Humility according to Ira Williams is “The willingness to place the needs and desires of others before your own.” This simple affirmation may be the most challenging personal discipline that confronts contemporary Americans.
Williams writes about humility in his Change This manifesto- Speak Softly: What’s Happening to American Humility?
Williams traces humility to be not only a spiritual trait, but also an American one. And is one that Americans have lost over the course of the past quarter century. Read this manifesto.
Technorati Tags: Ira Williams, humility, courage, heroic
I could not agree with him more. It is a topic that I’ve thought about a lot over the years. There is the macho, hairy-chested American hubris that looks at humility as weakness. But what I see is that the kind of arrogance that Williams points to is really a very limited form of aggressiveness. It is aggression for personal gain. But it is quite different from what historically would have been acceptable for people.
Humility is one aspect of a set of virtues that are the measure of a human life. We are a culture that is more than divided between Red state / Blue state. We are divided by a fundamental philosophy of human life. That philosophy is divided between the passive and the heroic.
The passive philosophy is a mindset that deflects blame and responsibility for problem solving onto others. It is a culture dependent upon other people doing what is in their best interest to do.
This is the culture is the result of what Williams calls “embittered self-criticism.” He writes,
“In response to the era of soul searching, the movement encouraging self-help and self-actualization came into prominence. The rise in popularity of self-proclaimed guru/authors, the increased curiosity in eastern religions, the often fanatical pursuit of EST and other kinds of personal improvement frameworks were all driven by a belief that we as individuals have the ability, if not the obligation, to see opportunities to perfect ourselves.”
What this culture has spawned is a culture of dysfunctional individuals paralyzed by their own self-importance. Of course, this is by a majority vote of one. I call this a passive culture because I see it through the lens of organizational and community leadership. To lead requires tremendous effort. If a leader is primarily and exclusively focused on his or her own welfare, it becomes very difficult to lead others. They end up merely managing the activities and assignments of people. And the motivation to stretch for higher goals becomes problematic as it ventures us into the realm of our real limitations, limitations that require us to work together as teams in order to achieve greatness.
The whole culture of selfishness is a passive culture. It is what Western culture is degenerating toward. Look at the response to the rioting in France. Not only a passive indifference by the French people, but a passive paralysis of not knowing what to do by the French authorities. This passive culture of the Self eschews action until the rioting has entered by the front door, and by then it is too late.
The other culture I call heroic because it is rooted in an ancient understanding of the role of the individual in society. There is a strong remnant of this culture in our society. You can see it in the response of fire fighters, law enforcement and rescue workers as they freely gave up their lives to save people during the 9/11 attack. You can see it in the millions of dollars, the hundreds of semi-truck loads of supplies and the thousands of individuals who have sacrificed their time and resources to go to the Gulf coast to help in the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. You can see it in our military’s work in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you look beyond the Mainstream Media’s prejudicial headlines, you’ll see a campaign of recovery that is laying the foundation for democratic societies where there were none, and no one thought was possible. You can see it in the millions of individual acts of unselfish etiquette that go on everyday. Small and insignificant as an isolated act, but cumulatively significant as their actions create an environment that recognizes another person’s value or mere presence in this world.
This heroic culture is noted for being a culture of courage. According to philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, writing in his important volume, After Virtue, courage is an essential element in a happy, healthy society. He writes that
“…Courage is important, not simply as a quality of individuals, but as the quality necessary to sustain a household and a community. Kudos, glory, belongs to the individual who excels in battle or in contest as a mark of recognition by his household and his community. … To be courageous is to be someone on whom reliance can be placed. Hence courage is an important ingredient in friendship. The bonds of friendship in heroic societies are modeled on those of kinship. Sometimes friendship is formally vowed, so that by the vow the duties of brothers are mutually incurred. Who my friends are and who my enemies, is as clearly defined as who my kinsmen are. The other ingredient of friendship is fidelity. My friend’s courage assures me of his power to aid me and my household; my friends fidelity assures me of his will. My household’s fidelity is the basic guarantee of its unity.”
This understanding of courage is different from the courage demonstrated on Fear Factor. It is more like the courage of the Amazing Race or even, dare I say it, the Survivor series. It is an element of human relationships, in essence, an evidence of the willingness to sacrifice for another. This is at the heart of Williams' understanding of humility that is “the willingness to place the needs and desires of others before your own.” So, I would join Williams in this understanding and say that courage is the act of humility. It is the willful act of service to another person or group.
This is also why at the heart of humility is spirituality. Williams uses the example of Jesus washing his disciples feet. What is notable beyond the self-denunciation that such an act requires is it is presented in the context of his life and ministry, that it was not just a response to a situation, but a part of a plan to build relationships that exhibited this sort of character.
So, when Ira Williams writes
about humility, it is more than just an idea or a way to assess
political leaders or a critique of society. It is a part of a larger
context of virtues or character traits that when understood and applied
sincerely can strengthen the ability of leaders to lead their
organizations or communities in ways just following their own
self-interest will not allow. I hope the Williams manifesto sparks a
wide spread conversation. In my humble opinion, we need it.
(HT to Bill Kinnon for first pointing me to this essay.)
Comments