Is it Important to be Liked?

Rev. Paul Beckel

First Universalist Unitarian Church ~ www.uuwausau.org

April 29, 2007

I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal.

Jane Austen (1798)

False dichotomies are often at the heart of discord.

Deborah Tannen (1998)

CHALICE LIGHTING

Confucius wrote, approximately 500 years before the common era,

When you see someone of worth, think of how you may emulate them. When you see someone unworthy, examine your own character.

In the light of this flaming chalice may we be reminded that inspiration may arise at any time, in any place. And may this be a time and a place for self-examination.

SILENCE (2:00)

READING     from The Heart of the Enlightened       Anthony De Mello

There was once a rabbi who was revered by the people as a man of God. Not a day went by when a crowd of people wasn’t standing at his door seeking advice or healing or the holy man’s blessing. And each time the rabbi spoke, the people would hang on his lips, drinking in his every word.

There was, however, in the audience a disagreeable fellow who never missed a chance to contradict the master. He would observe the rabbi’s weaknesses and make fun of his defects to the dismay of the disciples, who began to look on him as the devil incarnate.

Well, one day this “devil” took ill and died. Everyone heaved a sigh of relief. Outwardly they looked appropriately solemn but in their hearts they were glad for no longer would the master’s inspiring talks be interrupted or his behavior criticized by this disrespectful heretic.

So the people were surprised to see the master plunged in genuine grief at the funeral. When asked by a disciple later if he was mourning over the eternal fate of the dead man, he said, “No, no. Why should I mourn over our friend who is now in heaven? It was for myself I was grieving. That man was the only friend I had. Here I am surrounded by people who revere me. He was the only one who challenged me. I fear that with him gone, I shall stop growing.” And as he said these words, the master burst into tears.”

MUSICAL MEDITATION

MESSAGE

Confucius was asked, “What would you say of the person who is liked by all his fellow townspeople?”  “That is not sufficient,” was the reply.  “What is better is that the good among his fellow townspeople like him, and the bad hate him.” 

Do you agree?

I generally avoid characterizing people as “good” or “bad.” But the question repeatedly rises to our consciousness in response to situations like the shootings at Virginia Tech, and it becomes tempting to answer the unanswerable with such simplistic distinctions.

Trickster teacher that he was, Confucius came at the human character from a variety of angles. So it would be a mistake to try to pin down his philosophy based on any one quote. Consider, for example, another of his teachings: “People are alike in their nature; it is their habits that carry them far apart.”

Who was this Confucius? He was not well known in his own time, nor did he hold any power or social position.  He made no claim to having been original in his teachings... rather, he is more appropriately seen as an editor of pre-existing culture and philosophy.  And yet his influence has been recognized as the foundation of Chinese culture -- which until the 20th century had survived largely intact for 2 millennia -- a culture which touched one-third of the people on the planet. 

Confucius never commanded an army or had any political authority.  And yet the reach of his influence makes the empires of Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon look ephemeral.

He claimed no divine power for himself.  And most of his followers refrain from making him into a god.  He did not offer any hope of eternal comforts.  He did not appeal to any realm of power outside of this world.  All he taught about was human relationships.  What, in this, could possibly warrant the breadth of his influence?

Confucius lived in an era of great social conflict.  After the collapse of an earlier dynasty, China experienced several centuries of internal war between rival barons.  The histories tell of massive slaughters of whole populations.  Within this context we can imagine that an effective theory of social cohesion would have been appreciated and even revered.  While this is exactly what Confucius offered, it was centuries after his death before the warring had consumed itself, and his ideas took hold.  But once they took hold, they held.  They held on through the introduction of Taoism and Buddhism.  They held on until the beginning of the 20th century.  And, even under communist rule, and even in the midst of its current state of transition, Chinese culture and ethics remain rooted in Confucian ideals.

The success of these ideals may lie in part upon the social structure that existed before the era of internecine war. The social structure that existed before his time that he was trying to revive. On one level, he simply re-articulated that ancient social ethic, which put the good of the group before the good of the individual.  The teachers of old had written of this powerful social ethic -- which had at one time been accepted without question.

But in the millennium before the common era, cultures throughout the world experienced the dawn of reason, the emergence of individuals doing self-conscious reflection, and a new sense of self-interest which began to compete with group-interest.  In time this heightened sense of self-interest seemed to destroy the fabric of Chinese society.  And two competing responses emerged.

One way to combat social breakdown, it was argued, was by the force of law.  Make it very clear what is acceptable and what is not, and provide swift and severe punishment to those who step out of line.

A competing philosophy emphasized love instead of force.  Its premise was that people were capable of selflessness if only they were shown the way.

Law or Love?

Confucius was one to find the middle way.  He taught that proper relationships could be ensured between neighbors, between members of a family, and between citizens and their ruler...not by force or by love, but by very consciously creating, teaching, and re-enforcing traditions and social norms.

Confucius thus became an advocate for propriety. In the past, adherence to social norms had seemed to occur spontaneously.  But now it would be necessary to pay conscious attention to every aspect of social relationships...and to spell out in detail how, for example, a father should relate to a son, an older sibling to a younger sibling, a citizen to the ruler, and so on.  And these proper ways of doing things must be ritually re-enforced at every possible opportunity, through art, literature, philosophy, religion, politics...in the public forum, and in the home.

What were these “proper relationships?”  To put it very briefly, the rules for proper relationships were based upon the person of lower status (and status was primarily based upon age) ...the person of lower status giving deference to the person of higher status. It was a system of strict adherence of one’s place within society.

