Monday, February 19, 2007
An observation while taking "diversity" training
Our company has a robust program of online compliance training, and in the main it is excellent. Every now and then, though, one stumbles across a statement or a question that reveals something about the mentality of the people who develop these things. In our "diversity" module there is this interesting idea:
Values allow us to differentiate right from wrong. They're formed early in life from the messages we receive from sources such as heroes, the media, religion, and others.
In my experience, heroes and the media are never a source of "values." Unless the definition of "heroes" is expanded to include any obscure individual that I happen to respect, I can safely say that I have not gotten any of my values from heroes, the media or religion. My values come primarily from my family, both nuclear and extended, secondarily from friends that I have come to admire and want to emulate, and tertiarily from book learning and reflection thereon. I can't think of a single moment when I have differentiated right from wrong based on something I learned from a hero, the media, or even my religion.
It is both interesting and frightening that the people who crafted this corporate training tool believe that values -- the rules we use to differentiate right from wrong -- derive principally from heroes, the media, and religion. If this is a widely held idea, it explains why social engineers of the left and right are so concerned about the "values" portrayed in the media and rush to condemn every "hero" who reveals his or her clay feet by committing some pecadillo. It also explains the popularity of Hillary Rodham Clinton's troubling idea that "it takes a village" to raise a child. In that regard, I have always identified much more closely with Bob Dole's response:
And after the virtual devastation of the American family, the rock upon which this country was founded, we are told that it takes a village, that is collective, and thus the state, to raise a child.
The state is now more involved than it ever has been in the raising of children. And children are now more neglected, more abused and more mistreated than they have been in our time.
This is not a coincidence. This is not a coincidence. And with all due respect, I am here to tell you it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child.
There it is. Do you believe that it is the purpose of the state to protect people from the shortcomings or depredations of their families, or do you believe that the family is the foundation of our civil society and therefore the principal defense against the intrusive power of the state? Isn't this the great division in American political life?
22 Comments:
By 
Andrewdb, at
Mon Feb 19, 01:04:00 PM:
That you are an Episcopalian (so am I) may explain why religion is not a major source of values in your life.
"What Would Jesus Do" seems to be important to a lot of people, however.
By 
, at
Mon Feb 19, 01:42:00 PM:
Speaking from personal experience, the best values by far are at Wal-Mart. That's why liberal elitists like Sen. Clinton know so little about values, they wouldn't be caught dead there.
Seriously, heroes can be a source of sound values and inspiration in the same way your admired friends are. The rub there is that far too many of today's "heroes" are fraudulent, self-centered losers. If that sounds like the statement of a cranky old fart, it's because it is.
By Angevin13, at
Mon Feb 19, 02:09:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Angevin13, at
Mon Feb 19, 02:12:00 PM:
Heroes were a source of values in your upbringing - just not the "heroes" the media continuously expose us to. Your family and friends were the real heros. Anyone who looks to celebrity "heroes" for values A) unfortunately does not have a strong family structure, and B) will always be disappointed. It's not that these "heroes" are "frauduent, self-centered losers," it's just that unattainable expectations are placed upon them.
The family is the indispensible bedrock of civil society and exists to protect us against the intrusion of the state.
It sounds crude, but anyone who advocates that "it takes a village" is simply dressing up their socialist ideology...
By Escort81, at
Mon Feb 19, 02:23:00 PM:
"Do you believe that it is the purpose of the state to protect people from the shortcomings or depredations of their families, or do you believe that the family is the foundation of our civil society and therefore the principal defense against the intrusive power of the state?"
To some extent, this is a false dichotomy. Even the most conservative among us would agree that the state has some interest in a child that is being mistreated at home, and should have the ability to intervene on behalf of the child. A seven year old boy who is being beaten repeatedly and not fed should be removed from the residence -- any other solution would simply not pass the common sense test. A three year old child suffering a 105 degree fever from an infection easily treatable with antibiotics, but not treated because his parents are Christian Scientists likewise should be taken and treated, although no doubt some arguments can be made against this course of action with a basis in First Amendment law. Admittedly, these are extreme examples, but they illustrate the point that the state does have an interest in the welfare of a child -- the question is, to what extent, and is it (or should it) only a protective role?
While I am not a huge fan of HRC, I don't think she is all that collectivist personally on the matter of children -- Chelsea did not attend public school in D.C., and one reason HRC was involved with commodities trading (in an unusually successful way for a novice) was so that she could provide for Chelsea's college fund (since Bill's salary as governor was low, although the perks were evidently pretty good). That she would write a book to appeal to her future base is simply another illustration of her calculating nature and her ability to think a few chess moves ahead.
Can we say that it takes a strong family that is part of a good community to raise a child?
