To Have or To Be

To Have or To Be: Escaping The Language of Possession

September 25, 2003

The “language of possession”–what is it and what meaning does it have for Unitarian Universalism? I will first discuss the nature of the language of possession, and then the possibilities of what it means for Unitarian Universalism.

The language of possession–(pause)– it would be helpful to our understanding if we put it in the context of where we live, in our daily lives. The phrases that are windows into the meaning of the language of possession are “to own” or “to have.” To have – I have my car, I have my house, I have an image of myself, I have an image of how I want my children to be, I have an image of how I want myself to be, I have my future mapped out, I have my retirement plans, I have my health care, I am suggesting that in all of my having I have lost myself. And the things that I don’t have, I begin to structure my life to acquire. Historian Christopher Lasch, writes about this process of acquiring what we don’t have, and he states that in our culture of mass consumption, we have become addicted to this sense of acquiring, the feeling of acquiring, the experience of going to purchase the object. And that once the object is purchased, once we have the object, it loses its value. We need another object to feed the addiction of “to acquire.” The language of possession governs lives and our culture. Our very minds and emotional lives are structured to support the way of life called “to Have.”

On the other hand as Erich Fromm who was a social psychologist, teaches in his book, To Have Or To Be? both “to have” and “to be” are ways of being in this world. To Be, is to be with others in a loving, caring, mutually respectful fashion. In our culture To Have or To Be, is not a question, it is a decision.

The difference between these two ways of being in this world in religious terms is, on the one hand, a way of life that defends the truths of our faith, for we have them and to lose them would be to lose our faith, which is also a possession among possessions. On the other hand we are in faith moving toward that which is not yet conditioned, where the possibilities of life are nurtured and do not become bondage, do not become ideas and behaviors we own and defend.

The language of possession moves toward culture that is already conditioned– in other words it already exists, and I can own it as mine. For example in my mind when I think of retirement the first thing that comes to my mind is a commercial about playing golf. It’s been internalized in my brain from television, from mass media. Now when I sit back and think about it, that’s not what I really want–I don’t know what I would want 30 years from now. I will be different from who I am now. But the first image that comes to my mind is an image that I did not create, an image that somebody else created and that’s what I mean by conditioned – it’s already in existence. I’m aspiring to something that already exists, which means my future already has a structure in my mind and I’m stepping into a structured future not of my own creation.

We say, “Well, of course”– that gives us security when we can do that. However when anybody threatens that image of my future that I’m walking into, I begin to get anxious and I will need to defend the future that does not yet exist, but that I have.

Relational, socially, politically, I’ll will need to do something that will bring that image of my future back into place. What might I do? I might argue with my wife, I might argue with my son, I might argue with my community, I might vote for particular people, I might sanction a particular administration to do this, or a particular administration to do that. But the whole time I am experiencing anxiety within myself because that image that I have is being threatened. And the more insecure that I am inside, the tighter I will hold onto that image that I have that doesn’t even exist.

How many of us fight over things that are not yet here? How many couples fight over future things that are not yet here and when it gets said and done often the things that they’re fighting over don’t come about anyway. It is because our minds are structured to produce anxiety when what we possess, what we have is threatened. In the language of to be images in our minds are loosely held knowing that life changes, and that the illusion that it does not only creates a self bondage. In the way of life to be, the relationship and how we treat one another become core values. Two clear examples of living out to have or to be, are from a conversation and a faith perspective.

An example of what that might look like, from a conversation perspective– in the language of to have, in the language of possession, let’s say I’m going to go to a conversation or a book club or something like that. On my way there I am rehearsing what I’m going to say. I’m fitting what I’m going to say in with who I am, my faith tradition, my ideology, my particular belief structure. I’m already fitting what I am going to say so that when I get to the club, no matter what is said, or how it’s said it has to be organized in such a way that it fits who I already am. I can have this knowledge out here that somebody brings to me but I’m going to work with it so that it fits into the structure that’s already within myself. There’s no newness. It’s the same. It gets colored the same as the colors that are already there even if it’s a different color.

From the perspective of “to be” what happens is I’m going to go to this book club, I read this book, and I think this is going to be exciting or not-- let’s go see what other people have to say. I might listen to somebody and I might say “I didn’t see that perspective.” I didn’t understand it in that way, and I take new information in and I ponder about it and I wonder about it and it has an effect on me. I am more than I was when I leave that conversation. I am not the same. I’m not trying to force what I heard into a particular way. How many of you have ever had an insight into your life–where you’ve been living in a particular way all your life and all of a sudden you have an insight and your whole life changes. But I am different after that conversation in the language of to be. I become different. In theological terms it comes under we are in a process of becoming.

