To think of genuine friendship...

I have had great cause to think of what friendship truly is in the past weeks...to reexamine its nature and fundamental character. I was provoked to extreme depth of thought about it by a question that occurred to me after a discussion in a public forum. The discussion forced me into the recognition of some diametrically opposite views that reflected such radically different values and beliefs than mine that I was left shaken by the discovery that my "friends" could think the way they do. Perhaps I'd guessed that we were on different sides of the aisle politically but in the past, that hasn't affected the friendship that I thought existed between us. With a few people - those for whom their political views are not a major priority - I've simply agreed to disagree and we've left all discussions of that nature out of our "friendship" equation and confined our public comments towards each other to our artistic endeavors. But what does that actually mean in terms of the nature of that friendship? 

I struggle with this issue even within my family and among people I know personally rather than just on the internet. [That's not to say internet friendships can't be or are not "real." I believe they are]. But I've realized that what I'm calling friendship in most cases is no more than casual acquaintance or what Aristotle called relationships of utility or pleasure rather than the extremely rare "true friendship." I do not believe that it is possible to truly call someone a friend whose views and values are completely antithetical to my own. I'm not speaking about political views in an election year - I'm speaking about the fundamental values reflected in the memes we share or the political comments we make. I'm speaking about the basic philosophy represented by our political statements. My political leanings arise from my fundamental world view on human rights and human dignity, on justice and injustice, on communal rather than individual rights. In other words, I cannot separate my political philosophy from who I am as a person and in likewise fashion, I cannot separate another person's political statements and philosophy from who he/she is as a person. I cannot disassociate those statements from another's fundamental character. That brings me back to friendship.

Aristotle in his monumental "Nicomachean Ethics" discusses friendship at length. He "divides friendship into three sorts: friends for pleasure; friends for benefit; and true friends. To the former belong those sorts of social bonds that are established to enjoy one’s spare time, e.g. friends for sports or hobbies, friends for dining, or for partying. In the second are included all those bonds whose cultivation is primarily motivated by work-related reasons or by civic duties, such as being friend with your colleagues and neighbors." (philosophy.about.com) But true friends are virtuous friends, seeking the good of self and other and growth in virtue and such friendships assume an existing level of virtue in one's own character and in the other. Genuine friends, says the great philosopher,"serve as human mirrors in which one can better see one's own virtue...they are a single soul dwelling in two bodies." They are indispensable to self-knowledge and that is necessary for growth in virtue, the definition of the "good life." Or as Cicero put it, "A true friend is a second self." 

Why, then, would one seek a "friendship" with a person who is so completely opposite to the person one believes himself/herself to be or wishes to be? More importantly, why would a person whose values are so opposed to my own wish to be my friend in the first place? For utility? Does that person gain something by association with me? For pleasure? Do I entertain, share jokes with, or pursue similar activities? It is important that I recognize which of the three kinds of friends a person might be so I do not feel so betrayed when I see that person for who he/she really is. The sudden realization that one has been totally wrong about another person smashes that "mirror" and causes us to doubt our own virtue, asking, "how could I have mistaken that person for someone I could admire or wish to have as a friend?" How could my judgment have been so flawed?

That is not to say that one has to cut off all ties with friends of utility or friends of pleasure. It's just that one must be honest enough to identify those relationships for what they are. I can continue with those "friendships" but only to the point where to do so would compromise my self-knowledge and virtue or damage my true friendships. True friendship is the rarest of all forms of love - certainly rarer than romantic or physical love. So it stands to reason, that in one's lifetime, one might have only one or two true friends. Absence, distance, time have little effect on true friendship unless one of the friends undergoes some radical change in beliefs and values. Genuine friends continue to grow in those qualities deemed most significant and virtuous and to encourage that same growth in the other. When I look at my friend, I see the kind of person I want to be and I strive for that kind of goodness. 

