O you who believe! Turn to God in true, sincere repentance. (66:8)

Philosophers and scientists have long mulled over the faculties that govern our actions and thoughts. They have identified these in different ways, and there is still endless debate over these tangible and intangible faculties. There seem to be conflicting forces within us – an “evil-commanding” carnal self and a “regulatory” conscience. These have been caricatured as the devil and angel on our shoulders. Freud called this phenomenon the id and the super-ego within us: i.e. the instinctual drive and the moralizing conscience. Unrestricted drives can lead to destruction, so moral laws and society impose certain rules and consequences for such actions.

An important tool that aids this self-regulation is the feeling of guilt. However, the conscience can easily be manipulated and with some effort a rationale that justifies most actions can be found. A troubled conscience cannot be escaped forever. Non-conformity to established moral norms can be the greatest source of anxiety and guilt, and the cause of drastic internal conflicts.

In any case, everyone has something that they hold to be right and wrong, whether induced by society, revelation, or both.

For immigrants, such moral questions have an amplified effect. Living in a society that can have different moral norms to that of their cultural upbringing, which itself has variations from the religious moral values that they hold dear, can cause a turbulence of internal conflicts. “Who I am today,” and, “what made me this way?” are answered by a cohort of forces which are in perpetual conflict with one another. An immigrant realizes that their so-called innate urges, and even personality traits, are simply a set of influences that they need to learn to grow conscious of in order to truly find inner peace. During this process, however, they may develop a deep sense of guilt which they are not able to escape. The only way out could be to appeal to a higher being.

Projecting this situation onto myself, an idea came to me while I was contemplating why I am not able to get rid of my feeling of guilt. After I perceive myself to have sinned, I repent and feel sorrow for my sins, but then I repeat that sin. Why is it that I cannot stop this cycle? Is it possible, I thought, that deep in my subliminal mind, I feel at ease when I realize my weakness and inferiority before God because it is only then that I am able to truly connect with Him? If I stopped sinning, would the relief and comfort corrupt me and distance me from God?

My first reaction, of course, was that this idea must be a waswasa (a satanic whispering). Surely one’s connection to God is not merely one of embarrassment or fear, but involves qualities such as awe, gratitude, love, and rida (a satisfied resignation and submission). Also, how could I assume that I could attain a state of sinlessness when even the purest of the pure Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, felt the need to repent seventy or a hundred times a day?

What I repent for and what the Prophet repented for could not have been the same. So, I must have a misconception of what constitutes a sin. Sinning cannot simply be a case of misbehaviour or non-compliance with an order. One can make the following deduction: since sinning is unpleasant because it is accompanied by guilt (a troubled conscience), and since heartfelt guilt is as a result of immorality, then feelings of guilt can be treated as an inner motivation for repenting. Our troubled conscience is a result of a more expanded meaning of sinning, which included not just merely acting immorally but also entails things such as: lack of right action, vanity, being heedless, or even having unpleasant thoughts.

The example of Prophet David’s (peace be upon him) startling state of anguish seems to prove this point: “One day he asks God Almighty: ‘O Lord. How can I be thankful to You, since thanking You is another favour that requires thankfulness?’ The Almighty responded: ‘Just now you have done it.’”

It seems then that an extraordinary level of self-regulation and a true understanding of the meaning of repentance brings the conscious ones to bend down in modesty. They are greater sinners in their own eyes than I perceive myself to be. Alas, the only way to free myself from my deviations is to be sincere and resolute in growing conscious of my sins and to focus my attention on re-assessing my position in the face of God. At the end of the day, being conscious that God is seeing me, even at times when nobody else is, may be the only way of abstaining from sin. It is only then that I will realize there is so much more to my relationship with God than my fear and shame.

For a balanced and healthy state of mind, I have since realized that I must enrich and diversify my relationship with God. I can develop different areas of connection, for instance, through contemplating the manifestation of His names in His creation by studying the sciences; and then my astonishment of His might will be aroused and this will lead me to further gratefulness; and by turning to His word, I can establish a direct conversation with him and lend an ear to what He has to say to me. The benefits of having a concerned conscience need to be further discussed, but something is clear: if the feeling of heartfelt concern dies out and is replaced by vanity, then that is cause for serious concern.

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” African proverb

American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr. echoed the sentiments of this African Proverb when he said: “We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers.” Dr King appealed to all citizens of planet earth to embrace one another, regardless of background or political affiliation, in the spirit of brotherhood.

There are many moral systems based on different beliefs and cultures; these effect how we make decisions and live our daily lives. These systems are concerned with what is good for individuals and society. Ubuntu is one these moral systems adopted by Africans. It gives an understanding of ourselves as human beings in relation with the rest of the world. Ubuntu – as a way of life and a means of achieving peace and harmony – is contribution to the global community from African civilization. As it was said by Kenneth Kaunda, first president of Zambia, “Let the West have its technology and Asia its Mysticism! Africa’s gift to world culture must be in the realm of Human Relationships”[1].

The word Ubuntu originates from an African dialect. It is pronounced as uu-Boon-too, which means “humanity.” According to Ubuntu, there is a common acquaintance among us all, and it is through this relationship that we discover our human qualities. We are made human through our interactions with our fellow human beings. Zulus and Xhosas in South Africa express this idea in their language as “Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu,” which means that a person is a person through other persons. We assert our own humanity when we acknowledge that of others.[2]

Ubuntu has become a well-known moral concept, typical of African, particularly South African, culture. It is described as an expression of human dignity, as a way of life, a universal truth, the foundation of the idea of an open society, and Humanism. In short, it means: humanity or humanness. It originates from the belief that one is a human being through others – “I am because you are” [3].

Ubuntu is an evolving phenomenon and has been contextualized according to the fluctuating conditions of the modern age. That is one of the reasons the concept of ubuntu has not been yet fully articulated; neither is the phenomenon fully demarcated. Ubuntu interests many people, such as social scientists, historians, philosophers, developers of software, politicians, and members of the global community. It means different things to different people around the world, and different things in different circumstances, too. It encompasses world views, economic systems, political orders, and cultures. The influence of ubuntu can be easily observed in the operational and philosophical foundations of different social movements, political parties, and professionals from a large number of fields. Ubuntu’s profound interpersonal character is the source of many distinctive virtues: patience, hospitality, loyalty, respect, sociability, health, endurance, and sympathy. These virtues have a positive impact on many fields and systems. Current Ubuntu debates focus on its social and collective dimensions and responsibilities and emphasize reciprocation as an essential value of the Ubuntu worldview.

Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu elaborates on Ubuntu as follows:

”Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language. It speaks to the very essence of being human. When we want to give high praise to someone we say. ‘Yu, u nobuntu’; ‘Hey, he or she has ubuntu.’ This means they are generous, hospitable, friendly, caring, and compassionate. They share what they have. It also means my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours. We say, ‘a person is a person through other people.’ It is not ‘I think therefore I am.’ It says rather: ‘I am human because I belong; I participate, and I share.’ A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good; for he or she has the proper self- assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs to a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were less than who they are.” [4]

According to Ubuntu, a person’s humanity is dependent on his/her humanity toward other human beings. A person’s humanity is therefore defined through his/her moral commitment to his/her fellow human beings, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status.

Practicing Ubuntu unlocks the power of an African culture where people express their compassion, dignity, humanity, and mutuality to build and sustain social cohesion, peace, and justice [5]. These are the lessons true leaders adopt and practice. The similarities between true leaders – who we might call superheroes – makes me think that superheroes might be Africans. As Desmond Tutu says, “They have Ubuntu” (Poovan, Du Toit & Engelbrecht, 2006:23-25).

In an African context, respect and love among community members play an important role, and the African view of personhood rejects the notion that a person can be identified in terms of his/her physical and psychological characteristics. None of us comes into the world fully formed. We would not know how to think, walk, speak, or behave as human beings unless we learned it from other human beings [6]. Ubuntu expresses the interconnectedness, common humanity, and the responsibility of individuals to each other. In this way, Ubuntu reveals its participation in the promotion of wisdom not only for human beings but also for the whole of creation.

Nelson Mandela, the first president of post-apartheid South Africa, related his profound conviction rooted in Ubuntu:

“I have always known that deep down in every human heart, there is mercy and generosity. No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than the opposite. Even at the grimmest times in prison, when my comrades and I were pushed to our limits, I would see a glimmer of humanity in one of the guards, perhaps just for a second, but it was enough to reassure me and keep me going. Man’s goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished.” [7]

This perspective is deeply rooted in the Ubuntu view of life. It shows how capable people can cultivate a culture of peace beyond vengeance and hate, because they still find human goodness, despite all grievances.

In essence Ubuntu, is a call to service. It is one of the most practical ways to serve humanity in this current globalized and individualized world. It is a practical, collective, and conscious action to alleviate human suffering without any kind of discrimination. Ubuntu helps to make life meaningful not only for the person who adopts and practices it, but also for others. In short we can conclude that Ubuntu is the art of being a human being.

Brave men and women across the globe have been inspired by Ubuntu – and some are real Africans who inherited Ubuntu. Many are role models for a society that acts towards individuals as equals and respects their freedom and dignity. They demonstrate good examples of what it means to be responsible for one another and for ourselves. This manifests in real life heroes such as Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Fethullah Gülen. They are all diligent servants of humanity who work for a better future for everyone, whose lives are living examples and tributes of the values they personify, and who work for peace and harmony and help those of us who are most vulnerable in a world that is becoming more inhumane and antagonistic.

In our gloomiest times, we need heroes and heroines to give us courage, so we can remember our intrinsic potential. We need great leaders whose moral wisdom can be a litany of hope and inspiration. From time immemorial, heroes emerged from very difficult circumstances, like roses that grew from concrete. They reminds us of our best qualities like courage, strength, hope, empathy, honesty, compassion, and humility. People are inspired and encouraged by great leadership.

We all have the potential of being heroes in our communities and societies as long as we try our best to touch the hearts and lives of our fellow human beings regardless of their race, culture, religion, gender, and ethnicity. Sustainable peace and harmony in our own hearts and in the world will depend of one question: are we ready to swim with crocodiles in the river and dance with lions in the jungle to make a difference in the world?

References

1. Kaunda, K. 1967. A Humanist in Africa. Letters to Colin Morris. London: Longman.
2. “Understanding the Essence of Ubuntu The African Philosophy” accessed January 31, 2019. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-22-2006-103206.asp
3. Ramose, MB. 1999. African Philosophy through Ubuntu. Harare: Mond Books.
4. Desmond Tutu. 1999. No Future Without Forgiveness, New York: Random House, 1999, pp. 31-32.
5. Poovan, N., M.K. du Toit and A.S. Engelbrecht. 2006. “The effect of the social values of Ubuntu on team effectiveness.” South African Journal Business Management.
6. Nussbaum, Barbara. 2003. “Ubuntu: Reflections of a South African on Our Common Humanity.” Reflections4 (4): 21–26.
7. Mandela, N. 1994. A Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

These situations entail the psychology of morality-an intriguing and growing topic of study. Significant and insightful research has been completed in an attempt to understand more about morality from a psychological perspective. Many questions have been raised in the realm of morality and ethics, such as: How do people think about morality? What are people’s concepts of a moral person? How do people apply morality in conflict and their everyday lives?

In psychologists’ attempts to answer these questions, we learn more about mankind as a whole and about our own individual selves. This article will summarize some of the most prominent studies in the field of morality psychology and use these perspectives to help attain a better understanding of who a moral person is and what they do.

Exploring differences in moral foundations between political liberals and conservatives is one interesting area of research in the psychology of morality. Graham, et al. (2009) established a definition of a moral foundation as consisting of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The researchers found that political liberals were likely to chiefly judge a moral situation along the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity aspects, while conservatives were more likely to use all aspects equally. The results of this study seem to agree with the ideologies of liberals and conservatives. Considering that conservatives are less receptive to changes in political policies and culture, it makes sense that they would place a high value on the authority of a government, and also that they would give more weight to protecting their in-group from outside influences. This ideology may in turn stem from a Hobbesian worldview (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679) in that everyone is at the most basic level self-interested, and therefore they must protect their own interests from the interests of others.

Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to go against the authority of the government or in-group concerns if they felt a moral injustice was being committed. This may be one reason why conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of not being patriotic.

As for the purity/sanctity condition, there is some doubt as to whether it can really be considered a moral facet. Conservatives seem to think that this is the case, but liberals on the other hand give nearly zero consideration to aspects of purity during moral judgments, as it seems to be an unrelated concept. Additionally, this idea may explain why conservatives tend to be against gay marriage, while liberals are more likely to support gay relationships.

