The Collegiate Laws of Life Essay Contest asked Penn State Students to explore ethical values and intercultural issues, and their talent for expressing their views in writing. Below, you will find the honorable mention essay from Noah Lingwall, ’17, Paterno Fellow and Schreyer Scholar, History, and Global and International Studies, responding to the prompt:
“All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
What are the differences among these three, and how can they best collaborate?
“From Immovability to Collaboration: The Human Enterprise” by Noah Lingwall
The enterprise of advancing human society is timeless and crucial. It is also arduous — its immense burden is shared by all of civilization. Contributing to such an undertaking demands that we respect inherent differences between those with whom we live, work, and create. Without this understanding, human progress ceases to exist. It is at this juncture that Benjamin Franklin’s words take on special significance.
By separating humanity into three groups – the immovable, the movable, and the movers, Franklin acknowledges our inherent differences, and in doing so, takes a step toward the universal goal of collaboration and progress. Those who are immovable aren’t necessarily inflexible. After all, defining them in that way would preclude any possibility of collaboration. Rather, those who are immovable possess an uncommon adherence to their ideals. It’s also a mistake to assume that the immovable are stuck in place. You can find the immovable scattered throughout the highest echelons of industry and politics, for steadfastness often precedes success. The movable fill an equally important niche. These individuals respond positively to rational arguments, seek compromise, and avoid the pitfalls of blind dogmatism. The movers facilitate the goal of collaboration and progress by generating dialogue on key issues and stirring others to action.
While it is important to note the differences between Benjamin Franklin’s three categories, a more pressing issue remains: how do these groups interact in real-life scenarios, and how might they collaborate? In order to get a clearer view of the dynamics between the immovable, the movable, and the movers, consider the heated debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. As is the case with most political issues, it’s pretty easy to tell which individuals or groups firmly stand by their beliefs – the immovable. Most House Republicans believe that TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline represents an economic boon. They simply can’t understand why pipeline progress has thus far been obstructed. The House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee laments, “Instead of saying ‘yes’ to thousands of jobs and greater energy security, the president has so far delayed and dodged a final decision” (“Keystone XL: #TimeToBuild”). Native Americans living in South Dakota have been equally passionate in their opposition to the pipeline. They released the following statement in 2014: “The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands” (Ghogomu).
Despite the apparent dominance of extreme opinions, many individuals remain moveable. In South Dakota, 10% of voters still haven’t decided whether or not they support construction of the pipeline (Jorgensen). Congressmen and congresswomen from the more moderate sectors of their parties have also crossed party lines by either supporting or opposing the pipeline. In this situation, the movers are those who attempt to foster compromise by tempering the fiery opinions of the immovable. President Obama, for example, has offered to negotiate portions of the bill with House Republicans (Davenport).
The role of each group in the collaboration process cannot be undermined. In the case of the Keystone Pipeline, the ideals that underpin the so-called “immovables’” adamant viewpoints are time-honored American ideals. Pipeline proponents espouse the values of industry and growth, while pipeline detractors fight for protection of America’s natural endowments. All of these values are equally valid. Therefore, you cannot discount the viewpoints of the immovable. Those who are moveable, who have not yet made up their mind, can be swayed by rational arguments made by staunch advocates on either side of the issue. To ensure that this process doesn’t reach a political stalemate, the movers invigorate lively debate and nudge all parties toward action.
When Benjamin Franklin’s three classes are defined in this way, it becomes clear that movement toward compromise and collaboration cannot be achieved by one group alone. Without any impetus to alter their strong opinions, the immovable remain riveted in position. Without any firm pull toward one direction or another, the moveable fail to make any real contribution to human progress. And without any input from the immoveable and the moveable, those who are moveable have no real direction in which to go.
The debate concerning the Keystone Pipeline, along with a litany of other crucial social and political issues, holds serious consequences for our society. By respecting the differences between these groups and facilitating dialogue between them, we will ensure that the enterprise of human progress forges ahead into new and exciting frontiers.
Works Cited
Davenport, Coral. “Keystone Pipeline Pros, Cons and Steps to a Final Decision.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Jan. 2015.
Ghogomu, Mbiyimoh. “Sioux Native Americans Release Statement Calling Keystone XL Pipeline “An Act of War”.” The Higher Learning. The Higher Learning, 16 Nov. 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2015.
Jorgensen, Don. “KELO TV/Argus Leader Poll: Keystone Pipeline.” KELOLAND.com. Young Broadcasting of Sioux Falls, Inc., 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2015.
“Keystone XL: #TimeToBuild.” Keystone XL: #TimeToBuild. Committee on Energy and Commerce, n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2015.