The Meaning of Symbols, Again

At the moment of abstraction, when the man was imagining his life and his existence as a metaphor of the three candles, he was free: not free from rules of conduct or social constraints, but free to understand, to imagine, to make metaphor.

There's a lot (like, a LOT) that's been said already about the National Anthem protests this year that were started (or at least made known and popular) by Colin Kaepernick.  It's not my intent here to rehash that; I’m much more interested in the reactions.  To wit:  

Why on Earth is kneeling considered disrespectful?  Sitting, I can get.  To me, sitting is apathetic; it's the absence of action or engagement.  You're choosing not to participate, but you're also not being particularly antagonistic about it.  Something like turning your back, being loudly disruptive, or otherwise actively rejecting the anthem would be antipathetic; it's actively hostile.

But lining up with everyone else, continuing to face the flag, paying attention, participating, but kneeling instead of standing?  Kneeling is most definitely a sign of respect.  From that link, it's a sign of reverence or submission, which certainly fits with how I've always thought of kneeling.  And the second description, submission, is particularly poignant given the subject matter.

So why is kneeling generating such outrage, if it's an inherently respectful act?  The glib answer, obviously, is just that it’s different from the tradition of standing, and doing it differently is disrespectful.  But the glib answer is rarely correct or meaningful (pretty much by definition), so what is it really?

This is what I do want to discuss.  In particular, I want to talk about an aspect of the whole issue that I haven't seen talked about much.  Much has been made of the reaction itself, but not so much the why.  (Doesn't mean it hasn't been, I just haven't seen it, so I at least feel like it isn't a metaphorical expired equine that I’ll be thrashing.)  But in my usual fashion, I'm going to need to talk about something else seemingly unrelated first.

In 2007, Carol Dweck published a book called Mindset.  In it, based off of years of research and studies, she describes two different types of mindsets that people have: fixed and growth.

A fixed mindset is one that believes that people naturally have an inherent level of ability, and there’s really nothing you can do to change that.  If you can’t do something, there’s really no use in practicing or trying to improve; it’s just something you’re not good at, and you should make your peace with that.

A growth mindset, on the other hand, is one that believes that, although people may start out with different levels of natural ability, their skill level and ceiling can be improved through practice and hard work.  Just because you can’t do something, that doesn’t mean you should give up; it just means you need more practice.

I’m sure you can tell from the description which is the preferred mindset in terms of personal development.  (And for what it’s worth, you can also train yourself into a different mindset; that’s part of how both mindsets and their consequences were explored.)

Now, note that I’ve done some careful wording there.  The growth mindset doesn’t believe that everyone starts out equal in everything, which is an easy misconception; someone may naturally start off better than another person at math, or sports, or cooking, or some other skill.  The important part is that those differences aren’t fixed.  If the less-skilled person puts in enough work, they may get better than the naturally-talented person at that skill.

Perhaps one way of defining the difference between the two, at least in a common sports metaphor, is that the growth mindset doesn’t believe that starting differences in skill level is indicative of differences in the skill ceiling for each person.  In fact, the growth mindset doesn’t even really like the idea of a ceiling.

Another difference, which is way more relevant to our current discussion, is the way each mindset handles a challenge or failure.

A person with a growth mindset views a challenge or failure as a chance to learn and to improve their skills.  It doesn’t mean they like failing (who does?), but it’s not crushing; it’s a chance to get better.

A person with a fixed mindset, however, will shy away from challenges, because they’re afraid of failure.  Often, their self-image is wrapped up in their definition of being good at something; failing at a challenge in that skill can be devastating.  A person with a fixed mindset will take the easy route: stay away from anything that might impact their self-image.

Now, substitute “criticism” for “challenge” in the above paragraph.  (Which I think is fair, since "criticism" is a subset of “challenge”.)

White Americans (and let’s be honest, that’s where 99.9% of the outrage regarding the flag protests is coming from) are, in general, terrible about handling criticism when it comes to America, and it sure seems to me that it’s coming from having a fixed mindset towards the U.S.  In this worldview, America is the best country in the world, nothing can change that, and it’s always going to be that way.  Therefore, anything that could potentially question or challenge that outlook must be immediately shot down.

This is why there is ridiculous amounts of outrage over a few people doing non-standard things during the anthem.  It’s not really about the soldiers: (a) there are plenty who support what’s going on; (b) they don't fight for a flag, except as a symbol of a country that includes the right to protest in the First flipping' Amendment; (c) the protests aren't actually about them (insert your own joke about the militarization of police here); and (d) they're not the only ones who represent America.  And it’s certainly not about rights, or freedom, or anything like that, because that’s obviously ridiculous on its face (see point b above).  

