Tribalism Part II: Extroverts vs. Introverts

        It is a little problematic to fully fit introversion and extroversion into the realm of tribalism as I described it in my last post, but in a culture that values extroversion over introversion, there is a bit of warfare that goes on.  As I talked about in my last post, tribes typically use their language’s word for “people” to describe themselves, and an epithet like “eaters of meat” to describe another tribe.  Similarly, in our culture we refer to extroverts as OUTGOING, which has a very positive ring to it, while referring to introverts as “shy.”  It is pretty clear just by the use of those terms which tribe is dominant in our western culture.

        I belong to the less dominant tribe and have suffered from the tribal warfare.  When I was little, there was one thing in life I could count on more than anything else.  When I met someone new, they were pretty much guaranteed to call me shy.  They weren’t the only ones of course.  Everyone called me shy.  I tried so hard to rise above that label.  Sometimes I would meet new people and I would try so hard to prove to them that I was not shy.  But the inevitable always came out of their mouth: “You are so shy!”  I wasn’t being shy!  Do you know how much I was putting myself out there?

        I learned how to act “outgoing.”  I read self-help books on speaking and I practiced hard.  It’s been at least ten years since I’ve heard myself reduced to the term shy.  But now the cycle starts all over again.  It barely takes seconds for a new person to take the intricate and complex beings that are my children, and reduce them to one flat character trait.  “Oh you’re shy.”

         I worry about kids who are growing up with the idea that they have to change who they are to fit the world’s criteria for acceptance.  I know the great complexity of my kids’ souls.  I know them inside and out.  So when I hear people make snap judgments about them and instantly reduce them to one label that is supposed to sum them up, I want to scream at them.  You don’t know her!  How can you make the slightest judgment about who she is?  That is the problem with snap judgments and labels.  These labels can’t even begin to describe the complex beings we are.           

         There are as many different ways to be shy as there are people to act shy.  Shyness itself isn’t even a character trait.  It’s a reaction in the amygdala, the fight or flight area of our brains, to new and uncertain stimuli.  People who are more sensitive or high reactive will have stronger reactions in their amygdala.  “Shy” is a horrible word to use because it oversimplifies the complexities of the human brain.  Introvert and extrovert is a better comparison, but as I mentioned before our society values extroversion over introversion.  Here’s the problem with that: introversion is not all bad and extroversion is not all good.  It is not better to be an extrovert or an “outgoing” person. 

        Both personality types have their good points and their bad points.   For someone who struggles with shyness, it is hard to battle the physiological challenges that arise when you have to get out of your comfort zone and speak to people.  But the sensitivity and ability to observe that introverts have opens up a world to them that extroverts sometimes struggle to see.  It can be hard for an extrovert to open up the part of his/her mind that can see the big picture and notice all the little details as well.  Sometimes empathy doesn’t come as easily.  But extroverts are amazing at being able to speak and win people over and radiate friendliness.  It’s no wonder we value extroversion.  But we need both personalities.  Like the yin and the yang, they are complimentary and they complete our world.

        So in my experience, tribal warfare between introverts and extroverts in the western culture mostly looks like extroverts setting the stage and the rules, expecting introverts to adapt.  The problem with this is that it will only leave us off-balanced.   If you want to see how the world might look without a healthy balance of introversion and extroversion, look at congress.  Our political system is set up in such a way that introverts don’t make it very well.  And we all know how functional congress is.  We don’t need introverts to become extroverts.  We need to value both and allow space for both to be who they are, to overcome the struggles they do have, and most importantly to work together to make the world better.

        If you are interested in this subject, there is a great book called “Quiet,” by Susan Cain.  I highly recommend it.    

        Next tribes:  feminists vs. non-feminists

Tribalism Part I

        It’s as old as time itself.  Being the social creatures we are, the group or groups we belong to are an essential part of life.  We are hard-wired toward tribalism because it is evolutionarily advantageous for us.  Our tribe gives us a sense of safety and security and allows us to use our different skills for the benefit of all.  Survival of the fittest is easier for a group than an individual.

