Deep justice knows something better about human nature than mere blame can ever acknowledge, something more true about our common humanity — our co-humanity with one another. That deeper truth is something like this declaration I learned from one of my teachers, Harvey Jackins, founder and chief theoretician of Re-evaluation Counseling: “Every single human being, when the entire situation is taken into account, has always, at every moment of the past, done the very best that he or she could do, and so deserves neither blame nor reproach from anyone, including self. This, in particular, is true of you.”I find this hard to swallow. The Jackins quote that is. Is this why I am not religious? I don't find this helpful. I would add that I don't find simple blame to be terribly helpful either, but when I read this, I find myself thinking that it simply isn't true. Maybe that shouldn't matter? Maybe we should adopt it as an attitude anyway because it might prove more helpful than simply casting blame?
Here's something I wrote two weeks ago, just a few quick unedited thoughts which may or may not be coherent:
Reading this morning about the Va. Tech killer and attempts to diagnose him after the fact. Gets me thinking about anger, revenge and responsibility. And how it is pretty rare that we want to take responsibility for our situation. A distinction must be made of course between blame and responsibility. Often we find ourselves having to deal with problems for which we are not to blame, indeed sometimes no one is to blame (and that can be even harder), but which we must nonetheless assume responsibility for because no one else can. A troubled person may blame his or her parents for their failures as parents and that blame may be deserved, but only she is responsible for her life. (needless to say this does not extend to children but that exemption runs out pretty fast) Now there are situations so extreme and unfortunate or bizarre that responsibility as a concept seems inadequate or even absurd in such a context. And we may have special legal or medical dispensations for such situations--I'm thinking of mental illness and criminal behavior here--but we still require responsibility as a foundational philosophical idea. Our whole kit and kaboodle runs on it. So we are saddled with responsibility for ourselves whether we like it or not. If we do not have the tools to assume responsibility and deal with it, we get a whole bunch of further problems and complications. What are these tools? Critical thinking, self-reflection, the ability to be honest with oneself and others and there are no doubt others. Not exactly the skill set our culture imparts to us. So we find ourselves a nation of angry people full of indignation and vitriol for others. We unthinkingly assume the role of victim, we cast blame and refuse responsibility, and we end up with most unfortunate results: strife, murder, war, a polarized culture.
I wonder if Jackins "everyone has done their best" doesn't negate the possibility of responsibility. I am living breathing incontrovertible proof that not everyone has always done their best. Does conflict resolution require that sort of attitude? Am I missing something here? If we do stop and think about "the entire situation," to whatever extent we are capable of doing so, does responsibility suddenly become simply an illusion?
