IS COMMUNITY CENTRAL TO WHO WE ARE?

I read an article by Nancy Kaffer from the Detroit Free Press on January 25, 2020. It is partly a review of a tv show called "The Good Place" and partly her reflecting on what is important in life as portrayed in "The Good Place." The premise is that we need to build up points for good behaviors to get to the "good place." Yet another question comes out about what do we owe to each other? Nancy Kaffer wonders if we owe each other "radical inclusion" that says every human life holds equal value, and that we need to practice radical empathy as Grace Lee Boggs [an author, social activist, philosopher and feminist] challenges all of us to ask what it means to be a more human, human being. 

Kaffer then reflects on how it can be difficult to be good as we are more aware of the unwanted consequences of our good decisions that end up reinforcing negative outcomes like income inequality and racism. She discusses a drop in attendance at churches but now a growing awareness of the importance of "community" in defining our obligation [relationship] to each other and that "proximity" helps us to see the humanity in those we might otherwise see as "other." Finally, Kaffer refers to an unnamed activist who recommends that we "love our neighbor as we love ourselves." A shift from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as it might be that to love others we need to love our selves. This loving ourselves might allow us to be able to live empathically as we recognize each other's "essential humanity," regardless of our skin color or country of origin, so that we can see others as fully human as we see ourselves.

So, is it important to us homo sapiens sapiens that we feel part of a community and does that require that we allow ourselves to be close enough to others to see them as just like we are [humans] and then be open to loving them as our neighbors and as we love ourselves? Would we then automatically include all others into our community and feel an empathic connection to them? What do you think?

HOME IS...WHERE THE KITCHEN IS?

Recently I was speaking with Curtis Duffy about his career as a chef.  We talked about his realizing that even as a child he felt most at home in the kitchen.  He described his increasing awareness of how important this feeling of at home was. He realized that he could trust that this feeling would be there if he was in his kitchen. I then read an interview about Curtis and discovered that he began his interest (passion?) for cooking in home economics class in the 6th grade.  His 6th grade Home Economics teacher is one of those special people who change people's lives and this was true for Curtis.  With the support and encouragement of people like his Home Economics teacher Curtis has pursued his dream and followed his heart into the kitchen.  He told me that it is important that his work in the kitchen fosters an experience of community that brings together all the local people who supply him food,  his servers and cooks and all the people who share his table with him. Curtis has followed his heart and opened his restaurant "Grace" in 2013 as an expression of his love of cooking and of community.  

So, a kitchen can be home as well as a place where love exists. It can also be a place for a community. Just check out Grace when you are in Chicago.  I wonder if any place can become a home if we open our hearts and share our love with others and then we become part of a community.  Isn't this community experience what we are about as humans? 

CHANGING BEHAVIORS: COMMUNITIES VS LAWS

I have already blogged about changing driving speeds in my former neighborhood in the blog entitled: It Takes A Neighborhood To Change A Speed Limit."  In that blog I recalled an experience getting a speed limit lowered as I was told by the traffic engineer to first get my neighbors to drive slower and then when they document this they will lower the speed limit sign.  I remember him saying "you don't really think that people will drive slower because of the speed limit sign indicating a lower speed?"  Of course, I did.  I then talked to my neighbors about the number of young children living in our neighborhood and they agreed to drive more slowly and they did!

An opinion article in the August 15, 2014 New York Times by Tom Vanderbilt was entitled "A Psychological Speed Limit," focused on how to change driving habits of people in New York City to reduce [eliminate?] traffic deaths in the city.  Mr. Vanderbilt also reports that just lowering a speed limit does not change the behaviors of drivers.  He then educates his readers about the severe consequences of driving 5 or 7or 10 mph over the speed limit.  A 10 mph increase will increase the liklihood of a pedestrian dying from 45% to 85%.  This underscores the importance of driving more slowly and actually supports the idea that an "appropriate" speed is actually even less than 25 mph.  Mr. Vanderbilt also notes that travel time is only increased a small amount by driving slower [which we maybe aught to change to driving more appropriately or considerately or wisely or ?]. Mr. Vanderbilt then reviews ways to get people to change their driving habits. These include lower speeds on speed limit signs, speed bumps and the speed camera. The latter two are effective with the camera being the most effective.  However, the stated goal of "Vision Zero" representing zero deaths by motor vehicle in NYC is not achievable by any of these methods.  It may be achievable by the method I unwittingly employed in my former neighborhood.  