        Tribalism of course exists in a different form in the modern world where the major battlefront seems to be social media.  We form tribes around ideas.  We group ourselves with people who are similar to us and we fight against people who are different from us. There is definitely a purpose to this.  It is comforting to belong to a group of like-minded people.  It’s even comforting to shun those who are not like us because of the threat that they pose to our equanimity.  In a religion, people can worship peacefully, knowing everyone else knows the rules and can play the game the right way.  In politics, people can group together their core values and vote together for those things.  

        But tribalism also brings with it negative and even dangerous problems.  Most tribes tend to refer to themselves in their native language with the word for “people,” while referring to other tribes with an epithet, or a prominent characteristic about that tribe.  So while a particular tribe might refer to itself as “people,” they might refer to another tribe as “eaters of meat.”  When you really pay attention to the language we use in our own modern tribes, you will find that we do the same thing.  In a society that values extroversion over introversion, the terms we use are OUTGOING which sounds like such a positive characteristic, and shy, something to be ashamed of.  From a feminist tribe, anyone who is not a feminist might be considered a sexist.  From a non-feminist tribe, a feminist might be called a man-hater.  Language is a huge part of the formation of tribes and the walls we build up that make it nearly impossible to understand the other tribe.

        Ethnocentrism, or judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture, is a major part of tribalism.  It’s what keeps people committed to the group.  But it is also a major cause of hatred, violence, and war.  That religion’s spiritual rituals are different from mine, so they must be wrong or less spiritual.  She is opposed to gay rights, something I am for, so she has to be a bigot.  Or he voted for gay marriage, something that I am religiously opposed to, so he just doesn’t understand the moral implications of what he is doing.

        Another problem that exists in tribalism is bullying.  If a member of a tribe isn’t willing to conform to the politics of the collective, he/she is bullied by the rest of the group.  It is uncomfortable to go against the current of the tribe you belong to.  There is actually a neurological basis for this.  In the early 1950s a psychologist named Soloman Asch did a series of experiments on group influence.  He showed his volunteers some pictures of lines and asked them questions about how the lines compared.  In this first test, 95% of the students had correct answers.  Next he grouped the students together with an actor who confidently answered incorrectly.  In this test the number of correct answers dropped to 25%. 

        In 2005 a similar test was done by Gregory Barns with the help of brain-scanning technology.  The results were similar, but they were actually able to determine the reason behind the students’ change in answers.  When the volunteers tested alone the brain scans found activity in the occipital and parietal cortex which are associated with visual and spatial perception.  There was also activity in the frontal cortex which is associated with conscious decision-making. 

        When placed in a group with one person giving the wrong answer, there was heightened activity in the visual and spatial field, not the areas of conscious decision-making.  This means that they did not make a conscious decision to go along with the group.  The group actually changed their perception.  This suggests that if a group thinks an answer is true, you are more likely to believe it too.  This study also found that those who picked the right answer despite the group’s influence, had heightened activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain associated with fight or flight.  Barns calls this “the pain of independence.”

        When you put this in terms of our social grouping, it shows you that not only is there a problem with ethnocentrism and putting walls up to keep other tribal influences out, there is actually a problem with group solidarity.  In a religion, if one confident person gets up and says he or she knows something is absolutely true, how does that affect our perception of the issue?  And if we don’t go along with the group, the pain of independence along with the tribal bullying we experience may be too much for our amygdala to bare.  We may silence ourselves for fear of losing the comfort of our group.

        As I have found myself in and out of different tribes in my life, I have come to appreciate the need for tribes.  When I have lost the comfort and security of one tribe in my life, it becomes crucial to my emotional well-being to immediately find a new tribe to cling to.  For instance, and I will go into more detail in a later post, when I left the Republican Tribe, I needed a new political construct and a new group of people to associate with.  I couldn’t share my new views with my Republican friends because they rejected my views and bullied my opinions.  So I clung to the Democratic Party because it more fully encompassed my political views.  By making friends with other Democrats, I was able to safely share my views and rebuild my political construct without fear of rejection and bullying.  So while I can still love my Republican friends and associate with them in other ways, I now also have an outlet for my political beliefs.

        Another thing I have observed however, from being in and out of tribes in my life is how firmly each tribe believes they have the right way, the only way.  That is what causes tribal warfare.  I wonder if there could be a way for us to enjoy the benefits of our tribes without the warfare.  What if we could enjoy associating with people who are likeminded, and listen respectfully to people who view things differently from us?  What if we could love and associate with people whether they are in our tribe or not?  What if we can love and associate with people even when they leave our tribe?  What if we could appreciate that they were in the wrong tribe for them and be happy when they find a new tribe that suits them better?           

