Buber’s I-Thou Relationships

On 8/8/24, I asked ChatGPT, “What does Martin Buber mean by an ‘I-Thou dialogue’?”

It replied:

Martin Buber, a 20th-century philosopher, is best known for his philosophy of dialogue, particularly articulated in his work “I and Thou” (Ich und Du). In this text, Buber presents two fundamental ways of engaging with the world and with others: the “I-Thou” relationship and the “I-It” relationship.

I-Thou Relationship

The “I-Thou” relationship is a mode of interaction that involves a deep, genuine, and mutual connection between two beings. In this dialogue:

  1. Mutual Presence: Both parties fully present themselves to each other, without any pretense or ulterior motives. There is a direct, authentic encounter where each acknowledges the other’s full humanity.
  2. Reciprocity: The relationship is reciprocal. Each person recognizes and responds to the other’s existence and essence. This mutual recognition creates a space where both individuals can truly meet and understand each other.
  3. Non-Objectifying: In an “I-Thou” dialogue, neither party is seen as an object to be used or manipulated. Instead, each person is respected as a whole being. The relationship transcends utilitarian or instrumental purposes.
  4. Presence and Connection: The relationship is characterized by presence, meaning that the individuals are fully attentive and connected in the moment. There is an immediacy and intensity to the interaction that is often lacking in everyday, superficial exchanges.

I-It Relationship

In contrast, the “I-It” relationship is a more common mode of interaction, where one engages with others (or the world) in a utilitarian, detached, and objectifying manner. In this relationship:

  1. Instrumental View: Others are seen as objects or means to an end, rather than as fully-fledged beings. The focus is on utility and function rather than mutual presence.
  2. Objectification: The relationship involves a level of detachment and objectification. One relates to the other based on roles, functions, or categories, rather than as a unique individual.
  3. Lack of Genuine Connection: There is a lack of genuine connection and mutual recognition. Interactions are often superficial, driven by necessity or convenience rather than a true meeting of minds and hearts.

Implications

Buber’s philosophy suggests that true fulfillment and understanding in human relationships come from striving for more “I-Thou” encounters. While not all interactions can or need to be “I-Thou” in nature, cultivating these moments of genuine dialogue can lead to deeper, more meaningful connections and a greater sense of humanity.

In essence, an “I-Thou” dialogue is about engaging with others in a way that recognizes and honors their full humanity, fostering genuine, mutual relationships based on presence, respect, and authenticity.

WLH: Why do people refrain from or avoid I-Thou relationships?
ChatGPT

People often refrain from or avoid “I-Thou” relationships for various reasons, which can be psychological, social, or cultural. Here are some common factors:

Psychological Factors

  1. Fear of Vulnerability: Engaging in an “I-Thou” relationship requires openness and vulnerability. Many people fear being hurt, rejected, or misunderstood when they fully reveal themselves to another person.
  2. Insecurity: Individuals with low self-esteem or insecurity may find it challenging to present their true selves, fearing judgment or inadequacy.
  3. Past Trauma: Previous negative experiences or trauma in relationships can make individuals wary of forming deep connections. They might avoid “I-Thou” encounters to protect themselves from potential emotional pain.

Social and Cultural Factors

  1. Cultural Norms: In some cultures, emotional expression and deep personal connections might be discouraged or viewed as inappropriate. People may adhere to social norms that prioritize formality and detachment.
  2. Social Roles and Expectations: Social roles and expectations often dictate more superficial interactions. Professional settings, for example, may emphasize efficiency and objectivity over personal connection.

Practical and Situational Factors

  1. Time Constraints: Deep, meaningful relationships require time and effort. Busy lifestyles and demanding schedules can limit opportunities for “I-Thou” interactions.
  2. Context: Certain situations, like brief encounters with strangers or professional interactions, may not be conducive to “I-Thou” relationships. The context often determines the depth of engagement.

Psychological Defense Mechanisms

  1. Emotional Defense Mechanisms: People might use defense mechanisms like detachment, denial, or suppression to avoid emotional intensity. These mechanisms can prevent the formation of “I-Thou” relationships.

