Just a few weeks ago, David Brooks celebrated the life of Bill Wilson, the founder of AA, with a column that, in my estimation, was itself an American Jeremiad. In honoring both Wilson and the unqualified success of the organization he founded, Brooks said some things about AA and the culture in which it flourishes that not only haven't gone away since, but likely never will.
"In a culture that generally celebrates empowerment and self-esteem," Brooks wrote, "A.A. begins with disempowerment. The goal is to get people to gain control over their lives, but it all begins with an act of surrender and an admission of weakness."
Who really believes such a preposterous notion?--that gaining control over one's life begins by admitting that you've got zero of the same? Just down the road from here, one of the America's premiere self-fulfillment gurus was born and reared, the Reverend Robert Schuller, who turned positive thinking into a religion, with good reason--we love to believe in ourselves. Brooks says, Bill Wilson determined the truth lies elsewhere.
"In a culture that thinks of itself as individualistic, A.A. relies on fellowship," or so saith David Brooks. "The general idea is that people aren’t really captains of their own ship. Successful members become deeply intertwined with one another — learning, sharing, suffering and mentoring one another. Individual repair is a social effort."
Such thinking doesn't fit well with contemporary culture either, of course. But our own ancient wisdom, oddly enough, suggests that you and me and all of us find ourselves best generally by losing ourselves. In this day and age, I'm reluctant to call anything "biblical principle," but that one I'll stand by--and it'll wear.
"In a world in which gurus try to carefully design and impose their ideas, Wilson surrendered control. He wrote down the famous steps and foundations, but A.A. allows each local group to form, adapt and innovate. There is less quality control. Some groups and leaders are great; some are terrible. But it also means that A.A. is decentralized, innovative and dynamic."
Americans, oddly enough, are among the world's great faddists. We've never seen a hula hoop or a Lindsay Lohan we didn't like. Because I am an educator, I live among the most faithful faddists of all; somewhere in the superstructure of our genetic code, we seem to have a lemming gene. But we're not alone. Brooks says AA's success is based, in part, on a mighty loose hierarchical structure and tossed blueprints. Let 'em be.
I guess I should have been able to predict this morning's David Brooks' column. This morning he's on Mel Gibson, who once was the superhero of the religious right for The Passion of Christ. Seems the man has other passions too, not quite so divine. Brooks calls Gibson the quintessential American narcissist, with this definition: "The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others." Sound familiar?
But what Brooks says is not just a tirade against the man whose tirades have carpet bombed the media, because Brooks is after bigger game than Braveheart. "In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an 'important person.' Twelve percent said yes," he reported. "In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes."
We've all somehow self-inflated. The media mogul preacher raised just down the road sold his gospel well. We all feel really good about ourselves.
Brooks may not like my saying it, but he's a heck of a Calvinist. Thirty years ago an alcoholic told me that when he first went to AA what he found true was what he'd been taught his whole life but never really understood: "I am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. . ."--the first q and a of the catechism he was forced to memorize as a kid. Same thing, he told me.
"In a culture that generally celebrates empowerment and self-esteem," Brooks wrote, "A.A. begins with disempowerment. The goal is to get people to gain control over their lives, but it all begins with an act of surrender and an admission of weakness."
Who really believes such a preposterous notion?--that gaining control over one's life begins by admitting that you've got zero of the same? Just down the road from here, one of the America's premiere self-fulfillment gurus was born and reared, the Reverend Robert Schuller, who turned positive thinking into a religion, with good reason--we love to believe in ourselves. Brooks says, Bill Wilson determined the truth lies elsewhere.
"In a culture that thinks of itself as individualistic, A.A. relies on fellowship," or so saith David Brooks. "The general idea is that people aren’t really captains of their own ship. Successful members become deeply intertwined with one another — learning, sharing, suffering and mentoring one another. Individual repair is a social effort."
Such thinking doesn't fit well with contemporary culture either, of course. But our own ancient wisdom, oddly enough, suggests that you and me and all of us find ourselves best generally by losing ourselves. In this day and age, I'm reluctant to call anything "biblical principle," but that one I'll stand by--and it'll wear.
"In a world in which gurus try to carefully design and impose their ideas, Wilson surrendered control. He wrote down the famous steps and foundations, but A.A. allows each local group to form, adapt and innovate. There is less quality control. Some groups and leaders are great; some are terrible. But it also means that A.A. is decentralized, innovative and dynamic."
Americans, oddly enough, are among the world's great faddists. We've never seen a hula hoop or a Lindsay Lohan we didn't like. Because I am an educator, I live among the most faithful faddists of all; somewhere in the superstructure of our genetic code, we seem to have a lemming gene. But we're not alone. Brooks says AA's success is based, in part, on a mighty loose hierarchical structure and tossed blueprints. Let 'em be.
I guess I should have been able to predict this morning's David Brooks' column. This morning he's on Mel Gibson, who once was the superhero of the religious right for The Passion of Christ. Seems the man has other passions too, not quite so divine. Brooks calls Gibson the quintessential American narcissist, with this definition: "The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others." Sound familiar?
But what Brooks says is not just a tirade against the man whose tirades have carpet bombed the media, because Brooks is after bigger game than Braveheart. "In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an 'important person.' Twelve percent said yes," he reported. "In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes."
We've all somehow self-inflated. The media mogul preacher raised just down the road sold his gospel well. We all feel really good about ourselves.
Brooks may not like my saying it, but he's a heck of a Calvinist. Thirty years ago an alcoholic told me that when he first went to AA what he found true was what he'd been taught his whole life but never really understood: "I am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. . ."--the first q and a of the catechism he was forced to memorize as a kid. Same thing, he told me.
And, as Brooks says, the only way to understand Mel Gibson--or the prima donna in all of us.
1 comment:
Amen...almost too simplistic of an observation; but so true for a society that walks around with its "eyes rolled back," only "seeing" themselves- doing just that you are bound to "trip up" sometime with disastrous results; how does that verse in Micah go: "what is required of us O man- but to act justly, love mercy, and to walk humbly..."
Post a Comment