Listen to the Fair Election Workshop held at UUCB on September 20, 2008
To Have or To Be: Escaping The Language of Possession
September
25, 2003
The “language of possession”–what is it and what meaning does it
have for Unitarian Universalism? I
will first discuss the nature of the language of possession, and then the
possibilities of what it means for Unitarian Universalism.
The language of possession–(pause)– it would be helpful to our
understanding if we put it in the context of where we live, in our daily
lives. The phrases that are windows into the meaning of the language of
possession are “to own” or “to have.” To have – I have my car, I
have my house, I have an image of myself, I have an image of how I want my
children to be, I have an image of how I want myself to be, I have my future
mapped out, I have my retirement
plans, I have my health care,
I am suggesting that in all of my having I have lost myself. And the
things that I don’t have, I begin to structure my life to acquire.
Historian Christopher Lasch, writes about this process of acquiring
what we don’t have, and he states that in our culture of mass consumption,
we have become addicted to this sense of acquiring, the feeling of acquiring,
the experience of going to purchase the object.
And that once the object is purchased, once we have the object,
it loses its value. We need
another object to feed the addiction of “to acquire.” The language of
possession governs lives and our culture.
Our very minds and emotional lives are structured to support the way of
life called “to Have.”
On the other hand as Erich Fromm who was a social psychologist, teaches
in his book, To Have Or To Be? both “to have” and “to be” are
ways of being in this world. To Be, is to be with others in a loving, caring,
mutually respectful fashion. In our culture To Have or To Be, is not a
question, it is a decision.
The difference between these two ways of being in this world in
religious terms is, on the one hand, a way of life that defends the truths of
our faith, for we have them and to lose them would be to lose our faith, which
is also a possession among possessions. On the other hand we are in faith
moving toward that which is not yet conditioned, where the possibilities of
life are nurtured and do not become bondage, do not become ideas and behaviors
we own and defend.
The language of possession
moves toward culture that is already conditioned– in other words it already
exists, and I can own it as mine. For
example in my mind when I think of retirement the first thing that comes to my
mind is a commercial about playing golf. It’s been internalized in my brain
from television, from mass media. Now
when I sit back and think about it, that’s not what I really want–I
don’t know what I would want 30 years from now. I will be different from who
I am now. But the first image
that comes to my mind is an image that I did not create, an image that
somebody else created and that’s what I mean by conditioned – it’s
already in existence. I’m aspiring to something that already exists, which
means my future already has a structure in my mind and I’m stepping into a
structured future not of my own creation.
We say, “Well, of course”– that gives us security when we can do
that. However when anybody threatens that image of my future that I’m
walking into, I begin to get anxious and I will need to defend the future that
does not yet exist, but that I have.
Relational, socially, politically,
I’ll will need to do something that will bring that image of my
future back into place. What
might I do? I might argue with my wife, I might argue with my son, I
might argue with my community, I might vote for particular people,
I might sanction a particular administration to do this, or a
particular administration to do that. But
the whole time I am experiencing anxiety within myself because that image that
I have is being threatened. And
the more insecure that I am inside, the tighter I will hold onto that image
that I have that doesn’t even exist.
How many of us fight over things that are not yet here? How many couples fight over future things that are not yet
here and when it gets said and done often the things that they’re fighting
over don’t come about anyway. It
is because our minds are structured to produce anxiety when what we possess,
what we have is threatened. In the language of to be images in
our minds are loosely held knowing that life changes, and that the illusion
that it does not only creates a self bondage. In the way of life to be, the
relationship and how we treat one another become core values. Two clear
examples of living out to have or to be, are from a conversation
and a faith perspective.
An example of what that might look like, from a conversation
perspective– in the language of to have, in the language of
possession, let’s say I’m going to go to a conversation or a book club or
something like that. On my way
there I am rehearsing what I’m going to say.
I’m fitting what I’m going to say in with who I am, my faith
tradition, my ideology, my particular belief structure.
