We can indulge in wishful thinking, but until we develop a “hardy mindset,” we will be stuck in a rut and not demonstrate the dynamism demanded by the universe.
“The solution to a problem depends to a great extent on one’s awareness of the problem and his attitude towards it. The worse possible attitude is not to be aware of the issue at all.
“Some individuals see the problem, but it is too frightening. Hence, they are afraid to decide and initiate change because it is painful and difficult. That is the attitude of timidity.
“Others try to escape from the real problems. They skirt confrontation with the real issue in their lives and raise pseudo-problems as camouflage.
“Finally, a typical attitude is rationalization. People who know they are doing wrong but do not want to change easily find excuses.
“In the age of ‘passing the buck,’ another excuse for shirking personal responsibility is the ‘Filipinism,’ ‘I am not the one.’
“All these attitudes of mind are wrong, and without the proper attitude, there can be no solution to the problem. Filipinos will make no progress toward a Christian solution until they realize that the problem is serious and urgent.” [Christian Renewal of Filipino Values, Vitaliano R. Gorospe; Philippine Studies vol. 14, no. 2, 1966; Ateneo de Manila University]
Many years ago, the writer’s small family went on a road trip to Lancaster in Pennsylvania over the Christmas holiday. It’s home to the Amish and next door to The Hershey Company, the chocolate and cocoa products company. The daughter was still in grade school. Why not see where they make chocolates.
How does the dynamism of Juan de la Cruz – or the absence of it – get into the picture?
Consider: “The Amish are a group of traditionalist Christian church fellowships with Swiss German and Alsatian Anabaptist origins.
“The Amish are known for simple living, plain dress, Christian pacifism, and are slower to adopt many conveniences of modern technology, not to interrupt family time, nor to replace face-to-face conversations whenever possible.
“The Amish church’s history began with a schism in Switzerland within a Swiss and Alsatian Mennonite Anabaptists group.
“In the early 18th century, many Amish and Mennonites immigrated to Pennsylvania for various reasons.
“Today, they continue to speak Pennsylvania German, also known as ‘Pennsylvania Dutch.’
“Over 165,000 Old Order Amish lived in the United States, and about 1,500 lived in Canada. A study suggested they increased to 227,000, and in 2010, had grown by 10 percent to 249,000, with increasing movement to the West.
"Most of the Amish continue to have six or seven children while benefiting from the significant decrease in infant and maternal mortality in the 20th century. Between 1992 and 2017, the Amish population increased by 149 percent.
“Amish church membership begins with baptism, usually between the ages of 16 and 23. It is a requirement for marriage within the Amish church. Once baptized within the church, a person may marry only within the faith.
“Church districts have between 20 and 40 families, and worship services are held every other Sunday in a member’s home. The community is under a bishop and several ministers and deacons.
“The rules of the church, the Ordnung, must be observed by members and cover many aspects of day-to-day living, including prohibitions or limitations on the use of power-line electricity, telephones, and automobiles, as well as regulations on clothing.
“Most Amish do not buy commercial insurance or participate in Social Security. As present-day Anabaptists, Amish church members practice nonresistance and will not perform any military service. The Amish value rural life, manual labor, and humility, all under the auspices of living what they interpret to be God’s word.
“Members who do not conform to these community expectations and who cannot be convinced to repent are excommunicated.
“In addition to ex-communication, members must limit social contacts to shame the wayward member into returning to the church. Almost 90 percent of Amish teenagers choose to be baptized and join the church.
“Amish church groups seek to maintain a degree of separation from the non-Amish world. They call Non-Amish people ‘English.’ Generally, there is a heavy emphasis on church and family relationships.
“The Amish typically operate their one-room schools and discontinue formal education after grade eight, at age 13 or 14. Until the children turn 16, they have vocational training under their parents, community, and school teacher’s tutelage.
“Higher education is generally discouraged, as it can lead to social segregation and the unraveling of the community. However, some Amish women have used higher education to obtain a nursing certificate so that they may provide midwifery services to the community.” [Wikipedia]
But let’s get back to George, Fr. George Gorospe.
