“The most important thing is this: To be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become.” - Charles DuBois
The world is full of false dichotomies. The right fights the left; the religious argue with the atheists; the streetwise abhor the academics; the pro-life and pro-choice camps are perpetually at war. When sensitive political and social issues arise, representatives of the most extreme views on the spectrum are given the most airtime and column space. It is easy to be drawn in by impassioned, divisive arguments and their emotional attributes, especially if they seem to reflect - at least in part - one’s own views.
Despite this, I feel that most hard-liners who represent right vs. left type arguments have a fatal flaw; they tend to present important issues as having two clear camps on polar ends of a spectrum, with no room for middleground. Consider the classic line “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This extreme view suggests a dichotomy that does not exist in most cases. Those who support this view are encouraging alienating behaviour and perpetuating the damaging ideology that we all ought to be aligned with a particular camp, perpetually at war with its ideological enemies.
These types of arguments are obvious in mass media where the big issues of the day are debated. I think that they also tend to filter down into the day-to-day lives of media spectators where they are pervasive, but perhaps less obvious, since we are unlikely to be wearing name badges and team colours. It is therefore simpler to repeat the party line and to represent it as one’s own view without necessarily being identified as an official representative of any particular camp.
I believe that there is a way to navigate the path between extremes of opinion, even in the most important ethical and political debates. It does not require soft-pedalling or indecisiveness, nor does it demand that passion for important issues be restrained. I believe that the key is to change the language in our debates from exclusive to inclusive, and thus to allow for the Other to become familiar.
Inclusiveness anticipates the diversity that exists within every group, even if they all espouse similar ideals. For example, every member of the Conservative Party of Canada - an organization with which I have many fundamental disagreements - arrived at their position within that party by a unique route and with unique intentions. Their willingness to toe the party line notwithstanding, I have something valuable to learn from anyone who is willing to dedicate their life to representing the democratic needs of their community.
Likewise, I have never chosen to affiliate myself with a religion. I dislike the enforcement of dogmatic principles, and I have no desire to unify and codify my beliefs to align with large groups of people. Once again, though, it is difficult not to be inspired by the passion of those who are dedicated to a higher cause with honesty, humility and love for their affiliates, even if I find their reasoning to be flawed. It inspires me to dig deeper for new paths towards the truth, and for new ways to achieve a greater consciousness of the universe.
Everybody wants to be supported in their beliefs, and I certainly include myself in that group. But alliances do not have to come at the expense of others, and the rivalry that opposing viewpoints tends to create does not have to be rendered with such extremity and hostility. When we make an Other out of an individual with an opposing idea, we are engaging in a violent act.
Alienation strips the Other of their humanity, and with that goes the value of their voice and their position. Thus it becomes a game of shelling one’s opponent with long-range artillery, aiming at the easiest targets with the intent of doing the most damage with the fewest shots. The person simply becomes a vessel for an idea, which can be treated as ugly, worthless and simple. Soon the vessel will take on similar characteristics, and become indistinguishable from the argument.
Inclusiveness can break a false dichotomy, and it can happen without driving the passion and eagerness from debate. It is important to be passionate, and passion injects fun and excitement into life. It also tends to drive people to learn more about their chosen position, as they will often encounter people who will challenge them. I am not suggesting that we need to take all of the spectacle out of politics, religion and the media - it’s all part of the game, and there can be a great deal of enjoyment in it from all participants, actors and spectators.
I think that there are enough people out there already filling the role of angry leftist/rightist/whateverist. There is no need for you or I to come to their rescue in the public sphere. The figure who makes an enemy of their ideological opposite appeals to our base and emotional leanings, but is largely damaging to community as they identify and perpetuate false dichotomies in the pubic discourse of important issues. There is no need for any of us to war with our neighbours, or to decamp into polarized groups over our chosen paths in life. I think that a useful, general tactic is to look at the least affected ideals espoused by two polar opposite representatives, and to attempt to internalize the value of each of them, rather than discarding one system outright.
There is no right answer to many questions. I think that if there was an innate truth to any sort of system, political or otherwise, that innateness would be revealed through the system itself. There would be no need to force it on people; there would be no need for debate. The quest to explore the opposing forces of life’s fundamental questions is unending, as is the quest to integrate their complexities into a cohesive pattern of thought and action. With such a challenging task, why devote energy to creating enemies when you could be creating new worlds instead?
