Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 4-24
LETTING OTHERS BE
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 4-24
ABSTRACT: Especially given the internet, it seems as if more people wish to tell others what to do and how to live. This may not be helpful in a democratic society.
KEY WORDs: democracy, influencing other people xenophobia
In all of our information sources (newspapers, social media, cable news), it seems as if everyone is telling everyone else what to think and what to do. We all seem to want to comment, approve, disapprove, condemn, or cheer on whatever we hear and like or dislike. We don’t, of course, analyze our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in the same way (for whether others would like or dislike what we say). Wouldn’t it be a more pleasant and a more comfortable world if we would moderate our desire to influence others to some extent, and let others be, just as they are, as long as they are not harming us? An important question to ask ourselves, then, is why we are perceiving so much potential harm around us. This applies especially to our current political differences, with regard to which many people seem to feel fear or threat just because some people have different ideas about governance, even when that poses no immediate or direct threat at all. Why should this difference in worldview or opinion be so troublesome? Or, a neighbor cuts his grass down to two inches while you mow yours to four inches high, or he has a number of people as guests who are of Arab descent. Why should this bother you?
It is possible that many people are not involved in this mass attempt to influence other people—at least those people who are not on social media, do not watch cable news, etc., and that it only seems like everyone wants to influence everyone else, since only those who want to influence others show up in those more social and controversial sites, but we have always seen the same comment-on-everyone behavior in villages where everyone knows everyone else’s business (or thinks they do) (way before the internet), so it would seem that it’s not the internet that is the fundamental cause of this.
Most of us are eternally interested in what other people say and do, because we can learn from them and because we fear them. Learning from others would not seem to require us to comment, like-dislike, or influence those others, so all of this responding/influencing results from our fear of others. Most of us would say that we aren’t afraid of anyone, or are not “particularly” afraid of anyone (which reveals how much we are actually paying attention to others in order to avoid being harmed). This background awareness is our way of avoiding even potential harm that we don’t anticipate. Children learn that parents can hurt them, often for reasons unknown to the child, and this is followed in our development by realizing that playmates and other peers can also hurt us, either physically or emotionally.
Hurting or harming us can include changing our environment in ways that will make our lives less pleasant or more difficult, as when anti-abortion citizens succeed in passing laws that outlaw abortion, which of course makes the lives of those who wish to utilize abortion more difficult, so it behooves those who wish to utilize abortion to pay attention to the anti-abortion efforts and perhaps to influence them to stop their efforts.
Some people react to their fears of potential harm with intense aversion and become “paranoid” or cut themselves off from social contact, but most of us work hard to read the signs of positive or negative reactions of others to us, and we try to act in ways that elicit mostly positive or neutral reactions from others. We find a kind of equilibrium with regard to our fear of others–we have difficulty living with others, but we surely can’t do without them.
A major source of fear is our evolutionarily-developed fear of people who are different from us. We feel this fear because we don’t know what those people are going to do, since we don’t understand their language, cultural background, emotional reactions (or whatever else the difference might be) and therefore can’t predict their behavior in the same way that we can predict the behavior of those who share our own language, cultural background, etc. After we learn more about people who are different from us and feel that we “know” them and can predict their behavior, we are no longer as fearful of them. In addition to moment-to-moment behaviors that we need to predict in order to feel safe, we also feel fear regarding differences in worldviews and beliefs, since those bring into question our own worldviews and beliefs (which usually have little empirical basis) and since we are uncomfortable with people doing things differently (worship formats, social greeting rituals, degree of responsibility for others’ welfare, etc.).
Differences always feel like a threat to our security, and the more another person is different from us, the more frightened and insecure we can become. Many people would identify their reactions to difference as annoyance, irritation, or anger, but these are reactions to the fear and insecurity that they feel first but cover up with angry emotion. (Differences, though, if seen as not threatening, can be stimulating and exciting as well.)