I’m already fitting what I am going to say so that when I get to the
club, no matter what is said, or how it’s said it has to be organized in
such a way that it fits who I already am.
I can have this knowledge out here that somebody brings to me but I’m
going to work with it so that it fits into the structure that’s already
within myself. There’s no newness. It’s
the same. It gets colored
the same as the colors that are already there even if it’s a
different color.
From the perspective of “to be” what happens is I’m going to go
to this book club, I read this book, and I think this is going to be exciting
or not-- let’s go see what other people have to say. I might listen to
somebody and I might say “I didn’t see that perspective.” I didn’t
understand it in that way, and I take new information in and I ponder about it
and I wonder about it and it has an effect on me.
I am more than I was when I leave that conversation.
I am not the same. I’m not trying to force what I heard into a
particular way. How many of you
have ever had an insight into your life–where you’ve been living in a
particular way all your life and all of a sudden you have an insight and your
whole life changes. But I am different after that conversation in the language
of to be. I become different.
In theological terms it comes under we are in a process of becoming.
If we take a look at the
language of “to be” and the language of possession-- to have-- in terms of
faith traditions. If I’m defending my faith all the time, it means I am
defending a historical construct. I’m out of balance with the here and now
and with the possibilities of the future.
If I’m always defending myself, whether I’m defending myself in a
faith tradition, whether I’m defending myself in a relationship, if I find
myself emotionally reactive and defending myself in many areas of my life,
I’m heavily dominated by what has gone on my history. And that’s out of
balance with the here and now. It’s
out of balance with the possibilities of the future.
So the language of “to have” is about being dedicated to living in
the past and repeating the past. The
language of possession is binding and it keeps us in bondage.
There’s no freedom. In the language of To Be, I am in faith, able to
listen, be silent and contribute when I believe I would be heard. I don’t
have faith, faith is a particular hopeful, envisioning way of life.
I
am suggesting that the seven principles that in part guide the covenantal
relationship of the Unitarian Universalist community cannot be actualized in the
language of possession, the way of life described as to Have. As I
understand these principles
We,
the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to
affirm and promote
-
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
-
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
-
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
-
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
-
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
-
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
-
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
The
living tradition which we share draws from many sources:
-
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
-
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
-
Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
-
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
-
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
-
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.
Grateful
for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are
inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free
congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual
trust and support.
They
are relational in nature and the quality of that relationship is one in which,
mutuality, creativity, closeness, and transformation are core values.
The
inherent worth and dignity of every person --we affirm that. We commit to live
with a sense of compassion with one another --we affirm that.
We recognize that we’re connected to the earth and we value that. Every
principle promotes healthy relationships both psychological and spiritual health
among Unitarian Universalists and the communities in which we live. Our
communities are pregnet with the potential to hear the stories of who we are,
where we have traveled and where our thoughts and emotional lives can be heard.
We offer persons what James Luther Adams calls character forming communities.
We
value those who can listen in silence and hear all the nuances of what’s being
said by the other. To hear all of
who they are. When somebody says,
“I don’t know what happened over the first half of my life but I don’t
want to live the next half like I lived the first half.” That’s a big
statement. When somebody says “I
think I’ve finally found a community where I can be myself” and they’re 45
years old, what they’re telling you is they’ve been trying to get into a
community were they can be themselves for 45 years. Not that they’ve just
found a community but that they’ve been through grief and sorrow and
tried to belong but couldn’t find a place to belong. So we hear all the
nuances of what somebody says when we can be in the language of silence and
compassion, in the language of To Be. We
hear all of it. When we begin to
balance out our life’s energies from the past to the here and now and to the
future. As we become our truest selves in community participating in the context
of a covenatal relationship with one another.
