I wrote previously of ordinary occurrences, which, upon reflection, often reveal a wondrous quality. So it is with the phenomenon of people cooperating in a society—that is, persons working together to meet the group’s needs and desires rather than each person working solely for his or her own needs and desires (though the latter may be achieved through the former). However motivated and however ordinary, it remains amazing!
For instance, have you ever marveled at synchronism between dancers or musicians? Have you ever wondered how almost all children turn up at school each day or how people gather at churches on Sundays or at sports games or parties? How fascinating that we could—and would bother to—coordinate our comings and goings! Even knowing about choreography and music scores, even knowing the signs or invitations that communicate time and place, and even knowing the motives that encourage compliance or attendance, is it not amazing when people choose to obey the commands and summons of others instead of acting separately?
I’ve pondered this many times since childhood, and despite the beautiful side to cooperation, an instance of absurdity first brought it to my attention: At the Girl Scout Camp Daisy Hindman, I arrived late but unfortunately early enough to be forced to join a group of girls doing the “Worcestershire” …um, dance, shall we call it? If I recall correctly, someone thought to use it to keep us occupied until the kitchen could finish preparing the mush they called lunch. I cooperated, as was expected, but those familiar with the activity will surely agree that it is quite ridiculous. During the performance, “dancers” sway side to side as they sing,
“A-worcestershire, a-worcestershire, a-Worcestershire-shire! Uh-huh!
“A-worcestershire, a-worcestershire, a-Worcestershire-shire!
“Thumbs up!”
The performers repeat this, and on the second go-around, add “Wrrrists togeth-ah!” Third time, “Elbows togeth-ah!” Then knees together... butt out... tongue out... versions may vary. By the end, one is in a very peculiar position, indeed.
Considering the ridiculous sounds and movements required by this little ditty, I’m not amazed that younger children enjoy it, but I was sufficiently old enough (perhaps eight) to comprehend its inanity and to wonder why it was required... and why we all went along with it instead of running off to do something far more fun. Was it respect for authority? Was it fear of punishment? Was it fear of ridicule? (Ironic, that latter possibility.) I recall wondering thus at our compulsory obedience even as I felt disgusted with myself for lacking the wherewithal to do otherwise.
One can bring to mind more productive forms of cooperation—as well as some more pernicious. Cooperation as practiced in this “Worcestershire” example, though, I would consider “neutral”—neither necessary nor detrimental. As evinced, it may resemble busywork, or double as temporary amusement or exercise. (Thankfully, not all of this type are as irksome as “Worcestershire.”) Most often, people request neutral cooperation of others to ensure future cooperation; they may aim to build rapport in a group or to maintain cohesion during slack periods between times requiring more useful or necessary forms of cooperation. Thus, reflection requires me to admit that it may serve a more useful purpose than it seems to for the participants at the time.
On the more positive side of the cooperation spectrum, we know sociologically that cooperation is necessary for peace and order; it ensures mutual life and happiness, and it enables us to achieve together more than individuals could achieve alone. Thus we have such inspiring instances as families, barn raisings, potlucks, symphonies, and rescue missions. On a larger scale, we have economies, stunning architecture, the development of ideas, and medical and technological innovations. All depend on cooperation to succeed.
Such positive cooperation both requires and builds trust. Too, diversity and individualism often enrich cooperation rather than harm it or become casualties of it. Cooperative ventures only stutter to halt when (excluding external barriers) they are faced with individualism that refuses to trust and work with other individuals or that refuses to compromise where necessary and sensible.
Finally, and most unfortunately, we also know the human tendency toward cooperation and imitation can pervert our individual morality when we take our cues from group (or “mob”) mentalities rather than from our conscience. Too many follow irrational consumerism trends and selfish Black Friday behavior; children pick on classmates for no other reason than that others do the same; passersby merely watch—or worse, stand filming—while another person suffers a heart attack or is even beaten, robbed, raped, or killed before them. They rationalize their action or inaction, feeling more or less secure in their morality because they behaved no worse than everyone else; they cooperated with the masses.
What about people who don’t cooperate?
Individuals who neglect to include others in a project tend to end up overworked, with annoyed or increasingly apathetic partners and a project riddled with errors due to miscommunication and a lack of helping hands. In turn, individuals who fail to cooperate with willing partners out of laziness or a failure to communicate are trusted less and less.
Individuals who refuse to cooperate with certain laws or social norms on moral or ideological grounds—conscientious objectors, civil resistors, protesters, religious separatists, etc.—may or may not achieve their purpose or even maintain the same convictions years later. Onlookers may laud or abuse them, but who cares what the majority thinks, anyway? Those individuals, on the other hand, who refuse to cooperate with society at all include hermits, criminals, and anarchists. ...‘Nuff said.
And what of individuals who refuse to cooperate with God or who offer partial cooperation, adhering only to God’s behavioral laws and not submitting to Jesus Himself? They inevitably suffer problems related to pride in this life and then suffer a painful separation from God in eternity, just as those souls mistakenly wanted during life. It’s heartbreaking for those who love both them and the Lord, and harmful in other ways to the ones said individuals affect. However, partial cooperation by accepting Jesus but slipping on His moral requirements from time to time is another matter, and though such individuals are eternally secure, a lack of obedience (cooperation) does cause them unnecessary difficulty in this life.
Sure, we can see that cooperating with people and with the law (Man’s or God’s) puts certain restraints on one’s personal freedom, but (and this topic deserves a blog post of its own) one could also see the decision to cooperate or not as a decision between two forms of bondage: bondage to God and Goodness verses bondage to Self and Sin. Freedom in the former case, then, refers to freedom from slavery to our passions and from deception about our Selves. Considering this, and of course excluding mindless mob mentalities, I rather prefer the benign constraints of cooperation to the inexorable prison of self-centered autonomy—especially when the One with whom I cooperate is more trustworthy than I.
No comments:
Post a Comment