (16) Explore her discussion around these questions.

“Who counts as human?” (20). Why are the experiences of loss, vulnerability, grief, mourning integral to Butler’s thesis? Do we agree that these are universal human experiences that might be a source of moral response?

“Let’s face it, we’re undone by each other. And if we’re not, we’re missing something (23). Do you have a significant moment from service that illustrates this?

Significance of the discussion of identity/autonomy/the body (24-38). Tie back to other points. This leads into important discussion of vulnerability—how does she then tie this back into the previous points she has built?

Dehumanization of the Other 32-49. Crucial points here and she weaves in all the other points.

“We do not need to ground ourselves in a single model of communication, a single model of reason, a single notion of the subject before we are able to act” (48). Think about this in relation to the thesis Butler has built and, if possible, in relation to your service-learning experience.

Do you see echoes of Arendt in any of Butler’s points? Where? There are also many points about vulnerability that remind me of the reading from On Kindness. Also, think back to Deo and the violence and loss he experienced, does his story illustrate some of Butler's ideas as well? What about the Cornell piece on the "Moral Obligations of Living in a Democratic Society" and the necessary struggles and asking of hard questions. . .? (Finding common themes, that are also illuminated through your service experience, will help you formulate your final paper.)

Reflection on Precarious Life

While I was reading the chapters of Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence by Judith Butler, I came across two quotes that I found most interesting to read and think about. The two quotes that I decided to reflect on were about people in America not being able to speak their mind on whether America should go to war with Iraq or not. The author writes, “The voicing of critical perspectives against the war has become difficult to do, not only because mainstream media enterprises will not publish them (most of them appear in the progressive or alternative print media or on the internet), but because to voice them is to risk hystericization and censorship,” (page 2). Also, in addition to this she writes, “In a strong sense, the binarism that Bush proposes in which only two positions are possible---“Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists”--- makes it untenable to hold a position in which one opposes both and queries the terms in which the opposition is framed,” (page 2). I read these two quotes and it really made me think about American people and their right to freedom of speech. I thought to myself that there was no reason why Americans shouldn’t have been able to speak their own opinions on anything they wanted including if America should go to war with Iraq or not. People such as Bush should not have put Americans into the mindset of being put into two separate groups as of being either on America’s side or on the terrorist’s side. It is completely unfair and immoral to do something like that. I guess it was this way because there was so much fear at the time with the twin towers being shot down by Muslim terrorists in two airplanes on September 11, 2001 that we started to panic and lived in fear of what to say regarding going to war with Iraq and of other attacks by these terrorists in the future. I guess it is hard to think clearly and speak your mind when your country has been under attack and needs to decide what the next step would be to secure our country from being attacked again. I know that it was a major tragedy in our history but it should not stop people from having a voice in society. This relates to my service learning with St. Vincent de Paul for I have heard stories of people in need that felt that they didn’t have a voice in society and were afraid or unable to speak up for themselves to get the help they needed because of their condition and the situation they were in. It is very difficult for me to hear stories about people who are afraid or unable to speak freely about things they want or need to say in order to help benefit them so they can have a better future.

Whistleblowing: The Contagious Illness Everyone Should Enjoy

Team Player vs Telling the Truth: Why do so few follow/support the scapegoat/Whistleblower.

“It is far from wrong to state that the whistleblower is sacrificed as a lesson to others in the group, so that they will see the price of acting as an ethical individual who remembers that he or she belongs to the world. But this is not all that is going on with the sacrifice of the whistleblower. The whistleblower must know these truths for the rest of the organization, dying for the organization so that its members might live with these truths at a distance.” (Pg 125)
When the whistleblower blows the whistle, it is clear that they are scapegoated. Some whistleblowers realize the potential consequences like Daniel Ellsberg, but others are unaware of the events to come. Regardless of knowledge of the potential consequences, a whistleblower acts because they have knowledge of an unethical action or actions. The difference between the team player and the whistleblower is that the team player will not act on the knowledge for fear of consequences. With that said, it is very clear why others don’t follow. They remained silent out of fear, so once they see the consequences of the whistleblowers actions, they are even less likely to act then before.
The whistleblower is like a martyr because they sacrifice themselves so that the rest of the members of the organization can see that standing up for what’s right is possible. If however the majority of the members followed the whistleblower, changes would be made because the organization would then become the outcast. Unfortunately, this usually is not the case. “The purpose of sacrificing the whistleblower is to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic of ethical and moral responsibility that would threaten to engulf the organization, destroying its ability (or so its members fear) to maintain its boundless autonomy in a hostile world.” (pg 130)
To the organization, the whistleblower is viewed as a potentially contagious illness that could become fatal. The organization tries to rid itself of the “illness” and by doing so it hopes that its members will avoid being contaminated. In a sense, the organization is like the human body in that many individual components work towards wellbeing and functionality. The illness that is the whistleblower is removed from the system and the system returns back to its normal function. What many team players don’t realize is that they can play for the other team. An illness can overrun the system and change the functionality of the system. Unlike an illness though, the whistleblower is not bad. An overrun of the system would lead to positive change in a moral sense and the organization would become the outcast unless they conformed to change out of fear of the consequences.