No, it’s because white America is being challenged on its self-image, in a very public forum, and rather than embracing the challenge, it’s running away.  It’s lashing out.  And it’s making up increasingly absurd excuses why it’s right and everyone else is wrong on the issue.

I mean, in what universe is burning a jersey considered a coherent topical response?  It’s just an ad hominem attack.  You might as well hang him in effigy.  And even aside from the inherent un-American-ness (at least in ideals, if not in practice) of suggesting that if someone doesn’t like it here, they should move, that tack simply refuses the challenge.  It’s turning the issue back onto the ones raising it in the first place.

Police departments are refusing to do their jobs.  ESPN radio stations are refusing to carry football games because a few marching band members knelt.  This is just throwing a temper tantrum and taking your ball and going home.  It's a hysterical over-reaction.  It's an attempt to punish anyone who dares disagree with you.

Imagine what would happen, instead, we had a growth mindset on the issue.  Rather than burning jerseys and attempting to exile people in an effort to just bury the issue and make it go away, let’s face this head on.  Listen to the criticism.  Listen to the facts.  Not the anecdotes, not the stories; those are in no way equivalent to statistics and real data, although they can be a useful way to humanize the issue.  Embrace this as an opportunity to improve, to become better versions of ourselves, of our country.

But here’s the important thing, the thing that lets us save face, the thing that helps us feel better about ourselves while we’re doing this, because changing mindsets can take a while, and because it's true: Being criticized doesn’t mean you’re not great.  It’s not an either-or.  This is the same attitude that lead to “All lives matter” as a response to “Black lives matter”.  It’s all about the implicit “too”.

Just as saying “Black lives matter” doesn’t mean that other lives don’t, being criticized over the way we, as a country and especially as a white majority, handle race issues does not mean that America isn’t great in other ways.  It doesn’t even necessarily mean it’s not better than most countries on race relations (although I honestly don’t have the frame of reference to speak on that one way or the other)!

And here’s the ironic note, the one that brings it full circle.  (Pedantic note: I’ve given up trying to keep straight whether something is definitionally ironic or Alanis Morrisette ironic.)  Some of the best examples of how that mindset works… are athletes.

Professional, and even college, athletes are, by definition, some of the best in the world at what they do.  Does this make them immune from criticism?  Of course not; in fact, many of them face far harsher criticism than any of us ever will.  There’s always room for improvement.  They’re always trying to be better than they are.  That criticism, that striving to improve does not mean that they’re not in the uppermost echelons of their chosen sports; quite to the contrary, it’s what let them get there, and it’s what lets them stay there.

A growth mindset is essentially a fundamental requirement to become one of the best at what you do.  And with that comes an openness to being challenged.  That’s how you get better, and how you stay on top.  Not by terrifiedly shouting down people who are doing nothing making but a small, still-respectful gesture in an attempt to start a conversation.  As far as criticism goes, that’s far gentler than white America has proven it deserves.

You don’t have to agree with the position the protestors are taking; there should be room for disagreement in any conversation.  But to truly be better than we are today, we have to be open to the idea that there may be room for improvement.  And nothing about the overwrought reaction to the flag protests indicates even the slightest openness to any sort of discussion, to any sort of idea that improvement may be necessary, or desired, or even possible.

Dissent is patriotic.  It's inherently an attempt to make America better than what it is.  You may disagree with the focus of the dissent.  But squashing the discussion, removing any chance at a conversation?  That is unpatriotic.  It's keeping America stagnant, without the opportunity to improve.

The flag doesn’t just stand for the good America does, or its ideals, despite the ritualistic patriotic theater surrounding it.  It stands for America in its entirety, the good and the bad.  You don’t get to define away everything you don’t like and then make everyone use only your definition.  We’ve had that conversation before, on a topic ever-so-coincidentally similar to this one. These protests are because of exactly that reaction, the urge to bury the problems rather than confront them, the need to defend our self-image by insisting that everything is fine, nothing is ruined. And rather than realizing that, we’re simply doubling down.  We burn jerseys.  We tell people to leave rather than challenge us to be better.

The American dream, at its core, is about self-improvement.  True, usually in more material terms than emotional or spiritual terms, but still, it’s about making more of yourself than you were.  But to grow, you have to have the right mindset, and a willingness to embrace a challenge, rather than simply cover your ears and shout until it goes away.

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!