“No human formulation of reality, no philosophical explanation of human experience can say: ‘I have grasped the whole of ‘reality’ and crystallized it in an expression or system that exhausts all its meaning. Reality is too rich and is continuously changing; it can’t fall under a set of categories.
“Hence, there is need today of a more dynamic and more existential philosophy inspired by the Neo-Thomist revival of the authentic thought of St. Thomas, i.e., it is not a ‘closed system’ but remains ‘open’ to the valid insights of other philosophies. For example, to the contribution of contemporary phenomenology and existentialism.
“A shift in emphasis from the traditional systemic courses in philosophy now obtaining in the Catholic College is much to be desired. For example, they can include the history of Indian and Chinese philosophy and intersubjectivity’s contemporary philosophy.
“If philosophy is to become relevant and meaningful to the average Filipino College student of today, a re-examination of the philosophy curricula in the Catholic College is imperative.”
The Amish have their expression of reality. And we Pinoys have ours. We are not as traditionalist as the Amish, but what about when compared with the Vietnamese?
Consider: “Vietnam's economy will continue to soar, and the Philippines will be hard-pressed to catch up unless it embraces industrialization. Not to do so will cause us to be left further behind in the development race.
“Since Marcos’ ouster, we have failed to industrialize the nation fully. Let’s hope that the next administration has the vision and political will to do so.” [Where did the Philippines go wrong? What did Vietnam do right (?), Andrew J. Masigan, Numbers Don’t Lie, BusinessWorld, 8th Nov 2020]
Here’s how Investopedia defines industrialization: how an economy transforms from primarily agricultural to one based on the manufacturing of goods. Mechanized mass production and assembly lines can replace individual manual labor and artisans. Characteristics of industrialization include economic growth, a more efficient division of “labor,” and technological innovation to solve problems instead of dependency on conditions outside human control.
The Amish won’t fit the above definition. What about Juan de la Cruz?
Industrialization does not depend on conditions outside our control, but transformation.
Let’s hold it right there.
Recall the 3 Cs of a “hardy mindset” that the blog discussed a few times. And note the opposite of “hardy” is “feeble.” And they are: (1) Commitment; (2) Challenge; (3) Control. [Robert Brooks, Harvard University, faculty of Harvard Medical School; served as Director of the Department of Psychology at McLean Hospital, a private psychiatric hospital.]
“Commitment.” To be involved with others and experience a sense of purpose and meaning; how ordinary people can do extraordinary things. “Challenge.” To appreciate that change rather than stability is the norm; view new or difficult situations as opportunities for learning; the importance of thinking outside the box. “Control.” Focus on cases where we influence, not where we have little if any control; you have control only over yourself; you must be the one to change. Develop a problem-solving attitude; why are you unable to succeed in your efforts?
In other words, Juan de la Cruz has no control over the wealthy countries that call the shots in how people and nations relate. Take the US. It is a superpower, and despite Trump and its polarized electorates, it leads the rest of the free world.
It has its faults and cannot be the epitome of righteousness. Perfection is not of this world. But that is why the writer doesn’t participate in the US elections – as the blog discussed recently. And it is not unusual. In this 2020 presidential election, America saw a 50-year high when 62 percent of eligible voters participated. But that is paltry compared to the rest of the democratic world.
Still, why did our neighbors get the best of all worlds to traverse poverty to prosperity and left us behind? The blog discusses “benchmarking” all the time. Why can’t we take what’s best for us?
Consider: “Capitalism” has contributed to significant gains in economic growth and prosperity throughout its history.
“Benefits of the US model have not only accrued to the American economy and people but have spread around the world, through competition, trade, investment, and the proliferation of globally relevant innovations in areas like technology, medicine, and financial and capital markets, as well as in managerial and business model innovations.
“Rapid economic growth in emerging economies during the past 30 years has lifted a billion people out of poverty. This growth in prosperity is in large part due to the effects of trade and participation in a global economy in which the American model and its related institutions and ecosystems have played a central role.” [Rethinking the future of American capitalism; James Manyika, Gary Pinkus, and Monique Tuin; McKinsey Global Institute, 12th Nov 2020]
Recall what the blog calls the instincts of Juan de la Cruz: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism that we rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
In other words, we can’t seem to benefit from the interdependence of nations, aka the common good. Because the community and the common good are outside our instincts. Why?