Before moving on, let me pose another question: which action is more moral, volunteering time in a soup kitchen or keeping your vow to your wife not to go to the racetrack and gamble on payday?

Now we turn our attention to an enlightening study by Janoff-Bulman, et al. (2009) that analyzed morality in a different way: by categorizing it into two distinctive types, prescriptive and proscriptive. Prescriptive morality has a commendatory and encouraging nature, and it is characterized by taking positive action and the question what one should do to be moral. Proscriptive morality is more commanding and punishing in its aspects, and it is characterized by preventing negative action and the question what one should not do to prevent immorality. The distinction between the two can be states as helping versus not harming.

The researchers provide evidence for these two different types of morality in their studies. For example, in one experiment, participants were asked to describe what they thought it meant to be-depending on the manipulation-either moral or immoral. They had correctly predicted that proscriptive morality tended to have more concrete and defined language, so as to assist its adherents in knowing exactly what actions are wrong. Prescriptive morality’s language was more abstract so as to include more possible right actions.

It was also found that people were more disapproving when someone committed forbidden acts as opposed to someone failing to perform righteous acts. This finding-that it is generally more objectionable to see an overtly immoral act than to see a failure to commit a positive act-is strong evidence for the prescriptive/proscriptive distinctions of morality.

There are many more questions about morality researchers are asking. For instance, what lies behind the rationalization of a racist behavior or attitude? How are people’s moral principles influenced by the particular identity of the individuals involved? Uhlmann, et al. (2009) examined these topics. Most of us tend to think of ourselves as having a relatively stable moral standing, but this study showed that for most people, this simply is not the case. People were presented with different moral dilemmas that measured if they would support either a consequentialist solution or a deontological solution to the dilemma. According to the researchers’ hypothesis, changing some details of the scenario could influence people’s preference for either consequentialism (the idea that it is permissible to commit an action that would normally be considered immoral for the benefit of the greater good) or deontology (the idea that there are some actions that are morally wrong under any and all circumstances); this is in fact what they observed.

They observed that political liberals were more likely to sacrifice a white man to save a black group of people and less likely to sacrifice a black man to save a white group. The reverse effect was observed for conservatives in that they were more willing to sacrifice a black man to save a white group and vice versa. They also found that conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of Iraqi civilians by American forces than the unintentional killing of American civilians by Iraqi armed forces.

These results provides a striking example of how people’s moral concepts can change when the specifics of those involved in the moral equation change, which in turn suggests that people value some lives more than others. Conservatives, in particular, seem to value people who are part of the in-group over people who are not. This study also suggests that liberals may actually devalue in-group members in an attempt to maintain a non-racist morality.

Another major question is how do religious concepts and the knowledge that one’s actions are being judged affect how people behave morally? The following study (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) asked participants to play a game that would measure their generosity towards total strangers. The researchers discovered that people who were primed with words relating to God and religion were more generous on average than those who received no priming. The researchers also found that priming people with secular concepts of moral institutions had the same effect.

These results provide strong evidence that people will try to act more morally if they have some idea in the back of their minds, whether conscious or not, about being judged in some manner for their moral actions. This does not have to apply exclusively to religious concepts, as the results of this study show. As a matter of fact, related research conducted by Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) showed that just the indirect suggestion of being judged by other people was enough to reproduce this effect-an increase in moral behavior. Specifically, they saw a three-fold increase in the amount paid for drinks supplied on an honor system when the image associated with payment resembled human eyes versus a control image. Apparently, a pair of eyes is enough to trigger a conscious or subconscious idea of being watched and judged.

What is known about the neural activity of the brain itself with regards to moral judgments? What roles do cognitive and emotional processes in the brain play in thinking about morality? Greene et al. (2004) conducted detailed biological mapping of brain neuronal activity of individuals during their thought processes that went along with solving hypothetical moral dilemmas. It was observed that areas in the brain associated with abstract reasoning and cognitive control-regions noted included the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex-were found to be more active during very difficult moral judgments where utilitarian resolutions require violation of personal moral convictions. They concluded from their work that utilitarian moral judgments rely more on cognitive processes and abstract thinking, whilst more personal moral judgments relied primarily on social-emotional processes.

This is good evidence for two different types of moral processing-cognitive or more logical, and emotional or more personal. During this study, Greene and colleagues also considered the degree of personal relatedness of a scenario with the likelihood of utilitarian resolution, and therefore the associated cognitive processes and abstract-thinking brain regions. They looked at what happens when you alter the classic moral dilemma of the runaway trolley car (Thomson, 1986) by making it either more personal or less personal. It was observed that people were more likely to engage in utilitarian calculations when the harm was less personal-in the case, that involved pulling a lever to kill a person-as opposed to when harm was more personal, in the case requiring pushing someone off of a bridge.

Morality is often connected to religion and religious values, and a natural topic to investigate is the role that sacred values may play in moral psychology. Ginges et al. (2007) examined the Israeli-Palestine conflict in an attempt to answer the question of how sacred values are involved in the resolution of political conflicts. The researchers wanted to shed some light on several issues related to sacred values in political conflict – namely, how do instrumental incentives, such as monetary gain, affect compromise with sacred values?

Interestingly, they observed that adding instrumental incentives to hypothetical deals involving the forfeiting of some sacred value actually made the subjects who held sacred values more opposed to and outraged about compromise than if they simply offered the compromise on its own. They also found that these people were less opposed to compromise if the deal also stipulated that the opposing party would give up one of their own sacred rights.

These results are important in that they show how radically different sacred values are from instrumental values. Sacred values are, for the most part, non-negotiable, except in the cases mentioned above, and it seems as though the idea of offering something of instrumental value in an attempt to negotiate the non-negotiable only serves as an insult to those who hold these sacred values. It is only when some other sacred value is offered up that we see some willingness to compromise, suggesting that sacred values cannot be compared with instrumental values, but they can be compared to other sacred values. Because of this, one may wonder whether sacred values can really be considered truly uncontestable, as opposed to simply a different type of value that is not comparable with more material principles.

An important side of the psychology of morality concerns how people perceive the moral legitimacy of authority under different circumstances. More specifically, how much of a moral investment do the participants have in the moral issues. The researchers Skitka, et al. (2009) correlated an individual’s general degree of moral conviction with how much they either supported or agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted suicide in 2006 that prevented the Attorney General from prosecuting doctors in Oregon who operated under state law. It was discovered that the degree of moral investment a person had about this decision increased the variance of people’s perception of the legitimacy of authority. More specifically, people who supported the decision with high moral conviction more strongly supported the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction, and people against the decision with high moral conviction more strongly opposed the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction.

These results are strong evidence for the idea that our perceived legitimacy of authority is intimately tied with our moral conviction on the issues that matter most to us. In other words, if the government made a ruling that we did not agree with, but did not care much about (for example, the ruling that pizza is a vegetable), we wouldn’t have much reason to deny the legitimacy of the government. However, decisions made about issues we have a strong moral standing on tend to either strongly reinforce or strongly undermine the perceived legitimacy of authority in our attempt to reconcile our moral standing versus the decree of authority. Additionally, a study could be run to test the hypothesis that liberals would be more willing to deny the legitimacy of the government, and conservatives would be more willing to affirm the government’s power.

We believe it is moral to care about others and give charity, but what motivates the moral response of giving? Some psychologists are interested in this question. Olivola & Shafir (2011) found that people were willing to give more money to a charity if they were required to run a marathon as opposed to simply attending a picnic. This finding shows that associating donations with self-sacrifice or suffering activates people’s concepts of morality.

How could we measure if having concepts of justice and fairness cause people to strengthen their moral responses as well? An experiment might be set up in this manner: one group of participants would be told that they would be donating to a village in Africa that is suffering from a drought, and as a result, running low on food. The other group would be told that local rebels are constantly raiding the village and taking their food, thus depleting their food supplies. We would then measure how much people would be willing to donate to the village in each situation. The condition of need arising from a natural disaster should not activate concepts of justice and fairness; however, even if some people think suffering from droughts is an inherently unjust event, the second condition – need arising from a military-type attack – should greatly outweigh the first in terms of justice/fairness considerations. Based on the results of the Olivola & Shafir (2011) study, it is reasonable to expect that people would donate more money to the people being raided, since that condition should activate moral concepts such as justice and fairness.

What do these studies tell us about what a truly moral person is? Let’s first look at the five moral foundations again, from Graham, et al. (2009). It appears that a truly moral person bases their judgments primarily on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. This is because there can be situations where authority or in-group concerns can conflict with harm and fairness considerations, and in these situations the latter set of moral outlooks should prevail. One only needs to consider an example such as this: imagine you are asked to commit atrocities in the name of your country. It should be clear that these atrocities couldn’t be justified in this way. Based on the results of Skitka et al. (2009) such a request may even lead one to deny the legitimacy of whatever authority commanded this action-which is what a truly moral person would and should do in that situation. For reasons like these, harm/care and fairness/reciprocity should be on the forefront of one’s moral concerns.

Harm/care and fairness/reciprocity are also probably closely related to each other, and in many situations, one moral concept is found with the other. Consider an instance where a person beats his wife in an act of drunken violence. It’s clear that harm/care are involved in this situation, but also consider that we could say that what he is doing is an injustice to his wife. Similarly, suppose an example where a banker swindles a client for thousands of dollars. It’s clear this has to do with fairness/reciprocity, but we could also consider this action as a way of harming somebody else in a non-physical manner.

Research further clarifies a truly moral person as one who leads a disciplined life that builds off of the proscriptive, preventing immorality, and subsequently the prescriptive, acting morally. Such a person must be a role model for everyone else to follow. For this reason, a truly moral person is careful not to commit proscribed acts. A person who performs many good deeds, but also many bad deeds, will appear insincere and hypocritical. In other words, a truly moral person does their best to not mix the good with the bad. Once a person has built a strong moral foundation of avoiding proscribed behaviors, he or she can branch out and help others with ever-increasing frequency. Furthermore, with regards to the study on the effects of being watched, a truly moral person acts in every situation as though he or she is being watched or will be judged later on, even if they know that they are alone. This is because they know that any action they do may have consequences at some point, either immediate or distant.

Work in the area of the psychology of morality sheds some light on how a moral person behaves, however an ideally moral person does what is right with 100% accuracy, and no matter what the circumstances. This is an ideal, and very few people can be considered to be ideal moral examples. Prophets are the only people who could be considered to be morally infallible. Prophets like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them, serve as examples of perfect moral conduct. Even though none of us can hope to attain the rank of a Prophet, every person ought to strive for this ideal and be the best person they can be. If we hope to have any positive impact on the world we must first start by changing ourselves for the better. Only then can we attempt to sincerely help other people around us, starting with our close family and friends, and later on, the larger world.

M. Tarik Ozgur is a graduate of Lehigh University Physiology Department in 2013.

References

• Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology letters, 2(3), 412-414.
• Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360.
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B.A. Liberals and Conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5), 1029.
• Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
• Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521-537.
• Olivola, C. Y. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a preference for martyrdom in altruism. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to Study of Charity, 49-62. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809.
• Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2009). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1-26).
• Thomson, J.J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk Essays, in Moral Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476-491.

Let us imagine two people of similar economic status, one of whom donates a considerable amount of money to a charity organization willingly, while the other hesitates but eventually donates the same amount of money with relative difficulty. Which action deserves the real moral praise? Intuitively, the willing donor seems to get our praise and sympathy more than the other; yet, it might require more virtue to choose the right action in the face of adverse inclinations. Acknowledging that this question is more difficult than it first appears lets us go back several millennia to hear what Aristotle, the great philosopher and ethicist, has to say on this issue.

Aristotle use the terms virtue, continence, incontinence, and vice in order to account for diverse attitudes present in individuals when confronted with ethical dilemmas. “Virtue” is an excellence of the soul that helps one to achieve complete harmony between one’s reasoning and desires. Whenever the virtuous person chooses an action as the rationally best option, he performs this action pleasurably. Yet this is a pleasure of a higher status, a noble joy, one that stems from appreciating the intrinsic value of the virtuous action and thus coming to love it. In other words, the virtuous person’s emotions and reason point at the same direction and there is no inner conflict that haunts his soul. This results in a noble and complete joy; a cultivated ability to see the intrinsic value embedded in the virtuous act through gaining a second nature. This second nature begins with having joy in doing the right thing rather than primarily being after the satisfaction of the bodily desires.