By Justin Salter

Standing Out

When someone stands out in a crowd, it can be seen as a good thing. They are courageous, a risk taker, but most of all they are different from everyone else. One of the main concepts of a society, or in this case an organization, is that everyone works together in order to achieve common goals. When someone stands out, they will be given more attention than someone who doesn't stand out. Now this isn't always a bad thing. Maybe standing out is that thing that will gain a person a promotion, or special recognition; however, this is not the case for the whistleblower.

One whistleblower is quoted to have said, "When you blow the whistle, you become poison to the company. Your presence makes them sick" (125). The whistleblower stands out, but only as poison. The company knows that the only way a poison can grow is if it "infects" other parts of the body. In this situation the other "body-parts" are the other members of the company. As a working body, it is the companies responsibility to get rid of the poison. This is a sad story for the whistleblower because many times the whistleblower doesn't even know the path they have chosen.

A whistleblower stands out in an organization, but if they are praised for their courage, it is only in silence. The other members of the organization may morally want to stand by the whistleblower, but they don't have the drive, or motivation, of the original whistleblower. When asked, whistleblowers themselves have said that they didn't plan on blowing the whistle. In some cases it wasn't until after the whistle was blown, that they even realized what had happened.

The Feudal Organization

Throughout Chapter 6 of Whistleblowers, Alford goes through extreme detail about how the workings of an organization. He sees the organization as being interpreted in two ways: from the outside looking in, and vice versa. From the "outside-in" perspective, he thinks of an organization as a system that has an ultimate goal: autarky. In simpler terms, an organization works in order to be self-sufficient. From this point of view, "units" as Bauman puts it (99) are simple means to attain this ultimate goal. Alford also states that the only way to achieve this goal is through transgressions. Interestingly enough, the meaning of transgression to me became convoluted because to "transgress" means to break a law or principle, but laws themselves as Alford states is created through human perspective and interpretation. To an organization, to transgress means to let rules slide in order to achieve the goal. To a whistleblower, to transgress means to break silence in order to achieve moral sanity.

This idea of an organization is further defined from the "inside-out" perspective that Alford explains. He tells the story of a man who blew the whistle to the FBI about "fudging" data about the project he was working on, potentially endangering the lives of Air Force personnel. "To him," Alford states, "the organization only consisted of his boss, supervisor, and director" (101).

This topic transitioned to why Alford believes that organizations work as a feudal society. He relates this organization to that of a feudal society, where a lord owns all the land and if a vassal was to live in that society, than he was under the supervision of the lord. This is extensively true for every one (even now) has worked for or in a type of big company. Most of the time, the organization as a whole is consisted of two to three people that you work for and it is your duty to make sure that they are pleased.

Alford is right in expressing that no matter what organization one is in, the central dogma of it is surrounded on one thing alone: economics. One cannot relate an organization to politics because it simply does not match the definition. At least in politics, minds are swayed one way or another through logical explanations and "intelligent arguing" (though I am sure that MANY people would argue this point). But when money is involved, morality is often neglected; consciences unheard; and ethics and pushed aside. In addition, the matters turn more personal--more aimed towards self-gain.

Paul Farmer’s speech from the 2011 Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship (for ex credit read and add a comment relating ideas to your service)

Dr. Farmer presented this speech at the 2011 Skoll World Forum On Social Entrepreneurship.

	Dr. Paul Farmer

When Mabel and Sally asked me to participate on this panel, I said yes—I am fundamentally obedient when they are concerned—but with anxiety. It wasn’t the large-scale change part that worried me. That’s why we’re here at Skoll. But “interior dimensions” often leads to dismissive comments about singing Kumbaya. This year is different for many reasons. One stems from having worked in the “quake zone” in Haiti this past year. Another is the presence of “the Arch”—Desmond Tutu—who is no stranger to struggles for large-scale change, or for understanding its interior dimensions. My admiration for the Archbishop comes not so much from his Nobel Prize or other honors, but from his decades of humble service to the poor.

What is there to say about “deep leadership and the interior dimensions of large-scale change” when we’re talking about disasters natural and unnatural—from the Haiti earthquake to apartheid? One thing we can do here, in the city of dreaming spires, is to bear witness to difficult times—and the quake was the most difficult time I’ve been through. Another task, to paraphrase Haiti’s former President, who himself found shelter in South Africa for years, is to “echo and amplify” the voices of the poor majority and those who support them in their struggle for survival and for dignity. After the quake, this diverse group included local women’s groups, international teams of trauma surgeons, Cuban caregivers, and community health workers in the country’s rural reaches. It included so many of you gathered again at the Skoll Forum. Together, we can try to honor the voices silenced on that night fifteen months ago. This is, I believe, the most important kind of “deep leadership”—witnessing, building partnerships, and promoting collaboration rather than competition.