Technological and Modern Lifestyle Factors

  1. Digital Communication: The rise of digital communication often leads to more superficial interactions. Online interactions can lack the depth and presence needed for “I-Thou” relationships.
  2. Consumer Culture: Modern consumer culture often emphasizes transactional relationships and individualism, which can hinder the development of mutual, genuine connections.

Cognitive and Perceptual Factors

  1. Lack of Awareness: Some people may not be aware of the distinction between “I-Thou” and “I-It” relationships or the value of deeper connections. They may not realize what they are missing.
  2. Misinterpretation of Intentions: People might misinterpret others’ intentions, leading to mistrust or reluctance to engage deeply. Miscommunication and misunderstanding can create barriers to “I-Thou” relationships.

In summary, avoiding “I-Thou” relationships can stem from a complex interplay of individual, social, and contextual factors. While these relationships offer profound fulfillment, the challenges and barriers to achieving them can make people more inclined to engage in “I-It” interactions.

+++++

WLH: How does Buber’s relationship with God relate to these thoughts?
ChatGPT

Martin Buber’s concept of the “I-Thou” relationship extends to his understanding of the relationship between humans and God. In his work “I and Thou,” Buber elaborates on how the divine-human relationship can be understood through the lens of his dialogical philosophy.

I-Thou Relationship with God

  1. Direct and Personal Encounter: Buber posits that the relationship with God is the ultimate “I-Thou” relationship. This encounter is direct, personal, and involves the whole being of the individual. It is not mediated by doctrines, rituals, or intermediaries but is an immediate and intimate connection.
  2. Mutual Presence: In the “I-Thou” relationship with God, there is a mutual presence. The individual feels the presence of God, and in turn, God acknowledges and engages with the individual. This relationship is characterized by a profound sense of presence and mutual awareness.
  3. Beyond Objectification: Just as in human “I-Thou” relationships, the divine-human relationship is not about objectifying or using God for personal gain. It transcends utilitarian approaches to religion, where God is seen merely as a means to fulfill needs or desires. Instead, it involves a genuine, reciprocal engagement.
  4. Transformation and Holiness: Buber believes that this relationship with God transforms the individual. Encountering God in an “I-Thou” manner brings a sense of holiness, responsibility, and a deeper understanding of one’s place in the world. This relationship fosters ethical and moral development.

Contrast with I-It Relationship with God

In contrast, the “I-It” relationship with God is characterized by objectification and instrumentalization. In this mode:

  1. Utilitarian View: God is viewed as an object or means to an end. Religious practices might be performed out of obligation, habit, or for material or spiritual benefits, rather than from a place of genuine connection.
  2. Detachment: The relationship is more detached and lacks the depth and presence of the “I-Thou” encounter. It is more about following rituals and doctrines without a personal, transformative experience.
  3. Reduction to Concepts: God is reduced to concepts, doctrines, or images that can be controlled, manipulated, or used. This reduction strips away the immediacy and intimacy of the relationship.

Implications for Human Relationships

Buber’s view of the relationship with God reflects and reinforces his thoughts on human relationships:

  1. Model for Human Relationships: The divine-human “I-Thou” relationship serves as a model for ideal human interactions. Just as one should engage with God in a direct, personal, and non-objectifying way, so too should one strive to engage with other people.
  2. Source of Strength: The relationship with God can provide the strength and inspiration needed to pursue “I-Thou” relationships with others. The sense of presence and mutual engagement with the divine can empower individuals to seek deeper connections in their human relationships.
  3. Ethical and Moral Grounding: The transformative nature of the “I-Thou” relationship with God instills a sense of responsibility and ethical commitment, which can positively influence how one interacts with others.

In summary, Buber’s relationship with God encapsulates the essence of his “I-Thou” philosophy, providing a profound example of how genuine, mutual, and transformative encounters can occur. This relationship with the divine not only reflects but also informs and enhances his understanding of human relationships, emphasizing the importance of presence, mutuality, and authenticity in all interactions.

Hope?

I asked ChatGPT, “Did Camus imagine Sisyphus smiling?”

