We aren't the only ones who ponder the concept of "The Other" and the seemingly inevitable polarization of people, and wonder at the apparent inability of people to accept even mildly conflicting opinions, or even small deviance from a party line, without labeling or getting emotional.
This column was in the Star Telegram this morning. I liked some of his personal rules-
(I started this after the intro- entire column can be find at:)
dfw.com
A need for a foe to vilify
By Ed Chinn
We all have a weird need for enemies.
Observing people and organizations daily, I see that we humans have very sophisticated radar systems for identifying the various support and threat centers in our lives. This is, of course, not a new development in human relations. And, yes, this radar is part of humanity's protective armor.
However, it seems we've taken a precipitous and scary turn during the past couple of decades. The civility meter has dropped very sharply. Personal defense gauges are pulsing upward. The easy conversations between neighbors have morphed into loud and polarizing debates. Our culture is much too adversarial.
What happened?
Several years ago, Washington Post columnist William Raspberry wrote: "Social activists don't just disagree with their opposition; they speak and behave as though their opponents are the personification of evil; racist, sexist, market-worshiping pigs or irresponsible psycho-babbling idiots."
As usual, Raspberry was onto something: Why are we so quick to demonize those who merely represent different perspectives? What drives such a quick and complete insistence on having enemies?
Research on the origins of prejudices indicates that they are hardwired into our genetic code. It seems that we have a congenital disposition to award favor to our own tribe and disfavor to others; we are just naturally wary of people whom we perceive as opponents.
In other words, no one -- not Al Sharpton, John Ashcroft, the Dixie Chicks or even Saddam Hussein -- has to do anything to provoke such primal reflexes. Our intrinsic need for enemies simply identifies them as convenient objects of the fears and hatreds that we carry right along with us all the time.
We may march under an idea banner -- say, abortion, affirmative action or civil liberties -- but we are drawn to that banner by an ancient and mysterious need for the tribe and its protection.
But in a truly civil society, conflict within any group should eventually lead opponents back to the fountain of shared values. The things that unite should always be more compelling than the things that divide.
Today, however, it seems that we can't quite find our way back to that fountain. Like high-speed cartoon figures, we dash into culture-locked enemy camps. Seal the bunkers. Break out the rifles.
This is the stuff of societal disintegration. Because, today, when our personal radar locks onto a perceived enemy, we tend to cast off the normal (and historic) rules of law and relationship. We remain entrenched in our bunkers.
Community vaporizes; normal relational skills and manners shut down. Kindness and mercy disappear, and executions commence.
So what do we do about it? I don't know. But I have some thoughts.
Any time that we think problems are "out there," we empower the externals to control us. And far too many people are cowering before the monstrous, conspiratorial, shadowy enemies out there. I am stunned at how easily and quickly we assign grotesquely overpowering capacities to individuals, groups, ideas and technologies.
I'm not at all sure there's even an "out there" there. The worst enemies I've ever encountered were discovered in the damp and creepy basement of my own heart. I agree with Jean Jacques Rousseau: "The greatest evils flow from ourselves."
I think it's reasonable to assume that working to defeat the enemies "in here" could produce a greater return than struggling with those enemies projected "out there."
So here's my personal pledge:
• I will be respectful of others, regardless of their perspective or group identification.
• I will be suspicious of any "permission" to break the rules in order to get to some perceived enemy.
• I will give all technologies, ideas and groups a fair and impartial hearing.
• I will assume human complexity. (No one is all good or bad.)
• I will stop listening to sources of fear and conspiracy.
• I will stop ascribing superhuman features and capacities to people, ideas and systems. |