Alas, this has not been easy. Deep leadership will require social entrepreneurs to rethink siloed approaches to “branding,” innovation that is deemed proprietary, as if worthy of patent. It requires not that we reject these notions, but rather that we interrogate them whenever our humanity and dignity are under fire.

Let me describe the events of a single night at the General Hospital, Port-au-Prince’s largest. It was just after the quake. Although there were, in those days, never enough supplies or staff or space for the patients streaming in, expert mercy was not in short supply. Trauma teams from all over had set up tents throughout the damaged hospital. (There were even Scientologists in bright yellow t-shirts, though I didn’t know how to explain to my Haitian colleagues what they were doing, because I hadn’t a clue.)

In one tent, I spied a Haitian doctor standing anxiously over a thirty-four-year-old man who thought he’d escaped serious injury when his parents’ house collapsed around him but now presented in respiratory distress. He looked whole but was gasping for breath. I gave him morphine. His story came tumbling out in shreds: part of a wall had fallen on his legs; it took him an hour to free himself, but he was soon up and helping others in the neighborhood. A physical exam revealed a high fever, but only minor abrasions on his legs. He’d been treated with antibiotics in another facility (the General Hospital was the third one in which he’d sought care), but an X-ray suggested severe pneumonia. We gave him a broad-spectrum antibiotic, and tried to treat him for blood clots that might have traveled from the large veins in his legs to his lungs, but we didn’t have the right formulation of blood thinner on hand.

In a few minutes the morphine kicked in and he was feeling well enough to ask, in one of his first complete sentences, for something to eat. We knew the morphine was responsible for his improvement, but morphine doesn’t last long, nor does it treat problems at their root. Fearing that he wouldn’t survive the night without mechanical ventilation, we tried to transfer him to the USNS Comfort—a navy-ship-turned-hospital steaming, that day, toward Port-au-Prince.

We had many other patients to see that night. A slight elderly woman at the other end of the tent was wracked by the spasms of tetanus—the first of many cases we would see that week and the next. White-haired and weighing about ninety pounds, she had tears rolling down her cheeks. Every few minutes she would go rigid with potentially bone-breaking and suffocating spasms. The slightest stimulus triggered them; she needed to be in a dark, quiet room—but that would move her far away from medical care because, with frequent aftershocks shaking the foundations of the hospital, no one wanted to work inside.

With all this suffering hemming us in from every side, what was there to be said about our own “interior suffering”?

At one point, I ducked outside for a breath of fresh air, and saw a young woman, perhaps twenty-five, lying on a stretcher outside, all alone in the pitch dark. Had she died? No, she was breathing and warm to the touch. I said hello and asked her how she was; she raised her hand and said, simply, “I think my legs are broken.” I looked at an X-ray that had been tucked under her feet: both of her femurs were fractured high up, near the pelvis. I asked if she’d received anything for her pain; she had not. She had no family present; that was clear. She feared that her parents and infant daughter had perished. “The roof fell on us,” she said and began to weep quietly. The best feeling I had during that wretched evening was bringing her pain medications, which soon led her to what might have been her first sleep in days.

As with every night those days, there was no shortage of work and no reason to leave, except that we would be exhausted and useless the next day if we stayed. I tried to corral my coworkers into rest—it was almost midnight, and we’d made some progress: we’d secured for the young man in respiratory distress the promise of a transfer to the floating hospital by helicopter at daybreak; the old woman with tetanus had received antibiotics and heavy doses of diazepam; a number of patients with major trauma were now, like the young woman alone in the dark, resting thanks to pain meds.

We finally left the hospital for houses up the hill, away from the worst damage. We were spent. As our car climbed through a wrecked and darkened neighborhood, a dog darted in front of us and we heard a thud. No one said a word. I got to sleep in the wooden (and thus safer) house of some close friends, far above the heat and stench of the vast, blacked-out city below. There was a bottle of water by my bed and blessed silence.

But I couldn’t sleep. In the dim reaches of misery, insomnia is a constant companion, especially wherever twenty-first-century people die of nineteenth-century afflictions—minor injuries and simple fractures as well as pneumonia, tuberculosis, and other infections, such as tetanus, that are preventable with a vaccine available for pennies. Archbishop Tutu knows exactly what I’m talking about. I was pursued by the sights and smells and sounds of the day: the unrelieved pain; patients and doctors sprinting outside during an aftershock; phone calls from people trapped under rubble; the charnel-house odor from the morgue and from under the rubble. Counting sheep kept turning into the grim process of counting the dead. I even thought of the hapless dog. Was I praying, or fretting, or what? The image of the man who couldn’t breathe was still with me as dawn approached—had he survived the night? Surely the floating hospital could save him.

