Today's Chiropractic Lifestyle

Discussion Board

Survey

Passions & Pursuits

A Citizen of Today
Compiled by Amy Selby

Life University President Dr. Guy Riekeman and the TCL Editorial Board speak with Donald Betz, Ph.D., about citizenship in a modern world.

Citizenship is a means by which many people define themselves. The traditional thoughts relating to citizenship have brought people to declare: I am a Southerner. I am an American. I am a member of the Jones family.

This issue’s World’s Greatest Conversation with Donald Betz, Ph.D., introduces new thoughts on citizenship that relate to our changing world. Betz is a friend within the chiropractic community with his previous experience as the provost and vice president of academic affairs at Palmer College of Chiropractic. Today, Betz is the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. One of his passions has been the relationships and issues of the Middle East. Betz has worked with the United Nations (UN) and created the International Coordinating Committee on the Question of Palestine, a UN-affiliated non-governmental organization pursuing peace in the Middle East.

The goal with this series is to offer you the opportunity to remember what’s really important in life. The topics covered in our conversations may not directly relate to chiropractic in a practical sense, but we hope you’ll find gems within each exchange to infuse into your daily life. And, we hope that you share these thoughts with your friends and colleagues!

In this conversation Guy Riekeman, D.C., president of Life University, and Randy Heuston, special assistant to the president at Life University, talk with Betz regarding the notion of citizenship in today’s world.

Riekeman: When you throw out the word citizenship, everyone thinks of a member of a township, a place, in a city. You and I talked about being citizens in college communities, and even more importantly citizens of the international world. Most people don’t consider themselves citizens of the world because they don’t feel that they have much impact on it. How would you define citizenship?

Betz: You picked up on an important perspective when you began to talk, Guy. Citizenship is really the inter-relationship between any one individual and any group of people. That relationship has both opportunities and responsibilities—there’s a kind of a yin and yang to it all. It really is the juxtaposition between the individual, their world, their opportunities and their responsibilities and the group. That interaction can go very, very well or it could be a bloody disaster.

I think that the term citizenship speaks of something way beyond being a member of (the body politic) in our nation-state. It’s the incumbent responsibility we have in living and working and interacting and perfecting the relationships we create with other people. I can be a citizen of the University or of River Falls, but for me, I feel that I am also a citizen of a much larger reality where my responsibilities do not cease at the water’s edge, but extend to other peoples and other parts of the world. Everyone knows that over the last several years we have come to understand that whether it is climate issues or global terrorism, or issues related to healthcare that are making themselves apparent, they remind us of the service roles we are called to play.

To me citizenship is about walking the talk worth walking in a world that demands you do that.

Riekeman: If you were to define a short list of the responsibilities related to citizenship, what would they be?

Betz: It almost starts with the Hippocratic Oath, doesn’t it? And that’s to do no harm. We are here to do many things, but certainly to do no harm. I think the essence of global citizenship, college citizenship or state citizenships has to be on the principle of integrity. I can’t imagine building any national or local system in a relationship among people that does not need integrity.

When we were redefining the university here about two years ago, we did the very first vision and value survey ever done at the university including faculty and alumni, etc. We had 10,000 discreet individual comments come back over a period of three and a half months and in 52 percent of the responses the term integrity was used. It was very clear to me that not only was this something that was desperately wanted, but it was something that they felt was absent in some of the relationships. It’s the essence of what it means to be a human being living in an inter-related way, interdependently of other people. If the integrity is not there, I think that we probably have to stop this conversation.

Beyond the notion of integrity, citizenship implies fair play and collaboration. Today, the term “collaboration” needs to be revitalized and redefined. Randy, you’re a great wordsmith, can you think of a better word? Collaboration is way beyond cooperation, but incessant use has diluted its essence and impact. It really is the notion that you give up something in order to get something of greater value in the act of connecting with others in pursuit of a common objective, a bountiful “quid pro quo.” Such relationships create moments, opportunities to live a fuller expression of our humanity. We learn to understand that 100 percent of our perceived needs is never going to be met except through the fulfillment of other’s needs. So there is a natural inter-relationship with clear links to integrity.

Citizenship also speaks of a whole host of values, and again, you’ve got to start the list with the Eight Core Proficiencies. They are constantly reminding us of who we are and why we’re here. I think that if we can pivot on integrity, collaboration, on fair play, the notion of honesty—?I think we have just advanced the human condition by light years.

Heuston: There’s a Hebrew word, “chesed,” that has the definition of “loyal love.” Obviously that’s not love in the sense of romance, it’s the principle to understanding what’s best for the other person. And, it has this overriding idea that you are going to be loyal. Maybe that’s way stronger than collaboration, I don’t know, but that’s what came to mind.

