Letters from a Young Radical

This discussion is for me an intersection between three seemingly non-related events in my life:

1. Part of an epic discussion where a friend posited to me that one reason Socialism could never work because there are "bad" people in the world who are "just born bad" and aren't worth trying to help or change.
2. My own recent experience with anxiety and panic attacks and a therapist, mother and friends who explain how intensely our emotions and mentality can affect our body and vice versa.
3. The information I've gleaned from the Seeds of Compassion conference with discussions between the Dalai Lama and various professionals who emphasize the importance of a healthy emotional environment early in life.

Personally I'm fascinated, and in large part because of what this information (or the opposite of it) means for the future of humanity. As I suggested to my friend, if some people are "just born bad" (the Nature of "Nature vs Nurture") and not only are they not worth trying to help but unable to change, then there really is no hope for our species learning a better way to live, because there will always be some jerks who are simply born to screw it up for the rest of us. Similar arguments state that we are instinctively violent and competitive as a species. I used to feel as pessimistic, however my sociological studies have given me a great deal more hope.

If we are all largely products of our environment (the Nurture of "Nature vs Nurture") as I suspect, then if we can change the environment, we can change people, and change the world. The fun part of this I realized after reading the Why It Matters section of the Seeds of Compassion website (a highly intriguing read), is that science is telling us that how we turn out is not based on simply Nature OR Nurture, but truly the Nature OF Nurture. In other words, there are biological reasons why our environment affects us so greatly.

It's because of this perspective, for example, that I would hesitate to accuse any homeless person of being in their situation because they lack personal responsibility. I've been told that I'm probably too willing to assume that these people are all victims of the system rather than their own laziness, selfishness or stupidity. I would go a step further to say that I can't even find it in myself to blame a homeless drug addict or a homeless alcoholic for being in their situation. Because I believe that many factors could be responsible for creating someone who perhaps is more prone to addiction than most. Now this is not to say that I don't think personal responsibility is important, or that there aren't people out there who are unmotivated, or selfish, or ignorant. What I am saying is that there are factors in our lives that can affect our grasp of personal responsibility, and there are factors that lead to being unmotivated, selfish or ignorant that I wouldn't consider the "fault" of the individual.

One question I had was what really made up a "good" person or a "bad" person (I personally abhor those words myself, but couldn't explain what they really meant). The Seeds of Compassion website phrased it really well in discussing Social Emotional Development (SED), which is:

...a child’s capacity to identify, understand, experience, manage, and express a full range of positive and negative emotions in a productive way; regulate one’s own behavior such as being able to calm down; being able to accurately read another person’s emotions; develop empathy for others; develop and sustain close, satisfying relationships with other children and adults; and actively explore the environment and learn.

These are qualities which help form a person more capable of not stealing other kids' lunch money or say, murdering thousands of people. The theory goes, if we can find ways to help all children grow up in a nurturing environment where they can understand and develop their emotions, we can make the world a better, more compassionate place.

Studies show that "how a child feels affects how a child learns" (quote from one of the panelists). If certain capabilities are not stimulated early in life, the parts of the brain responsible shut down. From the Why It Matters section again:

...research has found that the critical brain connections that determine emotional, social and intellectual development are primarily formed by attentive care and nurturing stimulation. Parents and other caregivers strongly affect the wiring of the brain through interactions with their infant, toddler, or preschooler. Positive early relationships critically influence a child’s ability to achieve success in school and in life.

One example given at the afternoon panel yesterday described a study of an orphanage which provided very well for the orphans physically (a healthy diet, a warm place to sleep, etc) but lacked a perspective on emotional health. After teaching the staff how to have a more intimate bond with the children and an interest in their emotional and social development, the study went on for some months. What they found was that even though no factors were changed in the children's physical environment, they grew bigger and healthier physically.

Certainly in my own personal experience with anxiety, I've learned that negative thinking and negative emotions can have a big impact on you physically. Most of us can relate to the idea that if you're in a horrible mood, you don't do as well at your job and you really don't feel much like doing your homework.

Shifting gears a bit, I think one cultural factor that makes it hard for the Western world to grasp the concept of factors beyond personal responsibility is Individualism:

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists ... oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, socialism, fascism, communism, communalism, statism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism, which stress that communal, community, group, societal, or national goals should take priority over individual goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

I'm not sure about the whole history of Individualism, although I do know that it likely complimented the introduction of Capitalism pretty well (ie: "I can be as rich as I want, how I want, I earned it!"). I also know that American companies latched onto it as a marketing technique in the 60's to suck in the youth of the time who were rebelling against the conformism of the 50's. I don't think that individualism is bad per se, I just think rampant individualism without a sense of community responsibility or global consequence is incredibly dangerous and a big reason for our problems worldwide.

I think we need to encourage a greater interest in the social-emotional development of our children in schools, at home, in hospitals and centers of social work. I think we need to look at those who are suffering not with suspicion but with compassion and look for holistic ways to help rather than considering it "their problem". I think we need to be open to looking at every person's situation in life and ask how it happened, and be open to questioning the system which helped create their situation. I think we need to consider the possibility that we can create a better world by teaching our children positive values, by being willing to bring these studies into the home and make the personal political, see the personal problem a social problem.

If we only consider personal responsibility (or biological bad luck) as factors in human success, we may as well just give up. I find this perspective very dangerous, and it simply can't fit in my worldview if I'm looking to change the world for the better.