Hanging on to this hope, I fell into a deep sleep. But after an hour or so, I was shaken alert by a large aftershock. The wood of the house strained and creaked; the paintings in the room tilted; the plastic water bottle at my bedside started to tremble. My host yelled for us to “get out of the house right now!” The sun was coming up, and I watched impassively as the water bottle fell to the floor. I heard people in the house scrambling to get out, and saw, in my mind’s eye, the crushed limbs of people trapped in countless other houses during the quake. I knew I should move and thought of my children, who had spent the recent holidays in Haiti but, by the grace of God, had been spared the fate of so many a few days after they left. It would’ve been prudent to bolt down the stairs and into the street. But I didn’t move a leaden muscle and did not wake again until the sun was high in the sky.

Watch Dr. Farmer on a panel at the Skoll Forum with Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, Joe Madiath, and Cecilia Flores-Oebanda.

Dr. Paul Farmer is a co-founder of Partners In Health; Kolokotrones University Professor, Harvard University; Chief of the Division of Global Health Equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital; and UN Deputy Special Envoy for Haiti.

5 stories of Narcissism

Throughout this reading I found that the most interesting part of Whistleblowers was the relation between narcissism and being a whistleblower. While this concept is difficult to understand, it does make sense once Alford explains it. "Narcissism is also a deep and powerful source of morality, leading some narcissists to sacrifice all their worldly goods for a noble idea."With the negative connotation that is sometimes associated with narcissism most people don't expect that any good will come from it but in the business of whistle-blowing it is possible for something good to happen. In the first story is called the "Imagination for consequences" which is when a person imagines the negative things that can happen when someone fails to blow the whistle on something that is unethical, "one might argue although whistleblowers are not connected to those they benefit, the structure of their imagination for consequence is nonetheless the structure of all empathy." The second story was called a sense of historical moment, which is when the whistleblower regrets being there at the wrong time, when the people around him were doing unethical things. This story is more narcissistic because the person if they could remove themselves from the situation. The third story described by Alford is identification with the victim, this action if often hard with whistleblowers because the people who they are blowing the whistle on turn out to be some of their good friends and coworkers, making it hard to identify withy the victim because the whistleblower does not know the victim as well as the perpetrator. The fourth story for whistleblowers is feeling a sense of shame, they feel this because they believe that they are corrupted by the people around them. The final story is called narcissism moralized in that they narcissistic actions of the whistleblowers are moralized because of what good thing that they are doing in the long run. I think that these situations relate to my service because although you may do community service many people and myself included want to make themselves feel better for doing something good. Instead of having an attitude that is selfish towards service we should see what we can do for someone else instead of ourselves.

I'm Right...Right?

I’m Right…Right?
By Justin Salter
“It is possible, indeed easy, to define morality in such a way that listening is unnecessary, the moral psychology of the whistleblower irrelevant. Morality is perspective, not descriptive, would be a simple way to do it.” (Pg 96) This quote brought up a point that I have yet to think about: Morality is a perspective. The whistleblower could have a different set of morals that are different than the organization, yet both could be equally wrong or right. I think it is morally right to help the elderly, but another person could have a different opinion and perspective about it. Morality also has to do with cultural norms, and over time morals can change on an individual scale and on a cultural scale. A question that I am left with is how can something be morally right and then fall out of favor with the masses?
“Morality is narcissistic, concerned to preserve the moral purity of the self. From this perspective, the question becomes not whether but how the self involves others in the project of its moral perfection.” (Pg 94) With that said, it really makes me feel for both sides of the moral dilemma. The Vietnam War and Daniel Ellsberg with his pentagon papers are a perfect example of this. Obviously We the American people deserve to know the truth right? We deserve to know that we’ve been lied to and what are the true motives and actions behind the war… right? Well according to our narcissistic moral reasoning we deserve to know. According to the government’s narcissistic reasoning, we shouldn’t know to ensure our safety. I feel that it is important for us to know the truth and to be informed, but I am still only on my side of narcissistic morality. In reality morality is just an opinion, and it seems the opinion with the biggest majority is what the socially accepted norm becomes.

Two Worlds

What piqued my interest in the next few chapters of the book apart from the definition of the positive definition of narcissism is the topics relating to both motivation and loyalty.

In the five stories that Alford mentions in Chapter 4, he questions the motivation that each whistleblower had that led them to do the things they did. The story in particular that stood out to me is one entitled Not Very Good at Doubling. In this part of the book, a whistleblower felt that he lived in two separate worlds: one that he lived when he was with his loved ones, and one that only existed when he was at work. Alford coined the term doubling as "a sophisticated emotional and cognitive act, one that whistleblowers are unable or unwilling to perform", adding that they are "dysfunctional actors in a modern society (73)."

