#64 - Seeking Synthesis Not Schism
Sometimes I find it is easy to assume the worst of those that we have a disagreement with. If I disagree with someone about one thing, then there must be other things that make them a bad person. It can result in an us versus them mindset and allows a dismissal of other aspects of the person. This can easily slip into political tribalism or support the atrocities committed by a military against the enemy. This villainization was done well with various jihads or crusades of the past.
The point of this website is to heal ourselves to heal our worlds. This means that we recognize that others with different viewpoints and values exist in the world. They may come from this from a traumatic past, as explored in past articles. They may have legitimate reasons for their belief that need to be addressed. In fact, the micro-voices we have all have a purpose to improve our being. This doesn’t mean that the result is beneficial, as with a firefighter or manager in the Integrated Family Systems Model of psychology.
Ideally, we come into unity within ourselves and must do so within our community if the community is to stand instead of resulting in schism. This will not happen if we judge, repress, and condemn various voices that are different. I believe it is best to explore how they came to be and what they intend to ensure that harm isn’t done to oneself or others in one’s community. This means that the different voices need to be heard to become aware of them. This is the first step to heal, and thus a part of this website is to welcome different perspectives and respectful disagreement.
While I agree that there are many in the political field who appeal to an authority, be it governmental or a figurehead to overthrow the status quo, they both have reasons to keep the status quo or to change it. If immediately lumped into a basket of deplorable people or blind sheep, the conversation will likely stop there because of the way the conversation is immediately approached as adversarial. Instead, if one tries to learn reasons for each persons’ belief then perhaps the reasons can be addressed, and the policies can be moderated.
Too often we lump everyone into one of two broad categories in a two-party system, which does not include the diversity of perspectives that expands even beyond the nine groups that NPR lumps people into. Even within that, there is variety within parties in terms of objectives like faith-based legislation, law and order, and whether economic reform should be more lassaiz-faire or firm top-down regulation. Jonathan Haidt writes in the Righteous Mind of different moral foundations people may have like sanctity, liberty, loyalty, care, fairness, or authority which result in moral people trying to pursue different goals to fix these different problems seen in society. I find it humorous that that approximately two thirds of each party describe themselves as respectful of authority. I suppose it just depends which authority they are loyal to: a strong-man daddy figure from a wealthy background who rubbed shoulders with the political class, or a representative government who has lied and abused via many declassified black projects in the past at war with itself with political conflict and foundational checks and balances.
Between Trump and Harris supporters, there is majority agreement that Social Security should not be reduced, that foreign policy should keep America the only military superpower, that gains for women have not come at the expense of men, and that religion should be kept separate from government policy. There may be differences in how the budget needs to be addressed and what policies are faith based as opposed to science, but there is agreement in these broad strokes. Should taxes be raised or spending cut? Should adults have the freedom to determine what body modification makes them feel most comfortable in their body or should sex based sport competition be complicated with weight classes made more specific with tiered testosterone levels for a more even playing field?
Obviously, there are strong differences in other areas including gun control, government intervention in personal lives, and the legacy of race relations in the present. One could consider the lives of school children weighed against the ability to defend oneself at home or from the tyrannical overreach of a Soviet style government, the cost of regulation and how it inhibits the growth of small businesses to compete with larger monopolies with the funds to dedicate personnel for the paperwork against the need to ensure the consumer is protected from the unforeseen side effects of drugs or contaminated food, and the long term consequences of racial prejudice and its economic impact or way that it affects kneejerk discrimination to an individual without considering their life. If the other side of these policies is not considered then it is easy to condemn the other as a socialist, racist, or dispassionate to the pain of children or any marginalized group.
-SG
Comments