The more differences there are between us and others, the more likely the situation is to lead to aggression and violence. When one person reacts with surprise or amazement to an event and the other person with fear, they will be unable to predict each other’s next move. In a similar vein, those who believe in following the instructions of authority figures (parents, police, teachers, etc.) will distrust and fear those who comfortably decide things for themselves, sometimes contrary to what authority have said. When one group is brought up to feel shame in order to control behavior and another has been trained primarily with guilt, they will be unable to understand each other. People who are trained to restrict their emotional expression are shocked and unbelieving regarding the behavior of those with much greater expressiveness, and people who are more controlled emotionally are usually viewed as more trustworthy. Those who are brought up to regard themselves primarily as members of the group (with group maintenance a higher value than individual liberty) will be dismayed and confused by the behavior of those who are raised to place their own benefit above group cohesiveness and security. People who go to church and believe in God will have more difficulty understanding, predicting, and trusting those who do not share those values and associated behavioral conventions. People who view certain objects (a Torah) or figures (God, Allah, Mohammed) as sacred may be offended or feel insulted if other people do not treat those objects or figures with equal reverence. People with liberal political views are usually hard-pressed to understand how conservatives could have such a different worldview. It is fortunate for human beings that we are all so genetically and physically similar, because if we were more different than we are now, we would probably be killing each other at much higher rates!
We can think about these difference problems in terms of prejudice (pre-judgment, not based on current facts). Prejudices are learned conceptions about differences, and we now see more clearly how inaccurate many prejudices are. It helps to understand the motivation behind prejudice. Prejudice starts with unpleasant emotional responses to difference, which lead to making up reasons why we feel that way, when these are really attempts to justify our emotional responses and have little or no connection to reality. Thus, Europeans were uncomfortable with and disliked the “primitivity” of African cultures, so to justify these feelings, they pointed to the “dirtiness” of Blacks and invoked what they claimed were Biblical statements regarding the inferiority of Black cultures. There were no objective reasons for thinking that African tribes’ cultures were inferior to Western European cultures, so they made some reasons up.
We automatically think that our way of doing things is better, usually without any reflection on whether it actually is better or whether we simply think it is better because it “feels better” to us to do it that way (which is only because that is our already established habit). To the extent that we associate our ways of doing things with our survival (if we don’t plant our corn during a full moon, then we will probably starve to death), we will protect those ways of doing things with our lives! Culture is the set of understandings, beliefs, customs, and rules that all members of the cultural group use to organize their behavior and goal attainment efforts. (Culture is often viewed as sacrosanct, even though it is only made up by human beings, probably because people transfer the awe they felt for their parents as virtual gods to the society as a whole and its forms and rules.)
Because human beings are so insecure in the world, they are very willing to make up explanations when they don’t know something (the people at the end of the earth are cannibals, which is why they have been put at the end of the earth) and so are willing to distort reality in efforts to justify their bad behavior (they are different and we don’t like them, so it’s OK to steal their women and other resources) and willing to resort to violence to protect their shaky sense of security (if those people insist on doing things so strangely, let’s just kill them all). Again, differences between ourselves and others are always disturbing and threatening, and in this increasingly interconnected world, this is causing more and more problems and violence.
To have people who are different inside one’s culture, as with immigrants, is distressing to some extent to members of the majority group, and everyone is more comfortable if assimilation takes place, where immigrants use only the language of the majority and adopt many of the customs of the majority culture. We can say that everyone has a right to be different, but that difference does cause discomfort—not just to those who are prejudiced against difference but to everyone simply because difference is inevitably threatening.
On the international scene, at least in years past, for a Westerner to proffer a hand for a handshake that was the hand (right or left) that traditionally in the Middle-Eastern culture was used to wipe one’s bottom was viewed by a Middle-Easterner as a grave insult, whereas the Westerner was probably completely unaware of this assumed association and meaning and did not intend any insult at all. More recently, some Muslims have perceived critical inquiry and humor regarding Mohammed by non-Muslims as disrespectful or even apostasy and have angrily demanded apologies or even condemned the inquirers and humorists to death. This critical (and sometimes simply factual) inquiry and humor may have in some instances been extreme or over-stated, but these behaviors may have been intended only as stimulating further thought or as poking fun at hypocrisy. To these Muslims, Mohammed is sacred and not to be disrespected in any way. To Western offenders, Mohammed is not sacred and is subject to the same critical or humorous treatment that Jesus or the Pope would receive from them. The Pope might wish that everyone perceived him as sacred, but he realizes that those who do not perceive him as sacred do not necessarily intend to violate his sanctity by criticism or humor–rather they are engaging in the discussion and debate to which this culture subjects everything.
