Francisco Miraval
We all know the old saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” The saying is still as valid in our time as it was in the past. However, what is the meaning of that saying in the context of our society?
“Do as I say, not as I do” implies, first, that the person who says that saying is aware that his or her behavior not always matches his or her own beliefs, or at least the oral expression of those beliefs.
The saying wisely divides and unfolds the “I” into two: one “I” related to saying and the other “I” related to doing, one in opposition to the other. We can debate if the “I’s” are really two or if they are only one, that is, if there is or there is not an internal division between ethics and actions inside each individual.
The saying also means that the person sharing it knows his or her actions have an impact on the behavior and beliefs of at least one person, that is, the person listening to the saying.
Finally, the saying implies there is an “I-You” relationship, that is, the saying is only possible in the context of the immediacy of the dialogue, a dialogue that hopes to illuminate the understanding of somebody who has not experienced yet all the contradictions and paradoxes of our world and our society.
In brief, the saying reveals a self-analysis of ethical values, an understanding that actions have consequences, and an invitation (perhaps just ephemeral) to a direct dialogue and to a reflection.
I believe, however, that those three elements have disappeared or at about to disappear from our society.
In all honesty, the idea of analyzing our own ethical values sounds as something obsolete and even ridiculous. Instead of protecting ourselves behind “Do as I say, not as I do,” we know respond to any questioning of our actions with “It’s not your business,” “If you don’t like, it’s your problem,” “Go away!” and “I do whatever I like to do.”
Without a self-analysis of our ethical values, it is impossible to recognize the consequences of our actions. In fact, those consequences are irrelevant, because in our hyper-individualistic and narcissistic society, there are no “others.” There is no even “we,” just “I.”
For that reason, even when the “I” is still divided, as expressed in the saying already quoted, that internal division is no longer a problem. In fact, it is something normal, even if that means there is no dialogue, not even within ourselves.
All dialogue is now mediated communication, through either the media, or the social networking sites, or electronic devices.
Perhaps that is why nobody apologizes for the incongruence between his or her actions and his or her beliefs. Politicians, teachers, religious leaders and each of us send mixed and hypocrite messages, telling others to do something we do not do ourselves.
Those messages erode the self-confidence and the ethics of those listening to and watching us.