Integrity II
So, I just wrote the biggest, longest, most thoughtful response to all these lovely thoughts on integrity. And then in a moment of technological brilliance, I lost my entire page of comments. Grr. I''m just going to paraphrase what I was trying to say before. I just can't write that all again.
For eons now it seems like I've been stuck in the same philosophy--ideas evaluated on the basis of their usefulness for whatever end we're interested in. So integrity at the level of the state? Sure, why not. Why is it useful? Well, consider we're talking about the nation that you live in--the policies of its government, the culture of its people, and so on determine the characteristics that will in turn decide that nation's integrity status. And to the extent that you can influence--or more importantly, you perceive you can influence--those government actions and cultural forces, the more yoked that national integrity is to your own self-judgment. So, because this notion of society-level integrity exists, and because you feel you might be an influential player in this society, suddenly your sphere of responsibility grows, and your motivation and your attention are focused on bigger and broader things than what you might see in your immediate environment. Now I'm not saying that you'd have this completely provincial little mind if we didn't invoke ideas of national integrity. I'm just saying, the existence of the concept increases the probablity that at any given moment you'll think and feel strongly about the actions of your policymakers and countrymen. If integrity were restricted to the level of the individual-- so, it's W. and Rumsfeld and Cheney's actions that we're judging now, not the judgment of the "United States"--then it's much easier to see your own behavior as completely independent of theirs, and therefore it's easier to become much less participatory in national affairs (I wash my hands of it...) That's a potential danger of the red state/blue state thing. As soon as we mentally succede from the rest of the country, that part of the country that we mentally leave behind will be free to wreck all the havoc it wants.
Now, can you play to people's pursuit of national integrity in a way that perverts the idea into some kind of jingoism? Sure. And someone from outside the society--say, OBL in his touching pre-election appearance--can appeal to national integrity to increase the audience and impact of his message. If America is proclaimed the Great Satan, well, you stop and think about that a bit, regardless of how you ultimately respond. If Dubya is the Great Satan, well, I didn't vote for him, so any further complaints are irrelevant.
So, as for the initial question, regarding whether or not nations may possess integrity, given the diverse attitudes and behaviors of their inhabitants-- National integrity is a potentially powerful concept, depending on your goals, though we should be aware of its vulnerablity to becoming an instrument of psychological manipulation.
Comments
I think I have a point so please bear with this stem-winder.
The foreign policy of this nation for 50 years or more has been premised on the assumption that "we're the good guys". This sentiment was cemented in WWII most notably when we saved Europe's collective ass from the unfathomable evils of Hitler's Nazi regime. So we in America have had good reason for many years to feel a sense of national integrity. I'd say this feeling became less pervasive (to say the least) during our conflict in Vietnam, and today in our conflict in Iraq. Roughly half the country now falls into the category that some Republicans/conservatives refer to as the "blame America first" crowd. It is a striking contrast to read about the nearly unanimous level of public support for our participation in WWII and to be witnessing the popular division over the war in Iraq today. Somewhere along the line since 1945 (probably during Nam) the gut reaction of a good number of us has been transformed from one of "my country is fighting for just causes" to "my country is fighting so some fat-cat insider can get richer than he already is". In other words, our national integrity, at least our perception of it, has suffered much in the past 60 years or so. It could be that our country is no longer the deliverer of justice around the world it once was, or it could be that 24 hour news and the internet is showing us, for once, as we always have been, warts and all.
This gets back to the bigger point about integrity/morality in general (I see Webster links the two). When 85% of people believe they are of above average morality, and, yet, 85% admit to cheating on their taxes, it says something about our limited perception of ourselves and others. I know if I've cheated on my taxes or in any other way compromised my principles. But in order for me to feel smug in my moral superiority, I have to believe that most people are committing greater transgressions than I am. As long as I can justify my own bad behavior with someone else's worse behavior, I can rest easy. This is an easy pill to swallow, because I really don't know what goes on behind others' closed doors, and it's easy to speculate about lurid details. It's an interesting thought experiment to contemplate what would happen if all of our sins, small and big, were laid out for public scrutiny...now I'm suddenly recalling that hilarious story from The Onion a couple months back titled: Study: 100 Percent Of Americans Lead Secret Lives.
Posted by: Jim | Diciembre 17, 2004 11:39 PM
Your point about revealing our "secret lives" reminds me of a scenario that comes to mind whenever I think about the work I used to do as a college student, when I spent summers working with folks with developmental disabilites. And recently I saw a loose piece of green paper sitting in the bus that reminded me of this again. It said "Name: Dane." Dane was ranked on a variety of criteria for the day. Was he respectful of others? Was he responsive to suggestions by staff? Dane had done more or less OK, with straight 4's on a 5 point scale. Comments were written on the bottom of the page: Dane had a rough morning. He was angry at staff. He settled down though and finished out the rest of the day nicely.
It's quite a world that you live in, if you have a developmental disability. Your day-to-day activities are charted in excruciating bureaucratic detail. How many cc's of milk did you drink today? Did you touch anyone without asking first? When did you ask for a bathroom break? And so on. For depending on others for your care, you are made to live in your own version of the Truman Show.
I imagine some of the documentation is justified. Whether it's overkill or not is subject to debate. But I always think, dear lord, what if someone placed me under such scrutiny. "Karin had a rough morning. She was angry at (circle one:) the world / graduate school / people-glued to-their-cell-phones-who-almost-run-into-you-on-the-sidwalk. She settled down though and finished the day nicely." And I don't know, when filling out the meal chart, if they would be satisfied with "coffee" as a meal. I'd get so many black marks, for sleeping at odd hours, for letting my dishes and laundry pile up, for excessive sarcasm, for glowering at people I find obnoxious...
Anyways, this hyperstructuring of what is good behavior goes for children as well. Now, I'm neither a parent nor a teacher nor a scout troop leader, but there's another interesting domain, if anyone feels like going off on a tangent (like I just did).
Posted by: Karin | Diciembre 18, 2004 10:49 AM