Not the Greatest Generation

Now stop that stinkin' thinkin'!

I'd like to offer a different perspective on one thing the article mentions: the Red Plate (which says "You are Special Today") has been around for a while, and is certainly not something that's been thought up just to stroke the current generation's ego. In fact, the German company that makes it has been around for 170 or so years, and is known for their deep color glazes, particularly the brilliant red of the 'special' plate and some of their Christmas ceramics. The "You are Special" plate has been made for almost forty years in its current form, as far as I know. That said, I do think this whole phenomenon says some sad things about the current generation, but I'd agree with Starrs that it says some even sadder ones about corporations. Why do companies hire people to throw confetti, award balloons to their employees, or play other silly games to keep them happy? Because the rewards of hard work within the corporate structure are gone, and the employees are fully aware of this. So treasure that balloon or that silly wad of confetti; you won't get a bonus, a raise, a promotion, or any *other* meaningful reward for doing everything the company expects and then some. You're lucky if you even get the tacky forms of recognition mentioned in the article, because most people don't even get that.

I've been thinking... Bnet is really nice... I mean, there's a niceness to this place that is really, well, I guess nice is the word I was searching for... thank you, Bnet, for all the nice blogs here... it's intellectually stimulating here as we give-and-take about the world of ideas... keeps me coming back for more which is very nice... and I just want to personally thank Anonymous for being so nice... attaboy, A-person, you're doin' great with the niceties of your niceness... and how about that President we have? isn't he doin' great? on second thought, ignore that last item... faith hope love joy peace to all...

I remember reading some years ago that one of the consequences of this whole "self esteem" movement in schools is that self esteem has become completely disconnected from any sort of achievement on the students' part. In fact, said the article I read, the group with the lowest average overall academic achievement -- young black males -- had the highest self esteem. I'm so glad I teach at Baylor, where I can use red pens to my heart's content!

Ya'll hit some of mostest favoritest topics. Self esteem is near the top of the list. I see us getting it from the reflection or mirror that is other's eyes. We judge ourselves by how we feel others judge us. I like to use the metaphor of the child in the grocery store. A wild child throwing fits will get disapproving looks from adults two blocks away. Every adult that walks by the fit thrower and their caretaker will give them double doggone darn beat that brat look.
On the other hand a child is well behaved and respectful adults will line up to praise the child. If, as I believe, we get self esteem from the mirror that is other's reaction to us then isn't good behavior the correct avenue for good self esteem? I also believe we need more respect for children. I like to talk about my father and the way he treated us. He never gave out a "good job" that I can recall. I attribute that to his having enough respect for us to believe we were smart enough to know when we did good. Easy praise is what we give to those we think are stupid, like our pets.

The problem is that years of slash-and-burn management have left employers with a lamentably nomadic workforce. People leave for a few bucks or better benefits, particularly at large corporations, simply because those same corporations, through constant 'reorganizations' and 'realignments' have taught employees there's no point in being loyal. Because the company won't be loyal to you while you're there or even when you're a pensioner. The result is nonsense like this. Starrs Blame Christianity. Okay. After you've wiped the coffee off the screen read/hear me out. Christianity believes man is born evil. Rod says it all the time. Man has to be saved from himself. Ask Rod if you doubt me. Now why do you believe Walmart (corporate America) strives to make the serving the shopper idiot proof? Isn't it because they believe their employees are idiots? Why does Walmart (corporate America) always go for the lowest common denominator for product choice? Isn't it because they believe the consumers are idiots? Why does Walmart RFIDS so badly? Isn't it because they believe their employees and customers are not only idiots but thieves? Where do think Walmart (corporate America) got that perspective, the Biblical one, men are inately evil? Isn't it Christians like Rod that have drummed it into them since birth? Now ask yourself, Rod too please, the next time you walk into a business and you see the security and the parrots they've assigned to handle your business, "is this for me because they fear me?" Chances are you'll accept that's the cost of doing business because of all those other people we all need to fear. Again, Christianity one oh one in action.

