Moral Muteness: The Elephant in the Room

Moral muteness is one of the most intriguing phenomena in human nature. As a communication major at Denison, I was able to study moral muteness extensively. In fact, a book I strongly recommend is The Elephant in the Room by Eviatar Zerubavel; this book deals with moral muteness and the phenomenon of human silence. What I discovered was that the biggest reason people are silent is the human tendency to avoid confrontation and uncomfortable situations. Many people feel "it is not their place" to get involved in a situation, even if their morality compels them to intervene. The mystery surround moral muteness is why a show like What Would You Do? on ABC is so popular.

Moral muteness has impacted my life in an extremely profound way. Before the incident I am about to describe, I was morally mute quite often; I never wanted to get involved in a confrontation unless it directly impacted me. One example I can clearly remember was when I was at on of my tennis practices as a child. A kid I knew was clearly getting harassed by some older kids. They were swearing at him, saying rude comments to him, and physically abusing him (in a schoolyard bully type of way). Even though this clearly and directly contradicted with my moral code, I was unwilling and unable to stand up for my peer. It haunted me for days and weeks afterward, and I felt absolutely awful. I did not intervene because it was not convenient for me, how terrible is that? I did not want to get involved, and I was scared for my own wellbeing.  This was incredibly selfish, and caused me to be extremely disappointed with myself.

Although this experience left a mark on my life, I still participated in moral muteness more often than not until an experience I had at a Kroger, here is that story: 

It was a day like any other in Northwest Ohio. I was standing in line at a local Kroger picking up some groceries for my mom. The person in front of me was especially slow, causing my irritation to rise. I took out my phone to tell my mom I would be later than expected, and then it happened: a 6’2, middle-aged, overweight, White man wearing a NASCAR baseball cap surged in front of the two women behind me, pointed at me, and said, “go back to your own country, you terrorist.” The cashier talking to the woman in front of me fell silent and looked away proceeding to scan the goods. Behind me, the women refused to acknowledge my existence. I was stunned. Not knowing how to respond, I replied, “Sure, I’ll go back to Wisconsin.” The man gave me a blank stare and walked away. Even my snarky remark failed to dissipate the tension in the room.

This experience provoked many questions: Why am I considered a foreigner and what gave him the right to say that to me? Does anyone else have these encounters on a regular basis? What kept others from speaking up? These questions informed my academic interests and compelled me to study and learn about the complex history of race relations along with adverse the effects of a racist society. My encounter with the man in the NASCAR cap turned out to be one of the most consequential moments of my life. Up until that point, I had lived in a bubble in which I never thought about my race and how other perceived me based on the color of my skin.

I understand that one person saying something racist to me is nothing compared to the daily struggles of systemic racism impacting African-American community, the violence directed towards Latinos, or the xenophobia surrounding Arabs. That being said, in order to advance as a society, the first thing step we must take is admitting that racism still exists. Too many people who have not been exposed to discrimination based on race deny that it is a serious issue in our country. If I had not crossed paths with the man in the NASCAR cap, even I, someone so passionate about eradicating bigotry, might still be ignorant to the inherent biases plaguing our society.

After this experience, I have completely changed. Anytime I see anything that I believe is wrong, I will try to step in. Because of this experience, I have a newfound grasp on the effects of being morally mute. If those women behind me stood up for me, the experience would have been much better for me. I felt so alone in that moment; I felt like the entire world was against me. Although I still sometimes hesitate, I do my best to realize that intervening could be very important to the victim of a certain situation. 

I will leave you with an apropos quote: 

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

                                                                                                                            -Martin Luther King Jr. 

Implicit Biases: Symptoms of Larger Cultural Problems

Implicit biases are present in every judgment we make. They are informed by cultural, environmental, and familial forces. The three tests I took were: Presidents, Religion, and Weapons.

The first test I took was Presidents, and here are my results:

This was by far the easiest test to complete. The differences between John F. Kennedy and President Obama are clear. The implicit biases that could come into play here are race and possibly lived experiences; those who lived during Kennedy's presidency might have a fonder view of him. Politically and morally I prefer President Obama, but I feel as if this test was too easy, and it was not difficult to say the correct answer. I really do not have too much to offer in terms of reflection when it comes to the Presidents test.

The second test I took was the religion test and here are my results:

This test intrigued me. It was much more difficult to keep all the words associated with the religions straight while doing this test. To be perfectly honest, I view all religions in the same way. I war born and raised a Hindu, but by the time I was in high school, I was an agnostic for all intents and purposes. I generally consider myself to be an atheist, but as Richard Dawkins so eloquently stated, it is impossible to be a true atheist, because there will never be any empirical evidence to disprove a higher power. As a Hindu and Indian growing up, I was exposed to Islamophobic propaganda from not only the American media, but also from the Indian media. Muslims were generally the bad guys. Christianity is definitely held in high esteem in the United States, and this is why the test stated I view Christianity as the most favorable. I personally believe that Christianity is not inherently better or worse than any other religion. Spirituality is something I value and respect, but I believe institutionalized religion has sometimes gone too far. Christianity has gone too far in this country in the form of the KKK, Islam in the form of ISIS, Buddhism in the form of Buddhist monks slaughtering Muslims in Myanmar. I definitely got off topic here, but Christianity is definitely held in high regard in the U.S., while Islam continues to get the brunt of media criticism due to our collective paranoia and biases.

