This piece was not written especially for these historic times,
yet I believe you will find it relevant.
Barry
1.
So now our culture encounters the “other”.
The “other” may have immigrated to our culture.
Or we may have conquered them,
Or enslaved them.
Or they have may have once been invisible in our culture,
and now they have become prominent.
2.
Through our cultural lens
the cultural behavior of the “other” appears
strange
off
wrong
inappropriate.
Wrong language, dress, emotionality, skin color, rites and rituals, and so on.
3.
Since our cultural rules are experienced
as the way to live, to survive, to be,
the cultural behavior of the “other” is experienced
as upsetting of our culture,
as weakening it,
or coarsening it,
and, potentially, as threatening its survival.
And we react.
Loose and Tight
Sometimes we react reflexively
to the cultural behavior of the “other”.
At times we go Loose.
We reflexively allow the behavior of the “others”,
not because we love the “others” or respect them or value their behavior,
but because our reflexive Looseness allows us to avoid the discomfort
of dealing with the complexity raised by theirresence.
At times we go Tight.
We reflexively reject the behavior of the “other”,
we judge it negatively, dismiss it, afford it no legitimate place in our culture.
Our reflexive dismissal again allows us to avoid the discomfort
of dealing with the complexity raised by the “other’s” presence.
5.
Loose and Tight appear to be in conflict with one another,
yet both arise out of the same condition:
discomfort in responding to the encounter with the “other”.
Liberal and Conservative
Loose and Tight are knee-jerk responses to the “other”;
Liberal and Conservative are values-based responses.
The Liberal response is based on moral grounds.
It is offered as the right thing to do,
to bring in the poor, the displaced, the oppressed.
Liberals believe that the current culture
will be strengthened, spiritually if not economically,
by including the “others”;
and they believe that the “others” will be strengthened
by their inclusion.
The Conservative response is also based on moral grounds
- the primacy of preserving and protecting the existing culture.
Conservatives value the culture as it is,
and believe that including the “others”
will weaken, distort, pollute, and potentially destroy the culture,
while diminishing the value of their own position within the culture.
Liberals and Conservatives oppose one another.
The opposition is often intense
since each stands on firm moral grounds.
The Pure.
Some of us are pure Liberal,
firm in our conviction that making room for the “other”
is clearly the right thing to do;
while others of us are pure Conservative,
equally firm in our conviction that preserving our culture
is the right thing to do.
The Conflicted.
Many of us experience ourselves as Liberal or Conservative… mostly,
yet at times find ourselves conflicted.
We experience ourselves primarily as Conservative,
yet at times, find ourselves welcoming and feeling generous toward the “other”.
Others of us experience ourselves primarily as Liberal,
yet at times find ourselves judging and rejecting the behavior of the “other”.
9.
Tolerance and Purity Solutions
Sometimes,
out of Looseness or Liberalism,
the “other” is allowed to co-exist in the host culture,
in a tolerable state of tension,
with various restrictions and limitations,
amid forces for accepting the “other”
and forces for rejecting them,
between living peaceably with them
or oppressing them,
between occasional acts of violence
and subsequent reconciliations.
Such tolerable states of tension can last
for years, decades, and even centuries.
This is a culture’s tolerance solution to the encounter with the “other”.
Sometimes,
out of Tightness or Conservatism,
the forces to reject the “other”
overwhelm the forces to accept them.
The “other” is experienced as too different, foreign, dangerous.
The potential or continued existence of the “other” in the host culture
is seen as weakening, polluting, distorting, and threatening to destroy it.
The solution is to protect and preserve the culture by
confining, suppressing, exiling, or destroying the “other”.
This is a culture’s purity solution to the encounter with the “other”.
10.
And, at times,
Tolerance solutions
are overwhelmed by Purity solutions,
resulting in catastrophe for the “other”.
11
Dehumanizing the Oppressed and the Oppressor
Both the Purity and Tolerance Solutions
diminish the oppressed,
(at times, disastrously);
yet they also diminish the oppressors,
corrupting and de-humanizing them
as they hang their self-worth on the fragile thread
of the diminished worth of the “other”.
What else is possible?
Assimilation
1.
Sometimes the “other” finds acceptance
by adapting to and adopting the cultural rules of the dominant culture.
And sometimes the “others” achieve full assimilation
when they become indistinguishable from the dominants.
2.
