Blair: Loving the Particular
By Peter Blair, Staff Columnist
Published on Monday, March 26, 2012
In his magnum opus “The Brothers Karamazov,” Dostoevsky relates a conversation between the Elder Zosima and a Russian gentlewoman. The woman complains about her inability to love people close to her. Zosima memorably responds by quoting a doctor with whom he once talked.
“‘The more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams,’ [the doctor] said, ‘I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind, and, it may be, would really have gone to the cross for people if it were somehow suddenly necessary, and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone even for two days, this I know from experience.’”
Zosima’s point here is clear. It is easy to feel love for abstract and general entities like “mankind.” It is hard, on the other hand, to engage in the daily work of loving and serving concrete entities: this person with all his or her faults, that family with all its dysfunction. Dostoevsky was prophetic. In our age of global “causes” and campaigns to “serve mankind” we think we have become more generous, more altruistic, more loving. In fact, the more we have subsumed our love into abstraction, the less we have been able to love and to do concrete good for concrete places.
I mention “The Brothers Karamazov” here because President Jim Yong Kim’s recent decision to escape Dartmouth and accept his nomination for the the presidency of the World Bank is being discussed in terms that embody the very abstraction Zosima describes.
President Kim is fond of John Sloan Dickey’s slogan: “The world’s troubles are your troubles.” Indeed, Dartmouth’s troubles have proven too small for the likes of Kim. The “world” beckons, eager to place its problems in Kim’s capable hands. “After much reflection, I have accepted this nomination to national and global service,” Kim wrote in his email announcing his nomination.
He is leaving us to serve some nebulous entity called “the globe.” No matter that “global service” is a meaningless abstraction, for the world is merely an aggregate of particular places. No matter that Kim leaves behind him a large number of unaddressed messes, some of his own creation. The call to ever higher and higher service is inexorable.
I do not mean merely to raise questions about Kim’s competency for his new job. To be sure, one could reasonably doubt whether a man incapable of constructing a satisfactory dining plan for a relatively small college should be handed control of the world’s finances. Kim, however, was only here for a short while, and it may be that in the long term, he would have gotten more things right.
My target is not Kim’s job transition per se, but the rhetoric that accompanies it and has consistently marked his presidency. What I mean to do is cast doubt on one of the prime superstitions of our age. We think the more universal our service is — the more places and people it encompasses — the nobler it is. The bigger, the better. We admire most those people who dedicate their lives to “humanity.” Our heroes are George Clooney and Angelina Jolie, jetting off to developing countries to do their good deeds. Of course we should be grateful for every cent they’ve given to the poor, but we should not mistake occasional, distant almsgiving for love. Character doesn’t come that easy.
Global service is often nothing other than the liberation from the challenges of the particular. Unless we learn to love the particular and the concrete, our efforts to “serve humanity” will be of little ultimate use to anybody. Unless we can see love through in small matters, we will not be able to see it through in large matters. If we cannot faithfully serve our friends and families despite the pain and annoyance they cause us, how do we think we can serve “humanity?” We will flit from place to place, cause to cause, never pausing long enough to gain a real knowledge of and love for those whom we are serving, nor learning how best to serve them.
Kim has answered the call to global service. In the meantime, on our campus we have to deal with problems of rape, hazing and alcohol abuse, and we are surrounded by poverty in the Upper Valley. These problems may not be “global,” but they are ours. Our willingness to tackle them is the measure of our love.
This is perhaps the best Blair column I’ve ever read.
If Dr. Kim calls what he’s doing for Dartmouth and the World ‘service,’ it’s not very good, not very quick, not what we ordered, and not worth a tip.
By D’10 on Mar 26 | 4:57 am
Blair, this is column is superb. Outstanding job.
Jim Yong Kim never cared about Dartmouth; he only cared about Jim Yong Kim. Beware career bureaucrats.
Also: “To be sure, one could reasonably doubt whether a man incapable of constructing a satisfactory dining plan for a relatively small college should be handed control of the world’s finances.” Best thing ever.
By Erin on Mar 26 | 10:18 am
This brilliant column nails what has made me so uneasy about Jim Kim. Lots of concern about “humanity” in the abstract but blind to the humanity of the actual people in his orbit.
His administration’s decision to respond to bad PR by charging 27 students with serious offenses before bothering to investigate says it all. If Kim saw those students as individuals, he could never have gone along with such a cynical scheme.
By Dartmouth Parent on Mar 26 | 11:32 am
This column is amazing. Peter has hit the nail on the head not just for the problems many of us have with Dr. Kim, but for the general malaise of the disconnected do-gooder. It’s been an issue in every charity and service program I’ve ever encountered—and more pressingly, it’s a big issue for the World Bank, which doesn’t have the best track record in terms of intelligently managing funding to third-world countries. When will we realize that true service starts at home? That sending money or medical supplies or anything else, while helpful, can do just as much to victimize and rob people of agency? That the real solution to the world’s problems is grassroots empowerment? I am truly terrified of what will happen to the World Bank under Dr. Kim if he continues with the kind of leadership style we’ve seen from him at Dartmouth.
