Why does “bluish” mean a little blue, but “selfish” doesn’t mean a little self-focused? In common usage, “selfish” is something you either are or aren’t.
I bring this up because we could use a word that means a little selfish. There are degrees of selfishness, not just based on intensity of self-regard, but also on kinds or size of selves. In terms of time, there’s your self today, your self this year, your self this lifetime, even perhaps your self in terms of the very long picture—your ancestors and your children. And there are degrees of social self, too—our you-and-who-else selves. In terms of family, there’s you, your romantic partnership, your family, your extended family. Socially, there’s you, your local friends, your Facebook network. Vocationally, there’s you, your department, division, corporation, and industry. Politically, there’s you, your party, your country, the world.
It’s not as though there are just two levels: forest vs. trees—thinking of yourself vs. thinking of others. There are many levels based on lots of dimensions, and plenty of them affording us opportunities to be self-ish. One can be selfish on behalf of a larger community. Ignoring this, we often mistake selfishness for selflessness.
For example, we assume that team players aren’t selfish—as the saying goes, there’s no “I” in team. But actually, there’s plenty of “I” in team. We can be intensely selfish on behalf of our team.
There are plenty of names for the dark selfish side of being a team player. We can be cliquish, jingoistic, exclusionary, elitist, or partisan. But we rarely notice that the dark and light sides of teamishness are two sides of the same coin. Team player: good; cliquish: bad.
How, then, can you tell when someone has entered the dark, selfish side of team playing? Not by the sanctimonious sound of selflessness, since we often feel proud of our selfless generosity to the team when we’re being selfish to outsiders. It’s as if we say to outsiders, “I deserve more than you, but if you think that means I’m selfish, you’re wrong. See, I think my fellow team members deserve more than you, too.”
Paradoxically, one of the best indicators that someone has entered the dark side of team playing is proud self-proclaimed selflessness in sustaining just such a double standard. Let’s take a current example.
A minority of fringe plutocrats and religious fundamentalists who have taken over the lead in the Republican party today are skating closer to totalitarian talk than any mainstream U.S. candidates in decades. True to the totalitarian tradition, they’re insisting that they’re acting selflessly to protect us all against the immoral behavior of their opponents both within and outside the United States. All totalitarians talk like that.
And all totalitarians either can’t or won’t assess their own behavior by the same standards as they weigh their opponents’ behavior. The same exact behavior when they do it is fine, justified, and appropriate. When their opponents do it, it’s an unambiguous sign of their depravity.
In other words, they hold two standards—one for their team, another for non-team members—and are proud of it. Indeed, they justify their pride as selflessness in the service of the home team and the greater good even though they are in the minority and opposed by the majority. It’s as though they say: “My double standard is a sign of my selflessness. I’m generous because I think both me and my fellow teammate deserve more than outsiders.”
Whether you agree with that example or not, it’s worth paying a little more attention to the dark side of being a team player. We can be collectively selfish, leaving the world at large bluish.
Originally published on Mind Readers Dictionary.
-
Below is a message from Philip Hefner from Chicago in response to Edward Davis, who reviewed James Gilbert's book REDEEMING CULTURE (University of Chicago Press, 1997) in Meta 158 last week. Hefner argues that Davis has misrepresented Gilbert's book with regard to chapter twelve in particular and to the legacy of Ralph Burhoe, IRAS, and Zygon.
Hefner notes in closing that there were two article length reviews of Gilbert's book in the March 1998 issue of ZYGON. For those of you who do not already know, ZYGON can now be accessed online at <http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/Static/online.htm>. The only caveat here is that online access is restricted to the Internet domains of college and university, whose libraries subscribe to ZYGON. So for instance, I can access ZYGON online when logged on through my <@temple.edu> server, but not through my <@voicenet.com> server.
-- Billy Grassie
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: [email protected] (philip hefner) Subject: Davis's review of REDEEMING CULTURE
I feel compelled to comment on Professor Davis's review of James Gilbert's book, REDEEMING CULTURE. I was disappointed by the review and the ways in which I think it does not do justice to Gilbert's book. I will deal only with Davis's brief comments on the work of Ralph Burhoe and Zygon, which occupy chapter twelve of the book.
First of all, Davis neglects to point out that the sentence he quotes at the end of his review is about Zygon, not about IRAS or Shapley or Burhoe. Gilbert asserts that while Burhoe and Shapley did not achieve their lofty goals and although their vision was at point flawed, their movement was significant, worthwhile, and not without effect. In the very next sentence after Davis's quote, Gilbert writes, Yet IRAS and Zygon maintained the conversation between liberal theologians and an important wing of the scientific community. They staked out space for the claims of religion for relevance in a scientific society and provided a way for religion and science to engage each other as equal partners in an age when the pressures to choose one side or the other were growing rapidly. But a meeting of science and religion, like the ever-receding goal of religious ecumenism, evaded Burhoe and Shapley even as they succeeded in making small conquests and conversions (page 295).
More provocatively, let me say that Gilbert uses the term pantheism to refer only to Shapley's personal religious perspective, and never uses it, as Davis asserts, to refer to Burhoe, IRAS, or Zygon. Anyone with first-hand knowledge understands very well that they do not represent a pantheistic position. Only by manipulating his quotes does Davis bring Zygon and IRAS into relation with pantheism.
I would note the seriousness with which Gilbert discusses the effort of Burhoe, Shapley, and their colleagues in both mainstream science and mainstream religion, to offer a rational version of Christian faith that could coexist with science on an equal basis. Davis's commitments to the contrary notwithstanding, that effort is both well established in the history of Christian thought and a compelling response to the intellectual and spiritual circumstances of our time. It certainly is not wholly adequate, and it is but one such response among many, but there is no reason to distort it, as Davis may be doing.
In March 1998, Zygon published two article-length discussions of Gilbert's book: by Richard Busse (Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, and James Miller (Coordinator of the AAAS Program for Dialogue between Science and Religion).
Philip Hefner=<[email protected]> Fax: 773-256-0682 Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Chicago Center for Religion and Science Tel.: 773-256-0670 Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 1100 East 55th St. Chicago, IL 60615-5199 U.S.A.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.
Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.
Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science . Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.
