Dallas, TX –
Earlier this year, when I traveled to Hong Kong, some of the itinerary was booked on an airline based in the United States and some on airlines based in Asia.
On one leg of the journey, aboard a North American carrier, a flight attendant delivered a meal that included a chicken entree. When I touched the tray, it felt cold. When I tasted the food, it was obviously unheated. So I summoned the flight attendant and reported it. "Yes," she said, "our ovens are not working and we have no way to fix them during the flight." Apparently, she was responsible only for bringing trays to passengers. She felt no accountability for what was on the tray. The food may have been inedible. But her duty was to deliver it. By limiting her role to something very small, she had fulfilled her responsibility.
On another leg of the journey, aboard an Asian carrier, our flight was delayed by a mechanical problem. When the aircraft was eventually ready for departure, seven or eight uniformed employees of the airline stood in front of the gate and bowed to the passengers.
Perhaps the bow was a characteristic social custom. But I took it as collective acceptance of responsibility for the delay. The agent whose job was to wave a boarding pass under a scanner had no direct role in mechanically repairing the plane. But that person accepted responsibility for the whole company's service to its customers.
Some people, by culture or training or temperament, are willing to enlarge their sense of accountability for public matters. Others, as one of my colleagues put it, seem determined to "ensmall" their sense of responsibility.
It is odd to shrink our obligations while we are expanding everything else. We have enlarging amounts of information available. We manage an enlarging number of tasks simultaneously. We communicate with enlarging circles of friends by clicking a mouse or tapping a button on a mobile phone.
So why is it, when we are enlarging everything else, that we are ensmalling our moral obligations? That is what South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford did, when he framed his apology by "ensmalling" everything to his own feelings. He discounted his larger responsibilities to the marriage for which he had made a pledge, to the children whom he had helped bring into the world, and to the system of government for which he had taken an oath. He asked the world to let him ensmall his conduct to whatever he happened to be feeling at any particular time.
We could view his behavior as merely a matter of one adulterous man mistreating his family and misleading his state. But that would ensmall what is a much larger social problem. Something tragic has happened in our society when the prevailing attitude seems to be "I have my health care coverage, but I am in no way accountable for the lack of yours." Or, "I am happy with the education my children are receiving, but I am in no way responsible for the inadequacies of yours."
We need to learn the value of taking a collective bow, accepting responsibility for our social failures, and embracing the challenge to fix them. Nobody should have to eat what is inedible. Nobody should have to suffer an illness without health care. And nobody in a decent society should be allowed to ensmall his or her responsibilities to fit an individual's feelings.
Enlarging our moral perspective could change that.
William Lawrence is Dean of SMU's Perkins School of Theology.
If you have opinions or rebuttals about this commentary, call (214) 740-9338 or email us.