It astutely replied:

Yes, Albert Camus did imagine Sisyphus smiling. In his philosophical essay “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus reinterprets the ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus, a man condemned to eternally push a boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down each time he reaches the top. Camus uses this myth to explore the concept of the absurd—the conflict between humans’ desire to find inherent meaning in life and the silent, indifferent universe that offers none.

Camus concludes his essay with the famous line: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” He suggests that Sisyphus, despite his eternal and futile labor, can find a sense of contentment and purpose in the struggle itself. By embracing the absurdity of his situation and continuing his effort without hope of success, Sisyphus transcends his suffering and finds a form of happiness in the act of pushing the boulder. Camus argues that this acceptance of the absurd and the determination to keep pushing can be seen as a form of defiance and freedom.

I then asked ChatGPT, “Do Buddhists recommend avoiding hope?”

It replied:

Buddhism’s approach to hope is nuanced and differs from the way it is typically understood in Western contexts. While Buddhism does not explicitly recommend avoiding hope, it does emphasize the importance of understanding and managing one’s desires and expectations, which can often be intertwined with hope.

In Buddhism:

    1. Attachment and Desire: Central to Buddhist teachings is the concept of attachment and desire (craving), which are seen as primary sources of suffering (dukkha). Hope, when tied to strong desire and attachment to outcomes, can lead to disappointment and suffering if those hopes are unfulfilled.
    2. Present Moment Awareness: Buddhism encourages living in the present moment and developing mindfulness (sati). This practice involves recognizing and accepting things as they are without clinging to future outcomes, which can often be fueled by hope.
    3. Equanimity: One of the key virtues in Buddhism is equanimity (upekkha), which involves maintaining a balanced and calm mind regardless of circumstances. This includes not being overly hopeful or overly despondent about the future.
    4. Right View: The Noble Eightfold Path, which outlines the path to enlightenment, includes Right View (samma ditthi), which involves understanding the nature of reality, suffering, and the impermanence of all things. This understanding can lead to a more grounded perspective that tempers unrealistic hopes.

In summary, while Buddhism does not advocate for the outright avoidance of hope, it does encourage a balanced approach where hope is not based on unrealistic expectations or strong attachments. Instead, it promotes a mindset that embraces the present moment and understands the impermanent nature of all things. This can lead to a more peaceful and contented state of being.

Labels for the “Harris Walz”

By Wade Lee Hudson

The Republicans and the media are busy trying to label Harris and Walz. One option I suggest is “progressive populist.” 

Howsever, on November 14, 2013, in a long Op-Ed News commentary inspired by Harry Boyte’s 2007 John Dewey Lecture at the University of Michigan, “Populism and John Dewey: Convergences and Contradictions,” Rejecting the “left-right spectrum,” I suggested another: “compassionate populism.”

The readers of my Op-Ed News essay, “Building Compassionate Populism,” offered considerable support. The piece opened: 

An unholy alliance of big government and big business has created a crony capitalism administered by privileged elites who serve their own self-interest. 

Some of these elites call themselves “conservative,” but aren’t truly conservative. Others call themselves “liberal,” but aren’t truly liberal. Governing elites have perverted both conservatism and liberalism and replaced them with caricatures.

Though it’s impossible to place all issues on one “left-right” spectrum, these two camps engage in a phony ideological battle that serves to divide and conquer.

Those on “the left” should stop trying to defeat those on “the right,” and vice versa. We should strive, instead, to grow an effective popular movement to undo crony capitalism, empower all people, promote authentic free markets, and establish social and economic justice. Let us all unite to build a “compassionate populism,” in which the 99% work for the betterment of the 100%.

Now, I prefer “progressive populism.” Regardless, Harris and Walz would do well to use a new label (and call their campaign the “Harris Walz dance.”

Tim Walz on Respect

Excerpt from “Is Tim Walz the Midwestern Dad Democrats Need?” on The Ezra Klein Show

I’ve watched a lot of presidential campaigns, and I can’t remember one in which the contest for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination has played out quite so publicly. And that’s allowed for some voices and figures to break through who you might not have imagined before. Foremost among them is Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, because of one interview on “Morning Joe,” saying of Donald Trump and JD Vance, “These guys are just weird.”