By Anon ‘12 on Mar 26 | 1:30 pm
Mr. Blair writes another wonderful column. The global v. the particular is not only applicable to Dr. Kim’s departure. It is in fact, one of the central problems of the last 30 years. Most of the world’s problems are solved by relationships, not programs. I’ve often wondered at a Dartmouth student body that could be so very sensitive to offending groups but could be so incredibly mean to individuals on Bored at Baker. From what I have observed, students at Dartmouth are pretty smug and self-rightous, but terribly hateful to their fellow students on an individual basis. It’s a shame.
By Dartmouth parent ‘12 on Mar 26 | 1:35 pm
Those who have made Dartmouth careers out of bemoaning The imperfections of Jim Kim’s administration will graduate and realize how good they had it. Or they’ve forgotten/never seen the days of Jim Wright. Jim Kim was working to put Dartmouth back on the map and I didn’t realize it until I graduated.
That said, this is superb quality writing in this article!
By Nick on Mar 26 | 3:01 pm
While I think Mr. Blair wrote this column very well, I think it’s important to look at the situation and try to understand how the most good can be done. I think that the qualities you describe are absolutely those necessary for a successful president of a college community like this one. But I dont think the same is necessary for his future job.
I think that when it comes to being successful against “humanity’s"problems”, we’re talking about medicine, clean water, and relief for those who need it the most. Not whether or not our dining plan fits our need to take our food “to go” or the other “problems” our dining plan has.
I think Jim Kim did not do a good job understanding the values of this community, and for that reason most he struggled. But I think he was made for a job like this one. Though I am relatively un-educated on the world bank and how it works, I don’t think the values of love and compassion are as needed as you presume. I would like to see a president of a world bank that can get the most resources were they need to go, and Kim’s experience with Partners in Health says much more about how he will do then how well he managed this school.
By Anonymous on Mar 26 | 3:22 pm
In theory, nice column. In reality, you are writing about some abstraction of Jim Kim derived from a misinterpretation of how he’d likely see “global service.”
“If you focus on individual patients,” Jim Kim says, “you can’t get sloppy.” Page 294. Comma.
Too much dialog on this topic is centered around how Kim is deserting dartmouth for a nice white banker business card, in the case of a parody of his letter, or a new mission for global service, in this case. Give up. Kim wouldn’t have been successful at PIH if he wanted a big salary or if he’d failed to understand problems at the very personal scale.
Further – if you want to quote president Dickey, then also quote President Kennedy with “ask not…” Kim was asked by his country and specifically the president of his country to do a job because he is uniquely qualified for it. It’s time we stand behind him rather than cry and whine because he is leaving us after a year.
Sure, Kim has some unsettled business but I’d say we’re 1000’s of miles ahead as a community and institution than we were under Wright both in terms of Alumni satisfaction and general functional / financial stability.
He’s helped change things for the better and carved the way for the next great leader of Dartmouth College. This time, hopefully one with some Dartmouth green and a little NH Granite in his or her blood.
By Jordan on Mar 26 | 9:45 pm
Thanks. Loved reading this.
By Anon on Mar 26 | 11:46 pm
“I’ve often wondered at a Dartmouth student body that could be so very sensitive to offending groups but could be so incredibly mean to individuals on Bored at Baker. From what I have observed, students at Dartmouth are pretty smug and self-rightous, but terribly hateful to their fellow students on an individual basis. It’s a shame.”
Yes, generalizing the student body by lumping the sensitive people in with the anonymous-message-board trolls is the most productive way to talk about the school and its students.
By Tyrone Wang on Mar 26 | 11:49 pm
I know a confidant of Kim’s who told me that Kim really aspires to the Presidency of South Korea. Anyone else hear of this?
By Robert Segal on Mar 30 | 12:11 pm
Amazing, insightful and painfully honest article. It reminds me of David Brooks at the New York Times. I was enthusiastic about Dr. Kim when my son started Dartmouth with Dr Kim in the Fall of 2009. He and many of his friends were not. They were wiser than I…
By Parent ‘13 on Apr 6 | 7:16 pm
I think the Kim bashing is kind of ridiculous.
People forget we were in a financial crisis that severely affected the Dartmouth Investment portfolio. Of course Kim was rarely seen on campus, as he was busy fundraising, so that he could preserve as much of the Dartmouth experience as possible.
Yes, the dining plan got worse, but that’s a relatively small problem. People, also complain about the negative aspects of the greek scene, but no other president has been able to do anything about it. Jim Wright tried and got a bunch of angry e-mails from alumni, so he backed down.
I think one legitimate concern is that Kim used Dartmouth as a stepping stone. But, that’s a win-win. Imagine the kind of talent Dartmouth can attract if people view leading this institution (or any university) as a stepping stone (provided they stay longer and are evaluated on their leadership at said post).
By ‘12 on Apr 7 | 2:45 am
I wonder what kind of husband and father Dr. Kim is. Now he will be even further away from his family. The most important “Particular” of all.
By Anonymous on Apr 8 | 11:32 am