Sanity, in my opinion, is why whistleblowers made moves. In this story, the whistleblower found comfort in two worlds knowing that one is far from reality. I saw this world as a world of fantasy, apart from the realistic points of views and problems that human beings have to deal with. It is a place that only our subconscious mind could reach without taking advice from our conscious selves. But it's life to make good things not last forever. At one point in all our lifetimes we have to face the music and remove our selves from this world.

It also interested me that Alford said that "doubling" is a requirement to live in a modern society. And as much as I pondered about how wrong this is (I took this quote as "we all live life in different personas that adapt to the society we live in"), I can't help but agree with what's being said. Take into consideration the effect that societies have on people. They determine what's good/bad, moral/immoral, right/wrong. They influence both our ways of thinking down to the way that we dress and carry ourselves. With all these regulations, it is easy to see how one can easily blend in to the fantasy world, simply because that's where they find solace and comfort.

In his ongoing quest to find out the motivation behind whistleblowers' actions, Alford also talks about loyalty. In the book, he sees loyalty as relating to both impartialism and narcissism. He states that "loyalty concerns what we owe certain indivuduals or relationships because of our unique history that binds us to them (86)." Like Alford, I became perplexed at the idea of loyalty becoming the root cause for whistleblowers to take action. In his interviews, the whistleblowers stated that they were loyal to their principles rather than their boss. Going by this example, it would negate the initial definition that Alford had of loyalty because they are putting loyalty to someone more important than an individual, or even a relationship. They are basing loyalty on an ideal, a principle, or a belief. They put their trust on something that one could only think about, but never truly see or hear but only experience. It became clear to me after reading through the last few chapters that loyalty depends on its interpretation, rather than actions.

The Five Stories

An Imagination for Consequences: For this section, what stood out for me is the idea that Whistleblowers imagine possibilities that eventually influence their motives to act upon certain things. For Tom who was concerned with children playing in radioactive dust, it cost him his career over what most would perceive to be a rare possibility, one in which they have no responsibility for. Tom took it upon himself to speak out against the potential danger, while for everyone else, it seemed like it was, out of sight, out of mind. In this story the quote of “belonging to” stood out most for me because as Alford quoted, “Regardless of circumstances, chimpanzees, moneys, and humans cannot readily exit the group to which they belong. The double meaning of ‘belonging to’ says it all: they are part of and possessed by the group” (68). The way I interpreted this was that, Tom could not separate himself from those who were technically, actually responsible for cleaning the abandoned research site. By including himself in that group, he couldn’t separate the responsibilities from himself, and by speaking out against their failure to do so, he would be separating himself from the group of the company. In this case, his responsibility seemed to overpower his sense of security. A Sense of the Historical Moment: The way I perceived the story of this section was that, for Whistleblowers, if they are present when a duty calls upon itself, a sacrifice will be made for the greater good. In this situation, Joe was caught between Medicare fraud and the truth. He was being asked to lie about something that, presumably, didn’t affect him in any way aside from his sense of duty that led him to blow the whistle. His moral decision to do what he felt was just cost him his job. Joe goes on to say that, “If any of my brothers or sisters had been in the same situation, they’d have done the same thing. But they weren’t. It was my bad luck to be the one to have to pay the price.” (69). Basically, he was lowering himself from the role of a righteous hero, being a victim of circumstance. Identification with the Victim: “…I didn’t even know our clients’ names, but I had to choose. Only it wasn’t really a choice, you know, more like an ultimatum I gave myself.” (69). In this case, Anna had realized what her company had been doing. As it was later put in the text, she was choosing between “the executioner or the victim.” Anna saw that what he company had been doing to their clients was morally unjust, and that was enough to severe her long time relationships. As it seems, she was unable to comply with the “executioner” because the victim was being wrongly “executed”. The unfairness of this predicament led her to side with the victim, making a sacrifice. This characteristic is a part of her personality, a personality she had been developing through experience leading up to that moment. “What marks a historical moment is that suddenly it is, and we have to choose, suddenly to find that we have already made the choice a thousand times before in similar, less dramatic situations, even if we did not know it at the time. Not Very Good at Doubling: This section suggests that Whistleblowers are not good at detaching themselves in situations. They are incapable of consciously allowing an injustice to occur, regardless as to whether or not it pertains to them. “Doubling” is explained as almost living two different lives and I find this interesting because people develop “split personalities” in order to deal with various situations. “What is right in the corporation is not what is right in a man’s home or in his church. What is right in the corporation is what the guy above you wants from you. That’s what morality is in the corporation.” (72). Another interesting thing that stood out to me in this story is that he doesn’t explain it further as he suggests he could, but rather notes that it is a requirement to live in the modern world. A Sense of Shame: I find this story especially interesting because from an outside view, the Whistleblowers feel shame, but not for what someone may perceive from the outside looking in. “’Because I was part of that world…’ he said. He does not mean that he cannot separate herself from those who did.” (73). In this case, Alford explains how Whistleblowers feel shame from actions that are not of their own doing. The shame comes from guilt, which is said to be the “internalization of fear”. This, I believe, comes from the concept that wrong doing can and will be done by unjust people. “Shame’s origins in feelings of doubt and weakness about one’s goodness help explain the close relationship between shame and narcissism.” (74). e

