Division During Uncertain Times
Life is uncertain. It is all temporary. There are variables that we will never be able to account for or control and it is very easy to be overwhelmed when confronted with this truth. We can’t guarantee the protection of our loved ones, the flourishing of our professional ambitions or even be sure that our body will take a breath tomorrow. This has been, and will always be the case however, during certain periods, this uncertainty can feel overbearing. There have been moments over the last few years where my loosening grip on the illusion of certainty has pushed me towards fear-based judgements. Judgements of those who are reacting to this chaotic world differently to me. Judgements that temporarily make me feel more secure but over time, confine me.
I don’t think I am alone in this regard. In response to uncertainty many of us seek a sort of overly simplistic, judgement-filled certainty. An almost black and white certainty around an aspect of daily life that we are really grappling with. These apparent certainties become even more alluring when there is a community (often online) on hand spreading this certainty with charisma, confidence, persuasive anecdotes, selected history and science and very frequently, good will.
The presence of doubts and uncertainties is by no means the only variable that can trigger someone to easy and ephemeral relief from the almost ubiquitous polarisation on a given issue. The option to quiet the doubts through affiliation and ideology packed with religious ferocity is a phenomenon that is so insidious in our modern culture that very often, we can only see when others have entered this vortex of reaffirmation. It is so much more difficult to see and acknowledge our own web of information bias. Holding a specific view of looking at the world that inevitably neglects or rejects other valuable perspectives is usually not one we take consciously, rather it develops from the difficulty of living alone with worry, the unknown and doubt. Considering every possible point of view and how that view might have arisen before we voice an opinion that we call our own is impossible in the busy lives we live.
In light of this, these words are a reminder for me and others that those who express a contrary belief have reached this place through entirely human means and thus, should not be revoked of their humanity. It is my sincere intention to open a door of understanding and compassion for the people who may have a strong opposition to the worldview we possess. Can we honestly say that if we consumed the media, they have consumed for the last 2, 5, or 10 years and spent time in the community they have (maybe they have never felt part of a physical community) that we would not find ourselves looking at the world through a similar lens? Maybe you can, I know that I can’t.
I go through intense periods of doubt and uncertainty frequently, particularly when amid strong media and political rhetoric. I often find myself searching for information to reassert what I believe to be true and immediately disregarding information that suggests the contrary or that my belief may only be half true. When I’m honest with myself, in a safe, calm space I can admit that this is not the way I want to interact with the world. It may save me from a daily questioning of what I know and how I truly know what I know but over time, it is bringing me further down a path that I know deep down, is close-mindedness and close heartedness. How often do we use conversations to convince someone we are right rather than entering with the possibility you might walk away with a different view on a chosen issue? Why are we so afraid of being wrong? Will we then lose the in-group loyalty? Even the dichotomy of right and wrong is not helping us on a human, communal or societal level. I recently heard psychiatrist and thinker, Iain McGilchrist posit that “it is not whether it is true or not true, but in what context is it true and in what context is it not”. This has helped me tremendously as I sought to juggle what I considered seemingly contradictory yet truthful information. Acknowledging this has helped me find space and see my analysis of input through a different, more honest lens.
Nearly every critique I have of how someone may have reached the opposition opinion to me on a particular topic can be reflected right back at me. I have consumed and continue to consume a tiny percentage of the media that is out there in the ether of the internet. By and large, this media takes a perspective that I agree with on daily news topics. After watching videos or reading articles I have usually strengthened a belief of mine with quotes from people I respect or statistics. I think nearly all of us would admit that statistics can be manipulated, however, I think it is significantly harder for us to come to terms with the probability that sometimes the statistics might have been manipulated by ‘our’ side.
If I spend a few days with people who hold a certain ideological standpoint on a given issue that I initially vehemently disagree with, after the few days I am nearly always less judgemental of that person and specific outlook (of course, there are exceptions). I am more open to acknowledging the nuances of the issue, rather than separating it into good and bad, right, and wrong. Is this because I am insecure about being liked? It could be. It could also be that we are more flexible and malleable than we care to believe. That, after spending time with humans we disagree with on certain issues we are more aware, first and foremost that they are humans like us that are trying their best to reduce their own inner suffering of fear and uncertainty- which just so happens to be through a different perspective than your attempt to do the same. A famous comedian was recently asked why he draws audiences from across the political spectrum and he replied, “Because people are more complicated than that”. There’s a lot more to us than a few opinions we hold on given topics.
