UUBF-L: Gurus, Professors and Prophets

Gurus, Professors and Prophets,

by George Buchanan

In my time on UUBF-L, I have seen folks defend their apparently rude or non-compassionate words by claiming that said words were offered in hopes that other participants would learn something.

I have seen three variations of this.

1. In some cases, I have seen participants invoke Buddhist traditions where gurus shout at their students, or rap them on the side of the head, or put down a student's ideas to help said student reach some sort of breakthrough.

2. Others have invoked "Western" academic models, holding themselves up as informal professors based on their deep knowledge. In our culture, we seem to grant university professors the implicit right to be slightly rude to their students, for the long term good of the students.

3. Still others justify themselves in the tradition of critical free speech - the prophet shouting in the market place, Hyde Park corner, letters to the editor kind of thing.

These three - guru, professor, and prophet - are all "teaching" models. In our culture we allow gurus, professors, and prophets to be rude in the short term, when necessary, in the longterm compassionate interest of individuals or society. We allow them to "teach" us something.

I grant the need for all three roles - guru, professor, and prophet - in general, and in my own life. I have a guru, I have (too many!) professors, and I try to listen for prophetic voices. There is a place for right speech that seems superficially rude.

But those claiming these roles on UUBF-L have been generally ineffective in their roles. At least when speaking critically of others on UUBF-L. (I should be clear that I am not talking about our list managers here. As far as I can tell, they are doing just fine.)

Gurus and Professors on the UUBF-L

In the case of wannabe gurus and wannabe professors on UUBF-L, the difficulty is built-in. We do not come to UUBF-L granting anyone here the role of guru or professor. Even if we did grant these roles, I would probably be uncomfortable hearing critical remarks about our beliefs via email, in front of a vague, unknown electronic audience of relative strangers.

For that reason, UUBF-L culture needs to discourage attempts to take on critical guru or professor roles in public discussion. Of course those with knowledge and experience can share it, but remarks critical of another member's views should be expressed privately - or not at all.

The one exception is critical remarks coming from list managers or others - if they feel I or any other member is being rude, or too verbose, or whatever. Sometimes these remarks need to be public.

Prophets on the UUBF-L

I have a tougher time thinking about how to deal with aspiring prophets on UUBF-L. I see three models we could think about: the soapbox on the street corner, the UU meeting, and someone's home.

If UUBF-L is like a street corner with a soapbox, then we have trouble turning away prophets. At the other extreme, if UUBF-L is like visiting my hone, then prophetic voices are not welcome. Say I have a block party at my house. I invite all and sundry, lots of people show up. One neighbor starts spouting strong political views, and begins to shout when others disagree with him. He is taking on the prophetic role. But as the host, I feel very much within my rights asking him to stop, and asking him to leave my home if he does not stop. A house party is not the place for prophecy, and our general culture "knows" this.

But my gut says that UUBF-L is a little more open than a party at my house. So let's look at a UU congregational meeting. Imagine that the meeting is for a specific purpose, but one person begins to speak at length on a topic that is only vaguely related to that purpose. The chairperson tries to cut the speaker short, but the speaker only shouts louder, and insists that her/his topic is vitally important to the group assembled. The noisy speaker is now taking on the prophet's mantle.

The chairperson, and others attending the meeting, are in a difficult position. They have a general desire to respect free speech, and prophetic speech. But they have a specific purpose to the congregational meeting. And the wannabe prophet is preventing them from reaching that purpose. The chairperson will be tempted to rule the aspiring prophet out of order, or take other dramatic Robert's Rules of Order type action.

Should the chairperson stifle the prophetic speech? The reasons for doing so would flow from the purpose of the meeting. The tighter and more specific the purpose, the more likely the chairperson is to take action to cut off the aspiring prophet. And the more support the chair will have from the congregation.

If we apply the same logic to UUBF-L, then the list culture will be more justified in challenging aspiring prophets if the list objectives are narrow and specific. The "right speech" ideal and general UUA list guidelines make it legitimate to cut off prophetic speech if it uses up air time unfairly, or is directly rude to other individuals, or seems intended to harm. Before this, our goals were very general, and left us pretty close to the soapbox on the corner model. As a result of problems this created, the Guide was created to clarify and set forth our principles, so that the list managers may have some guidance and footing from which to legitimately challenge prophetic speech on topics outside the list scope.

Still there is wide scope for discussion here (see the page on What we Do!); so we must be clear that our list culture places higher value on kindness and courtesy than we do on anyone's need to be prophetic on our list. And to affirm that we do have a focus, which we value more highly than a would-be prophet's need to speak off-topic here. We are here for Unitarian Univeralists to explore Buddhism, and how Buddhism and UUism meet.

---

UUBF-L :: A Code of Courtesy and Kindness :: Important List Mechanics