That was the interview heard around the Democratic Party. I remember it hit me on social media. I saw that and thought, “Oh, that really connects.” And then all of a sudden, it was all you heard from Democrats. “Weird, weird, weird. These guys are weird.”

Why did this connect this way? And is there a risk of this falling into something that can bedevil Democrats, coming off as an insult to Trump’s supporters, like Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment in 2016?

I wanted to hear Walz go deeper on all of this. He grew up in a small town in the Midwest and repeatedly won a congressional seat that was quite red. So I also wanted to hear his thoughts on why the Democrats have been losing the types of voters he knows so well and how to win them back.

Walz joined me for a conversation on my podcast. This is an edited transcript of our conversation.

You’ve had a hell of a couple of weeks. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen any single person, including, for that matter, a president, change an entire party’s messaging the way your riff on “Morning Joe” — on the weirdness of Donald Trump and JD Vance and Republicans of their ilk — did. You’ve been using that word for a while when a lot of other Democrats are using “existential,” “terrifying,” “undemocratic.” I’m not saying you don’t believe those things. But why, for you, “weird”?

All those things are true about an existential threat to global peace, in my opinion, a desire to strip constitutional power and division. All of those things are true.

What I see is that that kind of stuff is overwhelming for people. It’s like other big issues like climate change. If you can’t tackle it one piece at a time, it just seems, why should I do anything about it?

It’s the emperor’s wearing no clothes, is all this story is — this guy’s weird stories and inability to connect like a human being. What happened was, the minute that spell came down, the minute everybody in the crowd realized the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes, we can sweep in and say, “Who’s asking to ban birth control? Who’s asking to ban these books? Who’s asking to take veterans’ benefits away?”

And then we come in and say, “Look, Kamala Harris is talking about making sure that you have expanded health care, making sure there’s day care available, making sure that it’s easier to get free school lunches.”

And “weird” is specific to him. I’m certainly not talking about Republicans. I’m not talking about the people who are at those rallies. I’m hearing this from my Republican friends, because the people at those rallies, they’re the ones that can most benefit from the message we’re delivering.

I looked at him the other night in St. Cloud, Minn. Young women behind him. We’re going to provide reproductive care for them. I saw a group holding “Somalis for Trump.” We have a large Somali population. We’re very proud of that. Donald Trump has said, “We’re going to have a Muslim ban.” And he talked about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and the Somali community as being so detrimental rather than an asset to this. So we’re going to take care of those people, too.

He’s not going to do that. What do they have if they don’t have that fear? What do they have if there’s not a dystopian society? What do they have if only Dear Leader can come in and fix it?

If people are saying, “Actually, I’d like to have cheaper day care. I’d actually like them to quit talking about this. And I really don’t care who somebody’s married to” — because I believe the vast majority of people really don’t want to be in other people’s bedrooms.

And I use the thing of small town — this is where JD Vance doesn’t get it. You survive best by just minding your own damn business. Just stay out of people’s business.

I want to get at this distinction you’re making, between Trump or Vance and the crowds. Because one of the most dangerous emotions that Democrats sometimes let slip — the negative side of, I think, the liberal personality — can be a kind of contempt, a kind of smugness. This is why Hillary Clinton’s comment on deplorables was so damaging. How do you police that boundary?

This is where I take offense to JD Vance and “Hillbilly Elegy.” Those are my people. I come from a town of 400 — 24 kids in a class, 12 cousins, farming, those types of things. And I know they’re not weird. I know they’re not Donald Trump.

The thing is, we have to get them away from what he’s trying to sell because that’s not who they are. Just picture in your mind Donald Trump coming home after a day of work and picking up a Frisbee and throwing it. And his dog catches it, and the dog runs over, and he gives him a good belly rub because he’s a good boy. That’s what I do. And that’s what those rallygoers do. That is exactly who they are, and they’re going through the same things all of our families are.

He’s captured some of this. And fear is scary. I mean, the world is changing. We’re seeing, you know, conflict in the Middle East. We saw a global pandemic, which he did nothing to fix but seized upon.

And I think it’s kind of breaking that spell again of saying, “Look, he’s not offering you anything.” And then we dang sure better be ready to offer something.

Have you ever read “Hillbilly Elegy”?

I did, years ago.