Unlike the state of virtue, the cases of continence, incontinence, and vice all include conflict to some degree between one’s reason and desires. Within this spectrum, some people better resist these counter-rational desires than others, and they are able to act in the same manner as a virtuous person, as in our example above. Aristotle calls such individuals “continent” (enkrates) and he distinguishes them from the fully virtuous. Their distinctive characteristic is that they struggle inside, but they end up doing the morally right thing. Yet, unlike the continent, some people are less successful in resisting their inner desires, and they end up doing the wrong action even though they are rationally aware of its wrongness. These individuals are called “incontinent” (akratês). Their reason and appetites drift them in opposite directions, and they find themselves in a miserable position. In the very last category, vice, are the individuals who refuse to do what an ethically virtuous person would do because they have become convinced that justice, temperance, generosity, and the like are of little or no value; Aristotle calls such people evil (kakos). This last category is demarcated from other categories sharply by the lack of any struggle against the dark side of the soul. These people both begin and end up on the negative side. Despite the fact that vicious people might seem to possess an inner harmony since both their wills and acts are in accord, Aristotle portrays them as deeply divided, because they cannot help but become dissatisfied as a result of the over-dominance of the irrational part of their souls. Aristotle assumes that if someone is in the habit of making bad decisions about how to live his life, his failures are caused by psychological forces that are less than fully rational. It is probable that his desires for pleasure, power, or some other external goal have become so strong that they make him care too little or not at all about acting ethically. It can be claimed that the vicious person lacks internal harmony because he cannot implement his rational side properly in making decisions. This reminds us of the famous chariot allegory of Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, in which he paints the picture of a charioteer driving a chariot pulled by two winged horses: one of them representing the rational and moral impulses and the other irrational appetites. The charioteer is like the human soul that needs to balance and keep the chariot going in the path towards enlightenment. While it is not easy to keep the two fighting horses in check, a human soul is better off whenever it is guided through reason, the charioteer. Yet, the evil person suffers from an imbalance and is perpetually drifted away by the whims of the bad-behaved horse. This, in the long run, results in unhappiness and sickness of the soul.

Cultivation of dispositions

Now that a brief sketch of Aristotle’s four types of ethical subjects is drawn, there is an inevitable question that awaits us. We have seen that all three of these positions involve some lack of integrity; it is only the life of a virtuous person that possesses internal harmony, and all other lives deviate to some degree from this ideal. Yet, one cannot help but wonder how we could attain this ideal state? According to Aristotle, in order to achieve the state of virtue, we need to develop proper habits and emotional responses starting from early childhood. Although full virtue is a rare achievement for human beings, it is only attainable through employment of continence persistently in life. Aristotle divides the virtues into two categories, the natural and the true virtues, and whereas the former comes by nature, the latter is cultivated through habituation. Aristotle’s truly virtuous man has cultivated (habituated) emotions rather than possessing immediate impulses to do good. Aristotle famously tells us that “action” leads to the corresponding character states; just as to be a good painter, you have to paint, and to be a good shoemaker you need to make shoes, you need to do virtuous actions to become virtuous. In Aristotle’s words, we become “just by doing just actions, and temperate by acting temperately.” (NE II.4.)

Virtue is “made perfect by habit and by practical wisdom,” and this makes the virtuous person’s position superior to that of the merely continent person. This conception of virtue as an ongoing, developmental process implies that individuals cannot typically will to feel certain emotions at a moment’s notice, but they can choose to cultivate certain emotions over time as a significant part of developing moral character.

Although Aristotle advises that virtue be our ultimate aim, he still esteems the continent person to some extent. A lack of complete harmony between reason and desires is often inescapable for human beings. We can only want or choose to do the virtuous thing, but we cannot make ourselves take pleasure from doing it. In fact, continence is often the only state we are capable of achieving, even though we might want to do the right thing cheerfully. To make an analogy, Aristotle encourages the cultivation of virtues just like the flourishing of a flower. Growing flowers require time and great care; likewise, virtuousness does not always come by nature but it is gained through cultivation and care.

Reason as the guide

The Aristotelian virtuous person is the one whose rational part overrides and guides the appetitive part. Accordingly, as long as the person is guided by his rational part, his actions are virtuous; whenever the rational side of the person is weaker than his appetitive side, it leads to moral weakness (incontinence). The idea of acting from the rational part of the soul is pivotal in Aristotle’s ethics; he ties human arête (virtue) to reasoning. For Aristotle, virtuous action must definitely originate from reasoning since it is the human arête (virtue) to be guided by the rational part of the soul. “Like every other creature in the world, man has a particular nature and the best way to live is to live up to his nature, which is to be directed by a rational soul.” Therefore, by “desiring to do the virtuous thing” Aristotle does not claim that this person should have a natural inclination to do the right thing; instead, it requires adoption of rational desires that are in line with virtuous actions.

One-way road to happiness: From continence to virtue

How can we make ourselves enjoy doing the virtuous things according to Aristotle? For instance, how can we “enjoy” giving to charity? As Aristotle proposes, we become just by doing just actions, we become temperate by acting temperately; so, the only way to arrive at true virtue goes from acting in conformity with duty even if we do it with continence. Aristotle assumes every individual begins the journey by continence and tries to arrive at virtuousness, which is a complete harmony of will and reason. In a way, Aristotle’s virtuous person is someone who walked up the ladder from continence to virtue. No one ascends to the state of virtue without first being continent. It is important to note that, for Aristotle, doing the better thing willingly is a better position to which we should aspire, but climbing up the ladder of virtue is already sufficient to make someone a good person. Full virtue and complete harmony could only be the destination we reach after a long journey of cultivation of emotions.

Yet, the question still remains: how can we make our souls come to love and enjoy being virtuous? Aristotle’s answer is that when your will and reason are in complete harmony, you do the desirable thing with pleasure. Otherwise, it is continence, which is a state with a lesser degree of moral worth. Let us assume we have cultivated our emotions and habituated ourselves to do the virtuous thing. Now, I always “want” to do the right thing. Still, one cannot help but wonder how we can make ourselves “enjoy” being virtuous. Aristotle’s reply would be simple: the virtuous person, upon moral deliberation, rationally chooses the virtuous thing to do, and because he is acting in conformity with his rational part and because his rational part has supremacy over the emotional part, he is expected to perform the action pleasurably. However, this is not totally convincing; no matter how many times we “choose” or “want” to do the right thing, we might still not be able to “take pleasure” from doing the right thing. I might be able to acquire the habit of sleeping less after considerable effort, but I cannot get myself to “enjoy” this. If we define a virtuous person as the one who both “wants” and “does” the virtuous thing, then this is understandable. Yet, when it comes to “enjoying” or “taking pleasure from” the virtuous action, we are usually short of actualizing this at will.

Then, is it ever possible to be truly virtuous? Evidently, Aristotle is optimistic on this issue. He believes true virtue is possible as long as proper cultivation is provided. Nonetheless, virtue does not come without effort; it requires time and tender care — being virtuous is not possible without persistently doing the right thing and trying to strengthen our rational part so that it will have supremacy over the appetitive part. Only then can people ascend to true virtue rather than staying at the level of continence. And this journey is not something we could afford to overlook, since it harbors true happiness.

Despite Aristotle’s invaluable contribution to ethics, he falls short of providing satisfactory answers to many intuitive questions regarding how and why the human soul enjoys being virtuous. His ultimate answer revolves around the happiness of the soul and there is no greater gain other than having the best possible life that is characterized as the eudaimon life. This is not a bad ideal, but its significance is quite negligible compared to the greater ideal of gaining an immortal life of happiness and beauty. Yet, since Aristotle does not believe in an immortal soul, his arguments do not include references to eternal happiness. Given this, no matter how convincing the ethicists’ arguments are, there will always remain a question: Why would I care so much about a life that is doomed to end? Why should I take the trouble to fight with my desires and make myself a so-called virtuous person? Moreover, complete happiness is almost impossible to attain in a life that we know to be short. Even though we could lead a happy life through virtue, knowing that it will last merely for this life makes it bittersweet at best. Without immortality, we are like birds that are kept in cages in this finite world, trying to find the best way to lead a good and happy life–a small and finite goal. Instead, finding the real eternal Divine source of why our souls find happiness and peace in virtuous actions and knowing that this joy is to last forever, can grant us true happiness. Whenever we act virtuously, say, giving to the poor without expecting anything in return, we are actually imitating and aspiring to the character of the Divine who is the most Generous. Similarly, whenever a person forgives another, he would be acting in accordance with the Divine mercy that is exemplified in the name of the All-Merciful. Hence, engaging in such virtuous acts gives the person unprecedented joy of the soul because such participation in the Divine goodness is greater than other sorts of pleasure. Furthermore, with immortality such acts do not merely stay in this life; on the contrary, performing these virtuous acts become the key to eternal happiness. Acting virtuously is good because these acts derive from God’s character Who is the source of all goodness, truth, and beauty. As long as a human soul can reflect this beauty as a mirror, his actions gain intrinsic value, and she can reach true happiness, not only in this life but also in the eternal afterlife.

The brief history of character education

Character education remains a contentious form of education in America. The debate among ethical theorists over moral and character education dates back to colonial America (Glanzer & Milson, 2006). Once considered as part of religious teachings, this concept was altered as states began passing laws in the early 1800s, separating issues of church and state. As a result of this separation, the educational system developed non-sectarian public school policies (Glanzer & Milson, 2006), and character education was adopted by public schools in Massachusetts with the purpose of increasing literacy among children.

The Bible was used as part of the curriculum throughout 17th and 18th centuries, and was then preceded by texts written by William McGuffey. These texts were used to teach children to develop virtues such as honesty, courage, and kindness. During the 20th century however, there was a decline in the use of these texts in public schools in America due to pluralism and the philosophy of moral relativism. Over the past few years, American educators have been examining character education in schools and grants are being awarded to facilitate research in this field (Vardin A. Patricia Montessori Life, spring 2003). This study will illustrate some definitions of character education and its benefits as an intervention.

The definitions of character education

Character education is an umbrella term that has historically included a wide range of components such as traditional character education, the caring approach, and the developmental approach. The goal of character education is to teach children to consider and behave in ethical ways. Firstly, traditional character education has emphasized virtues and the magnitude of ethical issues. Secondly, the caring approach underscores the significance of identifying and improving caring relationships and infusing caring, relational, and social-emotional themes into school curricula (Howard, Berkowitz, & Schaeffer, 2004). Third, the developmental approach stresses that decision-making and social action are important; theorists who ascribe to this approach strongly advocate the power of student participation in creating a moral classroom and a larger moral community (Cohen, 2006). Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty, defines character education as “the deliberate effort to develop virtues that are good for the individual and good for society” (McGuinty, 2003, p. 15). Character eduction is sometimes defined as an approach that is comprehensive in fostering the moral development of students (Berkowitz, Marvin, & Bier, 2005). For decades, character education was inclined to focus on the importance of good character and values such as honesty, respect, friendship, and caring (Cohen, 2006). Thomas Likona (1991), a developmental psychologist, defined the goal of character education as knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good.

What is meant by school violence?

In terms of lawful responsibility, school violence is the violence that occurs on school grounds, on school-supported transportation, and at school-sponsored events. Nevertheless, violence committed on school grounds often derives from conflicts reflected in society. This finding indicates that the lines are blurred between school and community violence and suggests that school staff should be cognizant of the community and its issues in which a school is positioned. It is also suggested that members of society should become involved in school-based violence prevention initiatives. It is more complicated and multidimensional to define what school violence is (Furlong & Morrison, 2000).

The proposals for reducing school violence

By 1997, over two-thirds of secondary schools had either implemented some form of violence prevention program or were preparing to do so (Price & Everett, 1997). These methods have included punishment, health education and random weapons searches (Farrington, 1996). Handheld metal detectors are increasingly used to carry out random or targeted weapons searches in major public school systems. In some places in America, it seemed that there had been a significant reduction in weapons related events; however, it was later discovered that students had learned the routine days when the metal detectors would not be used (Muir 1992).

One of the most significant educational programs is character education. For example, The California Department of Education supports incorporating character education into a standards-based educational system in a variety of ways such as providing resources to build and develop character in youth; supports the core values of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. The California Department of Education underscores that character education is a trait of effective schools. Effective schools seek to develop and reinforce character traits such as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, and trustworthiness through a systematic approach that includes adult modeling, curriculum integration, a positive school climate, and access to comprehensive guidance and counseling services (Elementary Makes the Grade! CDE, 1999).