“Doubt is unsettling to the ego, and those who are drawn to ideologies that promise the dispelling of doubt by proffering certainties will never grow. In seeking certainty, they are courting the death of the soul, whose nature is forever churning possibility, forever seeking the larger, forever riding the melting edge of certainty’s glacier.” - James Hollis
As James Hollis beautifully states above, holding doubt can be so unsettling, even unbearable at times but the alternative is even more damaging for our growth as an individual and collective. If we fall for the temptation of certainty in the company of a group, we may feel immense freedom as the weight of our doubts disintegrate temporarily. After time though, at least in my case, this method of addressing doubts can quickly transform into a lack of respect or intolerance towards a group of beings who see or live differently. This sentiment of prejudice can emerge ever so gradually that we don’t even notice it, partially because we might be reading material and speaking with people that gently reinforce this certainty and partially due to just how natural it feels. We need to connect to community, and there are plenty of examples of inclusive communities that do not thrive on the opposition of an ‘other’ however, many communities do not demonstrate diversity and inclusivity. It feels great when we are around people that agree with us, we feel safer and better about the world but to paraphrase Paracelsus, everything is a poison, depending on the dose. In your head you might be thinking of people who join an extreme, dogmatic group and you probably don’t think you could be included in this bracket. In my opinion, that’s how captured we all are to a sense of community (often online) and information loop bias. I know I’m 100% in it at the moment and the closest I can get to leaving is to acknowledge I’m in it and try as much as I can to be aware of the lack of compassion and intolerance projected in the direction of people who may see something different to me.
In a fascinating and enlightening piece of research[1] recently designed to distort one’s view of “us” and “them”, subjects were told that NASA had discovered alien life, beings that are incomprehensibly different to humans. After receiving this information, the measured racial intolerance of the subjects decreased by half. What does this say about human intolerance more broadly? I contend that these results demonstrate that intolerance of difference is a general trait or characteristic of people which altars depending on one’s comprehension of otherness rather than a fixed antagonism against a particular group. It is my understanding that this research suggests a person’s intolerance or tolerance is entirely adjustable once the former ‘other’ is understood to be more like us compared to another, even more different ‘other’. If this is in fact the case, the global issue of dehumanisation of another group of people can be harnessed through a consistent emphasis on our shared humanity, our shared fears, our shared desire to feel part of a tribe and to minimise the uncertainty that plagues us. How often does the media we consume allude to our shared humanity? This research is not alone in suggesting that comparisons can change our opinions substantially,[2]and if we choose to utilise this valuable finding about ourselves as a species, we can steer away from dehumanising a human that holds a different view of life. We can do this because first and foremost, despite distinctions, that person or group share the same human experience that I’m currently navigating. To be human is to be irrational, to be biased, to be heavily influenced by our environment, and accepting that in ourselves can help us accept that in others.
This is much easier said than done. This is a long-term practice that requires many ‘failed’ attempts, which may end in utterances of ‘Ah they are all mad/racists/psychopaths ‘. But eventually I believe with practice we can begin to see our apparent ‘enemies’ as an opportunity to show the best of our own humanity, our most admirable traits rather than an easy excuse to showcase how quickly we can disrespect a person or group of people. When we demonise or dehumanise others, we do the same to ourselves. This is not some esoteric or woo-woo concept that only makes sense in the hills of Tibet, dehumanising others separates us in a very real way from our fundamental shared reality of being human, which blocks us from acknowledging and accepting our own flaws and our need for compassion to combat this. As Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn famously writes:
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
It can be a very tough concept to digest, particularly in a world where dehumanising groups of people as ‘sheep’ and other animals, has been so normalised in our society but I strongly believe that this idea deserves time to contemplate. The same anger, pain and disillusionment that has resulted in so much of the violence and discrimination in the world has been felt on some level by all of us. This is in no way excusing the countless acts of violence that occur daily, but it is contending that disregarding the accusers of these acts of their humanity will not effectively help this issue over the long term. To say there is a bit of us in the person we have the utmost contempt for is challenging for the ego and can only be truly pondered in a quiet, calm head space (A space that is so hard to find in the world we live in). Thich Nath Hahn’s poem ‘Please Call Me by My True Name’ continues to help me in this long, arduous process. He says:
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks.