IMPROVING HOW WE DEAL WITH DIFFERENCE
Since our future will include so much more interaction across cultures than in the past, it is very important that people everywhere learn to deal in adaptive ways with differences. It would be a great and hopefully preventable shame if human civilization ends in a nuclear war started by a leader who incorrectly interprets another leader’s behavior as insulting or challenging! If this seems inconceivable, remember that in some cultures, many feel that death is more desirable than dishonor!
We can start to deal with differences by acknowledging that the forms and customs of our lives are only one of many possible ways that things can work acceptably. People could get along just as well grasping each other by both shoulders instead of shaking hands as a physical greeting, and it doesn’t matter whether one says “Hi, how are you,” “Good day,” or “How’s it going” (or “Como esta,” for that matter). It doesn’t matter for relating to others that one culture has young people living at home until they marry while another has them leave home on their own before marrying. It doesn’t matter for relating whether you plant by the moon or by the leaves (and no one knows which works better). There is simply no reason to assume that our way is better—it is simply more comfortable for us. At first it may feel threatening to accept this fact (that our way is not necessarily better), because it feels insecure. If there are better ways, then we might have to spend a lot of time and energy finding them. (Perhaps we aren’t as smart as we thought we were!)
The next step is to fully accept that there may in fact be better ways, and that it is in our interest to be open to considering all possibilities. We would then fully accept that our nation and culture are not special and that we are probably no smarter than other peoples either. This is not to say that we “should” look to find the best ways—just that we could look. If we are satisfied with our already established ways, that’s fine.
America gained its prominence not because its people were smarter or more God-fearing but because ambitious people from another part of the globe took over a huge land area from those who were here and did a great job of exploiting its fine natural resources. We deserve some credit for this, at least the credit for working reasonably hard to gratify our personal ambitions. Please note that this attitude is not degrading to America or American culture—we have a fine nation and a fine culture, but we are not necessarily better than other nations and cultures. We love to pat ourselves on the back and believe that we are the most righteous nation and the savior of the world, but this is simply a story that we have made up to make ourselves feel good, just as people in other countries make up stories about how great they are, too.
Difficulty trusting and feeling comfortable with those who are different is the most difficult barrier to overcome, but if we are willing to see our fundamental similarities with all other human beings, we can learn to trust again. All human beings have the same basic motives and feelings and engage in the same kinds of thoughts in trying to achieve their goals. Everyone wants to create a family, raise children, and have a good life. Exactly how we structure the tools that we use to accomplish these things (language, laws, social patterns) varies, and the rules that we set up for status and priorities among people vary as well, but we can avoid being bothered by these different forms and customs if we see clearly that they aim to accomplish the same things for those other people as our forms and customs do for us. They are simply tools and not talismans.
Religion is cited by some as the reason that they cannot accept those who are different–both people within and people outside of their own culture. In my opinion, the same arguments above apply here as well. God didn’t say which language we should speak or which laws we should pass. He didn’t say that shaking hands should be the way we greet each other. These rules and customs are irrelevant to religion (unless one views religion as legitimately dictating all rules and customs within a culture) and should in no way be a barrier between people for religious reasons. There is likewise no reason to think that a good society can only be constructed by people of one’s own religion. We all have the same goals in life, and the customs and rules that we set up serve those same ends. We do not treat our neighbors decently because God said to. We would treat our neighbors decently even if God did not say to, because it makes for better relations if we do, and we feel better when we have good relations and interactions with those around us. If we insist on believing that those people who are not of our religion will not “go to heaven,” etc., then that is reason to feel compassion for them, not a reason to reject them. Religion is only a barrier to accepting differences if we use it as a custom and a form, rather than as a living set of beliefs.