One of
the things I discovered this past year as a candidate for the Unitarian
Universalist ministry is that we live in a continuum of the UUA as a movement of
a liberal religious voice in this culture, and many Unitarian Universalists are
dedicated to that movement. The other side of that continuum is individuals who
say what do we really need the UUA for anyway? They just take money, and imposed
upon us and go out and speak what they want to say and they don’t ask us about
it, which is not always true but it’s sometimes true. So we live in a
continuum of a movement that’s local, we come here and we hear what I’m
saying and what others are saying and how does that nurture our lives and how
are we cared for here which is extremely important.
But we also live in a movement of a larger community. In the movement of the larger community folks at one point
gathered and pulled together seven principles.
Now some folks may put more importance on these principles than others
because for some folks these principles were pulled together as the lowest
common denominator which could combine Universalists and Unitarians.
It was the best we could do it at that particular point.
The best we could agree on. They
were modified in about 1985. Got
rid of some of the sexist language and made it more gender appropriate for who
we are as a people. But in those seven principles for those of us who weren’t
in that particular struggle, for those of us who came along afterward and we
read the seven principles, not aware that struggle we think “these are good
principles.”
Eric
Ericsson, a psychological theorist, said by the time we’re 35 reality begins
to have its say. Up till then you
know we can kind of dance around it but sooner or later reality is going to have
its say. And whether I’m defending my past or not sooner or later somebody is
going to say you’re defending your past.
You might want to try something different in the future.
If they’re kind enough to tell me that it in a way in which I can hear
it. The seven principles cannot be actualized, cannot be lived out in the
language of possession. Where we
are dominated with imaginary constructs with mental constructs that are
dedicated to a way of life of to have. We
can say we believe them, we can do whatever we want.
But if we are structured with the language to have, the seven principles
will not be alive. And we’re in a
culture where that is rapidly becoming the dominant language. Your minds don’t have to go too far-- when you drive down
U.S. 1 --How many signs do you see that say come in here and buy this product
–I’ll bet you there’s 1000 within a mile on U.S. 1.
That’s the language of “to have”-- that’s the manipulation of our
minds that structures our imagination. I think of retirement, I see a TV
commercial. That’s a problem. I’m
living into somebody else’s dream. When
we read the seven principles it is about possibility.
It is about freedom. It is
about seeing that which is not yet. And it is about a way in a community that
can bring about justice and equity and compassion for all. And there has to be a
balance in the here and now and the future and the past in order for that occur.
As Unitarian Universalists we need to pay attention to both those
languages. And I need to be self reflective of where am I in that process?
Because if I claim who I am as a Unitarian Universalist sometimes I find myself
at odds with the greater community. Right now in Port Saint Lucie many of us are
crying over the condition of the river. We also voted in the politicians that
have helped set the stage for the condition of that river.
Whether we like it or not we did it.
So I have to be self reflective of who I am and why is that.
Where does that come from --what is that about? Why did I purchase this
item in my house when I know it’s going to lead to a fight? I already know it.
Why did I do that? When I value something, think-- is there anything that you
value more than the relationship you’re in.
Of course we’re going to say no. Do
I do things that interrupt the harmony of the relationship when in the long run
it’s not as important as I think. Yes.
At that moment in time I valued something else other than the
relationship and usually it has something to do with to have, to acquire.
To acquire time to play, to acquire items, to acquire information and
knowledge that helps me justify my position When everybody around me is going
“what are you doing?” But I
don’t listen.
The seven principles move
us to listen. They move us to
observe critically. They move us to
care for one another. And that’s
who we are as Unitarian Universalists. People that are aware that we’re caught
in this tension, people that can say yeah I have done these things that commit
myself to this language to have. And
I am in a process of change, I am in a process of transformation.
But I do get hooked and I do things that I don’t want to do as the
apostle Paul says. I do the very
things I don’t want to do. That happens in our lives.
The work is not to beat ourselves upon when that happens.