So, how would that work.  Well, we only need to change the reward.  People in my neighborhood chose to drive more slowly to get the reward of helping to make our neighborhood safe for children.  Even drivers without children chose to do this.  Studies have shown that people drive more slowly if there are fewer lanes of traffic or trees lining the street or bike paths.  If there is a median divider, or if the street is one way people will drive faster.  So, people are capable of adjusting their speed based on what seems appropriate or the right thing or ?.  Now we need to help people see that it is appropriate, etc. to drive more slowly even on multilane, one way streets.  People will change their behaviors based on what other people do as long as they are observing what others do and not having othrs tell them what to do. Therefore, one strategy in an effort to achieve "Vision Zero" would be to educate people about why a slower speed is appropriate and the right thing to do and encourage them to chose [they must chose for themselves] to drive more slowly and see what happens....give it a try.  And then for these people to share their experiences with others...not tell them what to do. The city government in NY might even set up a website for people to submit their experiences so it functions like a place for reviews of the lower speed limit.  We [humans] seem to trust reviews when we don't have the chance to talk directly to people.

I believe that we all want to do the right thing. We also want to belong and have friends and not be alone.  So if more people are driving more slowly and saying that they feel it is the right thing to do...more people are likely to join them.  Just ask my neighbors.

IT TAKES A NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE A SPEED LIMIT

When my children were preschool age and a number of our neighbors also had preschool age children, I felt that the speed limit on our street was too fast.  So, I called the city traffic engineer and explained my concern about the safety of our children and why I wanted the speed limit lowered.  He asked if I really thought that lowering the speed limit would lead to people driving slower.  I answered yes.  The traffic engineer laughed and then suggested that I talk to my neighbors and ask them to drive more slowly and then when they were driving more slowly to call him and he would measure the speed of cars on the road. If they were driving more slowly then he would lower the speed limit.  

My neighbors were driving more slowly and the speed limit was lowered.  I learned something that I consider to be very important.  What matters most is that my neighbors joined with me in driving more slowly and that is what made the difference.  The lowered speed limit only confirmed what we had already accomplished.  Our lives are meant to be shared with others and that is what is important.  

CHURCHES PROVIDING PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES?!

A recent opinion piece in the New York Times by T.M. Luhrmann reported on an initiative to involve members of church congregations in the care of people with serious mental illnesses.  Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church, has joined with the local Roman Catholic Diocese and the local National Alliance for the Mentally Ill to start training members of local church congregations in how to provide mental health care.  Mr. Warren's son struggled with depresson and killed himself about a year ago. Mr. Warren hopes that members of congregations can be trained to manage psychiatric crises, run groups and help people with major psychiatric disorders to cope better and to receive the services that they need.  

A major problem in people with major psychiatric disorders receiving help is a resistance that some people with mental illness feel about psychiatric services as they do not want to be stigmatized or labeled.  In addition, they were often stressed by difficulty using the services as they often need to go to separate places to get help and may have to go to different pharmacies to get their medications filled. Also, many people with chronic mental illnesses are homeless and this further complicates their abiity to get help.  Importantly, while many of the chronically mentally ill complain of feeling stigmatized by their illnesses when they get mental health services, they will identify that they attend a church and do not feel stigmatized there.  A study of almost 90 women with psychotic symptoms and who were homeless by Mr. Luhrman, found that half of them had a church that they attended at least twice a month.  Also, over 80 % said that God was their friend.  When this initiative was announced many people there with major psyhciatric disordrs, stated that they were a person "I am not defined by my mental illness.  I am a person with mental illness, and I am defined by Christ. This would seem to increase the possibility that members of congregations of churchs can be helpful and a recent study published in Lancet indicated a small additional benefit for services connected to churches compared to those in psychiatric facilities.

So, one of the questions is whether or not people in the congregations of churches can be trained to help people in their congregations with chronic mental illness.  Considering that coping with mental illness can be isolating and stressful, it can be very helpful and stress reducing if they are helped to negotiate the different services, keep up with their medications and getting them filled on a regular basis; and providing a place that they trust to come to when they are feeling stressed.  Regardless, it is very helpful and necessary for all of us to feel part of a community where we are cared about and not judged!