If I’m OK and You’re OK, Are There Any Bad Guys?

C. W. Meisterfeld doesn’t want to sound judgmental, but, he says, people are like dogs. Now, if Vince Lombardi or Martha Stewart had posited this, it might be a condemnation. But the observation comes from the “Dog Whisperer,” and he’s not judging; he’s just stating how things are. There’s no good or bad here.

The longtime Petaluma dog trainer believes that neither men nor beasts can be their best--or even well behaved--if they are constantly being judged. And since humans are the ones doing the judging, the trick is to get them to shut it off. Wait a minute. Is this really the “right” way to introduce a story about nonjudgmentalism? Maybe it should (oh, no, “should” is a judging word!) have started with the simple question: What is nonjudgmentalism?

In fact, “Blah, blah, blah, nonjudgmentalism” may have been just fine too. Who’s to judge?

As “isms” go, “nonjudgmentalism” hasn’t been around very long, probably less than a decade, say linguists. It’s not even in many dictionaries. And yet within this short span, the word has penetrated the culture. Everyone from the Birkenstock crowd to Brooks Bros. types regularly invokes the principles of nonjudgmentalism for the sake of tapping inner healing powers or improving the bottom line.

“It really can mean the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful business,” said Hedria Lunken, a New York business consultant who has worked with Fortune 500 companies. “If someone is judging all the time, believe me, you’re going to get employees who shut up and just sit at their desks and do nothing.”

As it spread, nonjudgmentalism--the practice of and belief in suspending judgment of others for the betterment of self and society--has inspired, comforted, confused and angered Americans as few other “isms” have. It has commanded praise for everything from transforming business problems into “opportunities” to promoting a more diverse, tolerant and multicultural society. To supporters, the concept has great personal rewards as well. Stress reduction, a release from fear-based living and a deeper connection to humanity await those who can put aside their judgments.

Few may believe this as heartily as Jon Schreiber, director of the Breema Center just outside Berkeley, which promotes health and wellness through stretch, movement and other body work. The center believes being nonjudgmental--an act that mind and body must pursue simultaneously--is essential for existing in the moment, a state that fosters emotional, physical and spiritual well-being.

“When you are nonjudgmental, you totally accept the other person exactly as they are,” said Schreiber, who offers a workshop called “The Nonjudgmental Treatment,” which through touch and relaxation techniques promises to give balance to a person. “Most people have never experienced even a moment of that because they are too closed off and fearful of being judged.”

Still, nothing raises the hackles of some people faster than nonjudgmentalism. To them, it symbolizes the threadbare moral condition of the nation and threatens to rob citizens of their ability to make clear ethical distinctions--a skill of fundamental importance to a tolerant democratic society.

Nonjudgmentalism is a bugaboo of sorts for modern times. In recent weeks it has been blamed for the traitorous behavior of an American Taliban soldier and, in part, the Enron scandal.

“As a society, we seem increasingly incapable of sitting in judgment of each other,” wrote Robert Bartley in a Wall Street Journal article about Enron. “What kind of behavior can an ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ society expect from its professionals or business leaders?”

Nonjudgmentalism is largely a postmodern twist on an old philosophical struggle that seeks to balance justice and compassion. The debate over the two forces reaches back to the world’s most revered religious and historical figures, which helps explain some of today’s widespread acceptance--and confusion--over the concept.

In Western culture, Jesus issued the most famous admonition regarding judgment some 2,000 years ago: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Most Americans, whether Christian or not, can quote this excerpt from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus’ use of the word stood in stark contrast to its role in the Old Testament, in which judgments often presaged a harsh punishment from God.

On its face, the passage from the Book of Matthew sounds like a straightforward injunction against judging others--an interpretation that is more in line with some present-day views. (Russian author Leo Tolstoy favored abolishing judgment and criminal systems altogether.) But according to biblical scholars, ending all judgments was not what Jesus meant. What most don’t know or forget is that two verses later, Jesus added: “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?”

“Jesus was not making a blanket statement against judgments, against doing justice,” said the Rev. Stephen J. Patterson, a professor of the New Testament at Eden Theological Society in St. Louis. “He is saying don’t be a hypocrite.”

Centuries later, Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, broadened the biblical usage of judgment to include an element of compassion. In his speech, delivered about a month before the end of the Civil War, Lincoln tried to quell hawkish Northern critics who demanded severe punishment of the wayward South.

