“Feelings of worth can flourish only in an atmosphere where individual differences are appreciated, mistakes are tolerated, communication is open, and rules are flexible—the kind of atmosphere that is found in a nurturing family.” Virginia Satir, American author and therapist
“The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences.” Ruth Benedict, American anthropologist
Evidently, we are suffering from a shortage of nurturing families, and anthropology has failed. Feelings of worth are not flourishing, and the world is not safe for human differences. A question I have been living in is: Why are we more inclined to demonize differences than to demonstrate empathy for different difficulties and dreams, even though those differences may be difficult to discuss?
Let me be clear from the beginning: I am no role model for empathically embracing every difficult difference I encounter. The truth is that I have very little tolerance for people who identify with organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. I have very little desire to engage with mega-MAGA morons like those who violently broke into the capital on January 6. I can’t imagine having a meaningful conversation with Putin, Xi, Kim Jung Un, Ayatollah Khamenei, Netanyahu, or their sycophants. Call it a red line or a limit to engagement—I’m only willing to open myself so far when it comes to people and ideas. Color me closed or intolerant, if you want. There are some lines I can’t cross and some bridges I care not to traverse. No, I’m not a perfect role model here. So please ponder these thoughts as coming from an imperfect source.
I guess you could say that this willingness to deal with difficult differences is somewhat similar to how far you eat up the food chain, i.e., where do you stop? Red meat? Poultry? Fish? Vegan? Many years ago, I quit eating red meat and poultry. Then, I added poultry back into the mix. Now I’m wondering who I might be open to reintroducing into my conversations.
Another way to explore this question is to ask, “How open am I to feedback?” Are certain behaviors off-limits? Am I willing to hear criticisms about my physical appearance or functioning? Am I open to accepting challenges to my worldview? Am I willing to consider suggestions about the choices I make based on the feelings I may be having? How about disagreements with my spiritual beliefs? All of these areas can represent difficult differences to navigate. A bigger question may be, “Am I really serious when I say “I want an open conversation?” How about an open relationship?
If we look at the range of difficult differences, where do we find conversations uncomfortable? Race? Sexual orientation? Gender identity? Tribal affiliation? Religious beliefs? Political ideology? Economic status? Foreign relations? For me, the issue is more about who I am talking to than what topic might make me uncomfortable. I also wonder what I might do to make the person with whom I’m having a difficult conversation feel safe enough to express different points of view.
I think what’s important is to notice when the shift is made in our own minds and hearts from disagreement to demonization. Disagreements that stimulate productive and provocative conversations can be good. We know that healthy conflict often leads to better ideas and higher performance. Demonization rarely produces any positive benefits. As soon as we brand a person as evil, compromise and collaboration die. And yet, knowing this, I still demonize a lot of people and close myself off to any hope for bridge building and breakthroughs. Let me be honest, I don’t expect that trait to change much in the years I have left.
What I can do, however, is to expand the people in my circle and the topics in my mind that represent difficult differences for me. Appreciating those differences is a combination of empathy, openness, and trust. Let’s take a brief look at each.
Empathy. Human beings are complex creatures in every way. Empathy can be hard. It means being willing and able to accurately demonstrate understanding about how another person is thinking and feeling. It’s the ability to temporarily suspend judgment, quiet your mind, and listen carefully to the content, tone, and volume of what the other person is saying. Then, the hard part is to freshly and concisely reframe what the other person is saying in a way that lets them know they have been seen and heard. Empathy requires us to recognize the complexity of another person and care about who they are.
