Modern Freedom, Evolved Bravery

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when pioneers were traveling through North American wilderness seeking a new home, wealth, or even just survival, a self-reliant approach to measuring behavior was appropriate. These people’s main drive was to establish a way of life free from poverty, oppression and attacks from rival social groups. A governing democracy had not yet taken shape. Threats were real, and mandated direct judgment and action.

Yet in 2008, when we have developed a common system of government and a greater degree of civic order, many people still insist on creating their own rules.

I heard a report recently of a man who saw that his house was about to be robbed. He then took out his gun and shot the would-be offender, who died. The local news asked viewers to call in and give their opinion on the man’s decision to shoot the intruder.

Some said that the shooter’s reaction was disproportionate to the situation. Just as many, however, responded that he had been justified in his method of self-protection. It was a direct clash between self- and community-oriented government.

Despite our struggles towards unity through various periods of division – struggles with political ideology in the Revolutionary War, gaps between regions and race in the Civil War, gender and class inequities in the early twentieth century, and ongoing mass immigration - we are still clinging to individualism. We want direct answers to threat, when living in community requires more.

It asks us to submit to methods of interacting with each other that are as complex as we, ourselves, are. We don’t have to follow the voices that advocate violent self-defense as a response to perceived threat.

It is not a surprise that many people feel the need to protect themselves without the help of law. From a young age, Americans are taught that autonomy is a more valuable trait than most others. Our national heroes are not lawyers and government officials. They are the self-made: entrepeneurs, entertainers, and athletes. These public figures’ successes are not founded upon the support of the broader community. They are revered for their sheer grit, their ability to rise to the top alone.

It isn’t wrong to make rapid decisions about self-defense when faced with immediate danger. We have reached a point, as a nation, where that way of thinking need not be our first resort. The cowboy system of justice has become outdated.

No person can alone discern a moral path which is right for all. Random aggression and thoughtless self-justification tear holes in the shared thought of those who have worked together for common, rational government. They work against the creation of a safe public space in which to live. Autonomy, while a source of forward thinking, can also be a cause of backwards action. When each person lives by their own code of behavior, the meaning of a code of behavior dissolves.

I am not going to persecute the citizen who shot his potential robber because I find his action unjust. An idea must pass through the scrutiny of many critics before becoming law. Our shared legal institution will perform a reasoned examination before declaring his sentence.

America is not an outwardly selfish nation. We honor those who commit themselves to public service. We take pride in maintaining a sense of brotherhood from coast to coast. Yet how can such brotherhood exist if we fail to embrace the real necessity of moral conversation? We have battled direct threats from nature, class conflicts and racial strife. Through doing so, we have moved into a phase of greater potential understanding.

May we begin to look at each other and each other’s actions with an open mind. Instead of assuming ill-intention and adopting that sentiment ourselves, let us take the braver step of looking for our mutual complexity.

After all, even cowboys can evolve.

Note: The themes of this and my last post are very similar. In some places, I may contradict myself. This is because I see social rules as separate from legal rules. In my mind, they require different perspectives. Hence, I wrote an entry for each.