“In Search Of Dignity” is the title of a beautiful story published by David Brooks in The New York Times on July 7, 2009. I was attracted by the title of the story, read it; and enjoyed its content until your last paragraph becomes a disappointment.
It is very rare to find such great inspiration from today’s writers, columnists, editors or publishers. While reading “In Search of Dignity”, I felt carried away on a nice ride on the wings of morality and dignity. I love the story, Mr. Brooks’ choice of words, the moral principles he laid out and the examples that he chose to illustrate. But, at the last paragraph, I was dropped me flat on my face when he uses President Barack H Obama as an example of a person who “exemplifies reticence, dispassion and other traits associated with dignity”.
I do not know President Obama personally other than what is said about him by the media and his own words throughout his own published books, speeches and dialogs. One thing I know for sure is that he does not demonstrate the wisdom that one would expect from a person with dignity when he speaks or makes decision about American fatherlessness, the oppressed good responsible fathers and their abused children.
Dignity is generally proscriptive and cautionary.
Dignity should dictate to President Obama that all fathers and their children have God-given, inviolable rights to access each other without the interferences of another person (the greedy single mothers) or an institution (the family courts and disgraceful judges). President Obama with his own words attacks American fathers’ dignity and the roles of the fathers in their families; and destroys their confidence. I addressed my concerns to him in my “Open Letter to President Barack H Obama” on this matter. A copy of the letter can be download and read at my web site – the direct link to the letter is: http://www.gaspardlafalaisejr.com/open-letter-to-president-barack-obama.html .
Mr. Brooks’ story (”In Search of Dignity”) is a wonderful story, but too short. The last paragraph is nothing than what I beleive is a sort of “moral suicide”: it kills the whole story!
Other than that, I would recommend everyone to read “In Search of Dignity”. It is a beautiful!
It is a beautiful way to portray George Washinton as one of the forefathers who shaped the prosperous past of the United States. He laid down the foundation of a great nation on the principles of morality, decency and self rectitude. He was a true hero. I love when Mr. Brooks said that
“Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men.”
How much I wish we had men like this today!
How much I wish we had teachers to teach our children things like this in the classrooms!
Mr. Brooks continues
“Washington absorbed, and later came to personify what you might call the dignity code. The code was based on the same premise as the nation’s Constitution — that human beings are flawed creatures who live in constant peril of falling into disasters caused by their own passions. Artificial systems have to be created to balance and restrain their desires.“
Beautiful!
“The dignity code commanded its followers to be disinterested — to endeavor to put national interests above personal interests. It commanded its followers to be reticent — to never degrade intimate emotions by parading them in public. It also commanded its followers to be dispassionate — to distrust rashness, zealotry, fury and political enthusiasm.”
I love it!
“Remnants of the dignity code lasted for decades. For most of American history, politicians did not publicly campaign for president. It was thought that the act of publicly promoting oneself was ruinously corrupting. For most of American history, memoirists passed over the intimacies of private life. Even in the 19th century, people were appalled that journalists might pollute a wedding by covering it in the press.“
Sweet!
Delightful!
“In each of these events, one sees people who simply have no social norms to guide them as they try to navigate the currents of their own passions.”
“Americans still admire dignity. But the word has become unmoored from any larger set of rules or ethical system.”
After almost three weeks of Machael Jackon, Governor Sarah Palin, … that’s all I needed for healing!
Thanks a millions David!
Oh! Let’s leave it here for now; and not say anything more!
———————
A version of this article appeared in print on July 7, 2009, on page A23 of the New York edition.
———————
Related links:
- “In Search of Dignity” by David Brooks, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, July 7, 2009
- Open Letter To Presdient Brack H Obama by Gaspard Lafalaise Jr
- “Dignity” definition by the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary: “ formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language”
j/j/j-9710/DR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Postmodernism (or, familiarly, pomo) literally means ‘after the modernist movement’. While “modern” itself refers to something “related to the present”, the movement of modernism and the following reaction of postmodernism are defined by a set of perspectives. It is used in critical theory to refer to a point of departure for works of literature, drama, architecture, cinema, and design, and in the interpretation of history, law, culture and religion in the late 20th century.
Postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, which was the basis of the attempt to describe a condition, or a state of being, or something concerned with changes to institutions and conditions (as in Giddens, 1990) as postmodernity. In other words, postmodernism is the “cultural and intellectual phenomenon”, especially since the 1920s’ new movements in the arts, while postmodernity focuses on social and political outworkings and innovations globally, especially since the 1960s in the West.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary refers to postmodernism as “a style and concept in the arts characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions.”[1]
Greatings, Super post, Need to mark it on Digg
I, somehow, agree with man!
People confuse “dignity” as a position (i. e. the presidency) and as “dignity” as a quality suited to inspire respect or reverence or grace. I think that’s where David Brooks is confused and created confusion at the end of his story.
“Those who insist on the dignity of their office show they have not deserved it.” – Baltasar Gracian