One of the difficulties we have in sustaining ethical conversation on perplexing issues is that our social discourse today is patterned much more on confrontation and competition than on understanding and collaboration. Whether it is in relation to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf, or to the Vatican’s handling of the clergy sexual abuse scandal, it seems that we use our outrage primarily to condemn those who hold a perspective different than our own. Whatever the ethical claim of the issue, it becomes secondary, because what matters most is scoring points against rivals.

As Roman Catholic, I could not help but follow with a heavy heart the articles and commentary untangling the problem of pedophilia in the Church. Almost as disorienting as this tragedy has been the reaction amongst Catholics posting comments on these articles or analyses. All too often the posts evaded the key ethical questions posed by the situation and instead sought to vilifying or caricature those on the opposite side of the liberal-conservative spectrum. Outrage has become an excuse for venting rage. Even within an institution defined by a morality of compassion and forgiveness, we seem unable to practice the generosity in our discourse that would suggest a common commitment to principles, and a shared valuing of the historical gifts of the institution.

This is not to say that we should withhold judgment or suppress criticism. Quite the opposite, my premise is that we need critical dialogue exactly because our most serious problems defy solving by any one position or ideology. Blame is important for accountability, but blaming is not a creative asset. Creating new solutions, re-infusing ethics in tired systems or structures, or experimenting to solve unprecedented risks, requires principles of mutual learning and mutual openness.

The ethics of antipathy presume one side – our side – is right before the facts or evidence relating to a crisis even become known. Such polemical certitude does more damage than merely rob us of the opportunity to collaborate. It also distorts the moral value of outrage as a catalyst for serious reflection and creative interpretation. Turning our rage-out towards others annuls any need to wonder about how we as persons, or in our positions, might need to change.

BP is now easy to hate. Regulators and politicians certainly need to be held accountable. But rage-out is making it easy so far for citizens and consumers to avoid accountability for how our own addiction to oil is contributing to the havoc in the environment.

How do we break read-rage as we react to information and posts?

• First, respect that outrage is a powerful ethical barometer. As Walter Brueggemann has shown with his scholarly study of the “Prophetic Imagination,” outrage attunes us to injustice.

• Second, keep the outrage where it belongs, focused on the issue or the ethical claims of the problem or its victims. Don’t turn the rage to blame. We need facts and reason for that. And don’t turn it towards opponents, because all that then happens is that it gets mirrored back. Use the outrage instead to consider the still-hidden systemic causes for the injustice. Study the history of the dilemma. Examine the quandary as a source for lessons. And accord the issue the serious respect that the outrage is evoking.

• Third, imagine alternatives. Brueggemann observes that the prophetic imagination is agitated by the outrage from injustice, but is equally inspired by awe for what is possible as an ideal. Only as the flip side of awe does outrage function as a coin of genuine social progress.

• Fourth, with this responsibility for awe as well as outrage, we need to inflect our discourse with ethics of generosity. This means dialogue rather than put-down – an invitation to study together, to share pros and cons for possible solutions, and to channel awe-and-outrage towards the common goal of improving the human outcomes from remedial strategies or actions.

How we talk prefigures how we will act, so we need to recover accountability for the words we speak, write or post.

Tags: accountability for posts, Catholic Church, corporate dialogue, ethics of discourse, focus groups, liberals versus conservatives, outrage, pedophilia crisis, vilifying others

This entry was posted on Monday, May 31st, 2010 at 3:52 pm and is filed under Dialogue. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.