Politics is another major source of “difference discomfort.” Since we prefer to be around people who think the same way we do, most of us have no clear understanding about what people of other political beliefs actually believe. To reduce this conflict, we can get to know people who have different beliefs and find out what they actually believe and what they actually want for the country, and we can recognize our similarities instead of seeing only our differences. (See below for more on politics.)
A significant amount of conflict between people is due to some wishing others to change or be different so that they will not feel threat regarding those others. A wife criticizes other women for being “loose” if she fears her husband’s appreciation of their beauty. She wants him not to notice those other women so she will feel more secure in his affections. Currently, some persons in the U. S. may perceive threat from having any Muslims in the country, due to Muslim terrorism in the world, even if those Muslims they see have no wish to harm the U. S. or its citizens. They would feel safer if all Muslims would move outside the country. Many people feel threat from those who are noticeably mentally ill, because they feel unable to predict the behavior of such people. They would like those people to move elsewhere or be in hospitals. Many people in the U.S. feel threatened because of the different political views of some others, although this reaction could be much reduced if people could assess the real potential impact of others having different political views.
In order to minimize difficulties arising from difference, stop wanting others to change so that you can be more comfortable or get what you want. This works miracles in relationships. Stop wanting people who are different from you to be more like you. Trying to get others to change for your benefit is usually a losing proposition, since they are just as attached to their ways of doing things as you are to yours.
In general, it is in the best interest of the human race for people to be more similar to each other around the globe, since they will then get along better because they are more similar to each other. Empathy, understanding, and self-control can do a great deal to minimize conflict and violence, but it would be even better if customs across the world (language, ethics, attitudes about sex, etc.) could become more similar so that people would naturally be comfortable with each other. “Globalization” will make things somewhat more similar, but since people associate their forms (language, customs) with their gratifications, they find it quite difficult to feel equally secure and satisfied with other forms.
Allow others to be who they are, within reason. Approach all relationships with the assumption that it is good for people to be who they are and who they want to be (including yourself).
When you feel “difference discomfort,” recognize your discomfort with difference in the moment, and immediately question yourself as to whether this difference is a real threat or only something creating discomfort in you.
Inquire of the other person what he is thinking, feeling, and intending to communicate, until that is clear. Since you are sensing discomfort due to differences, you probably don’t fully understand where the other person is coming from. Inquire into the reasons why the person is thinking, feeling, and intending as he is, until you understand the experiential and cultural background for the behaviors. Do not act in response to the behaviors until you understand “where the other person is coming from” accurately.
Realistically assess whether the difference you sense is a threat or not (see below). You may simply not understand, or you may be attributing more power to the other person than he/she actually has.
Use this opportunity to learn about human beings in greater depth. Pay attention to the fact that all human beings have basically the same needs and motives (physical survival, somewhat pleasant life experience, the affirmation and support of others, raising offspring, feeling secure in life). If we understand the other person’s feelings and motives, we can empathically appreciate what he or she is doing, even if the behaviors are very different from what we are used to.
Do not support political appeals to hatred or violence toward those who are different simply because their difference is threatening or offensive. These issues are capable of non-violent and understanding solutions.
WHEN DOES HARM TAKE PLACE?
If we have people in a society who do things significantly differently, then there is always a possibility that people doing things one way will interfere with the lives of those who do things a different way. To some extent, we may be able to brush aside small inconveniences (e.g., accepting closing two blocks of the main street for a few hours for a parade that is important to one group culturally but is not important to others), but some impacts will be more important. Having Christian prayer for all students (over the intercom at start of the school day) would seem to some non-Christians like an unacceptable message to their children that in our nation Christianity is valued more than other religions. Christian parents who like having this prayer probably would not accept also having a Jewish prayer and an Islamic prayer at the same time, which indicates that they do want Christianity to have primacy. The easiest solution is not to have any prayer, but children of other faiths could be taught that they can respect the Christian praying while not participating in it and that having only Christian prayer is because most students are Christian and not because other religions are being denigrated.