If we take a look at the language of “to be” and the language of possession-- to have-- in terms of faith traditions. If I’m defending my faith all the time, it means I am defending a historical construct. I’m out of balance with the here and now and with the possibilities of the future. If I’m always defending myself, whether I’m defending myself in a faith tradition, whether I’m defending myself in a relationship, if I find myself emotionally reactive and defending myself in many areas of my life, I’m heavily dominated by what has gone on my history. And that’s out of balance with the here and now. It’s out of balance with the possibilities of the future. So the language of “to have” is about being dedicated to living in the past and repeating the past. The language of possession is binding and it keeps us in bondage. There’s no freedom. In the language of To Be, I am in faith, able to listen, be silent and contribute when I believe I would be heard. I don’t have faith, faith is a particular hopeful, envisioning way of life.

I am suggesting that the seven principles that in part guide the covenantal relationship of the Unitarian Universalist community cannot be actualized in the language of possession, the way of life described as to Have. As I understand these principles

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.

They are relational in nature and the quality of that relationship is one in which, mutuality, creativity, closeness, and transformation are core values.

The inherent worth and dignity of every person --we affirm that. We commit to live with a sense of compassion with one another --we affirm that. We recognize that we’re connected to the earth and we value that. Every principle promotes healthy relationships both psychological and spiritual health among Unitarian Universalists and the communities in which we live. Our communities are pregnet with the potential to hear the stories of who we are, where we have traveled and where our thoughts and emotional lives can be heard. We offer persons what James Luther Adams calls character forming communities.

We value those who can listen in silence and hear all the nuances of what’s being said by the other. To hear all of who they are. When somebody says, “I don’t know what happened over the first half of my life but I don’t want to live the next half like I lived the first half.” That’s a big statement. When somebody says “I think I’ve finally found a community where I can be myself” and they’re 45 years old, what they’re telling you is they’ve been trying to get into a community were they can be themselves for 45 years. Not that they’ve just found a community but that they’ve been through grief and sorrow and tried to belong but couldn’t find a place to belong. So we hear all the nuances of what somebody says when we can be in the language of silence and compassion, in the language of To Be. We hear all of it. When we begin to balance out our life’s energies from the past to the here and now and to the future. As we become our truest selves in community participating in the context of a covenatal relationship with one another.

One of the things I discovered this past year as a candidate for the Unitarian Universalist ministry is that we live in a continuum of the UUA as a movement of a liberal religious voice in this culture, and many Unitarian Universalists are dedicated to that movement. The other side of that continuum is individuals who say what do we really need the UUA for anyway? They just take money, and imposed upon us and go out and speak what they want to say and they don’t ask us about it, which is not always true but it’s sometimes true. So we live in a continuum of a movement that’s local, we come here and we hear what I’m saying and what others are saying and how does that nurture our lives and how are we cared for here which is extremely important. But we also live in a movement of a larger community. In the movement of the larger community folks at one point gathered and pulled together seven principles. Now some folks may put more importance on these principles than others because for some folks these principles were pulled together as the lowest common denominator which could combine Universalists and Unitarians. It was the best we could do it at that particular point. The best we could agree on. They were modified in about 1985. Got rid of some of the sexist language and made it more gender appropriate for who we are as a people. But in those seven principles for those of us who weren’t in that particular struggle, for those of us who came along afterward and we read the seven principles, not aware that struggle we think “these are good principles.”

Eric Ericsson, a psychological theorist, said by the time we’re 35 reality begins to have its say. Up till then you know we can kind of dance around it but sooner or later reality is going to have its say. And whether I’m defending my past or not sooner or later somebody is going to say you’re defending your past. You might want to try something different in the future. If they’re kind enough to tell me that it in a way in which I can hear it. The seven principles cannot be actualized, cannot be lived out in the language of possession. Where we are dominated with imaginary constructs with mental constructs that are dedicated to a way of life of to have. We can say we believe them, we can do whatever we want. But if we are structured with the language to have, the seven principles will not be alive. And we’re in a culture where that is rapidly becoming the dominant language. Your minds don’t have to go too far-- when you drive down U.S. 1 --How many signs do you see that say come in here and buy this product –I’ll bet you there’s 1000 within a mile on U.S. 1. That’s the language of “to have”-- that’s the manipulation of our minds that structures our imagination. I think of retirement, I see a TV commercial. That’s a problem. I’m living into somebody else’s dream. When we read the seven principles it is about possibility. It is about freedom. It is about seeing that which is not yet. And it is about a way in a community that can bring about justice and equity and compassion for all. And there has to be a balance in the here and now and the future and the past in order for that occur. As Unitarian Universalists we need to pay attention to both those languages. And I need to be self reflective of where am I in that process? Because if I claim who I am as a Unitarian Universalist sometimes I find myself at odds with the greater community. Right now in Port Saint Lucie many of us are crying over the condition of the river. We also voted in the politicians that have helped set the stage for the condition of that river. Whether we like it or not we did it. So I have to be self reflective of who I am and why is that. Where does that come from --what is that about? Why did I purchase this item in my house when I know it’s going to lead to a fight? I already know it. Why did I do that? When I value something, think-- is there anything that you value more than the relationship you’re in. Of course we’re going to say no. Do I do things that interrupt the harmony of the relationship when in the long run it’s not as important as I think. Yes. At that moment in time I valued something else other than the relationship and usually it has something to do with to have, to acquire. To acquire time to play, to acquire items, to acquire information and knowledge that helps me justify my position When everybody around me is going “what are you doing?” But I don’t listen.

