A while back my kids were watching the Nick Jr. cartoon Ni Hao, Kai-Lan, and I happened to see something that has troubled me ever since.
Kai-Lan is a little girl with a friend named Rintoo, and in this particular episode Rintoo isn’t feeling special. Kai-Lan and her other friends seem to have an instinctive feeling that Rintoo must be special somehow, and spend most of the episode trying to figure out why that is. After some searching, they finally figure it out. At the climax of the show, Kai-Lan announces with a little song that she has found the source of Rintoo’s specialness! I suppose it was too much to hope that she’d quote directly from the Catechism, since it’s kind of hard to rhyme “man is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life” with “it was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.” But I was surprised and distressed at what she came up with: he’s fast. That’s what makes him special. And she went on to tell her young viewers that the next time they’re not feeling special, they should remember what they’re really good at, and know that that’s what makes them special.
Anyone else find that disturbing?
As I watched the little characters dance around and celebrate the various skills that supposedly made each one of them special, I was guessing that this wasn’t going to be the episode where Kai-Lan’s slow, mentally ill, physically disabled friend was introduced, because then things would get really awkward.
Though I don’t attribute any malevolent intent to the show’s writers, I think the sentiments expressed in this episode belie one of the disturbing logical results of a completely secular worldview. It’s an interesting look at what happens when we take part of the natural law that’s written on our hearts—in this case, the fact that every human is special—and try to explain it without God. Kai-Lan and her friends know on some level that Rintoo is definitely special; and yet they are products of a secular culture which teaches that every truth must be provable by the scientific method in order to be accepted.
There are two main definitions for special: one is “regarded with particular esteem or affection” and the other is “superior in comparison to others of the same kind.” The first is a better definition for describing the inherent specialness of each person, since each of us is regarded with particular esteem and affection by our Creator. But you can’t get there by looking at the material world alone. In order to confine specialness to the realm of the observable and the provable, you must go with the later, twisted understanding, which leaves you with a malleable definition of what it is to be special. In Rintoo’s case, what if the setting of the episode were moved to the U.S. Track and Field Team’s practice arena, where he wouldn’t seem fast at all? Or what if he became disabled and could no longer get around quickly? For that matter, what if all of humanity got together and agreed that being fast was not a good trait? Would Rintoo still be special?
Chances are, he has other things he’s good at. But what if he didn’t? What if he were the dumbest, ugliest, most rejected, immobile person in the world with not a single thing to offer his fellow man? Then would he be special?
Without God, the closest we can get to explaining the truth of each individual’s specialness is to say that he or she possesses certain exceptional skills or qualities that are currently valued by other human beings, or to perhaps note the fact that each person is different by virtue of his or her unique DNA. But neither of those statements articulate the full truth—and somewhere, deep down inside, we all know it. The problem is this: the reason every single one of us is inherently special—even the most flawed, the most unproductive, and the most decrepit among us—is because we are special to Someone. It’s because we are loved and valued by God himself.
When people agree on this, even if it is based on vaguely theistic concepts of God rather than passionate Christian devotion, it acts as a societal safety valve. We at least agree that it is not up to us to determine what makes another person special, or whether or not he’s special at all. Each person’s value comes from Something outside of and higher than people’s opinions, a Force untouchable by human caprice. When we lose this concept and start thinking that we can value other people based on demonstrable evidence, the safety valve is gone.
That’s what scares me about this line of thinking. Right now, the dark implications of this worldview are easy to ignore; here in the Western world, we live in a time of unprecedented stability, peace, and abundance that makes it relatively easy for us all to get along. There are only a few types of people whose specialness we have motive to disregard (the severely disabled and the unborn, mainly). But that probably won’t last forever. If any elements of society were to be destabilized, we faced widespread resource shortage, or any other situation came up that caused an epidemic of fear and tension, there would be a lot more pressure to disregard the value of other people’s lives. If we continue to see our fellow human beings as special based on arbitrary, flexible definitions that are ultimately rooted in human judgment of evidence, the devaluation of human life will spread to even more segments of society. And one day it could be you or someone you love who is no longer considered special.
Comments
Post a Comment
Well done! I agree that it’s rather disheartening to see our society base someone’s worth or “specialness” on whether or not they’re useful to other people. I dislike that a person has to serve an explicit purpose in order to be worth something. Why can’t the fact of our existence prove we’re worth something? Why do we have to be the best, or even good, at a particular thing to be considered “worth” something? I don’t like where that view could take us.