How do you protect your children from the effects of bad parenting in your community (and it exists everywhere) outside of your household? What are the causes/types of bad parenting outside of your household (self indulgence, insufficient time input, prejudice, substance abuse, dishonesty, insufficient discipline, too much discipline, not enough love)? To what extent do we want the state to address any of these causes? Perhaps not at all, except with respect to substance abuse.
Finally, great people can come out of families that have less than ideal parenting. Winston Churchill comes to mind, and, from a less historical and more personal standpoint, I am always amazed at people in my peer group who are solid citizens but have parents who are whack jobs.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Feb 19, 02:27:00 PM:
I think my values came from what I read, though I don't think that books topped family in that. I certainly also got some of my values from religion. But as books, family, and religion had strong overlap, it would be hard to separate out the threads.
By allen, at
Mon Feb 19, 02:32:00 PM:
While O/T (Although it does seem to go straight to the heart of values, doesn’t it?) and non-agenda driven, has anyone here seen this covered by any of the major conservative and/or milbloggers?
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
***
By , at
Mon Feb 19, 02:41:00 PM:
HRC is a feminist. Feminists want the destruction of the nuclear family (the Patriarchy) in favor of "free flowing " structures where other people raise the elite's children while the beautiful people have "short, passionate, intense affairs" etc.
That HRC did not practice what she preaches could be either pandering to non-feminists (still a majority) or hypocrisy or perhaps an inability to come out of the closet politically. If you believe Dick Morris.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Mon Feb 19, 02:44:00 PM:
Tigerhawk,
"or do you believe that the family is the foundation of our civil society and therefore the principal defense against the intrusive power of the state?"
Yes. As Russell Kirk said, the family is the institution most necessary to preserve.
AVI,
My experience is very similar to yours in that "books, family, and religion had strong overlap, it would be hard to separate out the threads."
By Miss Ladybug, at
Mon Feb 19, 03:15:00 PM:
I believe the family is the foundation of our society. It is under attack from many quarters. Since the development of the welfare state, many have come to depend upon government to take care of everything, which government is incapable of doing. If we have strong, supportive families in a strong, supportive community, children in bad situations are often noticed and the community around that child will step forward to correct things, initially, at least, without government involvement. However, many communities aren't strong, so those children are falling through the cracks. How many people truly know anything about their neighbors, and engage with them socially? I know I am guilty of not knowing my neighbors, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Feb 19, 03:21:00 PM:
I grew up rural some miles from the nearest "town". It always seemed to me that the townies were the ones always getting into trouble with drugs, alcohol, vandalism, and other wild behaviors that could result in a premature exist from life.
The wildest among them now have baseball fields and such named in their memory and get spoken of in the past tense at high school reunions.
By the jackal, at
Mon Feb 19, 04:30:00 PM:
It seems like you're reading too much into this. When I read books as a kid, there were often characters who I wanted to emulate. Certainly, my family and friends had the biggest effect on what I'd become as a person, but you can't rule out the reinforcement that comes from the Bible, stories of Medal of Honor winners (I had a great book of them), or even characters in the Lord of the Rings.
By , at
Mon Feb 19, 04:40:00 PM:
That's an excellent quote from Bob Dole. I had never read it before.
It made me think of the stories of NJ's departement responsible for wards getting sued because the wards were abused. It was a very sad example of money not solving problems.
By Cobb, at
Mon Feb 19, 05:22:00 PM:
Think about it this way. The purpose of diversity training is to dismantle, or severely cripple white male patriarchy which has made quite enough stupid mistakes to disgrace itself.
The presumption of people who 'are not America' is that this dysfunctional patriarchy has had many generations to straighten itself out and has not. It must therefore be premised on a singular set of false values. There is no other reasonable explanation for x hundred years of non-white males being on the outs. In otherwords, for whatever and presumeably inefficient if not evil reasons, the leadership class of America has tolerated white male mediocrity at the express cost of the rest. And you really didn't get it until people like Rosa Parks slapped you in the face.
So why do we need values that come from folks other than all the things white males have put out there? Because.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Feb 19, 06:26:00 PM:
The purpose of those training sessions is to indoctrinate people in corporate mentality. They don't give those jobs to hippies in birkenstocks, they give them to anal retentive types who focus on 24-7 CYA.
I'm sure there is a perfectly rational reason it is written the way it is, and it probably has something to do with not being sued.
By Escort81, at
Mon Feb 19, 10:54:00 PM:
Mrs. Davis -
I purposely chose extreme examples thinking that there would be complete consensus, but I thank you for proving me wrong.
I would respectfully disagree with you when you write that "The child being mistreated is not more deserving of state intervention than the adult being similarly mistreated," in the sense that the child relies on the parents to support him until such time as he is able to do so on his own, and that the child (but not the adult in your example, presumably) lacks capacity (legally and literally) to enter into any other sort of living arrangement. Furthermore, with respect to the religious example, the child hasn't yet had the opportunity to choose a religion for himself (a fundamental expression of liberty under the First Amendment), so why should he die before he has the chance to enjoy his liberty because his parents wish to live in the 19th century?
Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but when I say "the state," I mean (at least in the U.S.) you and I and everyone reading this blog in the U.S. -- we elect representatives that hopefully express our will. It is up to us to decide whether we have laws on the books that protect that sick or abused child from his parents, or whether that child is to be sacrificed so that the parents' liberty to do whatever they want with the child is not in any way infringed upon. My feeling, and I think the feeling of a vast majority of Americans across party lines, is that the child should be protected in these extreme cases, and to hell with the parents. I believe even Ayn Rand might agree with me on this one.
By , at
Mon Feb 19, 11:37:00 PM:
I'll happily tell you about the "village" that it takes to raise my children: Their mother (me) & father, visits with grandparents, cousins, aunts & uncles, playing with neighbor children and school classmates, watchful eyes of other neighbors who help to keep our neighborhood safe, school teachers, pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, the great school bus driver who greets my son every morning and drops him off to me with a smile every afternoon, the mailman (letter carrier?) who also greets my children by name (and carries a pocket full of treats for neighborhood dogs), the list goes on and on. We are a social species and we rely on each other to create healthy, functioning environments for our children to grow up in.
Would you be more comfortable with the idea that "no man is an island"? Same diff.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Feb 19, 11:44:00 PM:
Tiger, the diversity statement was not entirely off the mark. We do tend to shape our decisions according to our heroes. Someone who’s heroes include Superman, Green Lantern, Perry Rhodan and a number of early Robert Heinlein protagonists (me) will tend to make different values decisions than somebody who likes Batman, Wolverine, and Mike Hammer. And yes, while making a decision, I have uttered those famous words “What would Superman do?”
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Feb 20, 05:02:00 AM:
We are a social species and we rely on each other to create healthy, functioning environments for our children to grow up in.
One wonders how the pioneers ever made it with all that stuff being mandatory to raise a child.
By Pudentilla, at
Tue Feb 20, 09:59:00 AM:
Unless the definition of "heroes" is expanded to include any obscure individual that I happen to respect, I can safely say that I have not gotten any of my values from heroes, the media or religion.
perhaps you exaggerate? the narratives generated by popular and elite culture (media and religion) and the heroes that inhabit them are, at least in the western tradition, a very important (thought not the only) means by which societies encode their system of values and transfer them over generations. since the values themselves are often in conflict and their relative priorities often contested, the method is inherently reflexive - thus allowing for both continuity and innovation over time. You might wish to consider the scholarship of Arthur Adkins and Walter Ong on this topic.
i would argue that rather than be untouched by these systems of transmitting values, you have imbibed strongly from and thereby subscribe fervently to the narratives that prioritize individual autonomy over social identity (most americans do). such subscriptions, perforce, blind us to the power of narratives that value social cooperation. we are, therefore, perfectly capable of believing that we have arrived at our system of values much like Athena sprang from Zeus's head.
ironically, your musings on the response of the movie industry to the war on terror is premised on the relationship between social narratives, their heroes and social values. actually, for kicks, you should type the word "movie" into the search blogger portion of this blog and reread all the thoughtful reflection you've offered on the narratives of our popular culture.
it would be my guess that having been made to sit through a training session made mandatory by either the government, the corporate law department or the insurers, your admirable values of individualism and autonomy were aggrieved and that your completely understandable sense of frustration and irritation prompted a rather exaggerated response.
By BigMan, at
Wed Feb 21, 06:27:00 PM:
It really sounds like the diversity module really needs some honing. Diversity training should be more about just respecting others, regardless of what their values are or where they come from. While I can see how they would include information this information in the diversity training, I don’t think that it is as important as just respecting the people from diverse backgrounds that we work with.
Juan Rodriguez
Editor, DiversityJobs.com
By , at
Thu Feb 22, 02:57:00 PM:
Purple Avenger -- It's not mandatory now. But for those of us who choose to raise our children as part of communities, it's an enjoyable aspect of living close to other human beings and sharing a life in community with them.
It distresses me that this sort of Norman Rockwell ideal is being called "socialist" here. I think that's an extreme reaction to a pretty uncontroversial statement about raising children within a normal social framework -- particularly where the extended family has been so fragmented by "job mobility," etc.
TH -- are you confusing heroes with celebrities? I think the heroes that I learned about as a child did affect my values: Ghandi, Rosa Parks, MLK Jr., "the Good Samaritan," Anne Frank, whomever. Generally the story was that some ordinary "injustice" had occurred to these people (think, Ghandi on the train, Ms. Parks on the bus) and that they had responded to the injustice with righteousness and courage at some personal peril but in support of a larger ideal.
Perhaps the two go hand in hand: If you can't imagine acting out of anything but short-term self-interest, why "do the right thing" and why help out your neighbor (or look after the longer term interest of your neighborhood's children)?