“It may seem strange,” Lincoln said in explaining that both sides sought the same divine help, “that any man should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us not judge that we be not judged.”

The plea for mercy toward the vanquished South ultimately failed to take hold, but the president’s vision about judging others would nevertheless leave a powerful cultural stamp. “Lincoln’s words asking that the nation ‘judge not’ may have been appreciated in the short term and would be remembered in the long term,” said Ronald C. White Jr., author of the newly published “Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural” (Simon & Schuster).. “But they were not acted upon.”

It’s upon this rich historical base that the modern-day notion of nonjudgmentalism has been built. Beginning in the 1960s, when American society was undergoing profound social and political changes, the long-held notion of an objective truth fell by the wayside.

“Our culture started believing around this time that there is no one reality,” said Susan K. Perry, a Los Angeles-based social psychologist. “I think that made people reluctant to express their values and left them feeling, ‘Who am I to judge?’”

Thus, without a clear sense of right and wrong, “being judgmental” soon took on an increasingly pejorative connotation. After all, the damaging and often-cruel consequences of judging others were plain to see. Judgments proclaimed that rock music was evil, long hair was bad and people with dark skin were inferior.

Psychotherapists and 12-step programs soon joined the cause, arguing that judgmental words fuel addictive behavior. Whether it was booze, drugs or gambling, the destructive behavior was driven in part by the person seeking a refuge from relentless internal and external judgments, therapists say. Furthermore, judgments were seen as barriers to personal intimacy. When one partner labels the other as, say, “defensive” or “selfish,” he or she is discouraging the total acceptance necessary for love.

But social critics respond that the new brand of nonjudgmentalism is self-indulgent nonsense. It’s a conceit to say that people can stop judging others altogether, and what’s more, they shouldn’t try. Judgments must be made or moral chaos is the result, they argue in the media.

Critics pounced on the example provided by the parents of John Walker Lindh, the young American who was called a traitor for fighting with the Taliban. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote: “Devout practitioners of the self-obsessed nonjudgmentalism for which the Bay Area is renowned, [his parents] appear never to have rebuked their son or criticized his choices. In their world, there were no absolutes, no fixed truths, no mandatory behavior, no thou-shalt-nots. If they had one conviction, it was that all convictions are worthy--that nothing is intolerable except intolerance.”

Equally spirited attacks on the culture of nonjudgmentalism have emerged from college campuses. Fred Baumann, a political science professor at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, says he shares the quiet campus with students, faculty and an amorphous entity he calls “Camp Nonjudgmental.”

Nonjudgmentalists “operate in a schizophrenic manner,” he said. “They make the mistake of saying that not making judgments is the same thing as being tolerant. It’s not. If you want tolerance, you have to think something is right. And that requires making judgments.”

The hesitancy to judge has created a moral paralysis among some students, said Robert Simon, a philosophy professor at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. Simon reports that as many as one-fifth of his students, while well-meaning, ultimately refuse to morally denounce the Holocaust, slavery and human sacrifice.

(Curiously, many college professors note, students usually have little trouble in harshly judging smoking, failing to recycle and eating meat.)

“I think sometimes students are just protecting themselves,” said Simon. “If they come out with a politically incorrect statement, they can really get hammered.”

Not surprisingly, advocates of nonjudgmentalism feel they are being unfairly judged by their critics. Of course, people have to make choices--what clothes to wear, what friends to have and so on. But this is called “discernment” or “evaluation”--not judgment--said dog trainer Meisterfeld and others. The way to distinguish them is that none of them, except “judgment,” carries a moral condemnation. “If you go into a store to get tomatoes and you see one bad tomato, you don’t judge it,” Meisterfeld said. “You just keep walking until you get a good one.”

Whether it’s the influence of Jesus or the postmodern movement, or both, Americans are uncomfortable with judging others, discovered Alan Wolfe, a sociologist at Boston College. The professor conducted hundreds of interviews over several years in researching his books on morality and found that Americans overwhelmingly regarded nonjudgmentalism as a key national virtue.

“It comes up spontaneously,” said Wolfe, author of “Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice.” “People just say, ‘I don’t want to be judgmental.’” Most of them also reported it was an insight they’d come to on their own rather than through a specific teaching.

“My profession is no different,” said Wolfe. “It’s hard giving someone a C or a D. Grade inflation is a classic case of nonjudgmentalism.”