Oh, Jennifer, don’t be jealous! I’m sure you can also be fast! Just kidding. I don’t have much to comment on your article. Without God, it seems we are left only with empty numbers of experiments run again and again by heartless scientists, probing how fast we can be to quantify how good we are. It is wrong, and it is sad.
Besides that, I just want to make sure you know that I love your blog. Keep up the good work!
Jennifer, you are stepping on the feet of modernity’s gospel. I like that.
“As I watched the little characters dance around and celebrate the various skills that supposedly made each one of them special, I was guessing that this wasn’t going to be the episode where Kai-Lan’s slow, mentally ill, physically disabled friend was introduced, because then things would get really awkward.”
Why? Because they couldn’t find something special about their disabled friend? I don’t think that, and I’m a heathen. Why would you think that?
“In Rintoo’s case, what if the setting of the episode were moved to the U.S. Track and Field Team’s practice arena, where he wouldn’t seem fast at all? Or what if he became disabled and could no longer get around quickly? For that matter, what if all of humanity got together and agreed that being fast was not a good trait? Would Rintoo still be special?”
Of course he would be. Why wouldn’t he be? I have all the faith in the world that those lovely children could find plenty of other things that are special about their friend.
Assuming the worst in people is an ugly and shallow apologetic tact, Jennifer, and it’s really disappointing to see you resort to it.
Your really reaching on this one.
Rintoo is a tiger after all, and most likely a secular tiger at that.
I’m pretty sure that the cited catechism only applies to man. Even then it would apply to all of human kind, hardly unique.
The same with the claim about god’s love being what makes a person special. If it applies generally across all of man kind then it negates the idea of uniqueness or specialness.
Using a god to bolster self-esteem is flawed. A person needs to accept themselves and be loved and respected by others to build confidence and optimism. Love and respect are a two way street and neither can be built on one way relationships.
I loved this post!
In a similar vein, I have struggled with stories like “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” where an ostracized character must “save the day” for everyone to recognize his worth. Again, the “specialness” is dependent on usefulness, and not inherent worth.
Good points, Jennifer. Ni hao is the only nick jr show that we don’t let our 3 year old watch. It is way too heavy on feelings and making others “feel good”. I don’t think kids need to get the message that it is their responsibility to make people “feel good”. They should be kind and loving but whether others kids “feel good” as a result is out of their control.
Too bad SkiFree is wrong, because they didn’t do that…..the writer’s chose to highlight a fleeting, tangible attribute. And they do it all the time!
Can’t think of a single kids’ cartoon where they ever say their friend is special based on their just ‘being’. No - they qualify and quantify it on basis of what they can do - being athletic or artistic. Fleeting, changeable qualities that can fail us at any minute. Now if they had said Rintoo was kind or encouraging to everyone that would be a different story - regardless of your physical or even psychological limitations you can display charity. But, they didn’t - they picked out a physical attribute.
Jennifer isn’t assuming the worst but working from the given displayed in this show and too many kid’s shows. Our kid’s are special based on what they do rather than who they are - which is not at all how God sees them.
Of course they picked out a physical attribute. It’s a kid’s show, and the big scary secular agenda of the moment is to get kids to go outside and be physical.
I, like other examples of my race, am “really good at” sinning.
Ah, the fresh breeze of honesty. Only after it wafts through the room can we be free in Christ. But there is no honesty in popular culture, tv being one of the latter’s foremost propaganda organs.
Jen - the root of the problem is found when people define their dignity on what they can “do” and not who they are, in light of God. I have written on this several times, but this article here, which was published in The Catholic Faith magazine several years ago, was the one that addresses this issue head-on. I have a shorter version done on Catholic Exchange - http://newcesite.com/2008/01/03/96849/
Basically, I argue that if our identity is merely functional, we will never be equal, as you point out.
SkiFree,
While the point Jennifer is making about utilitarianism may seem trivial in the context of a children’s cartoon, small errors of thought in the beginning do have a way of becoming large errors in the end.
If children are told over and over that it’s what a person can achieve that makes them special, they may grow up to become like the women using IVF in this article: http://liveaction.org/blog/how-do-we-change-hearts-and-minds/
Apparently the child they created wasn’t special enough and needed to be killed off.
Isn’t it strange that we say they have “special needs”? I guess it’s the “needs” part that is the problem in our society. Being special means you have something “special” to contribute and if that includes “needs” it becomes an unwanted burden to be disposed of.
