There is a tendency within political, cultural and religious structures to give uncritical weight to whatever person or group of people are seen as founders of the body in question. This can reach a level that deserves the term founderism, a doctrine that decrees the declarations of founders are to always be followed. Even if circumstances would otherwise dictate a new path, a founderist still insists on following whatever instructions or statements can be ascribed to a founder(s).
This is a disastrous notion because no one at any point in time should be given control over those who follow. No one can predict the future, let alone be wise enough to make statements that would be relevant for all time. It is no secret that change is the only permanent aspect of the human condition, and to refuse to be adaptable is a notion that should allow us to easily spot the flaw in founderism.
But many of us prefer the perceived stability that comes from a never-changing set of rules, and love it even more so if those rules can be said to come from a source that is seen as perfect. Any perceived and predicted stability is a mirage, as changes will always accumulate to a point where old rules don't function. But founderism ignores this reality in favor of the dangerous notion that if the rules seem to no longer work, we are the ones not doing something right in applying them because the rules can't be faulty in a founderist's mind.
The most obvious examples of the harm founderism brings have to do with things like fundamentalist religions and political adherence to documents like the Bible and U.S. Constitution. Trying to make these outdated ideas work only creates a series of collapses, the opposite of the stability founderist's desire. We should always remember that we are responsible for ourselves and that responsibility is a moving target that requires we use the best information and tools at our disposal, things that are fortunately in a state of constant improvement. To insist what we learn as we move forward should be ignored for the thoughts of people from any point in the past is faulty on its face.
This is a disastrous notion because no one at any point in time should be given control over those who follow. No one can predict the future, let alone be wise enough to make statements that would be relevant for all time. It is no secret that change is the only permanent aspect of the human condition, and to refuse to be adaptable is a notion that should allow us to easily spot the flaw in founderism.
But many of us prefer the perceived stability that comes from a never-changing set of rules, and love it even more so if those rules can be said to come from a source that is seen as perfect. Any perceived and predicted stability is a mirage, as changes will always accumulate to a point where old rules don't function. But founderism ignores this reality in favor of the dangerous notion that if the rules seem to no longer work, we are the ones not doing something right in applying them because the rules can't be faulty in a founderist's mind.
The most obvious examples of the harm founderism brings have to do with things like fundamentalist religions and political adherence to documents like the Bible and U.S. Constitution. Trying to make these outdated ideas work only creates a series of collapses, the opposite of the stability founderist's desire. We should always remember that we are responsible for ourselves and that responsibility is a moving target that requires we use the best information and tools at our disposal, things that are fortunately in a state of constant improvement. To insist what we learn as we move forward should be ignored for the thoughts of people from any point in the past is faulty on its face.
No comments:
Post a Comment