We recognize the imperfections of others but not ours. And credit that to our parochialism and insularity. And that explains why interdependence is Greek to us. Interdependence is dispensable only if humankind is perfect.
Consider the challenges capitalism faces, and they come from its imperfection. But that is to be expected given the dynamism of this universe.
Humankind has needs. But beyond these needs is the common good. And it is not offered on a silver platter. There is no free lunch.
And that is why the blog has raised the parallels between Christianity and democracy – expressed by the free market’s characteristics.
Democracy presupposes personal responsibility that translates to self-government – and demands the pursuit of the common good. Christianity defines that via the Two Great Commandments, which in popular culture is the Golden Rule.
Sadly, humankind tried different ways to interpret what they mean – and fell into the trap of tribalism, anathema to the common good. [See above, “reality” is too rich and is continuously changing.]
Everyone recognizes their needs, as in human necessities. But humankind isn’t isolated islands. It acknowledges the common good. That’s why we Filipinos know, “Bayanihan.”
But beyond the common good comes the demands of this universe and thus the imperative of innovation.
Consider these three elements: (1) Human Needs; (2) The Common Good; (3) Innovation.
Recall the blog speaks to a bit of Franciscan theology that it espouses the cycle of (1) Order, (2) Disorder, (3) Reorder.
And in the Western hemisphere, there are four seasons. And they represent how nature goes through the said cycle.
Even in the tropics, we don’t have 365 days of glorious days. We just had two deadly typhoons in the Philippines.
The Franciscans also preach against dualism – either/or. That is why they see the nuances between the new and the old testaments. From a judgmental creator, they moved up to the kind and merciful Christ. And they give prominence to “public virtue” – not caught up in personal purity.
That is why they call Christ radical – neither conservative nor progressive, i.e., he kept company with sinners, including prostitutes. Think of the penitent-saint, Mary Magdalene.
And they go back to the story of creation and why St. Francis cared for creatures like animals and the environment. Or why early humankind worshipped the Sun-God.
Still, Franciscan theology represents the minority and why most Catholics still shudder with the actions of Pope Francis. Or why there is a big following for Pope Benedict, a traditionalist.
Social science says human development goes beyond dualism to relativism. Unsurprisingly, the 21st century confirms that beyond “human needs” and the common good is “innovation” because that is what this universe demands.
How does the Philippines overcome the typhoon season that is getting worse each year?
Innovation. Innovation. Innovation.
And it starts with revisiting our instincts so that we traverse poverty to prosperity and gain the wherewithal to deal with our countless challenges.
Or how does America keep the lead over China as an economy?
Consider: The US still leads in innovation despite China’s advances in specific technologies. The US remains the biggest recipient of investments from around the world. But the local economy of China is ahead in consumption because of sheer size.
That is why the blog referenced the book, One Billion Americans.
But that is where the issue of progressives versus conservatives falls flat on its face. It lacks the critical element of forward-thinking. For example, today’s US does not have the infrastructure and services home to a billion people. But China, for the longest time, did not.
That is why the blog often talks about Singapore and, more recently, Vietnam.
Or why the writer continues to hold the hands of his Eastern European friends. They continue to demonstrate dynamism and are well on their way to become an even stronger player in their part of the world to the detriment of more significant Western enterprises.
Let’s get back to the McKinsey treatise on rethinking the future of American capitalism. In the above-referenced article, they raised the challenge for the nation:
“The crisis [from inequality to climate change to the pandemic] provided a glimpse into the challenge that liberal market systems, like America’s, can face in addressing large-scale and coordinated interventions in response to external shocks.
“Where – and how – can American capitalism reinforce and broaden its strengths to fully benefit the growth and prosperity of all in the United States, and others beyond it, to fully capture the promise and evolving opportunities and possibilities of the 21st century?”
The bottom line: Juan de la Cruz is not the only one challenged. And he must learn from others and want to develop dynamism. And that is why the blog has repeatedly discussed the 3 Cs of the “hardy mindset.” There is no free lunch. Even big brother America has to paddle his own canoe.
Gising bayan!
No comments:
Post a Comment