Some “others” can never become indistinguishable,
or their progress to indistinguishability can be slowed
because of skin color, dress, religion, racial characteristics or sexual identity;
and still “others” have no interest in becoming indistinguishable.
3.
And sometimes what feels like assimilation
is simply a Tolerance solution;
and, given the right mix of circumstances –
diminished resources, threat of warfare,
all enflamed by demagoguery –
assimilation/Tolerance readily devolves into a Purity solution.
4.
And the final limitation of assimilation
is the grand assumption
that the dominant culture is the best of all cultures –
and that, therefore, assimilation is the obvious solution.
Why wouldn’t everyone want to be just like us?
Knowing/not Knowing the “Other”
1.
Substitute knowledge
We sincerely believe we know the “other”,
and that knowledge justifies our feelings and actions toward them.
But consider for a moment the possibility that we do not know them –
not really,
not the “others” generally (if there is such)
and certainly not this “other”
who stands before us.
And consider the possibility that,
in the absence of real knowledge,
our minds are open to
“substitute knowledge”
– our projections based on our own fears and desires –
(seeing them as thieves, liars, cheats, sexual menaces).
And consider the possibility that in the absence of real knowing,
our minds are open to “substitute knowledge”
as fed to us by demagogues –
enflaming us with images of the “other” –
their conspiracies, vile practices, inferiority,
all in contrast to our purity.
“Substitute knowledge” fills the void.
With it we now know the “other”,
and knowing what we know:
Who wouldn’t do what we do to such people?
Nothing else is possible
1.
So, maybe nothing else is possible.
Maybe we are at the mercy of our genetically transmitted
wariness of the “other”,
triggering us into fight or flight.
Loose and Tight
Liberal and Conservative
Tolerance and Purity
snap reactions,
snap judgments,
drawing us ever more closely into like-minded tribes,
reinforcing one another with our funds of substitute knowledge,
growing ever more different and separate from the “other”.
Circumstances will arrive,
as they are arriving now.
Wars, revolutions, environmental disasters.
Millions on the move,
different colors, religions, languages, politics;
the demagogues are at their microphones and twitter feeds,
the message is clear;
it’s an old one;
it’s been here throughout the ages.
Save our tribe!
Purity, purity, purity!
What else is possible?
What about laws?
Can laws stop oppression?
Laws
The Law
One way to end oppression
is to pass laws forbidding it,
or issue proclamations and emancipations
indicating that the “other”
is free and equal and welcome.
2.
Laws and proclamations can serve the “other”
when, in the midst of acts of oppression,
they can point to and draw on the laws and proclamations
for relief or justice.
3.
Yet laws and proclamations often fail
to stop oppressors
who continue to see the “other”
as foreign, as a danger, as a pollutant
who needs to be controlled,
suppressed, exiled, or eliminated,
despite the law.
4.
Laws, proclamations, and emancipations
cannot change how we see the “other”;
they may control our behavior,
but they do not control our seeing.
Can anything change how we see the other?
Is it possible to really see the “other”?
Seeing the “Other” Through Power or Love
1.
What do we see when we see the “other”?
Do we see them as like us
or as different from us,
as connected to us
or as separate from us?
2.
Power seeing
is seeing difference
and separateness.
The “others” are different from us
and unconnected to us.
Love seeing
is seeing commonality
and connectedness.
The “others” are like us
and connected to us.
3.
Robustly seeing the “other”
It is possible, theoretically at least, for our experience of the “other”
to be grounded in both Power and Love;
where we experience our differences from the “other”
and our commonality with them,
our separateness from them
and our connectedness with them.
Robust seeing is a possibility,
yet it is a possibility too rarely realized,
and here may be why.
The Power reflex
Is it not true
that, when we encounter cultural behavior of the “other”
that is very different from our own –
dress, skin color, religion, language, emotionality, rites and rituals –
our reflex response – without awareness or choice –
is to experience our difference from the “others”
more than our commonality with them?
Our separateness from them
more than our connectedness with them?
This is not a question of what is right or wrong,
moral or immoral,
Liberal or Conservative.
It is a question about our reflex response
to the different cultural behavior of the “other”.
Power without Love
The reflex preference for Power,
when it happens,
can easily set off a process in which
Power gradually increases its predominance over Love,
eventually overcoming it
to the point at which Love is gone,
and there is no experience of commonality or connectedness
with the “other”.
And here is how that happens.
A vicious cycle: Separate and different
Separateness and difference
are the two components of Power,
with each reinforcing the other.