From Psalm 8: “When I behold your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you set in place—what is man that you should be mindful of him, or the son of man that you should care for him?”
But consider:
God knows each of us as individuals (Psalm 139);
and wants us to care for others (Matt. 25:31-46)
TeaPot562
I’ve thought about this a lot in the past few years. Thanks for writing about it here! Another point that disturbs me about the “special skill” mentality is that, for most of us, there will come a season (or several) in our lives when that skill is either gone or unusable. I think that many women suffer this when they bear children and care for (many) young children all at once. It’s a time of great self-discovery, but it’s also a time when that one thing we were really really good at… the one thing that we thought made us “special”... is just not happening. EG: I was really good at splitting philosophical hairs. Now I trim toenails. :) We can’t base anyone’s worth on a skill or attribute, because those things aren’t very stable! Ah… you’ve got me going now!
I recently saw a Super Why? on PBS Kids that distressed me for similar reasons. I’ve only see the show a few times but apparently the main characters are three children and a pig each of whom have a specialty. In this episode, the pig realizes he is different from the other “persons” and doesn’t like it. Now, one problem I see with this is that either you treat personified animals as persons for the sake of the story and there is no difference OR you recognize that persons have a distinct value above and beyond animals. The show didn’t seem to want to do either. They went to visit The Little Mermaid story where the Little Mermaid wanted to be like the people on the land. If you know Anderson’s story of the Little Mermaid, this adds insult to injury when the mermaid becomes happy to be different and play with the children from the water. It not only ignored the eternal and metaphysical distinction of the human person but then took a story specifically about that and, basically, castrated it. I can’t watch it again. Why do TV shows have to do that? Esp. kids shows.
Well written Jennifer
I don’t get nick junior. Can anyone tell me why the show is called Ni Hao? Ni Hao is ‘HELLO’ in Chinese ...
Whoa. Such deep thoughts about a cartoon with a lion. I’ve not seen said show/cartoon/whatever, but if it’s all that and then some, exert parental control with the remote and block access of this program.
But, I would rather my grand and greatgrands learn to look for the good in everyone and help that person see the good in themselves.
Again, you guys are really deep thinkers. I dare say deeper thinkers than the shows target audience. Set the Parental Control and breathe easier.
“the fact that each person is different by virtue of his or her unique DNA”
That’s good enough for me. But identical twins are pretty darn identical.
“It’s because we are loved and valued by God himself.”
Especially the little children dying of starvation in Somalia.
But you have violated “Occam’s razor” - you have added a completely unnecessary entity.
“And one day it could be you or someone you love who is no longer considered special.”
Or it could be an “apostate” or someone who was raped. Or just a woman. Sharia law is rather unforgiving of some things. Oh. That’s not your god. Well, it is your Old Testament god, but not your New Testament god. It seems you keep “re-interpreting” what is actually written in your particular book.
“We at least agree that it is not up to us to determine what makes another person special”
Correct. In the US, it’s up to the laws and the judicial court system.
From Wiki: “the Texas Futile Care Law describes certain provisions that are now Chapter 166 of the Texas Health & Safety Code.” “Measure 16 of 1994 established the U.S. state of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (ORS 127.800-995[1]), which legalizes physician-assisted dying with certain restrictions.”
The problem is this: the reason every single one of us is inherently special—even the most flawed, the most unproductive, and the most decrepit among us—is because we are special to Someone. It’s because we are loved and valued by God himself.
__
So it takes an external being to make someone “special”? The whim of a god who hates anyone who worships another god or won’t worship any god?
__
I guess as an atheist, I’m not special and have no reason to live except to be a burden on others.
Adrienne, way to miss the point, there. Perhaps that’s your perspective, but it’s not Jennifer’s, or any other Christian’s—quite the opposite. Whether or not you worship Him, you are God’s and He loves you—a Christian is someone who must recognize this fact and is required to love you, as well. Can an atheist say the same?
“Whether or not you worship Him, you are God’s and He loves you”
But this is such an irrational belief. It assumes something for which there is no “evidence”. I guess it makes you “feel good”.
“a Christian is someone who must recognize this fact and is required to love you, as well.”
Well, you better come up with a pretty good definition of “love”. What are you actually prepared to DO for me on the basis of your “love”? Reminds of the song “A Little Less Talk and a Lot More Action”. :-)
“Can an atheist say the same?”
Before I answer, are you required to define “love”?
Are you asking for time? money? respect? How would you expect me to show that I “love” you?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.