We are Them, They are Us

Hannah Arendt writes about “training your imagination to go visiting…it is the ground of all ethics” (67). She addresses the idea of feeling empathetic towards others and allowing oneself to be conscientious in actions and observations, in order to validate the existence of others as a part of this community. Whistleblowers experience this as “burden.” In this way, their narratives seem to focus on their loyalty, which they assess and being loyal to the organization, but might actually only be loyalty to self, as the whistleblower is not able to separate oneself from the organization and simply feels the shame through association. Therefore their claims of identifying with the victim are just as much refusals of the aggressor, or boss. Most do not specifically talk about who are they are serving, only in general ways and are thus narcissistic in the self. I feel that Alford is speaking in terms of whistleblowers only but it applies to humans in general, especially of those removed from situations. Before we started our service, we spoke about our partners in terms of ‘them’ and had specific ways of describing the general group we were serving. We may very well have been ignorant, unaware, judgmental. Some were not. We were separate and without a “bridge” of imagination and connection. Now, as our service has developed relationships, many share their stories and speak of individuals, often naturally referring to their names, like a friend. Classmates are sharing with a tone and voice not simply stretched to sympathy, but empathy, not only kindness, but compassion. We are feeling our trials, tribulations, celebrations, and victories. We are also feeling the obstacles and triumphs of the individual we work with, as if their success is our, our failures are there’s, and vice versa, all around. We are developing communites, that of course are not perfect and eternal, but absolutely necessary for us, especially in the desensitized, disconnected world today. We need to connect to the roots of our ancestors where the goals were for the whole, the group. Everyone belonged and everything was connected. Hopefully as a, achievement to our service, we all learn to see the vibrant connections within an organization, a community of people, a network of people. I hope we all see our role, no matter how far we may think we are removed from an issue or problem, the seeds are in our hands, the stems are tangled around us, and the roots are directly beneath us. We each have contribution to make, in correspondences to faults we all have.

Narcissists and their Ideal Standards

In the next two chapters of Whistleblowers, I read a part in one chapter that I found really interesting to me and that really made me think. It was when the author talks about Narcissism. He says that the “narcissist wants to be whole, good, pure and perfect,” (page 63). He says that there are two ways for people to do this. The first way is that “one lowers one’s standards of wholeness, goodness, purity and perfection until they correspond to one’s miserable self,” and the second way is that “one raises one’s miserable self as high as one possibly can so that one comes a little closer to these ideal standards,” (page 63). I found this really interesting to read. To me the two ways that narcissists try to live up to their ideal standards means that they don’t want to set high standards for themselves until they get in touch with what makes them miserable or that they already know why they are miserable and they do what they can to reach those high standards they have for themselves to make themselves less miserable. People who are narcissistic in my opinion want to be perfect, do the right thing and have perfection around them and people doing the right thing as they do but not everyone is like that. We are people with flaws and I think that the narcissistic person’s number one flaws are to put pressure on themselves to be perfect and right all the time just because of their fears and insecurities. I don’t really know how to relate this to my service learning at St. Vincent de Paul but I would think that there are people on the streets that think they are right and perfect in some respect. I have never encountered anyone through my service learning like this. I’ve seen prideful people but I don’t know if that means that they think they are right, know what they are doing and are perfect. Overall, I think that if people extremely narcissistic they really need to get a reality check if possible.

Prompts for Whistleblower week 2

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).

Scapegoats

The metaphor of the scapegoat is essential in helping to understand the role of whistleblowers because it shows what part they tend to play in society. By taking on the role of the scapegoat, the whistleblowers takes on a huge responsibility. In the metaphor the scapegoat takes all the problems and troubles of the people he represents. The funny thing about the scapegoat, is that he does not choose to be a scapegoat. The scapegoat is bestowed with this responsibility of being the scapegoat. He is chosen and forced to carry all the problems that have been put on his head. Whether the whistleblower chooses this life or is forced into it is where morality comes in. Whistleblowers may not have exactly chosen to be whistleblowers, but when faced with the final decision they chose to follow their moral beliefs instead of continuing to conform with the company. The whistleblower takes on the problems and responsibilities that people see every day but no one says anything. Does this make them a hero? It should. The thing that messes up everything, is the concept of "should". We all know what we "should" do, but who actually does it? And "should" we really risk everything we have for morality if that endangers our entire lives and families?

