Citizen Sector

Hope can be beautiful and painful. Listening to Dr. Elie Wiesel lecture, "Building a moral society: The Urgency of Hope," I remembered once again my polar reactions regarding the ideals of social reform. The Nobel Laureate, author, and professor addressed the questions, "what is a moral society and how is it built?" Endorphins surge my heart at the hopes of a moral society, but then heaviness sets in as I remember the challenges posed by such an ideal.

First, Wiesel established the antithesis: what is an immoral society? Namely it is one based on the principle that some people are superior to others. Whether we think of the Holocaust, Jim-Crow era laws, Rwandan Genocide, modern Sudan, or really any conflict, superiority and inferiority are generally the basis. Perhaps we fancy ourselves beyond feeling superior based on ethnicity, but how about based on orientation, gender, age, economic status, technological savvy, educational level, proper dress, or etiquette? While we claim to have moved beyond ethnocentrism, I wonder if we have moved beyond egocentrism…and I doubt it.

Additionally, an immoral society regards humans as abstractions rather than creations. As Stalin quipped, "a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Rampant anti-Semitism leading up to the Holocaust encouraged perceiving Jews as inhuman. Thinking of humans as a number is just one step in removing humanity from the individual (think of assigning prison numbers). Does numberation end there or carry over into every accounting process available? Do business models support the idea of the individual or are we simply part of a number?

Language becomes perverted as well in immoral societies, instead of being a method of communication, it becomes a barrier. For instance, the infamous "parsley" test under Trujillo's regime in the Dominican Republic went as far as killing based on accents. Though we reckon ourselves beyond such elementary discrimination, the English first mindset creates a barrier out of language rather than an opportunity. Beyond spoken words, has the proliferation of "communication" devices truly promoted interaction, or simply facilitated the transfer of information? Do we relate to others in greater quantities and qualities now that we have multiple email addresses and blogs, and are plugged into various i-things?

Furthermore, Wiesel fears violence becoming a form of expression and communication. Have revenge killings, classroom violence, and even simple road rage taken the place of verbal expression? Perhaps that is a stretch, but when violence takes place, it is often not a stretch to ask what message the act was meant to send. Again, we may feel that we do not slip to such primitive behavior. That most of these behaviors are foreign to us, and we know better; that we are somehow superior to people who have such depraved simplistic thinking… hold on, did I just write paragraph 2? Clearly, I have much to consider too.

So what is a moral society? To keep us grounded in reality, Wiesel acknowledges that a moral society must constantly be rebuilt and is imperfect, yet it would like to become moral. Of course, no superiority or inferiority can exist. We love the idea of equality: it is beautiful, but have we taken the time to consider the ramifications in our own lives? Perhaps Wiesel's most practical point involves individuals accepting a common ground of morality. If a group of people agrees on a set of laws or standards and refuses to place themselves above or outside of that law, we have a good start.

Finally, what is anger's place in a moral society? Simply put, by Feeling Good author David Burns, does our anger lead to a useful end? Does our moral outrage at crime, discrimination, immorality lead to useful action or to depression and defeatism? Rather, as Wiesel expresses, can violence become a bridge, not a stone to smash into another's face? Anger can be so useful: it drives us from our indifference.

As I tell my students, the final paragraph of a paper, must include the "so what, now what?". Wiesel, especially during the subsequent question and answer session admitted that he did not have the solution to many of the world's problems, but "whatever the solution is, it must include education… an educated person cannot do certain things." As he so often writes and expresses, the world must remember the past, so that it can avoid it. While many readers will feel left out of this solution, since they are not school teachers, anyone who is a parent ought to be the most important teacher. Disregard the notion of teacher-pupil being in a classroom setting, rather a daily work setting; not an all knowing older adult transferring knowledge to a pupil; rather approach education as the daily exchange of ideas.

Lastly perhaps the most relevant idea to this forum is Wiesel's address of the need and challenge of converting information to knowledge, to sensitivity, to commitment. Those who work in information constantly attempt to find new ways to display, transfer, communicate, analyze it but perhaps we can ask, "what is the end of my data manipulation? What is its moral dimension?" If we can even begin to think of the moral dynamic to our work and interactions, we may begin to take small, revolutionary steps in the right direction.

“We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms." –Dr. Elie Wiesel