My final test was weapons, and here are the results:

 This was very interesting to me, and I feel the least representative of my views. Now, it is very easy to say that I am just ignoring my biases, and that very well may be. The problem is, I usually associate guns with white people. Most of the mass shootings in our country are propagated by white people, and then those who are adamant about second amendment rights are generally white people. I will say that my test glitched for a second in that I kept on clicking a button and it would not register after I clicked it a few times it registered then gave my five straight X's because it registered late. All of that being said, there is definitely some bias in me. African-Americans tend to be portrayed as violent, or animalistic in some way by the media. It's why White people rioting after the Broncos win the Super Bowl is no big deal, but Black people rioting because of justice system failures is somehow worse. Black men are referred to as thugs while those in Oregon are considered "patriots." There is a real problem when it comes to the portrayal of races in this country. Could you imagine if a band of Black or Arab men did what those militia members are doing in Oregon? It's an interesting issue, and I do not want to make it seem like I am discrediting this test. I think we all need to realize that biologically race is not a thing, it is a social construct. Many of the implicit biases ingrained in our societies stem from system oppression propagated and perpetuated by the sensationalist media. If we, as a nation, realize this, we can begin to try to mitigate the effects of bias, for these stereotypes and biases serve only to tear us apart.

Glory and Relational Leadership

The film I selected to analyze in terms of the relational leadership model is the 1989 Civil War drama Glory. Below, I will show you five different clips demonstrating the initial "infighting," the processes in which the relational leadership model is implemented, and the product of the overall model. In order to give you some background, Glory follows the exploits of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment in the Civil War. The 54th was the first Northern regiment of black soldiers; in other words, this was the first group of free black men to fight in the Civil War. This movie is incredibly important and I encourage everyone to watch it.

Clip #1: Infighting and Initial Inclusion and Empowerment

This clip demonstrates the initial infighting within the 54th Massuchussets. This division was not automatically unified due to the color of their skin. In this scene, we see Private (Pvt.) Trip, portrayed by Denzel Washington, mocking and fighting with Corporal (Cpl.) Thomas Searles, portrayed by Andre Braugher. The relational leadership model really comes down to teamwork and working together to achieve a common goal. This is not possible if two integral members of your team refuse to work together. Towards the end of the scene, Sergeant Major (Sgt. Maj.) John Rawlins, portrayed by Morgan Freeman, breaks up the fight. He is one of the leaders of the regiment and attempts to empower Trip by explaining the purpose of their fight. He also emphasizes inclusion by saying "ain't no niggers around here" (I apologize for the language). He is essentially saying they are all equal in this fight. This is an important aspect of inclusion in that emphasizing equity is one of the hallmarks of inclusion. Although the purpose is not explicit in this situation, in the context of the movie the purpose is to fight together and help win the war for the Union. The ethical context of the scenes is also clear in the context of the film: fight for our freedom and against those who support slavery.

Clip #2: Music as a means of Empowerment, Inclusion, and Purpose

In this scene, we see the 54th singing together on the eve of battle. In this scene, Sgt. Maj. Rawlins promotes inclusion by allowing everyone in the 54th to sing "Oh, My Lord." Furthermore, everyone is encouraged to say their bit and contribute to the group. Music can an important vehicle in promoting inclusion and can be incredibly beneficial for the psyche of the group. This specific process is very important in the context of the film and relational leadership. The purpose is also clear in that right away we know that this is the eve of a battle. The first soldier to speak says "Tomorrow, we go into battle." Their purpose of fighting for the union is directly linked to ethicality. Rawlins alludes to the fact that he does not want his children or his "kin" to be burdened by slavery. Their ethical battle is to abolish the unethical (in terms of modern Western ethics) practice of owning another human being for work. Rawlins and the first soldier who speak are empowering the group by sharing their thoughts and appealing to the group's faith in God. Another important aspect of this scene is that Pvt. Trip was included in the group. He was singing with the group from the beginning, he was prompted to share his thoughts, and he referred to the group as his family. We see the transformation from a group who is disconnected to one who is unified: they are now a true team. Rawlins empowers and includes the entire group through the song, and alludes to ethicality by referencing slavery and God. This is all for building a team in an attempt to win the battle.

Clip #3: The Gauntlet of Inclusion

In this scene, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (a character who is a big part of the movie, but whose importance wasn't really available in the clips I found) leads the 54th through the a group of their (white) peers. This is a demonstration of inclusion on a broader scale. When the rest of the army cheers on the 54th, they are officially recognized as part of the cause. Furthermore, the cheering by their peers empowers the group and their gratitude is made apparent by 54th smiling. The aforementioned relational leadership processes have finally created a unified group that are ready to go to battle as a team. The purpose is also clear here. Although not displayed here, Shaw is ethical in giving the black soldiers of the 54th shoes earlier on in the film.

Clips #4 and #5: The Final Product

These final two clips show the 54th charging Fort Wagner. These clips demonstrate the unified group that is a product of the processes implemented by the 54th. These men are willing to die for each other and run into battle together. This is evidenced by the sheer passion displayed during the assault. Corporal Searles rises to the occasion and is willing to be the backup flag bearer, showing his commitment to the cause. The inclusion and empowerment lead to this group to this moment. The regiment is working together for the purpose of coming together as one unified group to win Fort Wagner and the ethical battle of the Civil War. Although they did not win Fort Wagner, they ultimately achieved their purpose of coming together and being an integral part of the war. The three pillars of the relational leadership model: Ethicality, Inclusion, and Empowerment are clear in this film and these clips and are used to drive the 54th to achieve one common purpose.