Openness. We all have different windows we are willing to open to our souls, thoughts, and feelings. Some of us are very open to sharing our thoughts and beliefs, but completely closed to hearing any feedback on those positions. Some of us are open to feedback but are not willing to disclose anything meaningful about ourselves. And some of us are closed to feedback and disclosure. In order to expand the circle of people and topics in our lives, it is necessary to open those windows and make ourselves vulnerable. Being open means acknowledging that we don’t know everything about ourselves, others, or the world at large. Problems occur when we think we know more than we do. As Lao Tzu says, “To know yet to think that one does not know is best; not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.” We could all benefit from being more open to sharing ideas and receiving feedback. Openness, however, requires us to hear the whole story—the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Trust. In order to deal effectively with difficult differences, we need to trust ourselves to exercise compassion and restraint. We also need to trust that others will respect our different views and restrain themselves from aggressive reactions. We need to understand that most issues are more complex than we might imagine and be willing to dig deeply for the truth in ourselves and into the context in which the difficult difference is occurring. Trust is a function of four factors: credibility, reliability, empathy, and drive. Credibility is all about words. What we say matters. Our opinions need to be grounded in facts. People need to be able to count on what we say being true. Reliability is all about action. We do what we say we are going to do, when we say we are going to do it. Drive is all about where our interests lie. Are we driven by self-interest, or are we driven by community interests? Are we more interested in dominating others or developing others? Since I discussed empathy above, I won’t repeat myself here.
So, if you have been wondering why we are seeing so much conflict and demonization in the world and why we are having such a hard time with difficult differences, these three reasons play a big role: very little empathy; almost no trust; and hardened, rigid, closed hearts, minds, and souls. Perhaps if we were quicker to humanize and slower to demonize, the world would be a better place.
I guess what it all comes down to for me is where to draw the line. On what topics and with whom do I want and need to deal with difficult differences? For example, I’m willing to deal with naïve ignorance but not with calculated evil. In the movie Killers of the Flower Moon, what first appeared to be sentimental simplicity ultimately led to criminal complicity. Leonardo de Caprio appeared to be a simple and sentimental guy until he tasted the honey of money, which quickly transformed him into a sleazy jerk who engaged in criminal activity and was complicit in a larger plot. I need to ask myself, Where have I drawn the line, and am I open to moving it? I also need to remind myself that most people are not evil—uninformed and misguided, perhaps, but not evil. Mostly just different.
We can all benefit from engaging with difficult differences. Healthy conflict makes us think and grow as individuals and as a community. John Maynard Keynes once said, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.” Sometimes we are so trapped by our limited and limiting views of the world that we have a hard time developing new ideas. What we know for sure is that embracing new ideas sometimes requires us to escape from old ones.
I also find that, at the root of many difficult differences, our ability to hold more than one truth in our minds at one time makes all the difference. Thomas Friedman, who writes so eloquently and powerfully on the Middle East, suggests that the Israel-Hamas conflict requires us to hold several truths in our minds at the same time. It’s challenging enough to hold two truths simultaneously; it’s much more challenging to hold several. As Arthur Schopenhauer says, “The difficulty is to try and teach the multitude that something can be true and untrue at the same time.” I don’t have any illusions about educating the multitudes on that phenomenon, but I can at least try to expand the number of people with whom I’m willing to talk about difficult differences. Swami Vivekananda, an Indian Hindu monk, philosopher, and the chief disciple of mystic Ramakrishna, has some helpful advice to this end: “All the differences in this world are of degree and not of kind, because oneness is the secret of everything.” Ultimately, we are One.
Jane Elliot, an American diversity educator, adds, “We don’t need a melting pot in this country. We need a salad bowl. In a salad bowl, you put in the different things. You want the vegetables – the lettuce, the cucumbers, the onions, the green peppers – to maintain their identity. You appreciate differences.” I’m hoping we can be a little more open to adding and appreciating different vegetables in our salads, even though that may be difficult at times. I also hoping we can see differences as matters of degree and do what we can to be more whole and at One. Finally, as Virginia Satir suggests in the opening quote, I’m hoping we will create environments in which feelings of worth can flourish and individual differences can be appreciated by learning from mistakes, communicating openly and being flexible about rules. May it be so.
Also published on Medium.
Well done lad!