Robert Fuller emailed me with a request to post the following diary, which is also available Huffington Post here. Ordinarily I wouldn't do that. I would reset his password and tell him to post it himself. But asking me to do it for him gives me the opportunity to intervene and insert my own two cents, which in this case is something I very much want to do.
I think that Fuller is very right about one thing--his concept of dignitarianism is something we very much need to adopt, and the opposite concept--that of rankism--is something we need to become much more sensitive to and commited to rooted out. Fuller's conception provides a common framework for encompassing all the struggles against forms of prejudice--racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, religious bigotry, etc.--as well as the far more various and diverse ways that systems of rank and power (both formal and informal) are subject to abuse. And that's a very powerful unifying concept.
I also think that Fuller is half right about another thing--President Obama does have an intuitive dignitarian bent to him. But I think Fuller sees more in Obama than Obama himself is aware of, or even committed to. The exclusion of single-payer advocates from the health care debate is just one example of Obama "pulling rank" on a large segment of the base that helped elect him, as well as the American people generally, who at the very least deserve the opportunity for a full, free and fair debate.
My way of making sense of Obama's relationship to the dignitarian philosophy that Fuller expounds is relatively simple: I think that Obama has a strong intuitive orientation toward dignitarian conduct, but that that he resists what is most needed, the open, explicit articulation of dignitarian principles, and the adoption of dignitarianism as an organizing framework, as context, as well as content. Taking those steps would put him definitively at odds with Versailles, and that is a step that he is very loathe to take, to put it mildly.
That's my two cents. Read Fuller's article, and let us know what you think.
President Obama's Politics of Dignity
Robert W. Fuller
America is broken. Even if we pull through the current economic crisis, recovery won't last absent an overhaul of our primary institutions.
• One out of ten Americans is now unemployed and the recovery is expected to be jobless.
• Fifty million Americans have no heath insurance; two million, no home.
• Two million Americans are in jail.
• Our public schools have fallen behind those of most developed nations.
• Higher education is priced out of reach of the middle class.
• Our infrastructure is in an advanced state of disrepair.
• We rank first in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Immigration, once our pride, is now our shame.
• We're living on credit and leaving the debt to our children.
The crisis is compounded by corruption of the democratic process. Politicians who owe their seats to private and corporate money are not easily persuaded to put the public interest over the special interests of their benefactors.
Just over a week ago, on Friday, June 6, I promoted a diary that caused considerable controversy and misunderstanding, that I'd like to try to address. The diary was by Pamela Gerloff, The Real Reason Hillary Should Not Be Veep. Pamela is is the co-author, with Robert W. Fuller, of Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism (forthcoming, June 2008, Berrett-Koehler Publishers). Fuller is the originator of the concept of rankism, defined as the abuse of power derived from rank. The opposite of such abuse is respect for human dignity.
Some forms of rank are inherently abusive-valuing men over women, whites over blacks, Jews over Arabs, etc. Other forms of rank are socially useful, but subject to abuse. A great leader will not just inspire others, but develop their capacities to become leaders in their own right. There is nothing inherently abusive in this. Yet leaders throughout history have repeatedly abused those they have lead. Rankism is a way of talking about what these forms of abuse share in common, and how to overcome them. It is a conceptual tool in the ongoing struggle for human liberation.
(A dignitarian perspective from the co-author of Robert Fuller's new book, cross-posted from Huffington Post. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
With all the talk of Hillary Clinton becoming Barack Obama's running mate, let's pause for a moment to push out the brain fog. Although I find Senator Clinton worthy of respect and admiration for her finer qualities of character and for what she has been able to accomplish in her political life, the sane truth is: she should not be vice president. Here's why:
It's not simply a matter of protecting folks at the bottom, Hacker argues-effective dealing with risk is vital for creating an environment in which people feel secure enough to take on the sort of voluntary risk that helps drive the economy forward-what's often called "entrepreneurial risk," but that includes a wide range of choices to invest resources of time, money and effort in future possibilities that by their very nature cannot be certain. These include investments in eduction, training, changing careers, starting a new business, etc. In short, Hacker argues, a security orientation is not the polar opposite to an opportunity orientation-it is a vital aspect of an opportunity orientation. And it's this latter argument that gives Hacker's point about countering the Great Risk Shift a potential bipartisan cross-over appeal that fits perfectly with Obama's articulated intentions.
In this diary, I'd like to make another major issue proposal that is, if anything an even better fit for Obama. In fact, this is an issue that is truly transformative. It's called "rankism," and it consists, quite simply, of the abuse of the weak by the strong.
If the term "rankism" sounds a bit odd and contrived, the positive value opposing it is anything but. It's called "dignity," and the struggle against rankism is the struggle to make dignity a universal human right.
The purpose of this web site is to discuss the social cost of rankism and to develop a grassroots capacity to defend and protect dignity in everyday life. We hope you will join us in planning and building a world without rankism!
On the website, Fuller explains:
Rankism: A Social Disorder
An undiagnosed disorder is at large in the world. It afflicts individuals, groups, and nations. It distorts our personal relationships, erodes our will to learn, taxes our economic productivity, stokes ethnic hatred, and incites nations to war. It is the cause of dysfunctionality, and sometimes even violence, in families, schools, and the workplace.
Over the course of history, the most common abuses of power have acquired special names:
Each of these practices is an abuse of the weak by the strong. Each of these familiar named offenses is an instance of bullying, of pulling rank. By analogy with abuses based on race and gender, abuse based on rank is given the name rankism.
1. n. abuse, discrimination, or exploitation based on rank
2. n. abusive, discriminatory, or exploitative behavior towards people who have less power because of their lower rank in a particular hierarchy
Once you have a name for it, you see rankism at the heart of many infringements of human rights, far away or close to home. Rankism is the root cause of indignity, injustice, and unfairness. Choosing the term rankism, places the goal of universal human dignity in the context of contemporary movements for civil rights. Reexamining racism, sexism, and ageism as examples of rankism breathes new life into the movements opposing them. Identifying rankism in all its guises and overcoming it is democracy's next step.
STATE BLOGS