The problem with corporate America was defined for me twenty five years or so ago. I was a manager responsible for seventy plus people in a couple of states. A management company came in and evaluated us. Three things stuck like good glue in a bad place. 1. I learned I was a bad word. We took personality tests to define our place in the work place. The results came out in a graph form. The speaker went through all the usual graphs defining that kind of person and the kinds of people that worked best with them. He asked if he missed anything.
The person sitting next to me grabbed mine and handed it up to the speaker. He looked at it. "This is what we call the, (think of what's pretty well in the middle of what you sit on, no not the chair, the part that's you)" he said. "He's the one you give the task and then get the heck out of the way, the ultimate goal oriented individual." 2. I learned the definition of "expert". First break after the speaker had given us an overview of what they wanted to accomplish with the seminar I walked up to the speaker and wished him good luck. I'd been preaching what he was saying for a year and it wasn't getting through.
"You're not an expert" he said. I guess he could tell by my body language that I was about to return his insult with a physical reply. "An expert is someone with a briefcase and from over two hundred miles away" he explained. 3. We took a test asking us about our goals as people and employees. We talked about the results. Then we took the same test but was asked to take it from the perspective of our employees. We talked about that. Then he gave us the results of the same tests taken by our employees. The biggest truth of all hit like a ton of bricks coming down five floors. Their, our employees, replies were exactly the same as ours. But when we answered the test from what we judged as their perspective we judged them as money oriented self centered jerks. The instructor explained that's the way it is. Management always assumes they are different from their employees. That's a bad thing.

The biggest problem as I see it with the concept of making the job where any idiot can do it is you're going to find only idiots will. The dumbing down of the workforce isn't because the workforce has changed. It's because management has gotten more lazy, more greedy, and less smart over time.

Christianity (broadly speaking) teaches that man is basically good but spiritually broken, and that individual men can only be healed and delivered through the working of the Holy Spirit on the heart. Man does have to be saved, but it's a more complex situation than you think. Okay Rod, humor me. Explain how it's more complex. While you're considering how to do that I'd like you to consider another perspective. What if what you see as the weakness of man is in reality our strength? The "spiritually broken" is in reality what saves us from becoming a captive in our own world? I like to point out that every strength is a weakness. It doesn't matter if it's a human trait or that of a piece of stone, steel, or wood. The reverse is also true, every weakness is a strength. On that thought look at your concept of spiritual weakness. Isn't that what has been the force for progressive? Imagine a world without spiritual weakness. You wouldn't fit in would you?

She is unimpressed with self-esteem preschool ditties, such as the one set to the tune of "Fr re Jacques": "I am special/ I am special/ Look at me..." I, too, am unimpressed. I'm a sinner, I'm a sinner. Woe is me! Woe is me! Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Alleluia. Alleluia.

The best kind of praise is the one that dispenses with the first letter.

From the linked article: But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. Emphasis added by FE. Maybe it's just my "don't ask me to do your thinking for you" inner curmudgeon coming out for air, but do we really need to discuss it beyond that one word up there? My children's self-esteem is and will be built on the concrete results of their efforts in life. Notice that the word "success" does not make an appearance in that statement. I believe in praising a sincere effort even if it doesn't produce the desired outcomes... because how else is one to pick up the pieces and try again? IMO the self-esteem fiasco is just a symptom. We are building a society of co-dependents. It's the next addiction, and "praise-junkies" is the perfect term for it. Aside: ...researchers suggest!?!?!?!? With one ear still 100% and just one eye open, I can hear and see the reality. Sheesh, and pass the barf bucket.

It seemed to me the article was mixing two points. In separate places it made the assertion that young people need 1) constant praise and 2) constant feedback.
While I disagree with the first point, I absolutely agree with the second. These people (of which I am one) are in the early stages of careers, still exploring their strengths and weaknesses. We need to know how we're doing so that we can adjust our actions accordingly. There are very few professions that I can think of where you come out of high school or college knowing exactly how to fulfill your role, even if you have been extensively trained. We need feedback to tell us how should adjust in order to meet and exceed expectations, and, yes, we have been conditioned by schooling to expect that feedback. I maintain that this is completely different than needing constant praise. If my manager tells me "you're doing what you need to, great job", fine. If she tells me I need to be doing something differently, that's fine, too. Just don't leave me with no clear idea of what is expected.

Isn't self-esteem on Maslow's hierarcy of needs?

Harvey, I think part of the problem with your analysis is that the dumbing down of the workplace has been increasing precisely during the past few decades when our society has become *less* overtly Christian, when *fewer* people self-identify as Christians, and when Christianity (at least formally) has *diminished* as the default religious identification of our society.