When people choose to not say anything in some cases it is just as bad as agreeing with the the thing they are not refuting. People will conform to an action out of the fear of being rejected or persecuted. We look at it as bold for people to stand up for what they believe in, but we also tend to shun those who do not align with the flow of a community. People are afraid of change, and this inhibits advances. Alford states, "it tells us about the forces that hold society together and their consequences: the willingness of most people to do anything not to be sent space-walking" (5). People are social creatures and this means that we will try to fit in with society in order to live. When someone goes against the grain they are either going to be idolized for their actions or persecuted. Chances of being idolized are so slim nowadays that it isn't surprising that there are not countless whistleblowers.

Scapegoats and whistleblowers may be forced into this position either by society or by moral issues, but what about the kids at county who seem to have to deal with countless problems? Are they considered scapegoats of a different kind? Many of these kids do not want to be at MCCS. I had a 17 year old boy tell me about his plans for the future. He told me how he either wanted to go to SFSU or Santa Rosa JC. He also explained that he hated being at MCCS because it was impossible to learn anything. I asked him how he ended up there, and he told me that it was because he didn't attend his normal high school regularly. So he was there because of truancy. He continued to say that County made him wish he had never skipped a single class. When he told me this all I could think of was how a scapegoat is led to the person who will lay all the problems on its head and send it off into the forest. This kid didn't know what he was going to have to deal with if he missed classes, but he's already been pushed into the forest carrying burdens he didn't know he would have to deal with. I think there are different levels to being a scapegoat. But all the levels start with the fact that when the goat starts its life, or at a school, or at a new company, he or she doesn't know that he or she will end up being a scapegoat.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Upon first picking up Whistleblowers, I was pretty intrigued on what this book contained. Not being much of a book person (or a reader, at that), I tend to let the cover page of a book tell me its synopsis. We all know that good saying about the judging a book, so I won't repeat it. Needless to say, I still do it.

Until this point, I had no clue what a whistleblower was, though in the introduction, he describes just what a whistleblower is. But just because I do not know what it is, doesn't mean that I didn't see or hear about it. Even though most of the time I hear about them have some sort of negative connotation (mostly everything we watch in television will have this), their actions were not unheard of by me. What set this book apart for me from the introduction is this quote:

"...I have never been a whistleblower, and yet I've felt like one all my life...no one ever spoke the truth, so I thought I must (2-3)"

This quote, something that all whistleblowers must have thought of before they blew their whistles, makes me question what their motives are based on. Is it for the better of the community, themselves? I think of how many times there was an error in my definition of truth, yet chose to do nothing about it. What impresses me about these people is that though they work for a rather prestigious company, have job and life security, family, etc. they choose to do the "right" thing, knowing the consequences of their action. Though most of the stories I have read so far fit within this mold, I imagine how many whistleblowers were not given attention, simply kicked off by society, such as Winston Smith.

So what gives? Alford himself makes the statement that whistleblowers tick because if they held the truth any longer, then they would go insane.

In my opinion, whistleblowers, such as the ones mentioned in this book tell their stories because they want to be set free. They don't want retaliation or the notoriety of exposing an exposé, but to inform the world that this situation is happening, and if something doesn't change, then all hell could potentially break loose.

Ignorance is bliss

Ignorance is bliss
By Justin Salter
What the scapegoat knows. Why is this metaphor significant in helping to understand the role of the whistleblower in our society? Why is this “knowledge like a mortal illness” for the whistleblower (5)? What other whistleblower characteristics does Alford delineate? Make sure that you outline the different related points for yourself.
The metaphor of the scapegoat is significant in helping to understand the role of the whistleblower in our society because the whistleblower knows about all of the wrongdoings of the organization. “They do not just know the sins of the tribe. They are afflicted with them.” (pg 5) Unlike the scapegoat however, whistleblowers can act on the knowledge presented to them which is both a blessing and a curse.
Knowledge is like a mortal illness because it can affect you negatively in many ways. Knowing something and not doing anything can morally tare a person apart. By not acting on knowledge of something wrong, it is almost as if that person has become part of the problem. Knowing something and acting on it can have many consequences. “To run up against the organization is to risk obliteration.” (pg4) A person can risk losing their job, home, family, friends, and even can become an outcast in the eyes of everyone around them. This really gives meaning to the expression that ignorance is bliss.
I feel that all this is very true and very sad. If I had the knowledge of something that was morally wrong, I would realize that it would be morally right to do something. After that point though the problem for me would occur. I can honestly say that I don’t know if I would be willing to risk the consequences. I have worked so hard to be where I am today, and I don’t think I would be willing to throw that all away for a moral issue. I know it would be to help the greater good, but it would definitely depend on how important the issue at hand was to me.

Whistle blowing for?

