Nov 19, 2010
God does not answer Cain’s flippant response, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” We may assume God’s answer would have been yes. However, we should be careful when putting words in the mouths of others, especially when that mouth belongs to God. Maybe God left this question open purposefully to prompt a deeper reflection on the subject.
Are we our brother’s keeper?
By “brother” I mean all of humanity, male or female, family or not. I apologize in advance for any inadvertent reinforcement of male chauvinism the use of this term may cause. Brother, antiquated though it may be, just works poetically and conceptually here given the allusion.
So, are we our brother’s keeper?
The answer may depend on how we define “keeper.” If by keeper we mean owners, we are certainly not keepers. We are not allowed to lock others in shackles and keep them. Fortunately, slavery ended a century and half ago in the U.S. (To keep us humble: I’ll point out that ended sixty years earlier in the proud nation of Haiti.)
According to the law, even in cases of serious mental or physical illness, we are not our brother’s keeper unless our brother signs a power of attorney or is declared mentally incompetent by a duly appointed authority. Those who have been forced to become keepers in this manner know that this is not an easy process.
I know this from experience. My older siblings were tempted to become our parents’ keepers when my mother and father bought me a horse and then sent me away to private boarding school. My better-raised siblings were sure that our once frugal parents had lost their heads. Just to show them, Mom and Dad kept the horse even when I went to college. Still, no judge stepped in!
On a more serious note, “subsidiarity” requires that we also reject the concept of being keepers of others. This social principle, formally clarified and named by Pope Pius XI in 1931, states that it is improper for an authority at a higher level to take over what can be done better by a local organization or by the individual on his or her own behalf.
When subsidiarity is ignored, as it is when help is given from a distance in a manner more commensurate with the needs of the giver than the receiver, even the best of help can become unhelpful. In fact, it can be demoralizing, debilitating and even enable dependence, as we are beginning to see in Haiti.
Solidarity, another social principal, also rejects the idea that we are our brother’s keeper. Solidarity prompts us to work with others where they are. It asks us to work collaboratively with others for positive change that leads to systemic and individual development. Solidarity is a powerful catalyst for social progress. It is integral to maintaining human dignity.
We throw solidarity out the window when we view those who require assistance as needy clients to be cared for rather than as people to join with in working for change. Solidarity is further hampered when we see people as their social circumstance rather than as humans caught in a harmful social circumstance. Solidarity is most hampered when we do not recognize our own need to change as we help others to change.
These principles are important for two reasons. First, subsidiarity reminds us that people are capable of change and being a positive participant in their own change. And, second, solidarity reminds us that we are called to work with people in need where they are developmentally and socially, not where we are most comfortable. Simply put, these fundamental social principles keep us from being keepers when what the world needs is brothers.
The difference between brothers and keepers is more than semantic. Anyone unsure of this fact need only come to Haiti which has been invaded by hundreds of International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). It would only take a day to see the difference: brothers work for change, keepers keep.
It is clear that INGOs, especially the large ones, are keepers. They are very good at helping people organize into camps. Unfortunately, they are far less capable and/or interested in helping them get out. They are also skilled at massive-scale relief, which is exactly what is needed right after a disaster; however, they are weak on stimulating progress. Consequently, little has been made.
I do not know how or when INGOs morphed into being keepers. Some critics suggest that this change is a result of their increasing competitiveness and focus on funding. Certainly, I have been shocked to see INGOs that I had previously believed were advocates for human dignity present humans as helpless in their own survival to that end.
Brothers would not do that. How sure am I about my opinion? Sure enough to know I will likely wish I wrote this column anonymously.