The seven principles move us to listen. They move us to observe critically. They move us to care for one another. And that’s who we are as Unitarian Universalists. People that are aware that we’re caught in this tension, people that can say yeah I have done these things that commit myself to this language to have. And I am in a process of change, I am in a process of transformation. But I do get hooked and I do things that I don’t want to do as the apostle Paul says. I do the very things I don’t want to do. That happens in our lives. The work is not to beat ourselves upon when that happens. The work is to be compassionate to ourselves, to be kind ourselves because the judgment we use to beat ourselves up will only keep us in the same pattern of doing the things we don’t want to do. It is compassion and kindness that is the core of transformation. That’s also in the seven principles. It’s just also true.

And I am glad to be on this journey with you all because you have been kind to me in this process. You have modeled for me what it means to be Unitarian Universalists and you have given me a place to talk about the language “to have” and “to be” in many different seminars that we’ve done here. And I’m appreciative of that. So I hope I can take that to Boston and say the same. Thank you.

V From a counseling perspective I can think of countless cases where persons would say, “well I didn’t know my indirect anger was related to my stifling my anger from my childhood.” People in my childhood were so angry I couldn’t express my anger directly because I would get more anger so I had to learn to express it indirectly. But then it becomes a way of life. As long as I’m expressing my anger indirectly I come under the category of to have. I have my way of dealing with anger. There’s no creativity in it. There’s no potentializing of what it means to be human in it. But under to be I can be direct with my anger and people can know that I am angry and they might even not personalize my anger. I might just be angry. And it’s OK and it’s understood and nobody’s trying to stifle my anger. We try to understand what might be going on that I might feel threatened, those kind of things.

I think differently from when I was 25. It’s changed. When it doesn’t change then I’m force-feeding new information in a particular way with a structure within me that already exists and then I kind of own the language, I kind of own knowledge. It’s not just that I own products but I own information and I work with it but it doesn’t become part of me. It doesn’t get integrated into who I am. This puts a heavy burden on relationships. Because it gets to that other side that we read in the meditation. It gets to the other side of language. It gets to the other side of language where silence is considered to be part of language.

How many of you have ever been in a conversation that before you can finish what you’re saying you know that the other person’s mind is already clicking. There already trying to butt into what you’re saying so that you can even finish what you’re saying and all of a sudden there it is, and all of a sudden you feel diminished and you’re not contributing to the conversation anymore and this person is becoming dominant in the conversation. And you’re saying “eh”. What the heck. It’s not even worth talking about anymore. And the next thing you know ten years have gone by and that which you considered worth talking about you no longer talk about anymore. And your life goes by. Because in the language to have our lives go by us and we are unconscious that it’s going by and we wake up 10 years later and think who am I? Where have I been? But in the language of “to be” we’re conscious of every minute all of the time A psychoanalyst, Eric Fromm, a Humanist fellow, wrote this book called “To Have or To Be”. He is a social critic and he is attempting to bring a perspective on culture in relationship to what it means to the human. During the time of 1920s to 1960's we have something going on not just in the field of psychology but also in the field of theology. We have something going on the field of sociology. And I’m wondering if what was going on isn’t because we experienced the horrors of World War I and World War II. And what these particular leaders in these fields were saying is that what is good is the possibilities of human beings potentializing themselves. What is good is actually not yet. What is good is the freedom to create what is not here. What is good is to see what’s here and have some critique about it and to see it otherwise. To see it differently, and then to have the freedom to begin to attend to the process of bringing about what would be more appropriate for human beings potentializing themselves. Across the board-- theology, sociology, psychology -- these folks would say that in order to do that our primary value cannot be a particular economic system, cannot be a particular religion. Our primary value has to be what it means to be human with one another. The primary value of what it means to be human with one another comes under the way of existence called “to be”. As opposed to “to have.” When we are operating under a way of life called to have, we are actually valuing something more than what it means to be human, something other than human, a way of life, a system that is not necessarily attentive to who we are as human beings. This means some people get sacrificed along the way because they don’t match that structure that facilitates this way of being and thinking called “to have.” To be, what does that mean? It’s a curious thing, these leaders what they also say is this thing to be cannot happen outside of relationship. That there is no rugged individualism. That in order to potentialize what it means to be human spiritually and religiously requires us to be a particular type of relationship.

The Language of Possession*

To Have or To Be: Escaping The Language of Possession

September 25, 2003

Our Vision is to cultivate a sanctuary for diverse beliefs, committed to providing peace and love, personal spiritual growth, and service to the larger community.