The affects of character education on academic achievement

Studies have also found that character education helps increase academic achievement (Elias, Zins, Weissberg et al., 1997). Studies have acknowledged many social and academic attitudes associated with enhanced student success (Benninga, Berkowitz, Kuehn, & Smith, 2003). Academic achievement is bond to critical thinking skills (Esquith, 2003), and according to Brooks (2002), skills such as endurance, decision-making, problem solving, and critical thinking are fundamental principles entrenched in character education. Character education asserts that non-test related academic improvements are also made due to performance of a character education program. Students attending schools exerting the Child Development Program were known to have more motivation to learn and possessed closer ties to their school compared to students who attended schools not implementing the Child Development Program (Benninga, et al., 2003). Students attending Character Counts elementary schools were shown to complete their assignments more often with increased academic sincerity than students who did not attend such schools (Benninga, et al., 2003).

In order to understand character education it is imperative to understand the characteristics of the students. The schools that are strong academically and sturdy in building accomplished students are characterized by five main characteristics indentified by Elias, Zins, Weissberg et al., (1997):

1. They have a school climate articulating specific themes, character elements, and/or values.
2. They have explicit instruction in social-emotional skills.
3. They have explicit instruction in health promotion and problem prevention skills.
4. They have systems to enhance coping skills and social support for transitions, crises, and resolving conflicts.
5. They have widespread, systematic opportunities for positive, contributory service.

After considering these traits one can conclude that students attending schools performing character education programs feel respected and valued which results in reduced non-attendance (Colgan, 2003). Reduced absenteeism, produced by the increased desire to attend school, could be translated into achievement gains (Colgan, 2003). These factors together make available more classroom instructional time and an enhanced learning occasion.

Tremendous progress has been made over the past two decades in establishing effective school-based violence prevention programs. Nevertheless, programs designed to decrease violence in schools have largely focused on reducing student-to-student aggressive behavior through school-based curricular programs (SBCPs), essentially ignoring interpersonal relationships between students and adults in schools, student bonding to schools, disproportionalities in the application of student discipline, and related organizational factors that comprise the school climate.

After considering several vantage points, it is the conclusion of this study that character education is a stellar attempt to reduce school violence and for increasing academic achievement. Educators should emphasize character development, as it is a culmination of a strong union of streams of evidence about factors influencing learning. According to Nucci and Narvaez (2008), moral and character education should be considered by educators as being congruent with learning individual values and identity formation.

Character education has several positive outcomes that address the various needs of schools and communities. For example, it includes values such as tolerance, humility, modesty, and trustworthiness. Moreover, it is emphasized that cheating is a negative characteristic for every student. That is, every student should not enterprise cheating, even when they hear about it, they should not condone it. Thus, it is stressed that academic learning and performance is linked to social-emotional skill and character development, such as in recent studies aiming to understanding the functioning of the brain and its role in learning. These studies have only provided further evidence of the role of social and emotional factors in academic accomplishments (Kusche & Greenberg, 2006). These studies support the notion that every educator should take character education into account.

How could character education be applied toward prevention?

Character education may incorporate some local and state programs to help students increase achievement by developing their behaviors not just in schools, but also in contexts outside of schools. One program called “Your Environment Education Program,” is mentioned by Starr (1999). According to this program, each week, a word is chosen such as tolerance and honesty, to be discussed in the class. At least 10-15 minutes are allocated for these discussions. These discussions are meant to facilitate the comprehension of the meaning of the value by illustrating real life implications, motivational quotes, and recommending some beneficial assignments for students to complete. All of these elements enhance students’ deep understanding of the word. This program also encourages parents to help their children by providing some books containing the word for that week. Parents are also encouraged to stress the meaning of the word at home by incorporating it into daily activities that families do together. Starr (1999) states that the community in Pittsburg also promotes Your Environment Education through program media outlets, local business sponsorships as well as the mayor’s office to promote the importance of character education.

There are negative implications for not employing character education in schools when the opposite methods are considered. The evidence indicates that punishment or incarcerating large numbers of young people for prolonged periods is ineffective and counterproductive (Wilson, 1994). A major problem with using targeted weapons searches in schools is that they implicitly stigmatize those students who are screened as potentially dangerous. The sudden and unexpected arrival of security personnel with metal detectors is also intimidating, anxiety provoking, and disruptive to learning. Serious conflicts also have a tendency to erupt suddenly and to go up out of control before mediation efforts can be initiated, therefore, as long as guns and other weapons can be brought freely into schools, educational approaches alone cannot be expected to solve the problem.

Recommendations

Recommendations based on the information outlined in the study include: providing teachers, administrators and school psychologists with extensive and effective training about development; while character education program is implemented teachers should be aware of their expression toward students. For example, teachers should not give commands to students for preventing a mistake, instead it should be posed to the student as a question of morality such as why they should not engage in a certain behavior and what the consequences might be and whether or not they are willing to accept these consequences. A model should be embraced for serving students that focuses on early interventions and offers access to character education. The environment and society should be informed about character education in order to foster a place, where the students can develop their pro-social skills and improve academic quality. Last, character education curriculum should be supported with media so that while behaving, students can be easily reminded of their objectives, for example, cartoons could be used as an impactful reminder.

References

• Benninga, J., Berkowitz, M., Kuehn, P., & Smith, K. (2003). The relationship of character education implementation and academic achievement in elementary schools. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from the ProQuest database.
• Berkowitz, Marvin W. and Bier M.C. (2005). Character education Parents as Parents. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 64-69.
• Berkowitz, Marvin W. and Hoppe, Mary Anne (2009). Character education and gifted children. High Ability Studies, 20(2), 131-142
• Brooks, B. (2002). Increasing test scores and character education: The natural connection. Retrieved May 2, 2006, from http://www.youngpeoplespress.com/Testpaper.pdf.
• Cohen, J (2006). Social, Emotional, Ethical, and Academic Education: Creating a Climate for Learning, Participation in Democracy, and Well-Being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201-237
• Colorado State Department of Education, Denver. (2000). Shaping the future through character education: Colorado state conference on character education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED468627).
• Clayton , C, Ballif-Spanvill, B. L., & Hunsaker M. D. (2001). Preventing violence and teaching peace : A review of promising and effective antiviolence, conflict-resolution, and peace programs for elementary school children. Birmingham Young University, Women’s Research Institute
• Durant, R. H., Kahn, J., Beckford, P. H., & Woods, E. R. (1997). The Association of Weapon Carrying and Fighting on School Property and Other Health Risk and Problem Behaviors among High School Students. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, p. 360–366.
• Elementary Makes the Grade! CDE, 1999, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/em/emgsummary.asp
• Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Elliott, D. S., B. A. Hamburg, and K. R. Williams, eds.(1998). Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Esquith, R. (2003). There are no shortcuts. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Farrington, D. P. (1996). Understanding and Preventing Juvenile Youth Crime. York, U.K.: York Publishing
• Furlong, M., & Morrison, G. (2000). The school in school violence: Definitions and facts. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 812, p. 71-82
• Glanzer, P. L., & Milson, A. J. (2006). Legislating the good: A survey and evaluation of character education laws in the United States. Educational Policy, 20(3), p. 525.
• Howard, R, W., Berkowitz, M. W., & Schaeffer, E. F. (2004). Politics of character education. Educational Policy, 18(1), p. 188-215.
• Kusche, C., & Greenberg, M. (2006). Brain development and social-emotional learning: An introduction for educators, In M. J. Elias & H. A. Arnold (Eds.), The educator’s guide to emotional intelligence and academic achievement: Social-emotional learning in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
• McGuinty, D. (2003). “Character education: A key part of the Ontario Liberal Plan.” Orbit, 33(2), p. 15.
• Miller,T.W., Kraus, R. F., and Veltkamp, L. J., (2008) Character Education as a Prevention Strategy for school-related Violence, T. W. Miller(ed.) In School Violence and Primary Prevention, p. 377-390.
• Muir, E. (1992). School Staff Victimization: Monitoring the Trends. School Safety (fall), p. 4-6.
• Nucci, L., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of moral and character education, New York: Taylor & Francis
• Price, J. H., and S. A. Everett. (1997). A National Assessment of Secondary School Principals Perceptions of Violence in Schools. Health Education & Behavior, 24, p. 218–229.
• Samples, F., and L. Aber. (1998). Evaluations of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs, In D. S. Elliot, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Starr L. (1999). Is character education the answer? Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues047.shtml.
• Vardin A Patricia Montessori Life, (Spring 2003). Character education in America. ProQuest Education Journals, 15(2), p. 32
• Wilson, J. Q. (1994). Just Take Away the Guns. New York Times Magazine, 20 March, p. 46-47.

Yet, despite all the attention devoted by academic observers, activists, and policymakers, progress in remedying these still endemic social problems has been limited, uneven, and all too reversible. Why have the efforts of an army of social scientists working over several generations not yielded more tangible progress in combating our most pressing social problems? In this essay, I argue that the lack of a coherent conception of human nature has contributed to the frustrating results of our attempts to advance human society through scientific inquiry. I suggest that greater understanding of the human spirit can contribute to the overarching project of improving the human condition that unites all of the social sciences.

Speaking broadly and simplifying vastly (as limited space necessitates), two meta-paradigms concerning human nature have guided much social science research in the past several decades. On the one hand, there is a rationalist paradigm that theorizes human beings as egoists rationally pursuing their self-interest. This understanding of human nature provides the foundation for the discipline of economics and has become increasingly dominant in political science. In emphasizing that actions follow a “logic of consequences” in which decisions are based on how expected outcomes will affect an individual’s utility, the rationalist paradigm does not consider morality an inherent dimension of human action. In this framework, people are portrayed as largely amoral, only taking normatively proper actions if doing so benefits them personally or if they happen to derive unusually high utility from virtuous behavior due to idiosyncrasies in character.

In political science, the assumptions underlying the rationalist paradigm lead to a rather pessimistic outlook on the likelihood of arriving at morally agreeable outcomes. For instance, there is no reason to believe that a dictator will stop employing violence against his own citizens just because the international community urges that it is the right thing to do; rather, such behavior will continue until the leader’s incentive structure changes, making political repression too costly to continue. However, characterizing people as rational actors need not entail such a bleak outlook. In economics, for example, there seems to be an almost axiomatic faith in Adam Smith’s notion that the rational pursuit of self-interest benefits the entire collectivity.

In contrast to the rationalist approach, there is a normative paradigm that conceives of human beings as primarily concerned with aligning their actions to standards of appropriateness for particular roles and identities in different social situations. While the rationalist paradigm thrives in economics and political science, the normative paradigm is most prevalent in sociology. From this perspective, people are less concerned with doing whatever it takes to achieve their aims than with determining which actions are prescribed for given circumstances and behaving accordingly. In this way, actors do what is perceived as right for its own sake, operating according to a “logic of appropriateness” rather than a “logic of consequences.” In a sharp contrast to the amoral egoists that populate rationalist models of the world, human actors in the normative paradigm are conceived of as fundamentally moral beings, deeply influenced by what their communities consider right and proper.

While acknowledging the potential for a gap between standards of appropriate behavior and the capacity to adhere to those standards in practice, the normative paradigm tends towards an optimistic estimate of the possibility of achieving morally desirable outcomes. Problematic behavior can be corrected through moral suasion based on clearly articulated normative standards, without necessarily appealing to the self-interest of deviant actors, as in the rationalist paradigm. For instance, pro-democracy international institutions might be able to socialize officials from authoritarian countries into valuing democracy for its own sake, transcending their rational inclination to perpetuate oppressive arrangements.

How can we reconcile these profoundly disparate visions of humanity in analyzing and attempting to remedy social problems? Many acknowledge that social action can follow both the rationalist “logic of consequences” and the normative “logic of appropriateness,” but social theorists have yet to construct a coherent framework that can explain when action might follow one or the other logic. Far too much energy has been expended in unproductive debates in which analysts draw on limited empirical findings to assert the superiority of their favored approach.

To be sure, both paradigms are intuitively plausible, and one can easily find cases that fit the predictions of each. But both approaches are incomplete, and unable on their own to account for the full range of human behavior. The rationalist paradigm offers no explanation for why discourses about norms and morality comprise such an essential part of everyday human experience, while the normative approach fails to account for the pervasiveness of anti-social and immoral behavior. But if we are neither the self-seeking sociopaths envisioned by the rationalist paradigm nor the perfectly socialized automatons imagined by the normative paradigm, then who are we?