I read it years ago, and I’ve been rereading it this week. I remember not thinking all that much of it then, but it feels like he’s predicting himself now. One of the big points early in the book is, he says: This is a story about people in a hard situation responding to it — and I’m paraphrasing — in the worst possible way. With anger, with resentment, with scapegoating of others without personal responsibility. A liberal would never talk about people and the places he’s from like that.

No, that’s why I take offense to it. Look, societal changes, you’re going to see a migration of population patterns. But you’re also going to see those that accelerated that, those that took advantage of that, those like Donald Trump and JD Vance, who are telling you, “We need to do school vouchers.” How are you going to get a private school in a town of 400? That’s not where the private school is going to be. The private school is going to be where it already is, giving tax breaks to the wealthiest.

The two things that are core to small communities: school and hospital. So I don’t know the irony or the masterful design of this. It’s guys just like him telling you that these people are just angry, bitter. That’s not who we are. That’s not who they are.

But I’ll tell you what. There are concerns. Economies have shifted. Young people leave those communities. My community felt thriving when I was there — two grocery stores, a couple of bars downtown and all that. Now it’s empty main streets. That vision of “Hillbilly Elegy” was true. But he doesn’t tell you the story why. And the bitterness, the cultural bitterness, whatever, that’s just not true. They’re just looking for “What are things to rejuvenate us? How do we get back?”

And I think about this: A town that small had services like that and had a public school with a government teacher that inspired me to be sitting where I’m at today. Those are real stories in small towns.

These guys, they talk about how evil the public schools are. For many of us, public schools were everything. That was our path. That’s the great American contribution.

You say there’s not a cultural bitterness, but there is a cultural frustration with the Democrats. If you looked at where people who didn’t go to college voted, they used to vote for Democrats. Now Democrats win college-educated voters nationally and lose non-college-educated voters. Those numbers are particularly stark among white voters. What do you make of that?

I think some of it is the alignment of economics. We’ve seen a migration to tech jobs, health care jobs in the cities. And then the cultural pieces — firearms start to get into that. You have long traditions that felt like they were being crushed.

We have got to figure out and see if we’re to some of the blame that we haven’t made the message clear enough. We haven’t delivered on those promises that people wanted to see.

The Affordable Care Act being one of those — it does a lot of great things, but people now have kind of forgotten that if we take away the A.C.A., you’re back to pre-existing conditions. And I don’t know if we built that into people’s thinking right now. So when Donald Trump says he’s going to get rid of the A.C.A., all right, that sounds good. I guarantee you those people at those rallies don’t want the A.C.A. to go away.

So I keep coming back to this: If they’re not voting for us, there’s not something wrong with them; there’s something that’s not quite clicking. So don’t assume they’re just not clever enough to understand what you’re selling them.

I do think that people don’t vote on policy as much as policy wonks would like to believe. That’s one thing. But the other thing is that we always think about whether or not voters like politicians. But my experience of voters is that they’re more sensitive to whether they think politicians like them. That’s a heuristic I think voters use a lot. Like, if you feel that a politician would like you, they’re probably going to look out for you. If you feel they would look past you, that they would look down on you, they’re probably not.

How do you explain Trump in that? You think they feel that he sees them?

I do. Look, I’m sure you have Trump voters in your family. I have Trump voters in my family.

I do.

And I think a lot about how unappealing he is to me and how appealing is to people I love.

Yeah, me, too. I spend a lot of time on that.

Well, what’s your theory of it?

I do think he’s entertaining to some. I think there is a sense, especially if you’re a little frustrated, that he’s not afraid to poke the bear. It feels like it’s empowering. And look, I think the world is complex. And if you don’t understand something, there’s a tendency that you might turn to the unexplainable, the conspiracy theories that caught on and things.

These aren’t stupid people. These are smart people. But there’s a frustration of: Why aren’t things working? Why are they so complex? So, I don’t know, I’m just theorizing on it.