A person’s complaint of harm cannot be automatically taken to indicate that unacceptable harm has occurred. A mother who is emotionally dependent on her son may claim that he is significantly harming her by going away to college, but in U.S. society, the child’s going away to college is viewed as acceptable, while the mother’s restriction on her son is not seen as acceptable. A child’s complaint of physical abuse does not automatically mean that unacceptable abuse has occurred, since in U.S. society that would depend on the nature of the actual treatment that they child has received. We can, of course, understand and sympathize with the supposedly harmed person’s suffering, but that does require us to eliminate that suffering.
THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL ENEMIES
Political enmity and anger are particular problems right now in U.S. society. With the advent of being exposed to the views of so many other people via the internet, many of us have realized that many of our fellow citizens have views that we disagree with. The general result is rallying-the-wagons—joining up with those who agree with us for support in a dispute with those who disagree with us. This basic rallying is what created political parties, since most people are actually unsure of their views and the truth of their views, and they feel much better being around those who see things, for the most part, the same way (so they don’t have to question their own views). We also like the fact that rallying with similar other people makes us feel more powerful ourselves, as if we could stand against enemies or perhaps overcome them (with a little help from our friends).
The fact that are so many competing opinions about public policy makes us uncomfortable, since this points out that in a democracy no one gets exactly what he/she wants. Everything is an amalgam of various opinions, and almost every bill that becomes law contains compromises. It’s important that we hear all voices and opinions, but our final result must be something that applies to everyone, advantages the greatest number, and disadvantages the fewest (and this is not likely to be identical to any individual citizen’s views).
Seeing this variety of opinions has been a startling experience for many and has caused them to start categorizing others in terms of their politics. The simplest labels are liberal (most basically, someone who presses for fewer societal constraints for individuals and is very willing to experiment with society) and conservative (most basically, someone who values tradition, is emotionally attached to symbols of his/her beliefs, and is skeptical about change and about unnecessary tinkering with society). We also label people in terms of just how liberal or conservative they are (Progressive, moderate, etc.) and their distance from the center—extremist or fringe.
In general, we call things “good” that assist us in reaching our goals and reassure us about ourselves and our opinions, and we call things “bad” that do the opposite. “Bad” people and ideas seem like a threat to us, and if we perceive their threat to be considerable and imminent, we call them “enemies.” Discovering that there are many people in society with ideas that we see as wrong or potentially harmful to us has resulted in (depending on the personality disposition of the labeler) believing that there are a lot of “bad” people out there and that some of them are enemies. So, we may think that we have a lot more enemies than we used to, since in our past ignorance (before the internet) we just didn’t know that they existed. The media have augmented this internet effect, since they compete for our attention and since we pay a lot more attention to things that are salacious, violent, frightening, or shocking. Media try to arouse our emotions by convincing us that we are in conflict with others and that some others are a danger to us.
There are two psychological dynamics related to our personal readiness to perceive others as enemies—(1) early rivalry with siblings and peers for “special” status and (2) anger and resentment over being dominated by others (usually parents). As infants and young children, we quickly learn that others have the power to affect our welfare, and we attempt to adapt by learning what behaviors we can emit that will improve how others treat us. We fear mistreatment, and the ultimate mistreatment is death through abandonment. To compensate for our relative powerlessness and to feel secure, we seek having “special” status with our caretakers, whether we are only-children or have siblings. If we have siblings, we compete with them for being the most special. If we are not successful in feeling “special” to our caretakers, we continue throughout life to seek this status with others. If we lose the competition with siblings, we continue to compete with others to have better status than they have.
There is special danger to many when leaders are over-sensitive to threat and domination, since they are then more likely engage in violence or war, either against their own people (those who do not accept their special status as leaders) or against other groups (either because of harm or threat of harm
This fear of others’ ideas and opinions is often exacerbated by drawing false conclusions about the implications of an opinion of someone else—e.g., if someone voices opposition to current immigration levels, and you take this to mean that he/she want to close our borders completely to immigrants, that would be a false inference, because that person could want to reduce the tide of immigrants being admitted to the country with hearing dates far in the future but still want to continue our asylum and other immigration programs. We can’t assume what the person really intends without asking him/her, and to make such possibly false assumptions creates unnecessary fear and leads to seeing other persons as enemies unnecessarily.
