To this point, my understanding of integrity has been based on a deontological understanding of ethics. A ‘by the book’ sense that right is right and wrong is wrong. Integrity, then, was holding steadfast to one solidified idea of what is right and good.
So during the interview process it came as a surprise to me that I was so willing to ‘bend’ myself to meet an agency’s social and religious expectations in order to be hired to do the work they do in our community. What had happened to my sense of integrity?
I find myself willing to abandon my former understanding of integrity to pursue, by broader means, change for families in need. What I mean by this is that there is enough Christian in me to pull that out if I am working with Christian shareholders who might give more to a good cause if persuaded that it was Christian-run. It is certainly without integrity that I would draw that out in certain circumstances. It is blatantly manipulative. But I have a new understanding of integrity, and it conveniently leaves room for manipulation of our current structure. It goes beyond the surface level of matching up what you say with what you do. If I’m being honest, a key tenet of integrity, I am more complex than Christian or non-Christian. Regarding the morality component of integrity, chopping things up to right and wrong behavior, I find myself leaning away from deontology towards (dare I say) consequentialism.
Do not mistake consequentialism for utilitarianism. I am not saying that we are aiming at the greatest good for the greatest number. I still concern myself with the individuals. I have always heard of consequentialism in terms of, “The end justifies the means”, and told how evil this notion is by example of war. But another way to look at this manner of thinking, and consequently our understanding of integrity, is that more than our actions, the consequences of our actions matter. The fall of social work seems, to me, to be in the fact that the field is comprised of do-gooders who concern themselves too heavily with right action, and not enough with right consequence. Social work cannot just be a call towards beneficence. It must also require nonmaleficence.
Am I doing harm in adapting to certain circumstances with the goal of obtaining the best resources possible for my clients? Am I doing harm in broadening my understanding of myself to include pieces that are relatable to others? My husband thinks so. And I greatly value his opinion. It makes me wonder if I, as a woman, have been raised to forgo my true identity (more than my husband or male counterparts) towards an adaptability that is meant to allow me to please everyone. Or maybe it’s the oldest child in me. What I do notice, and want to be aware of, is that through this entire process I shift back and forth between acknowledging with real honesty who I truly am, and compartmentalizing myself in a distancing strategy. Whatever my end stance on integrity, I hope to forgo the latter.
"Sincerity must be bought at a price: the humility to recognize our innumerable errors, and fidelity in tirelessly setting them right. The sincere man…is one who has the grace to know that he may be instinctively insincere, and that even his natural sincerity may become a camouflage for irresponsibility and moral cowardice; as if it were enough to recognize the truth, and do nothing about it”
Thomas Merton
No comments:
Post a Comment