But that district that I represented in 2016, I won that district six times. There’d been one other Democrat since 1890, but I won it in 2008 by 32 points. I sneak by in 2016. He wins by 17 points in that same district. They never see him. They knew me. I coached their kids. I was there. I delivered in Congress. I was a ranking member on the V.A. committee. Just six, eight years before, nearly 70 percent of them voted for me. I didn’t do any scandal or do anything to lose their support. But this guy came in and — even though I was of them or felt I was of them, that this was me, I was truly their representative — they identified with him. So I don’t know….

So I don’t know what it is. I think the Democrats’ way out of this is with optimism and a sense of grace toward folks. I want to be very careful. Like I said, those folks at those rallies, you insult them at great peril. Your neighbor is flying the flag, you insult them at great peril. Because they’re my relatives. They truly are, and I know them.

Read more (behind paywall)

Should We Abolish Prisons?

 

By Wade Lee Hudson

In his July 22, 2024, review of recent books advocating the abolition of prisons, Adam Gopnik argues that the “frequent brutality and ingrained indifference” seen in prisons calls us to “freely imagine alternatives,” but he differs from the abolitionists.

He strongly supports those such as Michelle Alexander who see American incarceration as “a mechanism that preserves racial hierarchy.” Incarceration in her now famous formulation acts as the new Jim Crow.” Black people in New York State, for instance, are fifteen percent of the overall population and almost fifty percent of the prison population.

However, Gopnik rejects the argument that mass incarceration is a product of capitalism, as Angela Davis argues in Are Prisons Obsolete? He points out:

There are, in any event, a great many free-market countries in the world, and very few are marked by overstuffed prisons. Mass incarceration remains a distinctively American problem. On the other hand, plenty of anti-capitalist societies have turned to mass incarceration.

Concerning the “more abstract argument, derived from Michel Foucault and often cited in the new polemics [that] holds that incarceration itself is a capitalist-Enlightenment legacy,” Gopnik concludes that “conceptual genealogy probably won’t dismantle the modern prison.”

According to Gopnik, Davis’s proposed alternative 

model of rehabilitation for prisoners caught in the drug wars is the Betty Ford Center, once known as a drying-out clinic for the rich and famous. Her point is rationally made—what is available to the rich ought to be available to the poor as well, and the model we accept when a President’s wife needs rehab should also be offered to an unemployed teenager. This would involve huge public costs, but the public costs of prisons are already formidable, and it is more expensive to lock a man up for thirty years than to send him to rehab for six months.

Danielle Sered’s Common Justice program promotes “restorative justice,” which “seeks to replace trials and prisons with family circles and compassionate understanding, bringing together those injured with those who injured them, in search of a rational bargain with respect to goods and emotions alike.”

Gopnik doubts that this approach will ever completely replace prisons. “Restorative justice may favor better-resourced offenders” who can compensate their victims financially. He argues, “The modern rule of law…aims to reserve retribution for the state, diminishing the crevasse between the people who can pay restitution and those who can’t.”

Nevertheless, restorative justice for the crimes of well-heeled white collar criminals who can compensate their victims seems “a far saner alternative” than incarceration. Nevertheless, criticizing the incarceration of these criminals is “unpopular among the same people who are inclined to be sympathetic” to incarcerated low-income people. They want to lock up the wealthy, but Gopnik insists 

we cannot pick among the people we would protect to accord with our own preferences.…. If the logic of decarceration is to be applied, it ought to be applied—and will have more power if applied—impersonally [even to convicted child molesters, as portrayed in the play, “Downstate.”]

More deeply, Gopnik questions “transforming prisoners into patients,” as Davis “in effect” proposes.  

Treating their actions as mere symptoms diminishes their humanity, their claim to moral agency. It also reminds us that, not that long ago, patients were being reimagined as prisoners. When the deinstitutionalization movement began, Ivan Illich was there to tell us of iatrogenesis, insisting that hospitals produced as much illness as they cured, while Thomas Szasz and R. D. Laing argued for the madness of thinking that madness was a special neurological condition, rather than an understandable response to the horrors of existence. Yet decades of deinstitutionalization have seen a rise in chronic homelessness and mass incarceration, neither of which benefits the intended beneficiaries.

Whether with prisons or psychiatric institutions, merely opening locked doors is no solution.