PERSONS AS POSSIBLE ENEMIES
Key to maintaining our view of others as enemies is our continued ignorance of them. We don’t really know what they think. All we know is what is reported in the news and what others report to us that they have supposedly said or done, but this coverage is very limited and on the part of the media, very selective (to get and keep your attention and to invite you to identify yet another enemy). Most of our “enemies,” taken as individuals, have a wide variety of opinions (not all exclusively Democratic or Republican opinions), and our whole group of “enemies” are a bunch of people who individually have many opinions that are different from those of our other enemies, so we should beware of generalizing inappropriately. Some of these opinions are probably similar to ours, but we are unlikely to ever know that. Also, most of those distant people whom we think are our “enemies” are actually “decent” people, which we would know if we actually knew them. Similarity and decency breed alliance, so for someone who loathes Mitch McConnell, seeing him in everyday interaction with staff or family would very likely soften his/her opinion of McConnell.
Check out the real bases for others’ opinions. Some opinions are based on wrong assumptions, and a calm, exploration of facts can help. Many conservative actions are based in a desire to keep things working the way they are currently, and this is a legitimate political stance, but you will miss seeing this if the debate is about whether a specific proposal (such as banning certain books) is itself “right” or “wrong,” because no conservative is going to admit in debate that they just want things to stay the same. Many liberal actions are based in empathy or guilt about things being “unfair” in society, which may mean, psychologically, that the liberal person has some doubt about his/her own “right” to all he/she has in life (or has over-empathy, in which every pain of someone else is too much to bear). No liberal person is going to admit that he/she can’t stand others’ pain and wants us all to change something so there won’t be any more pain.
Consider also that you probably have as many or more things in common with a potential enemy than you have differences of opinion. We are all citizens of the same country, which automatically puts us in the same boat. It may well be that this person is someone you disagree with but of whom you are not really an enemy.
WHEN IS DIFFERENCE A DANGER?
Besides knowing more about supposed enemies, the other key to doing what we can about our political divide is to reassess whether people with opinions different from our own are actually a threat. If they are no threat, then we disagree with them, but they are not enemies. It’s harder to talk to enemies, but we can readily talk to those who disagree with us, if both of us can keep it civil.
If other citizens claim that they would institute policies that will cost you more in taxes or disenfranchise you, then those are threats worth taking seriously, but in many cases, these disagreements are about what we “believe,” like how much reverence to give the flag or whether local district attorneys should have the power to say that they will not enforce certain laws. For some, the mere existence of other religions calls their own religion into question (in their own minds), which frightens them and pushes them toward distancing themselves from those who believe differently.
It would seem that the threat in many of these kinds of cases is due to our uncertainty about our own beliefs. If we knew clearly what we believed and why, then others’ differing beliefs might not cause us to feel threatened, and it would seem possible to “live and let live.” If someone is Jewish and someone else is Catholic, what is the threat (unless one of those groups says they would like to deport those of other faiths or forbid their worship, etc.)? For many of these kinds of disagreements it would seem possible to live side-by-side with those we disagree with if we are comfortable with our own beliefs and if we recognize that the matter is a matter of belief—that there is no factual right or wrong. This will work for many disagreements on matters of belief and opinion, unless one side claims as a “fact” something that the other side disputes (as in the case of abortion, where one side claims that from the moment of conception the foetus is a “person,” and the other side simply doesn’t see it that way).
Accepting differences without seeing them as a threat could work for most of our political differences, too, as long as (1) we give the other person the right to have his/her opinion, and (2) we agree that a policy decision should be a compromise that gives maximum advantage to many and disadvantage to few. Do you truly give your “opponents” and “enemies” the right to their own opinions, or do you want them to “shut up” and stop bringing your beliefs into question? Would you accept a system where public policy decisions take into account seriously the views of all sides? Frankly, to do anything less is to threaten our democracy. If you have to have it your way, then you don’t want a democracy. You want a dictatorship of some kind (on the basis of power or religion or ethnic group, etc.) or at least to have your group’s views have primacy.