But Confucius also insisted that the person of higher status, that is, generally, the elder...had to MERIT their authority.  For example rulers must be benevolent while their subjects must be loyal.  Elder siblings must be gentle, while the younger must be respectful. 

The roles in this scheme were fixed.  One did not readily change their status in society.  But every relationship here was a dialogue, not just an expression of dominance by one side.

So for the Chinese culture that emerged, the individual existed as the sum of its social roles.  Not as an entity unto itself, but as a node upon the complex web of social relationships.

What Confucianism ultimately created was a society so different from my own that I have difficulty grasping it. It seems almost inconceivable to me as an American -- bathed in the blood of fierce individualism, personal freedom, and resistance to anyone telling me how to behave.

Just how different the Chinese culture is from that of Socrates, Descartes, and Jefferson, is brought out in Deborah Tannen’s book, The Argument Culture.  Tannen is an American linguist who argues that Western habits of speech (as well as our political process, and the nature of electronic media) cause our differences of opinion to become polarized... exaggerated beyond recognition into irreconcilable extremes.

In contrast, and acknowledging that this is a generalization, Tannen speaks of the Asian emphasis upon harmony in all things.  She speaks of the yin and yang symbol which does away with dualism by showing that the bad is a part of every good, the good is a part of every bad, and that all things are in constant flux -- shifting imperceptibly between all black and all white.

Tannen also cites the co-existence of Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, (and in Japan, Shinto) integrated not only with each other but also with the workings of the state...as opposed to American religion, of which you can only choose one, and our deep anxiety around religion slipping into schools or government.

Tannen and religious scholar Huston Smith concur that this Confucian tendency to find the middle ground is behind that culture’s tendency to compromise, and work things out, rather than to stake out opposing ground, and hire a lawyer.

Which brings me back to our original question: Is it best to be liked by all your fellow townspeople, or better to be liked by the good, and hated by the bad?

Given what I’ve said so far about Confucius, it hardly seems plausible that he would have said such a thing.  It hardly seems likely that he would even make reference to “good people and bad people.”  After all, he is very explicit about his belief that people are born good.

In contemporary Western terms, we might expect Confucius, an promoter of “propriety,” to be an advocate of political correctness, and the avoidance of offending anyone, at all costs.

Or like Steven Covey in the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, we might expect Confucius to advocate for win-win solutions to every negotiation.

At the very least, we might expect him to be in the camp with Deborah Tannen, or Marshall Rosenberg, guru of non-violent communication, insisting that if we just keep on trying, listen for the other person’s feelings, and pay endless critical attention to the way WE communicate, we can get through to just about anyone.

C’mon, would Confucius really say such a thing as “It’s better that the good people like you and the bad people hate you”???

If so, he wouldn’t have been the only one to speak of the universal connections between all people; and at the same time to lash out against those who were destroying the cosmic web.

Consider Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”  Asked why he came to stick his nose in other people’s business, King responded, “I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham.  Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly....”

Later in the same public letter, King lashes out at white moderates, wondering if they are not doing more harm than the KKK. At least I know where the KKK stand, he’s saying.  They hate me, but at least I have a relationship with them.

]]

In a less momentous, but also quite dramatic public letter a couple of years ago, Jerry Moegerle, a founder of Focus on the Family, chastised the direction of that movement, which had become, in Moegerle’s view, an instrument for dividing people along ideological grounds, instead of an instrument for supporting families.

Moegerle wrote that the rules of civility require that people of conscience apologize for bad people within their group, so he felt he could no longer stand idly by while James Dobson turned the organization into a megaphone for hateful, anti-gay, anti-woman social policy.

Is it better to be hated by the bad people?  Perhaps it is. 

Going back to my earlier examples, Steven Covey never actually said that every negotiation can be turned into a win-win.  He just said that if you cannot make it a win-win, then you should not go through with the deal.

Or in the lingo of non-violent communication, (which describes healthy, heart-focused communication as “Giraffe” language, and reactive communication as “Jackal”) there is no guarantee that by speaking Giraffe we will eventually overcome the jackal in everyone.  Rather, speaking as a giraffe is a good in itself, even if all the world remain jackals.

Is it better to be hated by the bad people?  Certainly it is better than seeking their admiration for the wrong reasons.

Sometimes we seek their respectability: but as Elizabeth Barrett Browning writes, “The devil’s most devilish when respectable.”

Sometimes we seek their recognition: but as Elizabeth Elton Smith says “There is an applause superior to that of the multitude -- one’s own.”

Sometimes we seek their affirmation, but as Sue Grafton says, “Insecure people have a special sensitivity for anything that finally confirms their own low opinion of themselves.”

And sometimes we seek their intimacy, but finally, here Confucius explains himself, “Feel kindly toward everyone, but be intimate only with the virtuous.”

Perhaps he is saying that indeed we can be connected with all people.  And the more connected we are the better.  But some of those connections will be with people whose destructive behavior threatens the fragile web of society.

Since we are all connected, we are all related -- in relationship...what type of relationship should we seek with those whose behaviors are doing great harm to web on which we reside?

Should we seek their respectability?

Should we seek their recognition?

Should we seek their affirmation?

Should we seek their intimacy?

Or should we concern ourselves less with what others think of us, and face instead our own reflection when we would dare to look into their eyes, and judge?

CLOSING HYMN     With Joy We Claim the Growing Light  #345

BENEDICTION

Confucius said, “I will not grieve that others do not know me.  I will grieve that I do not know others.”

If I focus on whether I am admired or despised, or how widely I am known, I can only be disturbed by the unknown. If instead, today, I focus on knowing and understanding one other person, then the task is in my own hands.