The one thing I love about working for myself-no more end of the day staff meetings, where the dumbest person insists on rambling on and on, and asking silly questions because no one will tell her he or she is a ditz. Torture. The clock is passing, the world is still going and you're stuck listening to this babble and nonsense. HA! Love it.

Actually, harv, I attribute this sort of behavior to a segment of the population that has no fundamental belief in the dignity of man, that believes in, well, 'The kind of equality that insures moral behavior because morality when it's distilled down to where the rubber meets the road is about being self centered.' If management is just being self-centered, and justifying the firing of a few thousand with increased profits for more, what could be wrong with that? If a company shit-cans the pensions of 5,000 people so the CEO can wallow in an astronomical self-centered bonus, what's to criticize? That ain't Christianity.
As for the discourse on Wal-Mart: I think your tin-foil hat has some holes in it. Starrs I'm glad to see we're on the same page on the morality perspective Starrs. You quoting me to support my position is great. The thing with the management pay is a wonderful example. I would have to reach to find a better scenario that defines what can happen someone has a distorted vision of themself and the corruption that ensues from looking at the world through a defective lense. On the Walmart remark, would you mind getting a little more specific? You think I'm wrong and you've suggested it's a fashion fault on my part, care to clarify your position for me?

What evidence is there that the people in charge of WalMart when these decisions were made are/were Christians?
Why ascribe to Christianity what is more likey explained as a response to past experiences?
i.e. WalMart was experiencing theft from employees and customers so they installed RFID. Seems much more reasonable than, WalMart managers are Christians so they automatically assume their customers and employees are idiots and thieves so they then did x,y and z. Also, where does Christianity promote the idea that people are "idiots"?

Rob, the question I want to see answered (not meaning to imply anything on your part) is: we hear constant calls to be more like Christ's followers. We see that even those born, raised and self-identified in Christianity fail that call. At some point, I think we'd like to hear a more specific criticism of how things are going than "Christianity is declining" and suchlike. From my POV, if we were to excise from the list all those who are Christ's followers not acting like he taught them to, the list of those remaining would be very, very short.

But, Franklin, you can say that about everything! Do you think historical paganism has nothing to answer for? Hinduism? Atheism?
Harvey's probalem is that he can't see any difference between the church and the person of Christ. I cannot deny that almost EVERY philosophy that has enjoyed any kind of following has had crimes committed in its name - whether Islam, Christianity, neo-Darwinism, or athesim. That does not mean those ideas are inherently bad - but we must go back and ask ourselves what undergirds those ideas? Were they perverted by man or perverted by their very nature?
And with all due respect to his moralizing, I'd ask Harvey to explain why it was HIS generation who continued to resist and institutionalize racism, and why MINE had to break down the walls. Is that fair? Of course not! But that's precisely the argument harvey's making. And who says we're MORE forgiving nowadays? We just tolerate everything, no matter how destructive, corrosive, self-centered, and utterly without redeeming value it may be. People used to confess sins and wrongs and ask for forgiveness and repent. I don't see that as having advanced at all. harvey, I did quote your comment to show you how silly it is. I used it to to show you how one can justify any self-centered act. Then you tell me that a CEO would have "defective lenses" - pray, in your philosophy, how does one know, if it's all about SELF-PERCEPTION?! If morality is essentially about self, and one ends up with a distorted vision of oneself, how will that person ever know? Why should they care? On what basis do we judge?

But, the idea that we're just full of sin does bring along a certain "stigma." Wouldn't it?

Franklin, I don't want you to accept Christian values unless you want to.
But inasmuch as you reject much Christianity, based on the conduct of Christians - which I understand and sympathize with - I reject humanist approaches to morality. And I reject many of them because they are unfounded reactions against Christanity, not towards anything of their own. Do Christians have some blood on their hands? No doubt. So does just about any worldview, including atheism. If there's no basis for the belief system, if harvey's right and it's all self-centered tell me why I should care? Specifically: my intent was to defend Christianity from what I perceive to be a fatuous and asinine argument from harvey who I suspect of trying to pick a fight over Christianity and Wal-Mart. I would likewise defend 'anyone's' SACRED BELIEFS from spurious attack.