Emerson said there were two elemental criteria for genuine friendship - truth and tenderness. He wrote, in his essay on friendship, said, "A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him, I may think aloud. I am arrived at last in the presence of a man so real and equal that I may drop even those undermost garments of dissimulation, courtesy, and second thought, which men never put off, and may deal with him with...simplicity and wholeness..." He decried the superficiality and self-promotional ego-stroking, "the chat of the markets or the reading room," that he considered "an injustice against true friendship," long before social media made such things the basis for pseudo-friendships. Truth does not mean that friends think exactly the same about everything. There is ample room for some difference of thought.  "Emerson points out that the most valuable friendships don’t spring from a filter bubble of like-mindedness but, rather, from the perfect osmosis of shared values and just enough discrepancy in tastes and sensibilities to broaden our horizons" (Popova, Maria. Truth and Tenderness: Ralph Waldo Emerson on Friendship and Its Two Essential Conditions, 8/13/14)  

These differences, therefore, enable us to reach for the next most virtuous position we might achieve, to look more deeply into a value, an event, a point of view, and so share even more closely the values of our friend. To maintain a relationship in the face of too great a difference between you, however, is not the mark of friendship. While culturally I might have to accept and respect that each person has the right to his/her own opinion, I do not need to class as true friends those persons who have no respect for truth or whose own views reflect positions that I believe philosophically are detrimental to civil and virtuous society. To do so would be to violate my own sense of integrity. We are known, as the old adage goes, by our "friends." I do not want to know myself or be known as holding views that to me seem abhorrent simply because I want to keep calling someone friend or to add another person to my list on some social media site. Nor would I want others to call me friend who find my views abhorrent or a violation of their own ethical code. Instead, I will be ever grateful for the very few rare souls I know to be genuinely friends - and those are few and rare indeed. Charles Darwin said, "A man's friendships are one of the best measures of his worth" and Thomas Fuller even more adamantly argued, "If you have one true friend, you have more than your share." I count myself rich indeed and know that in my few really close and genuine friendships I have had and have far more than my share, for that kind of friendship is more precious than jewels. I am more than content to have my worth measured by those friends. 

River Reflections

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/river-reflections-lianne-schneider.html

Repeating history...

I’ve been thinking a lot about history lately. Perhaps it’s because this past weekend, Old Fort Niagara hosted its annual War of 1812 re-enactment and I live close by. Maybe it’s because events in the Middle East and the Ukraine have resurrected thoughts about “ethnic cleansing,” and the Holocaust. Or it could just be that events at home in places like Ferguson, MO put me in mind of the paramilitary “policemen” who were responsible for the deaths/disappearances of hundreds of thousands in places like El Salvador, Argentina, or Chile in the 1970s and ‘80s. Maybe it's just that we're entering another election cycle. Whatever the cause, I find such thoughts fill me with anxiety.

As Americans, we seem to either turn a blind eye to comparisons or to willfully rewrite history in such a way as to gloss over the ugliest and blackest parts of our traditional story. Some states have gone so far as to rewrite history textbooks so there is virtually no mention of slavery, the Pinkertons and the struggle for workers’ rights or women’s rights. The Civil Rights Act gets a couple of lines, the Voting Rights act none at all in some texts (leaving the door wide open for the Court to cut the legs out from underneath it just in time for another election cycle). What is glorified in EVERY American textbook is the heroic “entrepreneur.” Robber barons are no longer the bad guys who amassed their wealth using exploitative practices and enriching themselves at the expense of underpaid workers slaving away in horrendous conditions. Now they are the models for today’s corporate giants – the Koch brothers and others like them whose philanthropy involves only the manipulation of the electoral process and contributions to political parties, or the endowment of chairs in law schools for ultra-conservative professors who craft law review articles endorsing the corporate position or the conservative position on everything from health care to gun control. Such corporations have no national loyalties, moving both jobs and earnings offshore to increase profits and decrease tax liability - taxes that pay for everything from education and defense to health care and roads and bridges.

In 2010, the far right wing of the Republican Party, supported generously by the Koch Brothers, successfully lobbied and politically engineered the death of a progressive community organization known as ACORN. From the noises made on the right, you’d have thought ACORN had billions of dollars, millions of members and an agenda designed to undercut democratic voting in America. The organization, which never consisted of more than 200,000 low to moderate income families, was a community group which worked together for social justice in 75 cities campaigning for better schools, health care and job conditions as well as actively working to get out the vote for progressive candidates. The two “filmmakers” who conducted the “sting” on ACORN were conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe who targeted the organization purposely because of its huge voter registration efforts. Groups like ACORN can receive federal funding because of their efforts to increase voting and the highly edited films released by FOX news resulted in the loss of funding to ACORN pending investigation, its eventual bankruptcy and ultimate disbanding in 2010. Later investigations at the state and federal levels cleared ACORN of any impropriety or misuse of funds and ACORN won its lawsuit against the filmmakers for creating a misleading impression of voter fraud.  The victory came too late. Conservatives paid no attention to that fact and have used ACORN’s alleged activities and the misleading films as the excuse for limiting voting rights for minorities, requiring stringent voter ID policies, reducing voting hours and the number of booths in certain minority precincts and other means of limiting the Democratic or Independent vote. Then corporations and their superPACS won the biggest victory of all in 2010 – the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people with an unlimited right to free speech – AND they declared that money in the form of political contributions is a form of free speech. The floodgates were opened for big money to buy our freedoms.