“Anxiety over social disorder is a fact of democratic political life that cannot be wished away, and it tends to erode the kind of political power that remains the one means toward reform,” Gopnik argues. Fundamental social reform requires unified people power, and discord about how to handle anti-social threats undermines unity.

From Gopnik’s perspective, alternatives would involve “a truly equitable society that invested properly in public health—that assured access to preventive care, community wellness programs, and outpatient management of complex conditions.”

These programs would keep many people out of hospitals and prisons, which would help society humanize these institutions. The rate of institutionalization can and ought to be reduced. Nevertheless, ”that does not mean that there are no humans in need of imprisonment. Evil exists.”

Gopnik concludes:

There is no plausible world without sanctions for violations of the social covenant. Public order can be, as the abolitionists warn, a form of class policing; it is also a necessity for civil peace. Finding the honest space between these two truths is the key to opening prison doors. If we are to plant human beings in places where they might blossom again, we need to build better gardens.

A world without incarceration would be wonderful, but this controversy illustrates the danger of abstract ideology and absolute declarations. Pushing a totalistic ideal can bring heat to an issue and help mobilize outsiders to apply pressure. Ultimately, however, insiders must design institutions that confine people who pose a persistent threat. 

Achieving this goal humanely is difficult, but Halden Prison in Norway illustrates one possibility. The bottom line is a compassionate commitment to avoiding revenge, retribution, and cruel punishment and maximizing self-determination.

August 1, 2024 Report

Now that I’ve modified the Compassionate Humanity Community (CHC) homepage and completed a good first draft of the Preface, Introduction, and opening essays for the seven chapters — Systemic, Social, Personal, Cultural, Economic, Environmental, Political — I’m reviving these more-or-less daily Wade’s Wire posts, the monthly Mutual Empowerment newsletter, and the more-or-less weekly From Wade listserv. I plan to send reports on my CHC work to these lists.

I’d greatly appreciate your feedback, input, and words of support.

If you unsubscribe, no problem, especially if you subscribe to more than one list. Most people get too many emails.

I also plan to post frequently to “Wade’s Public Journal,” on which you can comment by clicking the + icon (Ctrl+Alt+M).

And I plan to invite the some 50 celebrants of my 80th birthday an invitation to subscribe to a “Wade’s Friends” listserv to build on the energy generated at the party by enabling subscribers to share reports on their creative, political, and/or personal activities — and see reports from others. It seems party participants are engaged in many interesting pursuits. Myself, I plan to post to this list reports on my personal experiences, since I’ll be posting about my CHC work on the other lists. If you want me to subscribe you to this list, please let me know.

 Suspending Wade’s Wire

Dear Wade’s Wire Subscriber:

I appreciate your subscription and the occasional feedback some of you have offered. However, I’m suspending Wade’s Wire.  

Support for my efforts has been lukewarm, and participation has declined, which leads me to this step. I’m also suspending the weekly FromWade. , the monthly Mutual Empowerment newsletter, and all other outreach efforts for the Compassionate Humanity Community website

I’ll continue researching questions that puzzle me, write about my results (which will clarify my thinking), and put reports on these efforts on the website. To see changes to the site, you can visit What’s New

If and when readers post or email me comments, I’ll discuss them. I may also engage in one-on-one interviews or small group dialogues and post them. 

The site’s resources are a reference book for me. I use them to refresh my memory, draw on its content, and document my arguments. 

Still, I resign myself to my relative solitude. It seems the site, as conceived, will likely never attract substantial engagement in the near future. Most people are narrowly focused and/or self-centered, and no one wants to collaborate actively with me.

Since 1967, I’ve dedicated my life to integrating the personal and the political. More recently, with colleagues, we’ve co-convened several workshops exploring how personal growth practitioners and political activists might learn from each other and improve their efforts by incorporating others’ best practices. As James Baldwin said, “The messiness of the world is reflected in the messiness of our interior lives.” I’ve also experimented with many methods that could help with these efforts and written about successful experiments.

The Compassionate Humanity Community project has promoted the following:

  • Holistic reform.
  • A network of small teams that affirm the System as the primary problem.
  • Mutual support for self-improvement (especially unlearning the desire to dominate and the willingness to submit).
  • A powerful grassroots holistic reform movement similar to yet more powerful than the union, civil rights, and women’s movements. 