Self-esteem culture has lots of problems, but it's also an easy target.
What if someone tries and fails - at being a writer, at med school, at starting a business? I mean, people fail at life sometimes, and it's because people can be weak and flawed. Do we tell these people they must feel badly about themselves because they have not earned the right to have self-esteem? If they start feeling too OK about themselves should we slap them down? That seems profoundly un-Christian to followers of a man who blessed the weak, the timid, and the poor. Jesus certainly did not say that the strong, smart and successful were more "esteemable" than the weak. Admittedly, its something different if you have an arrogant jackass at a law firm who does bad work but demands kudos for it. It's something different to give people an unrealistic expectation of praise at every turn.
But I think the bashers of self-esteem culture can be too proud of their own strength, and I don't find it particularly Christian.

Franklin, I am grateful that we live in a pluralistic society with an open marketplace of ideas. And make no mistake: I may not agree with a lot of them, but I am at least open to listening. Likewise, I have no problem with someone questioning my beliefs (all of this assumes a certain mutual respect in dialogue).
What I find intolerable is the idea held by so many that their opinion should be taken seriously because they feel a certain way, or 'just have an opinion'. You have to be able to defend your beliefs or be willing to re-examine them. People whose vision of life is entirely self-centered have no dam' business lecturing me on Christianity, you on paganism, etc.
Look, I have a dear friend who is Hindu and we understand each other very well. A professor I have occasion to work with now and again is a Richard Dawkins disciple: we hardly agree on ANYTHING, but we can at least discuss our beliefs and where they came from.
I do apologize for flying off the handle here, so to speak, but the intelligent thoughtful 'attacks': these I can handle. The flippant smart-ass stuff sends me into orbit - a failing on my part.
I'm going to have a glass of port and read. Good night.

And with all due respect to his moralizing, I'd ask Harvey to explain why it was HIS generation who continued to resist and institutionalize racism, and why MINE had to break down the walls. Is that fair? Of course not! But that's precisely the argument harvey's making. Starrs I'm fifty eight years old. I'm what is commonly called a baby boomer. We're the ones that have been at the forefront against racism.
How old are you Starrs?

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first And the meek ....

Harvey, I'm not sure what your upbringing was but your understanding of Christianity is warped. It does not teach that man is born evil. Likewise, it does not teach that moral behaviors are rewardable in the sense you imply. Both of these are theological errors: the former is known as 'Total Depravity,' and is not taught by the vast majority of Christians. The latter is Pelagianism and is a heresy. Rob Grano Okay Rob, evil is a little harsh. Man is born flawed, flawed enough that without salvation will spend eternity in an everlasting non-consuming fire. Coincidently this everlasting non-consuming fire is the punishment God designed for evil. In God's eyes flawed and evil are the same I guess. If I'm wrong and you're right about moral behavior being critical to salvation-reward then why the Commandments? Why is it Jesus talked about being held accountable for behavior?

'the issue I want to see addressed is: we hear constant calls to be more like Christ's followers. We see that even those born, raised and self-identified in Christianity fail that call. At some point, I think we'd like to hear a more specific criticism of how things are going than "Christianity is declining" and suchlike.' In a nutshell, I'd say that what it amounts to is that culturally speaking those things which Christianity views as virtues are declining and what it sees as vices are increasing. This is a generality, of course, and obviously doesn't apply to every single situation. And in many respects what Christianity sees as virtues and vices overlap with those of other religions, so in that regard they're not uniquely Christian. But what modernism and post-modernism have done is to eat away at the metaphysical root of 'The Great Tradition' to the point where what civility and virtue we have left is simply running on fumes, so to speak. There's no ground left for our morality and when the moral capital (as Christopher Dawson called it) of the West is finally used up, what will be our basis for morality, civility, etc.?

Aileen -- regarding Total Depravity that might be true, but he's mixing it with something very non-Calvinistic: a rather Pelagian view of works. Whence the odd mixture?

Rob, with some people, you can talk of grace till you're blue in the face, and they will still only hear works. Almost as if they were utterly incapable of coming to faith, without first being regenerated . . . . I certainly do wish "total depravity" were not the common label for the relevant concept. It sounds like something it's not, i.e., a doctrine that humans are as bad as they can possibly be.

"I used to think courtesy was dead. I've been forced to admit that it is "only" comatose. I am quite ready to extend that to virtue." I wish I could be that optimistic, Franklin! ;-) I tend to think that both are not only comatose but terminally ill.

"...because only when we give up do we truly abandon hope. I have three children; even when I don't want to, I have to maintain the example to them. It may not be the noblest of motivations, but there it is." True, Franklin. I'm not really as pessimistic as I let on! And I agree with you totally on the idea of maintaining an example.