I suggest that social scientific analysis and policymaking might be well served by drawing on conceptions of human nature that derive more from the inherited wisdom of religious traditions and less from the abstract deductions of contemporary theoretical paradigms. The perspective I advocate takes up a broad theme of the Abrahamic faiths – the universal corruptibility of the human spirit, beginning with the transgressions of the very first human beings in the story of the Garden of Eden. In other words, I argue that it is analytically useful for social science research to conceptualize human beings as sinners.

With this characterization, I suggest that people are highly aware of and concerned with the normative prescriptions of the various social groupings to which they belong, and typically act to uphold and reinforce these standards of behavior. However, as the fallible creatures that we are, we fall prey to a range of spiritual lapses that lead us to use to violate even our most sacred moral codes. Common-sense reflection on the historical record of human behavior can shed light on how our penchant for sinfulness expresses itself. We have shown that we disregard the lives of others in the pursuit of profit and power. We dehumanize and oppress those whom we perceive as different from ourselves. We grow comfortable in positions of wealth and influence, protecting our own standing against changes that would benefit the rest of society. We think only of our own short-term gain rather than our long-term responsibilities to those who will come after us. We are indifferent to the suffering of strangers. We break promises, tell lies, and act hypocritically. We take for granted and hurt the ones we love.

Of course, our propensity for sinful behavior does not mean that we are only capable of depravity. Indeed, most of the time we follow the moral standards of our communities in an unreflective, straightforward fashion. And we are certainly capable of deep compassion and heroic self-sacrifice. But our spiritual imperfection means that we all have an inherent potential to stray from a righteous path, especially during extreme conditions like warfare, political instability, poverty, and economic depression. This potential is universal and timeless, and exists within men and women, rich and poor, traditional and modern, educated and illiterate, believer and skeptic alike. The exact nature of our vices, and the extent to which they impact other people, might vary according to our social positions (a prince’s failings can cause greater harm than a pauper’s), but corruptibility is something we all share.

Imagining human beings as sinners makes sense of the paradoxical views of humanity offered by the rationalist and normative paradigms while overcoming their limitations. This perspective incorporates the normative paradigm’s insight that people care about upholding the standards of appropriateness of their communities, but sheds the naïve expectation that they will almost automatically abide by these standards. This perspective also accepts the rationalist paradigm’s premise that people often engage in aberrant, self-serving action. However, while the rationalist paradigm suggests that people pursue their own satisfaction without considering the normative implications of their behavior, the view of humans as sinners recognizes that people generally aspire towards decency, even if they are sometimes susceptible to moral breakdown. Eschewing firm a priori assumptions about people’s inclination towards normatively appropriate behavior, the spiritual paradigm I propose starts from acknowledging our demonstrated capacity for both upstanding and immoral behavior. A social science research program built upon such a vision of humanity would aim to investigate the social conditions under which people engage in different types of behavior – virtuous and vicious – and draw upon this knowledge to design policies that will better confront the most lasting and pernicious social problems.

An inadequate understanding of humankind’s spiritual character can lead to two types of problems that have plagued modern attempts to shape our societies for the better. First, we often craft policies that rest on naïve assumptions about human nature, and which could only work in practice if we were saints rather than sinners. For instance, a laissez faire approach to economic regulation stems from the notion that allowing people to freely pursue their economic self-interest leads the economy to thrive. But this position underestimates the extent to which economic actors, left unchecked, are prone to greedy or shortsighted behavior that can harm society as a whole. The current financial crisis resulted from the creation of high-risk financial instruments that led consumers to take on mortgages they could not afford and companies to over-invest in dubious mortgage-backed securities. These policies enriched the finance industry and expanded the ranks of homeowners in the short-term, but the bursting of the housing bubble led to an epidemic of foreclosures, a stock market crash, a drying up of credit, and a global economic recession.

The policy of abstinence-only sex education is another case in which the likelihood of virtue is overestimated. This policy relies on the sexual restraint of young people to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among teenagers. Such programs have been found to be ineffective because they fail to appreciate the difficulty of resisting the temptation to engage in risky sexual behavior for even the most steadfast advocates of abstinence. These examples suggest that policies too dependent on the proper behavior of those involved will tend not to be very successful.

A second problem deriving from our inadequate understanding of human nature is our tendency to divide the world into rigid categories of those who are righteous and those who are wicked, often succumbing to the hubristic assumption that God is on our side. Rather than recognizing that we are all equal in our potential for moral failure, we forget our own sinfulness, with the ironic result that those most ostensibly committed to social progress along Enlightenment principles can be guilty of the most brutal inhumanity.

Idealistic political movements have frequently illustrated such a dynamic. The French Revolution, for instance, produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, proclaiming liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression to be natural rights. Just a few years later, Robespierre’s Committee for Public Safety launched a program of arbitrary executions to protect the revolutionary government from the perceived threat of internal enemies, an absurd blasphemy of the Revolution’s foundational principles. Similarly, the vanguard of the Bolshevik Revolution viewed itself as leading the world towards a communist future that would eradicate inequality and establish the conditions for universal human flourishing. Yet this project devolved into a paranoid police state that imprisoned and executed millions of kulaks, Cossacks, and other class enemies for the sake of the unquestionably righteous Revolution.

As casual observers of history, we tend to attribute such atrocities to the uncommonly evil character of the key figures involved: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. But such horrors as chattel slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and the Darfur crisis are not simply the work of a single monstrous leader or a few bad apples. They require many hands, and arise from an all-too-human capacity to inflict harm on others, to be overcome with hatred, to turn a blind eye to suffering and injustice – in short, to be inhumane. The urge to dissociate ourselves from such evils is powerful, as we like to think of ourselves as good people, incapable of such savagery. But the history of human suffering is the story of allegedly good people doing terrible things to each other. Thus, we must accept any sin committed by another person as potentially one of our own.

Treading a righteous path – as individuals, as corporations, as nations – is difficult, but certainly not impossible. Bringing our aspirations for values like equality, liberty, and peace closer to fruition requires not just technical knowledge, but also attention to how the spiritual character of human beings shapes the implementation and effectiveness of policy initiatives. When we acknowledge the darker aspects of our nature, the design of policies becomes a matter of identifying and protecting against the sources of temptation we may face.

The structure of American political institutions might serve to illustrate a well-crafted policy in this regard. Wary of the concentration of power in the hands of any one entity, the drafters of American institutions dispersed authority among three distinct branches of government. While members of each branch have worked to enhance their own power, the separation of powers ensures an ongoing wrangling between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the result being that no one branch can accumulate absolute authority. Instead of trusting political actors to refrain from power seeking, the founders anticipated the temptation to extend one’s reach and devised mechanisms to check that tendency. In this way, democratic rule has survived for over two centuries.

The modern social sciences offer an impressive array of techniques for acquiring systematic knowledge about human societies. But scientific knowledge will not lead the world on a linear march of progress if not coupled with an honest and accurate reckoning of human nature. Turning with humility to the insights into the human spirit offered by religious traditions may be the best way to appreciate and temper the shortcomings we have shared from the beginning.

P. Geoffrey Bakken is PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin.

Today, those who have made it their business to identify and cure these feelings of emptiness and the consequent loneliness that is experienced by the human self have presented panoply of solutions, usually gift-wrapped in various intellectual discourses. People struggle with each discourse, hoping that maybe one will, after all, be their stamped pass through the golden gateways of enlightenment. Time unwraps each solution and lays its contents bare. History stands as a graveyard, giving testimony to the inadequacy of the philosophical critiques and theoretical discourses of modernity and post-modernity. The world is still in a state of chaos and, within this existentialist milieu, human beings still question their solitary existence.

It seems that history has selected a fistful of people who deem themselves destined to step into the arena of intellectual combat, jumping to the rescue of humankind. The common man finds themselves in a literary laboratory where they are left to experiment with the latest medicines that have been prescribed for their affliction. In a desperate attempt to break free from the onslaught of isms hurled at us by the age of modernity and post-modernity, the intellectuals of our age have come up with a new literary concoction. The era of isms has ended. It is now the age of paradoxes. There is an increasing trend of juxtaposing ironies in the guise of facts and universal truths. Language is the best-seller in the market for dressing-up contradictions with such frills; one is often left so dazzled by the linguistic niceties that they are unable to detect any lacuna in the logic presented. People develop unique dictionaries for each of these. The logic presented for this discrepancy in the repertoire of every person is simple: each person’s world is made up of their distinct life experiences, their memories of the past and their imagination of the future, as well as their comprehension of the now and their plans of action for grappling with the present. Thus, the language one employs and the peculiar meaning it entails is contingent upon one’s very own, individual privé monad. It is these self-concocted dictionaries, composed of their distinct vernacular along with their numerous subtleties, which form one’s individual mental architecture by which the affairs of one’s life are orchestrated.

This novel concept of individual dictionaries rotates round and round the dining tables of the most “progressive” of humankind. People prize themselves as being part of what is now being hailed as a grand intellectual revolution. This revolution, it is believed, gives one the ability to guard one’s pristine exclusivity. Inherent within this exclusiveness of the individual self from the “other” is the championing of the self, and a sense of security prevails, giving humankind the assurance that the esoteric nature of our pristine binaries of right and wrong, true and false, beautiful and ugly make all that we do and say a private matter. And, some like to believe, within this privacy, within this unique sphere of personal space lays the epitome of freedom that humanity has ever been able to reach.

It is within this multiplicity of one’s private, peculiar lingua franca that they are able to ascribe meaning to their very existence. One’s conceptualization of the self and one’s ferocious defense of this newly-acquired perception of freedom are what form the basis of one’s interaction with those around them and the world that they live in. This sense of exclusivity leads to what Habermas has called a breakdown in “communicative action”-the absence of common relatable backgrounds to the extent that no one can any longer imagine being in another’s shoes. Without this mutual taking of perspective, the very precious element of human emotional intelligence that is known as “empathy” is automatically removed from many people’s dictionaries. Empathy is the same trait that makes a child burst into tears when another one cries in front of them, thinking that the pain is not the other’s but their own. This quality of being able to relate to, to actually understand and feel not only the other’s pain, but also their happiness, is what forms the main spring of the concept of rescue, a concept upon which entire literary laboratories have been established. If it were not for empathy, the demarcation between the self and the other would make it unimaginable for anyone to surmount those towering walls to rescue another; this would have been a thing of fairy tales and folklore. This is the point when an eagerly embracing the age of private dictionaries, with their golden masquerade of personal freedom, draws one actively into an intellectual maelstrom against the “other,” and against tolerance.

Confronted by such tempestuous times, when I look upon the glorious pasts of our ancestors in an attempt to find some point of reference that could aid in navigating, one string of events presents some relevant points to my argument. While growing up, my life, just as that of any other child who was growing up at the same time, was colored by numerous stories and legends. Over time, I managed to dust off images of flying horses and heroic men coming to the rescue of people who were being tortured by brutal potentates. But the more human memories have remained with me to this day. As a young child, I often saw my grandmother leave the house and walk over the next-door neighbors’ house with some delicious dish she had prepared. The visits had an almost ritualistic feel to them, since every single time some delectable dish was cooked and brought over to our house; I knew some of this would find its way to our house. On the occasions when I was allowed to accompany my grandmother on these visits, I would witness her place the dish on the table, and then either herself or the recipient would divulge some important piece of news, each launching off into a torrent of complaints and remarks about this, that and the other. On one such occasion, the meeting took a sudden unpleasant twist. I remember quite vividly that my grandmother severely rebuked one of our neighbors, a regular receiver of sweets and meals. The hot halawa lay on the table in front of her, sending off sweet enticing whiffs while both grownups were engaged in a heated verbal brawl. The point of contention was indecipherable to me, as grown-ups at that time had a way of skillfully employing a code language in front of children; perhaps this was part of an attempt to protect our innocence from being tarnished by the realities of adulthood. At the end of the quarrel, my grandmother apparently had the last word and made her way home with the hot dish of sweet-smelling food still sitting on the neighbor’s table. From that time onwards, there was a continuation of exchanges of harsh words over hot delicious meals or sweet mouth-watering delicacies. My young mind was at first befuddled and later exasperated by the on-going quarrel, the continuation of which was clearly contingent on the exchange of meals. I knew that all the trouble would effortlessly come to a halt if neither lady were to cross the fence that demarcated their house from the other. No ties of blood bound them and the cessation of any contact whatsoever would not have disrupted the routine of our lives. It was as simple as that.