Most Americans think that the Tea Party movement was a grassroots uprising against more taxation, big government and threats to the Bill of Rights from liberals. It wasn’t – the talking points, the catch phrases, the sloganeering, even the baseless attacks on the President – were carefully orchestrated and fostered by ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) – more about that in a minute - Americans for Prosperity (the Koch Brothers political arm and super PAC) American Crossroads (Karl Rove’s superPAC) and hundreds of corporate sponsors from AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries to WalMart. According to SourceWatch.org, “ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations.” At regular ALEC meetings, state legislative candidates, Republican governors, Republican Congressmen and Senators are given “mock” bills to introduce at both the state and federal levels. All the bills advance corporate interests at the expense of the environment, workers’ rights, decent wages, women’s rights, jobs, education and health. Often the bills are introduced exactly as written by ALEC executives. The flags are waved, the propaganda dispersed, the slogans authorized and the contribution checks written out to those campaigns most in line with ALEC’s agenda. Then the word drifts out to the “little people” – the grassroots folks – and rallies are organized to turn talking points into slogans – “they’re coming for our guns,” “Obama is a socialist” or “a fascist tyrant” or “the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.”  Wrap all that up in a “God-fearing Christian” blanket and get it repeated by a major news outlet 100 times a day and you have a propaganda machine that is historically unparalleled with virtually limitless funding and access…until you look back at Nazi Germany in the 1930s...only in our case it is corporate interests rather than the state per se who controls the machine.   

The problem is too few Americans CAN look back at the events of the 1930s in Germany…at least not from what they learn in school. In my own experience both as a teacher and as a Mom, American history focuses on the Revolutionary War, the Civil War (to a greater or lesser degree depending on whether you live in the North or the South of the country), Reconstruction with an emphasis on the failure of former slaves to understand democracy properly, the great Industrial Age and the success of entrepreneurs like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Mellon, J.P. Morgan, Gould, Vanderbilt and yes, even then, the Koch family. With luck, students might get to the Great Depression with all the emphasis on events here at home and almost no mention of what was going on in the rest of the world. High school history usually ends with the attack on Pearl Harbor and the ultimate American victory. What was going on in Germany is not the focus of study of the 1930s. In some texts, the rise of the fascist states and the Holocaust are barely mentioned.

Surveys of adult Americans prove time and again that we do not understand the distinctions between fascism, communism and socialism and therefore people on both sides of the political aisle throw around labels without having an idea of what they are accusing the other side of being. Critical thinking is not only NOT taught in most high schools, in some states, like Texas, it’s actually banned.  The 2012 Texas Republican Party platform included the following – “Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” Unfortunately, as Texas goes (textbook wise at least) so goes the rest of the south who have little choice but to buy the same texts from the same publishers. That same platform endorsed the repeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and a ban on reauthorizing it.

Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale

At the very beginning of our American saga, Thomas Jefferson (the great hero of the right but only with regard to the 2nd Amendment), recognized how critically important it was for the American people to be well-informed and knowledgeable. Introducing a bill called, “Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” in 1778, Jefferson said, “…experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large,...” Such illumination is nowhere apparent in the United States today and that, I fear, may doom us to a repeat of a history – the rise of an oligarchical dictatorship under the guise of the “people’s will” in a “democratic” election that is nothing but a farce bought and paid for by powerful corporate interests. “Those entrusted with power” are too often merely puppets dancing to the manipulations of moneyed interests and we are already seeing what kind of perversion that can create. If we love this country the way most of us claim to, it behooves us to be informed, to seek the truth, to expose the lies for what they are and to take back our country from those whose interests are antithetical to democracy. 

Old Fort Niagara

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/old-fort-niagara-lianne-schneider.html