Many obstacles block progress on these goals. 

Baldwin declared, “I really do believe that we can all become better than we are. I know we can.  But the price is enormous, and people are not yet willing to pay it.” 

In “Desire, Dopamine, and the Internet,” L. M. Sacasas, editor of The Convivial Society, wrote:

Human beings will naturally seek distractions rather than confront their thoughts in moments of solitude and quiet because those thoughts will eventually lead them to consider unpleasant matters such as their mortality, the vanity of their endeavors, and the general frailty of the human condition. 

We are all of us kings now surrounded by devices [that] prevent us from thinking about ourselves.

Fear rules. 

I may be ahead of my time or living in the clouds. Regardless, I’m alone or largely alone. I resign myself to this reality and pause to reconsider my tactics.

Bob Dylan wrote, “I’d become my enemy in the instant that I preach.” But what does it mean to preach, and what is wrong with it?

To preach is to strongly advocate a firmly held belief or encourage a specific course of action with intense conviction. It involves one-way efforts to persuade, convert, and recruit. 

Certain situations, such as political campaigns, justify this approach. (However, even here, a less top-down approach that involves more listening and learning may be more effective.)

I fear I’ve been pretentious, grandiose, arrogant, and utopian — preaching and indulging in “the vanity of (my) endeavors.” I’m no polymath. I’m a “slow thinker.” My memory is limited. 

Now, I’ll try to be more humble. I’ll continue to try to learn more, share my discoveries, discuss them with anyone interested, and listen to and learn from others’ thoughts and feelings. I’ll continue to pursue Truth, Justice, Beauty, and Virtue. I’ll do more suggesting and less proposing

I’d like to inspire people to engage in deep self-examination and mutual support to reduce suffering and promote justice, but I don’t expect these efforts to achieve much in my lifetime. Maybe the website will be my legacy that others find valuable in after I die. 

Regardless, my efforts reward me intrinsically. 

Carry it on, 

Wade

Dopamine Culture Dialogue

From Wade: April 8, 2024

Reader’s Comments

Re: Hypocrisy
Eva Paterson:
3/31 – It’s also tragic and disheartening 

4/4 – Looks like Biden may be finally standing up to the right-wing folks in Israel

+++++

Re: [fromwade] Mutual Empowerment, April 2024

“Humans are torn between fear and anger on the one hand and trust and love on the other.”

Dan Brook:

It is easier to exploit fear and anger than to inspire trust and love. Authoritarian leaders, generals, advertisers, media, clergy, coaches, et al. know this well, whether they know about our negativity bias or not. Remember “if it bleeds, it leads”? If we miss the saber tooth tiger stalking us, we may lose our lives, but if we miss the juicy fruit tree, we’ll still survive that loss. Therefore, our evolutionary biology has taught us, perhaps even hardwired us, to react to fear more because it can be more practical on a basic existential level. Overcoming this negativity bias takes more energy and consciousness; it’s an uphill trek where we can hopefully get a better view, though probably with more sweat and sore feet.

+++++

Re: Editor’s Report – 3/18/24

Kathy Labriola:

Hi Wade,

I have read your most recent post to the list, but I am not clear how it is in any way a response to my email or my comments. And I think it would be a terrible mistake for Biden to step aside now from running for re-election, since an incumbent always has an edge over a new candidate, and there are no other candidates that would have the level of support he has among Democrats and the potential for undecided voters to vote for him rather than Trump.+++++

Re: Americans Pay a High Price for the GOP’s Fiscal Irresponsibility, by Dan Brook:

Republicans keep wasting our money on their ideological boondoggles that are typically unsuccessful and do nothing to help real people.

A Personal and Social Change Survey

Some time ago, I circulated “A Personal and Social Change Survey” and recently posted a report on the responses.  Nine individuals responded helpfully, which I appreciate. 

Overall, the respondents appreciated the values affirmed on the Compassionate Humanity Community website and supported the general drift of the corrective actions presented. Receiving this support is heartening. 

The responses to the open-ended questions were rich. You may want to read them closely and absorb the insights you find helpful. The report is here

FromWade