In our democracy, all should be equal in terms of their influence on our public policy outcomes. If you want to be equal in this sense, then you must give others that right, too. If you want to vanquish the other side, then you don’t believe in democracy!
There are some (or many) in our society who want to create conflict and even violence over things that do not have to be threatening. They do this by expressing themselves in upset and emotional ways (think of political talk-show hosts), by demeaning those who disagree as not being worthy of even having their different opinions, and by identifying threats to you that are actually very far-fetched. You have almost certainly heard in the media that immigrants are trying to “replace” white workers in our country, and that everyone who owns a gun is trigger-happy and spoiling for a fight. Neither of these things is true (even if some immigrants do end up in jobs previously held by whites and even though people with guns must have a higher likelihood of using them than do people without guns), but if you hear others being upset about those possibilities, you may be drawn into being fearful and upset yourself about the merest of possibilities. No, pro-abortion people don’t hate children, no matter who
says in the media that they “must hate children,” and, no, anti-abortion people don’t have a goal of making life hard for women who don’t want children but who have become pregnant anyway. Be careful about believing everything that someone else is upset about. Find out for yourself before you commit. Talk to some actual people on the other side (instead of using only what you get from the media).
It has become commonplace to say that everyone is biased to some degree about some things, but take care! If “everyone” is biased, then that includes you. If you are biased, too, then you have no basis for asserting that your opinion or belief is more “right” or more “correct” than anyone else’s, except that you believe it. This again points up why we need a political system that can listen to all these somewhat biased opinions and work to see what we can do together to solve whatever problems we have. We must accept that, perfect as our opinions seem to us, they do not seem perfect to some other citizens. No dictatorship will overcome this problem, because it will simply permit only certain opinions to be expressed.
GROUPS AND NATIONS AS POSSIBLE ENEMIES
Human beings seem to have an evolution-based tendency to dispute with other groups, probably because territory is so important for group survival, but if groups do not interfere with the activities of other groups, there is no reason for them to see each other as enemies. If we can control our distaste for difference, we can do a better assessment about whether another group is a threat or not.
Another element in our assessment of the risks presented to us by other groups is that it’s easy to see the mistakes of other countries and hard to see our own. Human beings have no built-in morality regarding the interaction of groups. We can more easily empathize with individuals in other, competing groups about the harm they experience, but with groups, evolution seems to have taught us that they always pose a risk to us, probably mostly around the issue of “ownership” of resources. We have no built-in moral concern about taking resources from other groups (usually land), which has led to the development of rules and agreements about diplomacy, which we follow to regularize our competition with other groups. Our blasé response to our own taking of Native-American lands illustrates this lack of built-in concern, and we see that it is easier to perceive that an individual has been hurt, as through slavery, than it is for us to be concerned about groups being harmed.
Displacement of one group by another and the taking of one group’s land by another leave long-lasting scars and conflict, as is illustrated by Israel’s displacement of Palestinians. It would help to show that our species has some decency if we could reinforce for everyone that the taking of one group’s land by another is immoral (theft is wrong!) and if we could have a universal treaty protecting the land of all groups that all groups must sign (or face public shaming and trade restrictions).
Human populations have reached the point where we no longer need to encourage reproduction, and the continued existence of any one group (and its contribution to human survival and culture) is no longer very important for the species. (Of course, the extinction of a group because of not having enough resources will be very painful for many of its members, but again, we are moving toward such constant contact of all groups with each other that members of dying groups can move to and be absorbed by other groups.)
One man, Vladimir Putin, has made Russia a threat and a definite enemy for the U.S., demonstrating the great damage one strongman can do to a country. Ordinary Russians, by and large, do not want to be at war and have no desire to take over the U.S., just as Americans have no interest in taking over Russia. The unrealistic fears and aspirations of a few people are, sadly, killing thousands, and here we have a good example of a dangerous and perhaps totally unnecessary situation which could possibly lead to nuclear war, all because of ignorant fears.