The more we maintain our separateness from the “other”,
the more this supports our experience of difference from them.
And experiencing our difference from them
reinforces our inclination to remain separate from them.
And round and round we go,
separateness enhancing difference
which reinforces separateness,
and downward to the experience of
Power without Love.
7.
Power without Love
When our experience is grounded in
Power without Love,
we lose all commonality and connectedness
with the “other”,
enabling us to do things to the “other”
we would never do to one another –
suppress them, enslave them, exile them,
and murder them.
Love to the rescue?
So, where is Love?
When our experience of the “other” is grounded in Love,
we experience our commonality with the “other”
and our connectedness with them.
If our experience of the “other” were grounded in Love,
the likelihood of bigotry, oppression, and rejection
would be greatly diminished,
if not eliminated.
It’s not so easy to oppress people
with whom we feel so much in common
and with whom we are jointly engaged.
So where is Love?
You can’t get there from here… not easily
Once we are locked into the experience of Power without Love,
Love is not experienced as a possibility.
Good idea maybe, but not with these people!
Once we fall into Power without Love,
our experience of the “other” as irreconcilably foreign
feels solid, a reflection of reality.
This is who they really are.
All efforts to change are seen as foolish, pointless, dangerous.
Not with these people.
All of this happens without awareness or thought.
All of this is a consequence of our system blindness.
System blindness, system sight
In our human interactions
we are constantly falling in and out of
patterns of relationship with others;
Power without Love is one such pattern.
Here is what we need to know:
The patterns we fall into shape how we experience ourselves and others.
When we are blind to systems,
we believe that our experience of the “other”
is a reflection of reality –
This is who they really are.
When we have system sight,
we understand that how we experience the “other”
is a consequence of the pattern we have fallen into.
Change the pattern and our experience of them will likely change.
When we are blind to systems,
we think that the realistic way to deal with our relationship with the “other”
is to dominate, oppress, suppress, exile, or destroy them.
Who wouldn’t do this to such people?
When we have system sight,
we think that the realistic way to deal with our relationship with the “other”
is to change the pattern of relationship we have fallen into.
In this case, this means infusing Love into “Power without Love”.
Love as the disrupter
We have seen the self-reinforcing pattern of
Power without Love –
how being separate from the “other”
reinforces our experience of their being different from us;
and experiencing them as being different from us
reinforces our staying apart,
and round and round it goes.
Love needs to be the disrupter of this cycle.
Separateness needs to be counterbalanced with connectedness.
We need to connect with the “other”
in voluntary, ongoing and mutually meaningful ways –
building housing together,
taking meals together,
plowing fields together,
writing and producing plays together,
working on community projects together.
Endless possibilities of connecting in voluntary, ongoing and mutually meaningful ways.
The Love cycle: Part 1
For Love also has its cycle.
The two components of Love are
connectedness – partnering together in common enterprise –
and commonality – experiencing our fundamental similarity with the “other”.
Each component reinforces the other –
partnering – working together with the “other” –
increases the likelihood of experiencing our commonality;
and experiencing our commonality supports
further partnering,
and on it goes.
13.
The Love cycle: Part 2
And there is another, critical, feature of the Love cycle.
Connecting with the “other” increases the possibility of our experiencing our commonality with the “other”.
And connecting with the “other” also enables us to experience the difference of the “other”
as that difference really is –
free of whatever myths, distortions, fantasies, fears, and projections arise as a consequence of our separateness.
Love supports Love and Power.
The possibility of a Love-and-Power cycle emerges
creating a wholeness to our experience of the “other”,
seeing them as the same as us in fundamental ways
and as different from us in fundamental ways,
freeing us to pursue our separate ways
and to join together in voluntary, ongoing and mutually meaningful ways.
Same and different,
separate and connected,
Relationships of Love and Power.
System blindness, system sight.
The Love and Power cycle is a human possibility,
one that enables us to live creatively with difference
without oppression in any of its forms.
Yet, when we are in the grip of system blindness,
the Love and Power cycle is inconceivable.
Not with these people.
So that is our continuing human challenge.
There is the truth about human relationships
and there is our willingness to accept the truth.
The truth is:
the patterns we fall into shape our experience;
change the pattern and our experience will change.
Disrupt the Power cycle with Love
and a new experience of the “other” will emerge.
That’s the truth.
Do you reject it out of hand?
Do you believe it?
Or are you willing to test it?
Connect with the “other” in voluntary, ongoing, and mutually meaning ways
Comments