Betz: Randy, I think you have something there. The notion of loyalty goes beyond loyalty to a corporation or loyalty to a country, loyalty to the principle that defined the essence of what it means to be a human being.

I think for most people, until recently, it was much harder to grasp the idea—they had to almost be ethereal—because we lived our lives in very circumscribed units. It was a clan, it was a tribe, it was a region, or perhaps a nation-state defined politically. We now are living in a whole different world.

We now have responsibilities way beyond any of those particular demarcations because our lives are impacted by forces and realities well beyond the tribe, the clan, the region, the state and the country. It is in our interests—it is both a selfish and selfless act—to be connected internationally and globally because that is the world in which we do what we do. So that world can begin to expand way beyond “family” as originally defined. Although, there are those among us who have been thinking for so long, and who have given us their notions of the interconnectedness of our lives with others, of the human family a long time ago, including Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and Abraham Lincoln. The expression “family of man” is a timely one to reconsider in these early stages of the global century.

Riekeman: You have talked about citizenship gone bad. There are some obvious examples of that, like terrorism. I went to see “Charlie Wilson’s War” last night, the Tom Hanks movie. The U.S. saw an opportunity to confront the Russians via the Afghanistan people by arming them tremendously. But as soon as the Russians were defeated we lost interest in the Afghans and, of course, in the movie it said we really messed up the end game.

Betz: Basically our actions and policies helped create the very regional challenges we are confronting now along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier. What was fascinating about the example that you used is that we were looking at Afghanistan as a pressure point on the Soviet Union, which was part of the Cold War game. But we didn’t realize in the process of meeting that particular need we were unleashing a different set of forces that have comeback now to express themselves in ways, including 9/11.

The beauty of studying the foreign policies of any country is that there are all these intentions, and all these outcomes, but they never really match. In this case they didn’t match at all. So, in the short term, yeah the Soviet Union came tumbling down and part of that demise was precipitated by the confrontation in Afghanistan. At the same time it created a new sense of identity for those [the Afghanistans] who were part of the successful resistance against the Soviets—the Mujahedin, which of course, Osama Bin Laden was one of the young guys who was involved in that.

Riekeman: There’s a complex nature to being an international citizen and wanting to have integrity and doing the right thing individually when it conflicts with the political state you’re living in. For example, take the Palestinians and Israelis. If you talk to people individually, integrity and those issues come up, but then take the complexity of those two states, where for 2,000 years or longer there’s been a conflict between them—how do you deal with that issue?

Betz: Well you know that I’ve been wrestling with the Israeli and Palestinian issue for my whole adult life. It’s interesting that you happen to pick that one because it has gone through a series of peaks and valleys on the road to supposed resolution. The immediate response is that I believe that humanity and human kind is in a period of transition. And that transition is not complete.

We’re leaving behind something that was pretty much identified or contoured from 1648 that said all of our allegiance is going to go to circumscribed, very identified nation-states where people who have similar language are going to identify with one another and are going to create a state where they can express themselves to protect themselves. That was pretty much the norm from 1648 until very recently. For me it began to change with the end of the Cold War. It was clear that as a nation-state we could not or would not be able to provide all of the needs for the people within it and they couldn’t protect the people from the outside from a whole host of pathogens, whether they were human or otherwise.

I have found that through the mediation and the negotiation process amazing things happen—to the Palenstinians and Israelis or Kurds and Turks, whatever the case may be—when the groups get down to what I call the fundamentals in life. When they shed the roles they’re playing—I am the Prime Minister of Blank—and figure out what they both have in common. If they both have granddaughters. You see this literal shedding of the cloaks they wore to protect themselves or to define themselves. They realize that they have something frighteningly intimate in common. That is the future. The legacy of the future which they were defining in one way and now they realized that they need to define it with a more fundamental purpose, and that is they’re not going to live forever. They are on a one-way course to their own end, but they will create a pattern of possibilities for the future. So how do these granddaughters survive and not kill each other off in the next 15, 20, 25 years in the future? Those are incredible enlightening moments. I think we’re learning how to do that.

Heuston: So, in some ways, Don, you’re saying that citizenship can no longer be defined in terms of nationalistic support, commonality and pride because in some ways all that works against that global perspective, right?

Betz: Actually, that’s what I’m saying, but I’m also not so naïve as to assume those relationships that we hold most dear and most close to us—the clan, tribe and state—are not there. I’m thinking that we’re a citizen in multiple venues. And it’s more apparent now for me than it was for my grandfather and father, who were intentionally nationalistic. I’m sure my grandson is going to have a different perspective. I do know that he can be more interconnected as a natural part of his living, working, raising his family, and making a contribution than even in my wildest imagination I thought I could be. And, I’m way beyond what my father thought was possible.

