IF THIS, THAN THAT
I cannot help but think of Thicht Naht Han, when summarizing the reading “Collective Responsibility” by Hannah Arendt. The idea that we are all interconnected, and that there is no separateness amongst us, prevails in his Buddhist philosophy: that when you touch one thing, you are touching every thing and that whatever we do has an effect on others. It’s all about looking deeply, and taking personal responsibility. When Arendt claims, “no moral, individual, and personal standards of conduct will ever be able to excuse us from collective responsibility” (158), she is telling us that we are inextricably tied to one another, and whether we like it or not, we are a part of something much larger than just ourselves, as individuals. There is no ignoring what is ailing our world. Her message is saying to us that we cannot be ignorant, or silent, and that we must stand up because we have inherent responsibility for what is happening in the world: no excuses!
The immigrant families in my community, who are part of the Parent Services Project (PSP) understand how important this interconnectedness is, because they must rely on help from others in order to succeed. It’s a humbling process for an already humble people. When we don’t (or care to) understand the importance of integrating all members of our society, it’s synonymous with escaping our political and collective responsibility. Arendt likens it to “leaving the community,” and I see it as a form of abandonment or even neglect, or as Arendt says “collective non-responsibility” (150). If, for example, we are upset that the presence of more immigrant kids in our schools will bring the collective/overall scores down, by which schools are then rated and compensated for financially, we must look at what everyone’s responsibility is for contributing to that system, and not blame the children. One: we are choosing to tie financial rewards to scores rather than some other criteria, that could also be just as (if not more) relevant. What if schools were rated not just for academics, but also by how well they integrated and supported students from different socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds? Also, what if schools were rewarded for student growth and progress over time, despite the students’ starting point. The education system or structure that exists actually helps to contribute to the problem of bias. This is what Arendt means by taking collective responsibility. We cannot escape it or back off because of our politics, morals, ethics, or even ignorance. There is no excuse. There is always the other side of the coin to consider; both parts (or all parts) make the whole, so-to-speak.
In “Thinking and Moral Considerations” Arendt differentiates between “thinking and knowing” by distinguishing that thinking goes “beyond the limitations of knowledge” (163) and that man has a need to go past these limits toward what is unknown, as it is in our nature to thirst for knowledge. She demonstrates that “knowing” is final but that “thinking” involves doubt and questioning. Non-thinking (which represents rigidity) has its dangers, and Arendt’s concern lies in the act of “shielding people” or discouraging them from deeply examining life, or holding on to “the prescribed rules of conduct” in society (178). Clearly this is a problem, as we must challenge the doctrines and rules. One must be willing to question oneself, not just others.
In my partnership with PSP, if I were to hold fixed ideas about the families who attend and participate with their children, I would likely become too rigid in my interpretation of who they are, or their needs, or position in society or within my own community, in Marin County. Flexibility and a willingness to question outer perceptions, for example, is key. The idea Arendt talks about, in terms of seeing ourselves as ‘two-in-one” is very interesting; she is referring to the self and that part of us that perceives the self (consciousness). This points to the fact that our perceptions of a person or a thing are not so one dimensional, and that doing the right thing (considering this difference) not only is the right thing for others, but also for ourselves. The idea that we limit something by defining it, means that there is an inherent paradox in how we see things. Being flexible, and doubting and questioning ourselves is an act of critical thinking: a process we must be able to engage in.