What left my young mind baffled in the past was the persistence of my grandmother and our neighbor to maintain contact, despite the conflict; however, this makes sense to me now. People in the past had a more wholesome experience of life because it was framed within a sense of collectivity. Their dictionaries were not discrepant from others and they spoke a common language based on a certainty that their essence was unique to them not as individuals, but as an individual human race. It was their recognition of the unity of essence, shrouded within a multiplicity of existence, which enabled them to forge ties that were so tenacious. This notion of being united in essence, in their human proclivity to do good and believe in the Absolute Truth, was translated into their relationships and their persistent efforts to maintain relationships that had been forged willingly. The entire saga of my grandmother’s quarrels with the neighbor is intelligible to me now as a part of ongoing effort to remind her friend not to detract from this natural inclination towards goodness that was rooted within her very makeup as a human being. The whiffs of sweet-smelling treats were left as a message that her act of reprimanding her friend did not spring from a desire to claim a higher moral ground based on her own personalized set of rights or wrongs, but rather from an active concern for the community that she perceived herself to be a part of. The fact that the neighbor welcomed her at the door each time before the drama took place relates the moral pattern of people at that time, or at least within the confines of such interactions. It reflects a broad moral consensus of the entire neighborhood; they were actively involved in saving not just the one who was being wronged, but also the one who was doing wrong. Each person comprehended the fact that the underlying reason for the argument between the two found its source in the legacy of mutual concern, handed down to them from their elders. An active sense of empathy, of the fear that the wrong that was being committed today could be committed by them tomorrow, the fear that if it was not ended it would form a part of the legacy of their children, existed among these neighbors.

Today, people find a false sense of security in the notion of privacy and personal space. A sense of relief is felt that no busybody from the neighboring apartment will come knocking on the door, with the sense that the gift of a sole meal or a plate of sweets grants them the moral right to correct one’s wrongs or to criticize acts. One finds themselves comfortably ensconced in this preservation of private space and thus fails to recognize that the so-called privacy that is so aggressively guarded is actually shrinking with every passing day. In the past, at least one was able to walk down a street without having some person or another trying to sell them expensive means to look socially acceptable. But the case today is the total opposite of this. The alienation that is a direct cause of protecting what we now term “personal space” has curtailed our freedom to guard our natural proclivity towards goodness which connects us with humanity. The percolating sense of otherness and spreading intolerance are just two sides of the same coin.

The decisive factor in the above discussion is that no time is in and of itself golden. It is the people who are living at that time who cast it in varying hues, hues by which the future generations will remember them. Only if people could burst their own bubble which divides them from the other and embrace the unified proclivity towards Good and Absolute that is part of their human makeup, will they be able to live up to the moral responsibility that they have, not only towards themselves and their contemporaries, but also towards their future progeny. In this hour of need what we need is not another so-called glamorized intellectual revolution, but rather a grand intellectual revival of the human estimation of one’s own self. In my opinion, expensive intellectual laboratories and large think-tanks can help, but a revolutionary revivalism of that which can help us find a positive continuity with the past and a beneficial connection to the future could play a small start. The muddy hand of a child is enough to hold up a mirror to each and every one of us, shattering any claims of uniqueness or separateness. This brief muddy treasure will remind us of what we are made of and of what we mean to one another. Within this humbling realization, I believe, flickers a great hope.

Raaza Jamshed Butt has an MA degree in international relations from the International Islamic University, Malaysia.

There is one moral law that forms the corner stone of all of the world’s religions: “Thou shall not kill.” But does this law apply only to human beings? What about our involvement in the steady decline and death of our ecology and its many plants and animals all of which contribute to our complex and interdependent eco system that sustains human life. Are we not morally responsible to protect the lives of all of these living creatures and systems and even the Earth itself? Is there a correlation between our environmental crisis and spiritual crisis? Matter&Beyond discussed this correlation with Mary Evelyn Tucker who is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where she has appointments in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. Tucker is a co-founder and co-director with John Grim of the Forum on Religion and Ecology. Together they organized a series of ten conferences on World Religions and Ecology at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School. They are series editors for the ten volumes from the conferences distributed by Harvard University Press.

M&B: What is the ecosystem? And when you say that the ecosystem is in trouble what do you mean by that?

An ecosystem describes the tremendous, intricate, complex relationship between all of the elements; literally the soil, water, air, and then the plant life and even the breathing of the plants. This includes the presence of insects pollinating, the soil being moved around by worms, and so on. Then you get into the mammalian life, and the bird life, which work within a complex system, and the parts of which we are only beginning to understand. We barely understand how migration patterns work; [e.g.] the sandpiper that migrates from South America to the James Bay region of Canada. This migration means that these birds are able to comprehend an ecosystem that stretches over thousands of miles. So ecosystems, we realize, have this microscopic dimension of complex elements; the flora and fauna interact with it. But at the same time, we can also see an ecosystem that is as large as the migration patterns of animals and birds. Thus, we begin to see that the way in which we read and understand ecosystems is the key to understanding this complex community of life.

M&B: What are some of the problems faced by ecosystems today?

The planet as a whole is facing a variety of environmental problems of immense proportions and complexity. We, as human beings, are only beginning to realize the full impact of our presence on the planet. The population has risen from 2 billion to 6 billion people in the last century; this population explosion, as well as the technological explosion, is grinding the earth into a pulp, destroying the forests and the life in the oceans …, with this enormous presence we could be compared to an octopus that has wrapped itself around the planet; in short, we have caused very serious environmental problems.

Right now, climate change is apparent to many, many people around the globe; this was not the case 10 years ago, nor even 5 years ago. We are profoundly changing the air and the atmosphere. This change is reflected in the ecosystems in shifting migration patterns, in fluctuating agricultural patterns, and in changes in the life of the seas. Therefore, there is one huge macro-scale problem that right now has an enormous presence, and we are aware that human beings are the primary cause; this was stated at the international panel on climate change in its report of January 2007.

M&B: You speak about visible problems, but aren’t there any deeper problems?.

20,000 to 30,000 species are becoming extinct every year around the globe. This era has been called an extinction period, and it is the sixth extinction period. Probably the last extinction period was after a meteor hit the earth, 65 million years ago; this ended the era of dinosaurs. And now we are the cause of a new extinction, because we are reducing the habitats, we are creating the pollution problems, we are using chemicals that birds and insects cannot deal with. Rachel Carson wrote about this in her book “Silent Spring” and alerted people to the decimation of birds and the ensuing silence because their songs could no longer be heard. This is a problem that we need to address, and we need to understand what such a loss means; there is a sadness for the voices of the natural world that are disappearing from our midst.

We can also talk about a whole range of problems in bioregions, such as the pollution of the Great Lakes or invasive species that are occurring in them and elsewhere. We can also speak about the loss of tropical forests in Thailand, for example. Even 30 or 40 years ago, 75% of Thailand was forested. Now the area is only 15%. Clear cutting is still happening in our own western forests. But we also have clear cutting in the oceans. Huge nets, some of them measuring 20 to 30 miles long in the Pacific and the Atlantic, sweep up not only fish, but all kinds of life, such as turtles, dolphins and life forms from the coral reefs. We must have not only a land ethic to preserve our resources, to preserve our water, and our air and our soil, we also need an ocean ethic, an ethic for the great waters. These two kinds of ethics need to emerge in the human community if the entire community is to survive into the future.

M&B: In your opinion, what are the underlying human problems that are the root cause for this environmental destruction?

Human beings have not realized how completely we are in nature. We go to the super market and we buy meat wrapped up in plastic, sitting on Styrofoam, or we buy apples that are out of season or peaches and oranges that are imported from elsewhere. We have lost our sense of connection to food, where it comes from, to all of these complex bioregions that support the life, of food and of agriculture. That’s just one example. But I think we have profoundly alienated ourselves by thinking we can dominate, we can control nature, or even that we can manage it. Sometimes we think we can manage forests or fisheries, and yet we still don’t understand how intricate and complex these systems really are. Earlier peoples had very primitive instruments, not huge machines that can go in and decimate a forest in a day. So, our technology has grown beyond our ability to set limits. We simply don’t know limits.

I think another factor here is that the growth mentality the economic driver, even of our capitalist system and our neoliberal economics says, economic growth is good. In growth we trust, so to speak. And this fetish with growth, this preoccupation that if we don’t grow our economy is going to falter, has set us on a course that is destroying communities, it is creating endless consumerism, is creating all kinds of alienation, sadness, even addictions of all kinds because the emptiness of modern consumer life is just suffocating the human soul, and the human spirit, that doesn’t know where to find itself in materialism gone mad.

M&B: When I look at the indigenous people in any tradition, these people had much more respect for food.

It is true that indigenous peoples had, and in many parts of the world continue to have, a profound sense of the interconnection in life systems that the human needs to carry out life. I don’t want to over idealize the indigenous peoples by any means, rather only in the sense that they are in a reciprocal relationship, that when hunting there was gratitude for the life of the animal taken, or when a bird was killed, there was a reciprocal sense of thanksgiving, of prayer, as part of their culture. Even in agricultural indigenous peoples, for example, with the growing of corn for the Hopi, there is a sense that you sing for the corn to grow.

M&B: Although the root cause of the problem still continues, there are certain things that we should be doing. Such as endangered species protection programs etc.

I think there is a growing sense in human beings that we have a new responsibility for the future of the planet, for other species and ecosystems. We know that many animals will only be preserved in zoos, or in nature preserves. If we’re talking about the right to life, the right to habitat, the right to be part of a larger community, are we the ones who are to determine this? And what does that mean? This is an extension of our ethical, moral sensibility to the larger community of life, with which we share this planet. So there is an immense sense of responsibility for this period when other life forms are undergoing extinction. And if this is not fundamentally a religious issue, I don’t know what is.

M&B: What is the reaction of the younger generation? You are also a professor who teaches at Yale and you’ve been to other universities as well. Can you tell us about your experiences?

There were two students as Bucknell University where I was teaching, and they exemplified, I think, what we’re all going through. In a class on religion and ecology, we were talking about the loss of species and the sense of wide-spread extinction that is taking place in our own lifetime. And one student turned to the rest of the class and said: Why should I care if 20,000 species become extinct every year? I’m going to Wall Street, I’ll get my job I’ll have my family and life in the suburbs around New York. Why should I care? This question sent a ripple throughout the class, and many, who were biologists and ecologists, immediately responded by talking about the intricacy of ecosystems and the web of life and the interdependence of life systems. But even that didn’t sway this student, and it was almost as if he was thinking, I can get my food from the supermarket, I just don’t care. This, to me, was a huge wake-up call. So there is this sense on the one hand of indifference, of disconnection, and even of denial.

On the other hand, there was a student who read some essays by Thomas Berry, who has been an immense inspiration and teacher to both my husband, John Grimm, and myself. This student read them over the weekend, and was so overwhelmed by the size, scale, and complexity of the environmental problems that we are facing, that he just had to close his door and couldn’t go out for the weekend; he didn’t want to see his friends. On Monday when he came back to talk to us, he said I am just paralyzed by these problems and I feel such immense despair.

We need to find a way forward between these two extremes of despair on the one hand and denial on the other. We need to find a way of empowering and inspiring scientifically grounded, ecologically sound, restoration projects that are in coordination with the ecosystems; we need to train people along these lines. But we need to ground them in a sense of wonder, hope, and possibility for a sustainable future; we need to teach them that their actions, that their lives, will matter, that they’re not just a speck in a meaningless universe, but rather that their actions and their life journey will contribute to a larger planetary civilization, which is emerging on the horizon; that is, a multi-form planetary civilization. That is the goal that we need to place in front of them.

M&B: So both science and religion can take on these issues?

Both religion and science can help us with this, but there have also been problems with science and religion. Science sometimes has objectified the natural world, creating a sense of distance with the scientific method that we use to study things, making them distanced from us. And yet, science is also helping us to recover both great knowledge about the environmental problems that we’re surrounded by, climate change and the extinction of species, as well as pollution issues. Scientists are studying these things and providing us with information on a daily basis. And many of these scientists are deeply committed to what are being called sustainability sciences; to have this at colleges and universities, and to be able to think through problems with a sense of creating solutions. So I think it’s an immensely inspiring moving, sustainable sense of well-being that is emerging from the sciences.