The work is to be compassionate to ourselves, to be kind ourselves
because the judgment we use to beat ourselves up will only keep us in the same
pattern of doing the things we don’t want to do. It is compassion and kindness
that is the core of transformation. That’s
also in the seven principles. It’s
just also true.
And I am glad to be on
this journey with you all because you have been kind to me in this process.
You have modeled for me what it means to be Unitarian Universalists and
you have given me a place to talk about the language “to have” and “to
be” in many different seminars that we’ve done here.
And I’m appreciative of that. So I hope I can take that to Boston and
say the same. Thank you.
V From a counseling
perspective I can think of countless cases where persons would say, “well I
didn’t know my indirect anger was related to my stifling my anger from my
childhood.” People in my childhood were so angry I couldn’t express my anger
directly because I would get more anger so I had to learn to express it
indirectly. But then it becomes a way of life.
As long as I’m expressing my anger indirectly I come under the category
of to have. I have my way of
dealing with anger. There’s no
creativity in it. There’s no
potentializing of what it means to be human in it.
But under to be I can be direct with my anger and people can know
that I am angry and they might even not personalize my anger.
I might just be angry. And it’s OK and it’s understood and nobody’s
trying to stifle my anger. We try
to understand what might be going on that I might feel threatened, those kind of
things.
I
think differently from when I was 25. It’s
changed. When it doesn’t change
then I’m force-feeding new information in a particular way with a structure
within me that already exists and then I kind of own the language, I kind of own
knowledge. It’s not just that I
own products but I own information and I work with it but it doesn’t become
part of me. It doesn’t get
integrated into who I am. This puts
a heavy burden on relationships. Because it gets to that other side that we read
in the meditation. It gets to the
other side of language. It gets to
the other side of language where silence is considered to be part of language.
How many of you have ever been in a conversation that before you can finish what you’re saying you know that the other person’s mind is already clicking. There already trying to butt into what you’re saying so that you can even finish what you’re saying and all of a sudden there it is, and all of a sudden you feel diminished and you’re not contributing to the conversation anymore and this person is becoming dominant in the conversation. And you’re saying “eh”. What the heck. It’s not even worth talking about anymore. And the next thing you know ten years have gone by and that which you considered worth talking about you no longer talk about anymore. And your life goes by. Because in the language to have our lives go by us and we are unconscious that it’s going by and we wake up 10 years later and think who am I? Where have I been? But in the language of “to be” we’re conscious of every minute all of the time A psychoanalyst, Eric Fromm, a Humanist fellow, wrote this book called “To Have or To Be”. He is a social critic and he is attempting to bring a perspective on culture in relationship to what it means to the human. During the time of 1920s to 1960's we have something going on not just in the field of psychology but also in the field of theology. We have something going on the field of sociology. And I’m wondering if what was going on isn’t because we experienced the horrors of World War I and World War II. And what these particular leaders in these fields were saying is that what is good is the possibilities of human beings potentializing themselves. What is good is actually not yet. What is good is the freedom to create what is not here. What is good is to see what’s here and have some critique about it and to see it otherwise. To see it differently, and then to have the freedom to begin to attend to the process of bringing about what would be more appropriate for human beings potentializing themselves. Across the board-- theology, sociology, psychology -- these folks would say that in order to do that our primary value cannot be a particular economic system, cannot be a particular religion. Our primary value has to be what it means to be human with one another. The primary value of what it means to be human with one another comes under the way of existence called “to be”. As opposed to “to have.” When we are operating under a way of life called to have, we are actually valuing something more than what it means to be human, something other than human, a way of life, a system that is not necessarily attentive to who we are as human beings. This means some people get sacrificed along the way because they don’t match that structure that facilitates this way of being and thinking called “to have.” To be, what does that mean? It’s a curious thing, these leaders what they also say is this thing to be cannot happen outside of relationship. That there is no rugged individualism. That in order to potentialize what it means to be human spiritually and religiously requires us to be a particular type of relationship.
Rev. Gregory Wilson, D.Div
Copyright 2003
