Lila Watson’s Quote, well sort of.
Lila Watson, part of an Australian Aboriginal Group, is given credit for a certain quote, but when interviewed she “was quite clear… that she was not comfortable being credited for something that had been born of a collective process” (northlandposter.com).
Anyhow, her group said, “If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” I was impressed with this quote when I saw it on a banner hanging from the ceiling in Kane Hall. At the time, however, I had no idea how much it would come up again in my thought processes.
You see, I have been conditioned – perhaps from being in Christian circles that emphasize Philippians 2 (~Your attitude should be like Christ… who made himself nothing) – to think of myself with a sort of black/white logic. My motivations are either all good or all bad. Selfless or selfish, just pick one. I think I have come to realize that this is not how I am… is it how you are?
After wrestling with issues of altruism that arose from my travels to East Africa, my involvement in my Christian fellowship, and my ambitions to become a physician, I have to say that I’m concerned about my motivations. Sure, it feels natural at my liberal college to want to use my career and ministry to alleviate disparities in the world, to oppose injustice, to embrace solidarity. But what about 20, or maybe just 5 years from now? Will I be too settled to peek over my walls of comfort and see anything outside of my own world?
This is why Lila Watson’s… group’s… quote is so crucial. I think it reveals a truth about altruism. Perhaps there’s no such thing. Look, real change and real ‘good’ comes from relationships, not from hand outs. What are the motivations behind a relationship? Certainly it is not a form of charity. No, there is mutual benefit, mutual hardship, mutual support. In effect, one feels alive and has their ‘liberation bound up’ with the other.
In mission trips, in community service, heck in friendships, why not be a little selfish? Why not invest yourself in what makes you feel alive and honest with your core values? I know, my logic is a little fuzzy. And I don’t think I would say this to everyone. Perhaps Person X who really does value his iPhone and designer jeans at the core, should be open to changing his core values a bit. But who am I to judge.
My point is that making a difference in this world is not synonymous with absolute self-sacrifice. We must invest (which implies some self-interest?). It’s gonna take courage, honesty, and creativity. I’ll end with a quote that expresses one man’s honesty about his work (from Hope in Hell, a book about Medicins Sans Frontieres):
“People hear about MSF and say, ‘You’re going to be nominated for sainthood,’ and it’s not at all like that. I consider myself a person after his own self-interests. It’s rewarding to bring medical care to these people, but I’m doing it because it makes me feel good, and I like it. I’m not doing it for them – I mean, I am, but I go there because it feels right for me, not because I think I’m helping the world”
December 20, 2007 at 1:01 am
This post reminds me of a discussion I heard in a college class. I took a political science class about international security. A ROTC student was discussing why China was the biggest security threat to the US. He mentioned that his worldview was from a “realist” point-of-view which espoused that no person or no nation/state has totally altruistic motives, but are mainly motivated by their own self-interests. This was in contrast to the “liberal” view where individuals or nations/states have the capacity to accept and strive for universally agreed upon values and norms that are for the best of the whole community. The ROTC student then said, “even Mother Theresa wasn’t fully altruistic. She had selfish motives to help the poor. She wants to go to heaven and that’s in her self-interest, not any purely altrustic motive. And that set off a firestorm of debate as other students interjected with their objections. He was trying to say that having selfish motives was not good or bad. That is how the world worked and thus you shouldn’t put a value judgment on it. This is different than what we are taught. Striving for a higher purpose or some nebulous, abstract value is what is good and anything that is in your self-interest is bad. But we live in a world of gray that causes us to rethink if anything we do is not motivated by something in our self-interest and if so, is that ok? Maybe if we think of things this way, maybe when people are trying to do good in the world, it won’t seem so contrived or trendy.
December 9, 2009 at 12:53 am
Just seeing this dated post today, December 8, 2009, as I researched the quote attributed to Lila Watson, which she attributes to a collective. I’d like to suggest there is another way of looking at this whole right-wrong good-bad thing. How about as human beings we all have life energy within us (I’ll call it “Needs” or “Values”) and all we are ever trying to do is attend to those needs/values? So I’m not doing or saying something that is (insert judgment here). I’m just trying to attend to my needs, just like every other human being on the planet. I may not agree with the strategies that some may use, but I can do my best to see the human being that is trying to do the same thing I’m trying to do: attend to my needs/values.
For more on this perspective I invite you to read “Nonviolent Communication-A Language of Life” by Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg…or go to the Center for Nonviolent Communication website: http://www.cnvc.org.
December 31, 2007 at 7:16 pm
good stuff, dell
March 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm
that kids argument reminds me of ayn rand’s entire foundation for promoting selfish exploitation of people and the environment.
people are a diverse bunch and the realists are only one perspective within that bunch. unfortunately, the realist stance produces people like stalin, hitler and CEOs who have no value for emotional appeal.
we arent all the same and we arent all selfish–included in human nature is the tendency toward and need for community and concepts like justice, poetry/art, harmony and balance, etc.
i think realists like to promote their view because they have a hard time understanding these concepts and to operate from an offensive/defensive position is safer to them.
i also think they mix up what altruism means. what it means is not that someone doesnt “get a payback” for doing something for others (his mother teresa analogy is a good one—she “gets” to heaven for acting selflessly on earth. but there are religions that have no afterlife whose proponents’ adherence to the moral precepts of these belief systems is just as devoted as hers)—its that the “payback” does not hurt others.
in mother teresa’s situation she benefits yes, but the actions she takes to “get” that payback are not harmful/destructive and do not require subjugation or exploitation of the weak and poor to make her wealthy, powerful or feared.
all altruism and realism are, are perceptual/conceptual orientations: if we believe that people are truly good and everyone matters and we are all related in a communal experience of life then it makes sense to use our gifts, talents, abilities, power to help our relatives in need.
if we believe that people are inherently self-motivated and out to make profit and think only of how they can use someone else to get where they want to be without consideration for their well-being then it makes sense to take up a defensive/offensive “realist” stance…they way we believe self-fulfills and self-perpetuates.