Religions hold a lot of promise for the area of ecology and sustainability, and even sustainable development. Religious people have been reluctant to get involved and they have been late in getting involved. Many religious people are often concerned with an other-worldly salvation, or with personal salvation, and not necessarily with involvement in the world, the environment, and issues of social justice. However, I think that one of the most exciting and promising movements within the environmental field is that the religions are awakening to their ecological aspect, to their commitment to life, its aesthetic beauty, and the intrinsic value of other species; they are taking on a sense of commitment for the future generations of all species. This possibility, that religious communities will awaken to an increased ethical sensibility to people in other countries, to species in different countries around the globe, as well as to future generations, is vital. This is something that religions can offer. Moreover, they can help to stimulate a critical component to our environmental and ecological sensibility, and that is a wonder; religions awaken us to a sense of gratitude and awe in the face of the great mystery of life. And that particular component of wonder, such as the wonder of the Monarch butterfly, the sense of beauty in these creatures, is something that religions can reignite for us, just as science can. And this is where they join, I think. Science awakens our sense of wonder, religion confirms the wonder with the great mystery of life systems. And finally, I think that religions can offer a sense of hope, because more than anything, I think we all need to imagine a future that is sustainable. We are interacting with the next generation who are dealing with their own sense of paralysis, with a lack of hope, even despair. And we need to acknowledge that this is a very critical moment for humans. We have never faced anything like this before; where is our sense of hope and the possibility for creating a viable, sustainable, and flourishing future for the planet? I think the religious communities that have dealt with loss, sorrow, death, and despair can help to regenerate this sense of possibility, of sustainable hope for the next generation, and even for ourselves, as we deal with this daily onslaught of saddening bad news. More than anything, I think we need these two components of wonder and hope to make it into the future.

Interview conducted by Mustafa Tabanli and MaryLynn Schiavi for Ebru TV for the Emmy Award winning television series Matter and Beyond. For more information and the full episodes visit http://www.ebru.tvenp.fullepisode.html

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2008/issue-61-january-february-2008/a-communitarian-imperative-fethullah-gulens-model-of-modern-turkey/ Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/2008/issue-61-january-february-2008/a-communitarian-imperative-fethullah-gulens-model-of-modern-turkey/ If there has been one great political lesson the twentieth century has taught us, surely it is the undeniable truth of Lord Acton’s dictum, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We have seen notable examples in our recent history. It would seem only logical, then, that a benevolent thinker on the cusp of the twenty-first century would naturally distrust and eschew those political systems embracing some form of “central planning” warned about by F. A. Hayek and be drawn instead to one variety or another of a “classical liberal” or libertarian alternative.1 Those words “individual freedom,” when set against the term “totalitarianism,” do possess an appealing ring. But as the post-9/11 world has revealed, liberty does come with its own set of challenges.

Although throughout much of the 1990s a segment of the political sympathies in the US aligned with a libertarian spirit, over time, particularly with the Libertarian Party’s paltry response to 9/11, certain inadequacies in any strict adherence to that outlook began to reveal themselves. A libertarian system, almost by definition, presupposes a citizenry that is already educated, moral, ethical, informed, self-disciplined and respecting of the natural rights of every individual within that system. In that regard, it would seem to be a reward for a well-developed society rather than the beginning point for nurturing one.

Specifically, weaknesses in two main areas of libertarianism can be challenged. The first concerns exactly how a free society can inculcate a moral point of view among its people, especially the youth, such that the interactions within that society can be conducted from a common frame of reference. The second is the question of how a free society deals with citizens who refuse to observe its basic precepts in their conduct toward their fellow citizens. Under scrutiny it appeared that libertarianism could offer no satisfactory practical answer to either.

The third way

The Communitarian Network, founded by Amitai Etzioni in 1990, is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, transnational coalition of individuals and organizations who have come together to shore up the social, moral and political environment.2 The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies, based at the George Washington University, Washington, D.C. and headed by Etzioni, is a research organization dedicated to finding constructive solutions to social problems through morally informed policy analysis and open moral dialogue, bringing the best scholarship and analysis to bear on policy issues affecting family, schools, the community and the moral climate of society.

The Network and the Institute recognize that humans are first and foremost social beings with social needs to be addressed. People do, and should-regardless of individual preferences concerning degrees of autonomy-always exist within the body of a society. Furthermore, especially appealing to persons of faith was their recognition that man is additionally a moral and spiritual being. And any societal system that fails to take that into account is doomed to unravel.

The communitarian movement began to be more widely referenced in the political literature and discourse of the mid–1990s. Perhaps the greatest charge that could be leveled against communitarianism is its lack of specificity. It might be characterized as an attitude, not a policy-long on theory and ideals and short on practical detail, lacking a clear mechanism to effect its vision. Nevertheless, in 2003 a serendipitous chain of events commenced that would lead me to a whole new assessment of the possibilities for a living communitarian imperative.

The Turkish connection

Following the explosion of the evolution/education debate of 2000 in Kansas, I joined an Internet listserv to keep abreast of the ongoing controversy. I was intrigued by the frequent postings of a Turkish Muslim in Istanbul, a rising young journalist named Mustafa Akyol. We struck up an e-mail friendship and working journalistic relationship, which in turn led to my acquaintance with a group of Turkish students in my local area who were associated with the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (IID)-an organization promoting the vision of compassion, education and peace espoused by the Turkish spiritual leader M. Fethullah Gulen. This connection eventually resulted in my joining with a group of clergy in December 2005 for an eleven-day tour of Turkey to witness the Gulen philosophy in action. It was for me an experience of profound import.

What the tour provided to the participants was an opportunity to experience directly the history, culture, faith and people from which the Gulen movement has taken root and flourished. We were privileged to visit Istanbul, Izmir, Antalya, Konya, Ankara, Gaziantep, Urfa and Harran. At every stop, the occasion for personal interaction with people was made available and encouraged, especially during home visits. Guides were at our elbow at every turn to answer our many questions and serve as interpreters.

The inspiration for the movement, M. Fethullah Gulen is often referred to as the “Mahatma Gandhi of Turkey” and “the modern Rumi.” Fethullah Gulen is a teacher, Islamic scholar, thinker, prolific writer and poet of broad and significant influence. The topics of his speeches and writings range beyond religious matters to include education, science, history, economics and social justice. His efforts in world interfaith dialogue and interfaith education have been groundbreaking and monumental. Gulen has observed, “There are so many things we have in common to emphasize.”3 A unique aspect of the movement inspired by his teachings is that it is self-sustaining and self-proliferating, not dependent upon the charisma of its founder but rather upon the efficacy of his vision.

A communitarian cousin

The core of the Gulen philosophy is a theistic view of the universe-specifically a moderate Islamic one, but one compatible with the other Abrahamic faiths-and of the moral order of man descending from that recognition of God. Gulen’s perspective on individualism contrasts with the libertarian stance:

It is impossible to have unrestricted individualism. This is because humans are either both free with no acceptance of any moral values and rebellious with no moral criteria, or they are servants who are dependent on God and seriously obedient to His commands.4

Much of his religious writing refers to Christian and Judaic, as well as Qur’anic, sources. The central corollary of his view on freedom and the individual is a great emphasis on education from cradle to grave. This education encompasses the whole person-intellectually, physically, emotionally and spiritually-and is geared toward invigorating the person’s heart and soul as well as mind, and to achieving competence useful to both her/himself and others. This education takes place optimally within the context of a strong family structure, a historical heritage and a democratic polity.5 It awakens the individual’s sense of responsibility because, according to Gulen, “Connecting or relating action to responsibility gives action its primary humane dimension.”6

This vision has spawned a host of humanitarian efforts on an international scale. More than seven hundred Gulen-inspired schools of every academic level, where students of all faiths are taught together (without religious indoctrination), often by teachers of Turkish background, have sprung up across Turkey and in other countries on every continent. The emphasis is on academic excellence, and students in Gulen-inspired schools take trophies in science, math, biology, chemistry and physics at World Olympiads. Gulen was quick to recognize the importance of mass media to society and helped found the Journalists and Writers Foundation in 1994. In the area of health care, Glen-inspired hospitals have been established.7 In the interests of world peace and understanding, numerous intercultural and interfaith dialogue activities have been established. Businessmen and industrialists, grassroots and community leaders have rallied to his call to fund and support the creation and maintenance of these programs. A community spirit of good will and desire for harmony and progress permeates the vision and activities of the Gulen movement.8

So, might there be a correlation with communitarian philosophy in Gulen’s perspective? A reading of The Responsive Communitarian Platform reveals the communitarian movement’s most salient concerns: the reciprocity of social life; renewed moral values; the importance of historical context; strong, participatory democracy; a vibrant family structure; schools and education; government involvement guided by degree of necessity; responsibilities of citizenship; protection of human rights; social justice; public safety and public health; and internationalizing the primacy of human community.9 It is a sensible outline of focus areas for community-minded attention that could indeed mesh well with the aims of the Gulen movement. In the words of Gulen himself, speaking of a spiritually-centered life, “Order is evident in every effort, and compassion resides in every achievement.”10 Elsewhere in an interview he states, “Personal and social responsibilities are inter-related…the life of heart and spirit, and social and governmental issues are all facets of one unit.”11 Words which, it strikes me, apply equally to Glen’s vision and the communitarian platform.

A communitarian fertile ground

What cultural milieu might best be suited to fostering a communitarian approach? Might the land which nurtured the heart and soul of Fethullah Gulen be a candidate? Although all societies to one degree or another bear some burden of past injustices and current internal strife-Turkey being no exception as is vividly depicted in Pamuk’s novel Snow (2004)-a focus on, and examination of life and interaction at the local, community level can yield propitious insights regarding communitarian possibilities.

The modern Republic of Turkey dates back to 1923 and owes much of its progressive societal advancements to the efforts of its revered founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; however, the legacy of the once extensive Ottoman Empire still exerts a measurable influence on the area which was once at its heart.12 One quickly comes to appreciate certain bedrock strengths evident throughout the culture. To begin with, while Turkey prides itself on its secular governance, religiosity in daily life is pervasive. The call to prayer defines the structure of each day and provides a commonality to the flow of life. The moral obligations of one man to another, as revealed in the Qur’an, are taken very seriously and inform interactions at all social levels. Discretion is left to the individual in matters such as drinking alcohol or wearing the headscarf, but a spirit of comity is instilled at an early age and is evident everywhere, especially in domestic hospitality. When one is invited to a Turkish home for a meal, one comes away not only with a satisfied palate but also with a storehouse of good stories and lovely gifts. Tesekkür ederim, which means “thank you,” are the first Turkish words learned and the most frequently employed.

A great deal of emphasis is placed on individual responsibility and self-reliance throughout Turkish society. Family structure is extended, and sons are expected to care for their old. The family is also obliged to direct the religious training of the young and to oversee their schooling and education. Welfare assistance, when necessary, is often administered anonymously family to family or through the local mosque.13

The culture is rich with charming observances and customs that reveal a concern and charity toward one’s fellow human. The beautiful fruit trees and water fountains in public spaces, of which anyone may avail themselves without charge, are said to be provided so that no man need be left hungry or thirsty. The concept of neighborhood is inclusive of many dwellings round about any given home, so that a family may quite literally be acquainted with more than a hundred nearby families. On an occasion such as the Festival of Sacrifice, neighbors visit one another and exchange the meat from the sacrifice. That would seem to be, indeed, the very definition of “community.”14

Historically, the area now occupied by Turkey has been both a geographic and a cultural bridge between Europe and the Middle East. Countless armies and evangelists have crisscrossed these mountains and shores leaving behind their legacy in stone. The Turkish people are mindful always to take pride in and preserve their archeological treasures as stones in the foundation of their modern civilization.15 All in all, Turkey is a modern nation on a par with its European brethren, yet at the same time retaining many of its classical traditions. Its strength as a nation of caring people derives from its moderate form of Islam, the secular reforms of Ataturk and, now, the compassionate vision of Gulen.

During our visit there as we were departing a Turkish home one evening, an American priest remarked to me, “You know, there’s a ‘communitarian’ flavor to all of this.” This observation is shared by a number of other religious scholars writing on Glen and Turkey. Dr. Tom W. Boyd at the University of Oklahoma argues, “Gulen’s strategy is predominantly communitarian.”16 Marie-Elisabeth Maigre, alluding to Gulen’s analogy of society as an organism with interrelated parts “in need of one another,” characterizes his view as “a communitarian vision of society.”17

A call for action

Having been introduced to communitarianism, it was my acquaintance with students associated with the IID and my fortuitous travel to Turkey to experience the land and people that enabled me to envision its practical implementation. At its most fundamental, I see communitarianism as a mind-set and life style of individual social responsibility and reciprocal moral obligation. In many ways, I believe Turkish society infused by the Gulen movement offers a sterling example of this.

I believe with greater public awareness of the communitarian mind-set, its possibilities become manifest. However, achieving that balance in society will demand great joint effort. Nevertheless, it is an effort that can bear sweet fruit, like the trees along the thoroughfares in Turkey, for all. The Turkish word to describe the activities of the Gulen movement is hizmet. That translates into English as “service.” To me, that is a perfect word to describe communitarianism.