China may be an enemy at present, but China must be understood in historical context. The Chinese were used, abused, and humiliated by the colonial countries (including the U.S.) starting in the 19th Century, in the interest of forcing China to permit trade with the colonial countries so the colonial countries could make money (when China wanted to isolate itself from the rest of the world). The hatred that this engendered still exists in China. In Chinese society, public shame is a very bad thing, and China is now feeling its oats and determined to show that they will not be humiliated any longer. Due to the total collapse of the Chinese monarchy (empire) in the early 20th Century, some of this anger toward the colonial countries fueled the rise of Communism, and Chinese Communism is now engaged in trying to keep control of the country and organize its economy to rival those of the U.S. and the EU (for the benefit of ordinary Chinese people, as well as to be rich enough to fund a military that could protect China from the demeaning and humiliating rest of the world). Realistically, though, neither China nor the U.S. could manage taking over the other, and as with Russia, the ordinary people of both countries do not want war or conquest. We would do better if leaders in both countries would stop fear-mongering for political advantage (or perhaps we should always choose leaders with no ego problems).
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO BE MORE ACCURATE IN IDENTIFYING ENEMIES?
We can be more efficient in protecting ourselves if we are accurate in identifying “enemies.” Firstly,
think for yourself. Just because someone else is upset about something doesn’t mean that there is good reason for them to be upset or good reason for you to be upset. Much political posturing is done to arouse your fears of supposed enemies and is not justified by the facts. Find out as much as you can about “the facts.” Look to various media and other sources of opinion, not just to one source.
Interact with some people whose opinions about possible enemies are different from yours. Size them up as people, not just opinions. Find out what they actually “mean” when they express their opinions. Find out the real reasons why they are upset about something or want to change something.
Search within yourself for why a difference of opinion seems like a threat to you. Is it really a threat, or could you see it as an exciting invitation to learn something or have an argument? What do you actually believe about the topic?
Examine yourself for resentment or over-sensitivity due to your childhood experiences of harm or humiliation, so that you can see the behavior of others more clearly (often perceiving their vulnerability, weakness, and aggressive or dominating behavior as being due to their own insecurity and their experience of harm or humiliation), so that you can empathize with them and seek joining solutions rather than conflict.
Redefine “enemy.” If you feel that someone is an enemy, ask yourself why? Work on your own confidence in your opinions and positions until you can allow others to have theirs without you feeling threatened by that. Give “live and let live” a chance.
Before concluding that someone is an enemy, think about the ways in which he/she has things in common with you. You may have many more things in common, as citizens and persons, than you have differences of opinion, and this may mean that you disagree but are not really enemies.
CONCLUSION
Letting others be, without criticizing them and trying to change them, is a more pleasant way to live in society with others, so it is in our best interest to seek this kind of society, at the same time that we carefully identify real threats and enemies so that we can protect ourselves realistically. The key questions to ask yourself as you assess threats and enemies are the following.
1. If you are upset about or fearful of something or someone, ask yourself why? What information tells you that there is an actual threat? Where did you get that information, and why do you trust it? What is there about you as an individual that might be making you evaluate this potential threat unrealistically?
2. If you have no real reason to perceive a threat but still feel that something or someone is dangerous, dig deeper into your personality and your past to identify what it is in your conditioning and past associations that is frightening you.
3. If you want others to let you live as you are (let you be), then you must do your utmost to give them the same opportunity, but you must at the same time protect yourself as needed. If your careful assessment concludes that there is some level of threat, what is that level? Perhaps you can guard yourself adequately by staying away from the other person or situation, without having to try to change that person or situation.
4. Keep your self-guarding to the minimum reasonable level, and don’t start conflicts unless you really have to.
5. In general, seek people and situations for your life in which you can find acceptance and be allowed to be yourself!
Being careful about identifying what others really mean or want before reaching conclusions about them will lead to a more comfortable society and to having fewer enemies!
essays\lettingothersbe