There is an inexorable sense of movement in the human story right now. We are becoming interconnected in ways that really challenge us not to be parochial. So I think we have two dynamics working and conflicting at the same time. And there have been some interesting things written in the last several years about this. One is this movement toward what they call McWorld and the other a movement toward Jihad. And, at the same time there is a more closed, protective notion that I have to hang on to what little identity I have. I think there is a relationship there. I think it’s possible to be very intense about your identity with a particular group and at the same time understanding for the best interests of that group you have to be connected to the outside, because of the issues that the international system will face in the next 25 years.

The developmental goals the United Nations Global Summit articulated in 2000 and reaffirmed in 2005 … every one of those major global challenges absolutely ignored national boundaries. They acted as if the borders simply didn’t exist. Kofi A. Annan used to call them “problems without passports.” They’re not impressed by ‘purple mountain majesties’ and two oceans, et cetera, because of the incredible intercourse that exists now globally, and in thousands of ways we begin to articulate them. We are no longer isolated. Virtually no place in the world is a world unto itself, so how do we accommodate beyond that? How do we enhance the relationship that can develop based on that reality? If we’re going to educate, deal with the issues of women and children, deal with the issues of refugees and issues of healthcare—people will never be resolved in a particular nation-state.

Riekeman: Where do you see this notion of citizenship working?

Betz: I see it in many ways. I usually see examples of it after the first two or three items on the nightly news, where they have to bleed to lead. What it really is about is the substrata of human interaction that I usually define through the non-governmental organizations movement or reality that’s in the world today. What that simply means is that if people have organized themselves for a variety of purposes, not just on a nation-state level, but in the process of organizing around an issue, a cause, a problem, they have transcended borders. And, in the process they have created brand new connections between people who are facing similar situations, but are in other parts of the world.

Riekeman: If our readers wanted to be better citizens, what advice would you give them? How can they change behavior in order to become a better citizen of whatever community they are in?

Betz: Going beyond the principles mentioned in the first part of the conversation—issues of not doing any harm—I think the minimum entry requirement is you have the commitment to be a lifelong learner of the world in which you are in. Also, that you don’t draw any final conclusions on insufficient information. That you learn as much as you can of the other’s dance, song and thoughts. And then dance with them, sing with them and think with them.

Riekeman: You held an event when the last copy of the Declaration of Independence was traveling throughout the states. Can you relate that experience?

Betz: When the last copy of the Declaration of Independence was touring the country, its last stop turned out to be in Oklahoma, where it would be displayed at the Capital. In each of the states they allowed it to leave its primary venue for one night. Thanks to a number of wonderful opportunities, we got it to come up to the campus. [Dr. Betz was affiliated with Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Okla., at the time.] It was the night of the Big 12 Playoffs, which Oklahoma was in the Big 12 Playoff, which meant that 99.99 percent of people were watching television or at the game in Kansas. That night we staged a reading of the Declaration of Independence. There were 164 people that came forward to say a phrase of this declaration. What happened was the first person to come out was the president of the woman’s association and the next person was a man from the disability association of Oklahoma. Each person had a small phrase to say, from Supreme Court justices down to Girl Scouts. The room held 550 people and there were 700 people in the room. It was an incredibly moving experience. I got to say the last phrase, which was really fun for me.

Everybody got caught up in this because they knew this Declaration of Independence had a lot to do with the United States, but it had a lot more to do with the world in which we were living in and trying to work out new relationships. For me one of the outstanding remembrances was the number of international students that showed up that day. We had a very large international group on campus. When it was all finished, people didn’t leave. They sat and talked with each other. The Declaration of Independence was written for this country and for every country, every person on earth.

Thanks for bringing it back into focus because it does zero in on the integrity and citizenship that you find in the Eight Core Proficiencies.

Heuston: This article will appear in Today’s Chiropractic LifeStyle and one of the hits we’ve taken is that we have dealt with things such as the climate commitment and we hear, “What are you doing messing around with this stuff?” So, I’m wondering what is it that chiropractic brings to this whole discussion? What advantage does the chiropractic philosophy bring to global citizens?

Betz: While not being a chiropractor but having been involved at Palmer and at Life and having been a patient for a long time, I have watched chiropractic evolve. Chiropractic is a global phenomenon. Chiropractic has a global heritage. It would seem to be the question should not be how does chiropractic relate globally, it’s how can it not relate globally?

I mean it’s the principle upon which chiropractic was based that I’ve heard Guy and you and everyone else articulate thousands of times, the principles … are they valid only for Albanians?

Chiropractic is all about releasing the energies and helping people live the fullest expression of their lives. There’s also a notion in the chiropractic community that life can be better, and we have a responsibility to create that. And that’s not circumscribed in a town, in a county or in a country.