This is an abridged version of the paper presented at “Peaceful Coexistence: Fethullah Gulen’s Initiatives in the Contemporary World” conference, conducted at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, November 22-23, 2007. The complete paper can be downloaded at www.gulenconference.nl

Mark Scheel is the prose editor of Kansas City Voices magazine. He is the author of A Backward View: Stories and Poems and recipient of the J. Donald Coffin Memorial Book Award.

Notes

1. Hayek, F. A. The Road to Serfdom, New York: 1944, Routledge Classics, p. 34. [Last name Hayek first in order.]
2. The Communitarian Network Web site, home page.
3. Ã’nal, Ali, Alphonse Williams (compiled by), Advocate of Dialogue, Virgina: 2000, The Fountain. p. 205.
4. Saritoprak, Z. and Unal, A. (trans.) (2005) “An Interview with Fethullah Gulen.” The Muslim World, 95:3, 447-467.
5. M. Fethullah Gulen, Essays – Perspectives – Opinions, NJ: 2004, compiled by The Light, Inc.
6. Gulen, M. Fethullah, The Statue of Our Souls, The Light, Inc. NJ: 2005, p. 99. [Last name Gulen first in order.]
7. Scheel, M. (2006, April 17) “The Wonder of Anatolia: Land of Ataturk and Gulen.” At: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleld-281474976745124 [Period at end?]
8. Unal, p. 325.
9. The Communitarian Network Web site, Project and Activities page.
10. Gulen 2004, p. 55.
11. Saritoprak, p. 449.
12. Ergener, R.and Ergener, R. (2002) About Turkey: Geography, Economy, Politics, Religion, and Culture (Boulder, CO: Pilgrims’ Process, Inc.), p. 5.
13. Ibid, pp. 31–37.
14. Ibid, p. 38.
15. Ibid, p. 5.
16. Boyd 2006:48.
17. Maigre, M. (2006, February 17) “The Fethullaci, or the Project of an ‘Enlightened’ Turkey” Islam in Business Web site. http://islaminbusiness.blogspot.com/. (Last accessed September 26, 2007.)

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/2007/issue-59-july-september-2007/the-relationship-between-physical-cleanliness-and-moral-purity/ Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/2007/issue-59-july-september-2007/the-relationship-between-physical-cleanliness-and-moral-purity/ Cleanliness is virtue shared by all people and societies. Physical cleanliness and moral purity are highly encouraged by religions, particularly before the commencement of religious ceremonies, suggesting the existence of a possible psychological relationship between physical cleanliness and moral purity. Recently Dr. Zhong from the University of Toronto and Dr. Liljenquist from Northwestern University published a joint article in Science (September 2006) about the relationship between physical cleanliness and moral purity. They conducted an experiment in which they observed human behavior on this matter. They investigated whether a threat to moral purity activates a need for physical cleansing. Subsequently, they also investigated whether physical purity helps people to deal with the moral threats they face. In a laboratory setting, they asked participants to remember any ethical (good) or unethical (bad) behavior in their life and to explain their emotions and feelings they experienced about this behavior to determine whether the threat to moral purity increased the occurrence of purity-related words. Dr. Zhong and Dr. Liljenquist (2006) documented that people who remembered unethical behaviors about themselves recalled more cleansing words than the ones who remembered ethical ones. They employed three additional experiments by changing their designs and replicated the same results. Their findings indicate that people feel a need for physical cleansing after being involved in unethical behaviors. People feel that they are purified from their sins with physical cleansing.

Before they go to holy places people bathe or shower and then dress in their best clothes. In this way, they are showing their Creator how morally and physically clean they are. Physical cleansing also has benefits for health by removing visible or invisible dirt from the body. As mentioned above, all religions give importance to both physical and moral purity. This article will focus on the Islamic perspective of cleanliness and support it with scientific findings.

The Islamic perspective of cleansing and ablution

In the Islamic belief it is stressed that God’s beloved people are those who are pure and clean. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Cleanliness is half of faith.” This means that physical cleanliness is very important for the purification of the soul and for preparing to worship God. The purity and cleanliness of the body consists of avoiding all external filth and adorning it with cleanliness and good manners.

Traditions of the Prophet about cleanliness

Whenever the Prophet took a bath after intercourse, he started by washing his hands and then performed an ablution that is similar to the one for the prayer. After that he would put his fingers in the water and rub the roots of his hair with them, and then pour three handfuls of water over his head and then pour water all over his body.¹

“The taking of a bath on Friday is strongly recommended for every Muslim, and (also) the cleaning of his teeth with miswak, and the using of scents if it is available.”²

Aisha said: “The Prophet passed away in my house and leaning against my chest. One of us would recite a prayer asking God to protect him or her from all evils if he or she became unwell. So I began to ask God to protect him from all evils (by reciting a prayer). . . . Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr was passing by with a fresh leaf-stalk of a date-palm and the Prophet looked at it; I thought that the Prophet was in need of it (for cleaning his teeth). So I took it (from Abdur Rahman) and chewed the top of it, shook it and gave it to the Prophet, who cleaned his teeth with it, in the best way he had ever cleaned his teeth, and then he gave it to me. Suddenly his hand dropped down or it fell from his hand (i.e. he passed away). So God allowed my saliva to mix with his saliva on his last day on earth and his first day in the Hereafter.”³

The Prophet said, “Were I not afraid that it would be hard on my followers, I would order them to use the miswak (as obligatory, for cleaning the teeth).”⁴

Aisha reported: “The Messenger of God, may peace be upon him, said: ‘There are ten acts according to fitra (acts required by human nature): clipping the moustache, letting the beard grow, using miswak (for cleaning the teeth), snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing between the fingers, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving pubic hairs and cleaning one’s private parts with water.’ The narrator said: I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.”⁵

Abdullah ibn Abbas reported: “I spent (one night) in the house of the Messenger of God (may peace be upon him). He got up, brushed his teeth and performed ablution and said: ‘In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, there are indeed signs for people of understanding’ (Al Imran 3:190), reciting to the end of the chapter. He then stood up and prayed two cycles, standing, bowing, and prostrating himself at length in them. Then he finished, went to sleep. He did that three times, six cycles altogether, each time cleaning his teeth, performing ablution, and reciting these verses. Then he observed three cycles of witr. The call to prayer was then heard and he went out for prayer, saying,:” O God! Place light in my heart, light on my tongue, light in my hearing, light in my eyesight, light behind me, and light in front of me, and light above me, and light below me. O God! Grant me light.”⁶

Ablution and its benefits

There are twenty-six movements to the washing ritual of ablution in Islam, and Muslims perform ablution before they start their daily prayers, going before God with a healthy and clean body. The description of ablution and the importance of physical cleanliness are given in the Qur’an as follows:

O you who believe! When you rise up for the Prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to (and including) the elbows, and lightly rub your heads (with water) and (wash) your feet up to (and including) the ankles. And if you are in the state of major ritual impurity (requiring total ablution), purify yourselves (by taking a bath). But if you are ill, or on a journey, or if any of you has just satisfied a want of nature, or if you have had contact with women, and can find no water, then betake yourselves to pure earth, passing with it lightly over your face and your hands (and forearms up to and including the elbows). God does not will to impose any hardship upon you, but wills to purify you, and to complete His favor upon you, so that you may give thanks. (Maeda 5:6)

According to Prophetic tradition these movements are repeated three times each. Additionally, the inside of the ear, behind the ear and one-third of the head above the forehead are wiped once, according to the traditions of the Prophet. Moreover, the Prophet encouraged making ablution before going bed.

Yoga instructors also teach their students to wash their hands, eyes, legs, mouth, and genitals before going to bed with cold water as well. This act of cleansing prepares the body for a deep sleep [Avadhuta, Vedprajinananda, Yoga Health Secrets].

Ablution stimulates the biological rhythms. In his article entitled “Muslim Rituals and their Effect on the Person’s Health,” Dr. Mogomed Magomedov⁷ mentions how ablution stimulates the biological rhythms of the body by specifically focusing on the Biological Active Spots (BASes), very much like the idea behind Chinese reflex therapy:

As we know human body is a complex system of electromagnetic fields, meridians, biological rhythms and so on. Man’s internal organs, in their turn, present a bio-energetically sophisticated whole; they all have indissoluble multi-channel bilateral connections with the skin, which hosts special spots, whose functions resemble those of buttons on “control” and “ recharge boards” responsible for particular organs. These spots are called biologically active spots (BASes).

Dr. Magomedov also suggests that his studies are inspired by his solemn belief that five daily prayers each day are bound to have not only an “indisputable spiritual effect,” but are also to have a purely healing effect physically.

Ablution prevents potential health problems. The scholar Mukhtar Salem points out the health benefits of the washing movements in ablution in his book Prayers: A Sport for the Body and Soul. He classifies the benefits of ablution as follows:

1. Ablution helps prevent skin cancer. The author claims that the areas washed during ablution are those parts of the body that are most prone to be exposed to pollution, whether it is pollution from the internal secretions of the body onto the skin surface, such as sweat, or whether it is from external pollution. Ablution removes this “pollution” five times a day, and hence maintains a clean outer layer of skin, which in turn helps the cells underneath to function properly. Also, washing with water helps invigorate the blood vessels, as well as the nerves and glands that are near the surface of the skin, and hence helps them perform their functions efficiently. [Salem, Mukhtar, Prayers: A Sport for the Body and Soul, Cairo, The Arab Modern Center (1990), pg. 52.].

2. Washing the mouth removes food particles, which could cause teeth and gum problems in the mouth. This is also one of the reasons why miswak (or brushing one’s teeth) is recommended.

3. When washing one’s nostrils, one is also performing a preventive health measure as the germs trapped in the nostrils are removed and do not pass onto the respiratory system. According to a study conducted by a team of doctors at Alexandria University, the Prophetic tradition that urges an exaggerated washing of the nostrils by introducing water into the nostril and then blowing it out positively affects the inner coating of the nostrils. Those who carried out the washing in the correct manner had clean, shiny nostrils with no dust clinging to the small hairs inside. However, those who did not perform the ablution had slightly darkened, greasy nostrils and their nostril hairs came away easily.

4. Repeated washing of the face invigorates the facial skin cells and helps prevent early wrinkles, as well as having a cleansing effect on the inside of the eyes, which prevents eye infections. (Salem 1990). Washing the ears also helps get rid of wax accumulation, which may cause ear infections or affect the inner ear, which eventually causes a loss of balance.

5. The Prophetic tradition of encouraging one to wash between the toes while washing the feet is also extremely important, Salem (1990), as this prevents the foot, which in our modern times is trapped most of the day inside shoes, from acquiring athlete’s foot.

Salem (1990) concludes that ablution also has an exercising effect on all the muscles involved in the action, as they are thus being stimulated five times a day or even more according to the frequency of repetition.

Ablution is useful for controlling anger as well. In a hadith⁸ the Prophet encouraged making ablution when angry in order to cool down and to benefit from the refreshing effect of the water; he stated that anger is from the devil, that it is made out of fire, and can therefore be put out by water.⁹

Conclusion

Scientific experiments document the relation between physical purity and moral purity. This helps to understand the reasoning behind the encouragement of cleanliness in different belief systems. Ablution is a significant part of the Muslim daily rituals, and it not only has physical benefits but also spiritual benefits, such as stimulating the biological rhythm, preventing health problems, relaxing the body, purifying the soul, and washing away the sins.

References

• Avadhuta, Vedprajinananda, 2005, Yoga Health Secrets, http://www.mega.bz/body_energetics/article.mgi?id=147
• Magomed Magomedov, Muslim Rituals & Their Effect On The Person’s Health, http://www.crescentlife.com/wellness/muslim_rituals_and their_effct_on_the_person’s_health.htm
• Salem, Mukhtar, 1990, Prayers: A sport for the soul and body, CAIRO, The Arab Modern Center, p: 52.
• Zhong, Cen-Bo, and Liljenquist, K, 2006, Washing away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing, Science, vol 313, pp: 1451-1452

Notes

1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 248

2. Narrated by Abu Said, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 13, Number 5

3. Narrated by Aisha, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 732

4. Narrated by Abu Huray ra, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 90, Number 346

5. Sahih Muslim, Book 002, Number 0502

6. Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1682

7. Daghestan State Medical Academy, Assistant to the department of the Man’s General Hygiene and Ecology

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

9 Narrated Atiyyah as-Sa’di.

]]>