Author C. Fred Alford in his findings, discover's many important reoccuring themes in the whistleblower stories that he shares with us in his book. The first theme is this idea that the stories told be the whistleblowers are mellow in nature, that is to say they are not very dramatic in nature. There is drama to be found in the chaos of everyday organizational life. Secondly, the the victim is usually not immediately fired from position held; They are slowly demoralized, piece by piece from their office, so the agency/organization doesnt look as though they are responding in a form of retaliating against the whistleblower. This form of demoralizing leds to the act of private disobedience and psychological trauma. Next, another reoccuring theme is that almost all whistleblowers neglect to use the media as a tool for voicing their cause until they were fired. Lastly, most of the whistleblowers held positions in the governmental branches, and private sectors. In both these organizational structures, the issues of termination is key. These are the themes that seem haunt whistleblowers alike. I find it rather intriguing that almost all whistleblowers know they are doing the right thing, but when asked if they would do it again, they say they wouldn't. As many whistleblowers stress," Do it to save lives or dont do it"(34), so is this the under rule of thumb to use/code of ethics for doing what is right? How does one know the outcome of the circumstance? Are life's even at stake? How many lives will be saved by blowing the whistle? These are questions that maybe dont have immediate answers, or are even answerable. It all comes down, to doing what you feel is right, I think, even if it may casue oneself hardship unthinkable. In sum, you go with your gut feeling, in decision making sometimes.

Prompts for Whistleblower reflection

We will do a reflection in class to relate Whistleblowers to service-learning--so unless something is shouting at you about your SL, use this reflection to try to unpack some of the ideas presented in the reading. I have pasted in the reading points to help you focus, as there are many complex ideas presented in this reading!

What is Alford’s stated goal (6) in writing this book on this subject? What is his methodology? (Also see pages 32-33, 35)

What the scapegoat knows. Why is this metaphor significant in helping to understand the role of the whistleblower in our society? Why is this “knowledge like a mortal illness” for the whistleblower (5)? What other whistleblower characteristics does Alford delineate? Make sure that you outline the different related points for yourself.

Consequences and Costs: Power, Politics, and Who Pays? Or What Happens When Ethical Discourse Becomes Impossible” (36). Who benefits when ethics is separated from politics? What is Alford’s point? You should be happy to see that you already have some foundation here as you have just read Arendt (10-13). Connect these ideas to Alford’s point at the end of Chap. 2.

Chap. 2

How does Alford define whistleblowing? Note difference between “theory” and “practice” (18).

How/Why Organizations “Sacrifice” Whistleblowers: “The best way to disrupt moral behavior is not to discuss it and not to discuss not discussing it” (21). Make sure that you understand what Alford means by this (pay close attention to other crucial sentence s on page 22) and notice how he illustrates through whistleblower stories. You may want to reread after you read the themes section.

Themes in Whistleblower Stories (31-32): Alford lays these out for you. Make sure that grapple with these points.—you may want to reread the stories. (These are brief glimpses, he will go deeper in the next chapter)

Workplace Values: “Organizations are not just undemocratic. Organizations are the enemy of individual morality” (35).

Chap. 3.

The Significance of Narrative (shared vs. shattered meaning): What is Alford telling us about the way that we usually make sense of our own lives and those of others? Why is this cohesion lacking from the whistleblowers story (and reality)? Look for multiple points about this throughout chapter. These observations are important and fascinating on many levels, not just in relation the whistleblower.

Narrative Themes in Whistleblower Stories: Choiceless choice, stuck in static time, paranoid themes, “living in the position of the dead” (39). Throughout this chapter, Alford illustrates these themes. Make sure that you find a few crucial quotes in each section that help you to understand Alford’s characterizations.

The Failure of Common Narrative or The Story that Can’t Be Heard and How the Organization “Disciplines” the Ethical Individual: Alford will go into more detail on these points in future chapters. Anything here that you can relate to something in your own experience or in relationship to your service-learning?

Kindness?

What I took away from these reading on kindness if that kindness is something that should be a part of everyday life, somewhat like breathing. It shouldn’t have to be talked about, it should just be done, but this isn’t the case. “ Why do the pleasures of kindness seem to astonish us?” Pg.4. This is a question that is tough to answer for me because I don’t want to answer it. I think everyone should be kind, but today that isn’t the case. On a personal note, for lent I decided that I would do something kind for someone everyday, but when I thought about it, I already did do something kind everyday, even if it was opening a door for a stranger. Lent has been going on for a few weeks now, and I have noticed myself realizing my random act of kindness. I’m not doing it for anyone else, but more just to be a good person. I believe that kindness can be related to my Community partner because a lot of the kids there have kindness in their heart, but choose to not show it in fear of being made fun of. This is my opinion, but I believe it to be true. All the kids there seem to have a higher someone, something, telling them how to act and dress, because most of them act the same, and kindness is something that isn’t stressed in this world of theirs. Hopefully with time they will mature into people that society accepts as kind.