And I am the arms merchant,
selling deadly weapons to Uganda.
I am the twelve-year-old girl,
refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate.
And I am also the pirate,
my heart not yet capable
of seeing and loving.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up
and the door of my heart
could be left open,
the door of compassion.
The trait that we despise in another person, we probably share this same trait on some level in ourselves, however, perhaps we had the environment that neutralised these tendencies or that taught us tools to manage them whereas many are not so lucky. Or perhaps our expression of these traits was less severe, and we managed to learn from this before the consequences became too grave. This is why I believe those who have had a nurturing environment have a bare minimum duty to refrain from de-humanising the person who they believe is incredibly inconsiderate or hypocritical or ‘mad’. If we do so, are we not merely perpetuating the cycle of brutalisation which we were originally shocked or angered by in the first place?
Once we deny someone or a group of people of their humanity, it opens up the dangerous door of justifying behaviour or attitudes that we believe we, ourselves would never demonstrate. Or even, the dehumanisation may run so deep that we may carry out the same acts we were disgusted by when they were committed by your chosen other.
This piece is not encouraging the bypassing of disagreement because at the end of the day, we are all human. It is a meditation on how, because of a human reaction to fear and uncertainty, the need for community combined with our natural bias and modern algorithms, we can find ourselves in echo chambers where we do not communicate at all with people who view the world differently. This can very quickly lead to us on the slippery slope of dehumanisation which I, myself have fallen in far too many times.
Some people will be open to changing their minds, some will not. Just as there are probably perspectives of our own that we are willing to adjust and some we are not. This does not make them or us any less of a human. We can’t convince people to follow our worldview, there will always be people who hold beliefs that we consider downright wild and vice versa but again, this does not detract for their or our humanity. I think this message is wonderfully expressed by Rabbi Sacks who says, “It is not our task to conquer or convert the world or enforce uniformity or belief. It is our task to be a blessing to the world.” We must continue to fight against discrimination, injustices, and facilitate dialogue all the while remembering that the moment we dehumanise, is the moment we lose grasp of who we are. And when we lose grasp of who we are, we can justify heinous acts.
I wrote this piece, not with the hope of it being received well by one demographic (which would probably be people who have consumed similar media and books as me) but to resonate with people who are frustrated by our collective dehumanisation of the ‘other’ in response to this incredibly uncertain period of the human history. The world we live in does not necessarily encourage breaking bread with people we disagree with. It is far more profitable to nudge people in the direction of division, of othering, of placing considerable blame for our discontent with the current situation on those whom we do not know intimately. I don’t think there will ever be a world devoid of this core issue that we are collectively struggling with right now, but I believe each of us has a choice. We can take a step back from our day-to-day life and try to contribute towards the changing of the culture which is discarding people of their humanity. Living with the intention of not continuing this will look differently for everyone but we can all supply some form of compassion. Without commitment and intention, it is far too easy to drift into the world of dehumanising others in company. I will leave you with the words of two special people who have greatly inspired me to write this piece.
"Compassion is not a virtue -- it is a commitment. It's not something we have or don't have -- it's something we choose to practice. " - Brené Brown
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.”- Rumi
James O’ Connell
[1]If it’s humans against little green men, the color of our skin seems to be less important.: Friedersdorf, Conor. "What Ails the Right Isn't (Just) Racism." The Atlantic. August 09, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/what-if-left-was-right-race/595777/.
[2] Dan Ariely alongside others have found this in the context of attractiveness, Lee L, Loewenstein G, Ariely D, Hong J, Young J. If I'm not hot, are you hot or not? Physical attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a function of one's own attractiveness. Psychol Sci. 2008 Jul;19(7):669-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02141.x. PMID: 18727782.
