In The Service

By Marvin W. Berkowitz, Ph.D. Sanford N. McDonnell Professor of Character Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis

One of the central values of human existence is service to others. When I worked for the US Air Force Academy in their Center for Character Development, I learned that "service before self" was one of their three core values (along with "integrity first" and "excellence in all we do"). The notion of trying to serve others is likely a lot more powerful than you might think.

We are all aware of the "service professions" like being a waitress. And many of us are aware of professions that represent a call to service, like military life (we even call it "military service" and used to say that someone was "in the service" or was a "serviceman") and religious life. Or even the so-called "helping professions" like nursing or social work. I like to tell teachers that their profession should also be a calling to service; a calling to serve children. And one of my favorite models is Robert Greenleaf's concept of "servant leadership" for all sorts of leaders (corporate, political, etc.). It is the idea that a good leader should be a servant in the sense of empowering those he or she leads to do their best.

As we approach the presidential election in November, we are hearing many claims from both sides about what they have or have not done and what they will or will not do if elected. Statistics are trotted out, and stretched and spun at a dizzying rate.

I think it is important to look beyond the claims and statistics and figure out if a candidate (for president or for any other elected position) really has a service mentality. Will her or she be a servant leader, in Greenleaf's sense? Does that individual truly understand the awesome responsibility of public service? Does he or she truly hold a value of service to those he or she represents? Do they care about the homeless, the unemployed, the uninsured, the disempowered? Are they willing to sacrifice self to help others?
Power is an interesting issue here. Certainly the elected officials are "in power" and "have power." But are they sensitive to the disempowered? And are they committed to empowering or overpowering others? If one is largely committed to amassing power, to hoarding it, then we all suffer as a consequence. Our great experiment in democracy that is the US was not designed for despots or kings, but for representatives of the people.

So what does all of this have to do with parenting for character?

Well parenting is also a "service occupation." Or at least it ought to be. Many parents do not understand it as such, however, to the detriment of their children, their children's character, and of society at large.

When one becomes a parent, through childbirth, through adoption, through re-marriage, etc, then one automatically has an awesome responsibility for a relatively defenseless being who is at the front end of a potentially positive and productive or agonizing and destructive life. And it is the parents who hold most of the key to unlocking the kind of life that child will have.

It is therefore the obligation of every parent to understand and live out their role as servant to the child. They need to constantly consider what is in the best interests of the child (just as a President should constantly consider what is in the best interests of the nation) and be willing to sacrifice one's own interest for the welfare of the child (just as a President should sacrifice his or her own interests for the welfare of the nation).

Perhaps when a baby is born, we should amend the typical phrase "congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Jones, it's a boy/girl" with "and you are in the service now!".