Dead Man Walking: Duty on Death Row

        
         An aging demigod sits schackled in solitary confinement awaiting final execution, sentenced to die for influencing millions to commit atrocities in his name and for leading millions of others to sacrifice themselves foolishly for misguided notions of honor.  The longer this cultic personality is kept from the public eye, the more alien he appears and the more palatable his absence.  Now that the years have passed into decades, it is time to assess the long-term negative effects of his incarceration:  the “liberation” of society to self-entitlement, self-absorption, and, ultimately, disappointment and cynicism.  Perhaps the verdict was too severe. Perhaps, a full and immediate pardon is in order.

The identity of the convict above is not a person but a concept: Duty.  While Duty is not completely dead in the United States, its days appear to be numbered.  Duty, as a motivator for action, has grown out of favor in American society for a number of disparate reasons.  Among them are Americans’ overreactions to the duty-incited excesses of the past, the widespread fear of being branded “intolerant” for believing that some things are inherently right regardless of context or circumstance, and the innate tendency to repel any threat that challenges one’s own sense of self-prioritization or belief that personal happiness trumps all other things.  To many people, Duty conveys a mindless obedience to orders or is seen as a tool to manipulate people through guilt.  These conceptions often spring from the abuse of tyrants or the gullibility of ignorant masses whose irresponsible actions bear false witness against Duty’s true character. 

Even in the institutions that still celebrate a version of the concept, Duty appears as a mere shadow of its former self.  Notable incidents occur on rare occasions in which people perform acts of self-sacrifice motivated by their sense of Duty, but these acts are celebrated or mocked precisely because of their exceptional nature.  This essay argues that the re-emphasis of Duty in the United States is critical as a moderating balance to the self-entitled mindset of individual Americans and the health of American society as a whole.

To avoid confusion, Duty is defined in this essay as an individual and internally-held moral obligation to principles superseding personal gain, pleasure or advancement.  Commenting on this aspect of Duty, Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam said,

The obligation to do our duty is unconditional.  That is, we must do it for the sake of duty, because it is the right thing to do, not because it will profit us psychologically, or socially, or economically, not because if we don’t do it and get caught we’ll be punished.  …. So you can’t ask what benefits will accrue from performing your duty.  You must do your duty because it is your duty.[1] 

In this capacity, Duty is primarily a selfless motivation to action, even though at times, one’s Duty may correspond to one’s personal desires or lead to personal rewards.  Some people might argue that a person has a legitimate Duty to self and personal happiness, but such a use emasculates the term and replaces the stone foundation of “right” with the shifting sand of personal whim. 

A person is somewhat defined by her conception of her Duty.  Individuals choose what, if anything, takes priority over their own personal comfort.  However, once Duty is decided upon, it demands obligation, even to the point of personal sacrifice.  While there is always a choice whether or not a person does her Duty, she cannot neglect her Duty without doing harm to her self-identity.  In this way, Duty is closely linked to a person’s sense of honor. 

In recent decades, Americans have largely ceased inculcating Duty in young men and women as a motivator for action and begun preaching personal fulfillment as their chief catalyst.  Consequently, the United States has gradually evolved into a society in which its citizens are driven primarily by a sense of entitlement.  The vast majority of Americans approach life from the position of “I deserve” rather than “I owe.”  Dr. Jean Twenge, psychology professor and author of Generation Me, reports that this evolution finds its consummation in a generation of Americans who have been brought up to believe that they deserve happiness and fulfillment above all else.  In her assessment, Generation Me “has never known a world that put duty before self.”^[2] 

According to Twenge,

Today’s young people…speak the language of the self as their native tongue.  The individual has always come first, and feeling good about yourself has always been a primary virtue.  Generation Me’s expectations are highly optimistic:  they expect to go to college, to make lots of money, and perhaps even to be famous.  Yet this generation enters a world in which college admissions are increasingly competitive, good jobs are hard to find and harder to keep, and basic necessities like housing and health care have skyrocketed in price.  This is a time of soaring expectations and crushing realities.^[3]

Twenge warns that “our high expectations, combined with an increasingly competitive world, have led to a darker flip side, where we blame other people for our problems and sink into anxiety and depression.”^[4] 

This essay is not a polemic against today’s young people—far from it.  Young people become what they are conditioned to be by the societies in which they live.  Rather, this essay calls attention to the resultant hollowness flowing from the “Duty-less” decades of recent American history.  Blame, anxiety, and depression are just a few by-products of a society prioritizing self-entitlement over selfless duty.  When children are raised to feel that they are the center of the universe and that nothing should override their responsibility to themselves and their own personal happiness, they are eventually confronted by the cold reality that life does not cooperate with their expectations and that their ever-increasing appetites lead only to persistent hunger and constant dissatisfaction.  Moreover, even when life appears to be cooperating, they must often face the realization that a universe revolving around them is a pathetically small place to live.  Confronted by these realities, self-entitled individuals grow bitter, cynical and disenchanted. 

Americans would do well to overturn Duty’s death sentence and release the rehabilitated penitent back into mainstream society.  Parents, teachers, and authority figures must consciously reassess their aims of developing “self-esteemed” people motivated primarily by personal gain and, instead, seek to shape young men and women who embrace a sense of duty and find meaning in their service to society.  More must be done to communicate to young people that there are some causes, concepts, and ideas that are bigger and more important than themselves and their personal happiness.  They must be shown that fulfillment is found when they contribute to a cause rather than merely benefit from it, and that their significance lies in being critical cogs in a life-giving machine rather than being the machine itself.  Simply put, self-entitled members of Generation Me must now be taught that life is NOT primarily about them. 

This shift from self-entitlement to selflessness, from choices predicated on personal preference to actions motivated by duty, will not be easy since many in today’s positions of authority and influence share the backgrounds and perspectives of those in the target generation.  Consequently, developmental institutions should seek out mentors whose personal and professional histories demonstrate a commitment to duty and an ability to inspire it in others.  The first and most critical task is to educate the educators. 

There is no better initial target audience than the US military due to its unique mission and national representation.  The active-duty and veteran military communities represent a promising place to begin the search for mentors since Duty’s legacy, however vaguely remembered or poorly practiced, are kept alive in the hushed whispers of military elders and the exploits of its heroes.  Additionally, cadets in officer training pipelines represent an ideal population with which to initiate the tutorial.  Far from being exempt from the consequences of Duty’s decline, cadets are products of their society.  Officer training schools, despite their histories and reputations, are not the repositories of successful Duty indoctrination, and a lieutenant’s commission does not, in itself, transform an intelligent young person into a Duty-focused officer.  Charged with the future task of leading men and women in the defense of the country, future military officers are the perfect disciples for Duty’s return to prominence. 

by Lt Col Patrick Donley

[1] James B. Stockdale, A Vietnam Experience:  Ten Years of Reflection (Stanford:  Hoover Press, 1984), 70-1.

[2] Jean M. Twenge, Generation Me:  Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—And More Miserable Than Ever Before (New York:  Free Press, 2006), 1.

[3] Ibid., 2.

[4] Ibid., 5.