Privilege

Last week, I took a few days off work. I was on the be(a/n)ch, so I wanted to advance some personal projects. I did. I laid down a draft presentation of a potential project - developing open source life skills curriculum.

[note: still deciding on whether to pursue this, I don't know if I have the passion, time, resources, or team to do it successfully. I don't want to waste time on something that's not a winning idea. Thank you for teaching me that Keary and Lalendran]

Anyway, the motivation for developing this open source life-skills curriculum was because I've been given so much opportunity in my life. My parents did math with me and read books with me when I was little. They sent me to different classes and to play on sports teams. They talked to me and parented me. They had me explore and expose myself to things that they couldn't teach me. They cooked. They did all these things, and I was one of the lucky ones.

This enrichment, I think, was really important for my development and my ability to function as a normal human being, more or less. There are lots of people that probably didn't get the chance to develop the "life-skills" that I was able to, or they might not have ever had anyone to teach them.

So, I thought, why not develop a way for current, prospective adults to develop life-skills that they have never had the privilege to learn?

And that's precisely the point, I considered my upbrining privilege. And it was, of course. But as I was talking with some friends about privilege, upbringing and agent guilt...the privilege is precisely not the point.

Those things I had...a stable home life, the opportunity for enrichment and good parents, should not be considered privilege. Those things are the bare minimum that a kid needs to adjust reasonably well to adult life. Being blessed enough to have sound mind and body, going to a REALLY good school, living in a neighborhood that's really friendly and clean...maybe that's privilege.

Having someone to teach me math, reading and some of those other things...it's ludicrous to think that any kid should not have them. To think of them as privilege is an excuse to not provide them to others.

So, I am lucky, yes. Privileged? No. Those things are essentials. I find it mildly insulting to think of them as a privilege, because that implies that special people get those things. Everyone should get those things and needs to get those things. Really, it's an act of wrongdoing to allow anyone to go through life without some or all of those things that others would call privilege.

What was Gandhi's intent?

It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?

Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.

I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.

Or did he?

Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.

Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.

Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?

I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.

Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.