You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Eldridge Cleaver. How?

Yes. I have been in many groups that could have been effective but were polarised by some internal problem. Instead of making it a group issue most people would keep the problem going by not taking any personal responsibility, often saying piously its nothing to do with me as if it were all down to the ones who felt it most strongly.

I think its been true in my life experiences- that no one has clean hands, and that to get to resolution you have to include yourself into humanity. in the 18th century Edmund Burke said When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

It seems like we are a mixture of problem and solution in different areas of our life. I like to think that thinking this way could help make me a more responsible world citizen.

I wouldn't agree with this in an absolute way. To me it is a statement that only holds in certain situations.

For instance, there are certain situations that will get worse if you do not intervene and only get better if you do. In that case you are truly either part of the problem or part of the solution (for a banal example, think of witnessing a serious car accident- either you get help or the situation of the injured person will worsen).

But mostly one can be a spectator in life- let things go by, not influencing them in either a positive or a negative way.

Which, I admit, can be called collusion in some way- many believe that allowing "negative" things to happen without intervening is just as bad as making them happen.

Yet often one is not in any position to make a difference, is simply unconcerned and helpless, in which case one is neither part of the problem, nor of the solution.

This is the philosophy that energy is not neutral, so a person is either manifesting positive energy or negative energy.

Those not taking positive action, therefore, are taking negative action (by refusing to help or participate).

This can be true in business situations, where "teamwork" became a big thing in the 80's and 90's, and everybody needed to pull together to get the projects done. Therefore, those not pulling their weight were just dead weight that hindered the progress of the team. So those not "with us" were indeed "against us".

This comes from the annoying school of business "motivational speaking" and gung ho crap that has succeeded in ruining our economy, driving corporate America either out of business or off shore, and created a zillion workaholic baby boomers.

Yeah, not a fan.

Of course, it depends on how you view the question. From a philosophical standpoint, our human experience is full of opportunity. Whether those experiences are fulfilling or problematic depend on how we apply ourselves. Therefore, the question is as relevant as we want to make it. How much do we want to apply ourselves to our lives, versus how apathetic and indifferent do we intend to be?

For me, this poses a continual challenge. Many people wonder how relevant they are or what their contribution is in the world or to society. Going forward, each of us is called to either put up or shut up. Either join in the party or sit on the sidelines. Part of the solution or part of the problem. It's all up to us, just how effective we care to be in this life, and how much fun we want to have on our journey.

I think as more of us expand our awareness, we will apply ourselves in good and productive ways (solution) instead of contributing to what could be called our downfall (problem). It's something with which humanity has struggled for many centuries. The difference now is that we are connecting our impact in the present moment and seeing our effectiveness become a reality.

Blessings!

Cleaver's thought leads to the conclusion that someone who stays out of the fray altogether is part of the problem, because he is not part of the solution.

This, however, is the means by which we get sucked into the false ethics of either doing what we don't want to do (get involved, say for example in the argument between environmentalists who want wind power and those who don't because it kills birds,) or being branded "part of the problem."

If we must become part of the "solution" for everything everyone calls a "problem", then we have no right to our own lives but must, by Cleaver's definition, give our lives over to the causes that others declare.

So what is right solution on those wind turbines? Do you get involved on the side that says it's clean, unlike oil or coal; get on the side that says it must be used in conjuction with oil and coal until we find other sources of energy; or get on the side that says turbines kill birds that are on the endagered list, not to mention all those others that are not on the list?

How would the late Cleaver decide which people are the "problem" except by denouncing those who get in the way of his "solution"? His idea pits man against man instead of idea against idea by virtue of its merits; and it turns us all into the altruistic puppets of any Cleaver who would coerce us onto his "side" by calling us part of the problem.

Nooooo.......

it is what it is!

If you see someone on the side of the road who has just been in an accident and you see them suffering (and visibly alive), one can either keep driving and tell yourself "man that guy is having a shitty day"

OR

you can be a part of the solution by phoning the cops, jumping out your car (figuratively speaking, it's suicidal otherwise) to help 'em out, provide traffic assistance, et cetera...just the fact that one is immediately trying to alleviate the problem directly or indirectly is being part of the solution.

The former example, of course is playing part of the larger social role in the bystander effect...

Basically if one manifests making a situation better for your side in anyway possible, if there was someone in a high apartment building looking down at the situation on the road and saw you helping out, they would report to reporters that you were part of the solution to alleviating said problem ['your side' being subjective of course, although now that i think about it, i probably should refute this whole testament now that i see my thoughts in writing.............

i am a white guy living in a predominantly white area i by conformity to the norm of sticking with what you know am part of the problem, the fact that i am not overtly racist does not excuse my subconscious racism. everyone's racist to some extent even if not overtly,cleaver's statement is right everyone is affected - alas most don't even see they are racist thinking that if they don't dislike foreigners then they aren't racist and that ignorance of the problem in a nutshell is the biggest part of the problem Most don't know of the problem they partly cause so cannot be part of a solution.

This statement does not hold true in all situations specially in matters of life and death. Many persons who are yet to be born are not part of the solutions to problems going on in the world but does that mean that they are part of those problems in any way ?

Cleaver was talking about Racism. What he was saying is there is no middle ground when it comes to discrimination and personal rights. One way or another it will impact your life.

Yep, it effects me. I look around at the problems of the world and when I realize that I am doing nothing to change things - I stop complaining.