The world is full of false dichotomies. The right fights the left; the religious argue with the atheists; the streetwise abhor the academics; the pro-life and pro-choice camps are perpetually at war. When sensitive political and social issues arise, representatives of the most extreme views on the spectrum are given the most airtime and column space. It is easy to be drawn in by impassioned, divisive arguments and their emotional attributes, especially if they seem to reflect - at least in part - one’s own views.
Despite this, I feel that most hard-liners who represent right vs. left type arguments have a fatal flaw; they tend to present important issues as having two clear camps on polar ends of a spectrum, with no room for middleground. Consider the classic line “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This extreme view suggests a dichotomy that does not exist in most cases. Those who support this view are encouraging alienating behaviour and perpetuating the damaging ideology that we all ought to be aligned with a particular camp, perpetually at war with its ideological enemies.
These types of arguments are obvious in mass media where the big issues of the day are debated. I think that they also tend to filter down into the day-to-day lives of media spectators where they are pervasive, but perhaps less obvious, since we are unlikely to be wearing name badges and team colours. It is therefore simpler to repeat the party line and to represent it as one’s own view without necessarily being identified as an official representative of any particular camp.
I believe that there is a way to navigate the path between extremes of opinion, even in the most important ethical and political debates. It does not require soft-pedalling or indecisiveness, nor does it demand that passion for important issues be restrained. I believe that the key is to change the language in our debates from exclusive to inclusive, and thus to allow for the Other to become familiar.
Inclusiveness anticipates the diversity that exists within every group, even if they all espouse similar ideals. For example, every member of the Conservative Party of Canada - an organization with which I have many fundamental disagreements - arrived at their position within that party by a unique route and with unique intentions. Their willingness to toe the party line notwithstanding, I have something valuable to learn from anyone who is willing to dedicate their life to representing the democratic needs of their community.
Likewise, I have never chosen to affiliate myself with a religion. I dislike the enforcement of dogmatic principles, and I have no desire to unify and codify my beliefs to align with large groups of people. Once again, though, it is difficult not to be inspired by the passion of those who are dedicated to a higher cause with honesty, humility and love for their affiliates, even if I find their reasoning to be flawed. It inspires me to dig deeper for new paths towards the truth, and for new ways to achieve a greater consciousness of the universe.
Everybody wants to be supported in their beliefs, and I certainly include myself in that group. But alliances do not have to come at the expense of others, and the rivalry that opposing viewpoints tends to create does not have to be rendered with such extremity and hostility. When we make an Other out of an individual with an opposing idea, we are engaging in a violent act.
Alienation strips the Other of their humanity, and with that goes the value of their voice and their position. Thus it becomes a game of shelling one’s opponent with long-range artillery, aiming at the easiest targets with the intent of doing the most damage with the fewest shots. The person simply becomes a vessel for an idea, which can be treated as ugly, worthless and simple. Soon the vessel will take on similar characteristics, and become indistinguishable from the argument.
Inclusiveness can break a false dichotomy, and it can happen without driving the passion and eagerness from debate. It is important to be passionate, and passion injects fun and excitement into life. It also tends to drive people to learn more about their chosen position, as they will often encounter people who will challenge them. I am not suggesting that we need to take all of the spectacle out of politics, religion and the media - it’s all part of the game, and there can be a great deal of enjoyment in it from all participants, actors and spectators.
I think that there are enough people out there already filling the role of angry leftist/rightist/whateverist. There is no need for you or I to come to their rescue in the public sphere. The figure who makes an enemy of their ideological opposite appeals to our base and emotional leanings, but is largely damaging to community as they identify and perpetuate false dichotomies in the pubic discourse of important issues. There is no need for any of us to war with our neighbours, or to decamp into polarized groups over our chosen paths in life. I think that a useful, general tactic is to look at the least affected ideals espoused by two polar opposite representatives, and to attempt to internalize the value of each of them, rather than discarding one system outright.
There is no right answer to many questions. I think that if there was an innate truth to any sort of system, political or otherwise, that innateness would be revealed through the system itself. There would be no need to force it on people; there would be no need for debate. The quest to explore the opposing forces of life’s fundamental questions is unending, as is the quest to integrate their complexities into a cohesive pattern of thought and action. With such a challenging task, why devote energy to creating enemies when you could be creating new worlds instead?
Word count: 1,023
Word to the Middle Path!
ReplyDelete