        This is my first post of a multi-part series in which I will examine some of our modern tribes.  Some that I have highlighted above include introverts/extroverts, feminists/non-feminists, conservatives/liberals, and differing religions.  Let me know if you can think of any other tribes in modern society that are worth discussing.

Disagreement

There is nothing more frustrating in an argument than realizing that the person you are arguing with doesn't understand your position. The counterarguments offered up seem jarringly nonsensical, off topic, shallow, misleading, disingenuous, and a whole slurry of other maddening adjectives. We all want to be understood by one another. Those we argue with want to be understood by us as much as we do by them.

So how do we bridge the gap?

The first thing that must be done is to find common ground. A discussion on a topic is pointless if you are not talking about the same things in the same terms. I will illustrate with a conversation that my dad and I pick up and put down from time to time: same-sex marriage. I have found these discussions to be very fruitful, despite being inconclusive.

The main point of confusion is what is meant by the word "marriage." It can really be seen in at least three, distinct but connected, ways: legally, socially, and religiously.

• Legally, marriage is simply a set of rights granted by the government. It's a contract.
• Socially, marriage is how we treat the relationship among ourselves and others generally. Calling my wife my wife, rather than my girlfriend brings to mind a certain level of commitment and seriousness.
• Religious definitions vary more, but in the context of the United States, it's a predominantly Christian system that dominates. Within this context, marriage is defined semi-biblically, with the idea of one man and one woman being the most important aspect.

These are crucial distinctions. When I argue for a legalistically based form of marriage, my ears are not open to counterarguments from a religious perspective. Likewise, my arguments for the legality of the thing don't make a dent in any of the religious underpinnings for what he is saying. This is a terrible place for the conversation to end because we are both frustrated and nothing has been accomplished. It ended there between my dad and I for a long while.

A breakthrough occurred when we started talking about civil unions instead. It's a beautiful term because it separates out the legal side from the religious side. We were finally talking about the same thing! The conversation quickly shifted to become more interesting and meaningful, and I feel like we've become more similar in our thoughts on the subject. We changed each other's minds, at least on the legal front. We still haven't come to terms on the social side of things--I think that "civil union" is an unequal term to "marriage" in a social context; he thinks the opposite. The key is that we're talking about the same things now.

Expanding that thought out to a more general sense can help us lay the basis for other friendly disagreements. It is critical to take turns explaining and questioning each other until everyone there is a basic, agreed upon set of principles and terms. Then the rubber can hit the road.

We can never hope to understand another's thoughts without first finding where they intersect our own. Only then we can see where our ideas diverge and really grow as people, rather than finding ourselves dissatisfied with our disagreements.

Your Mother Tongue

They say that the typical human infant is born with the ability to learn any language.  When we came out of our mothers’ wombs, we had the potential to learn fluent Mandarin Chinese, Castilian Spanish, Navajo, Kikuyu, Icelandic, or any other of a number of diverse languages.  As we age, our ability to learn does not disappear, but certainly dramatically decreases and our chances of making someone believe we are native speakers is abysmal. 

Babies make all kinds of crazy sounds as they are exploring their vocal chords, tongues, lips and breath.  Apparently, as infants are picking up the nuances of pronunciation for the language they are learning, they disregard the sounds that don’t have a place.  If the child is learning English, those interesting guttural sounds that we hear in some places, or the clicking noises used by others just fade away into non-retrieval as the child ages.  

Have you ever had the experience of hearing someone say a word in another language that you try to say back, but when told you have not said it correctly, cannot hear the difference?   My mother-in-law tries to teach us some words in Chinese.  This is a language that is particularly reliant on tone to pronounce a word.   Put the emphasis on the wrong syllable and instead of saying what you think is “beans,” you’ve got the other person sniffing her own armpits because you’ve told her she’s got body odor.

When I think about this phenomenon of language acquisition, I also think of languages that are not so literal.  In a country like the United States, where there is such a diversity of experience and circumstance there are many who speak the same “language” but don’t really understand each other at all.  What I think it may come down to, is that people grow up with different experiences of their reality.  We grow up in particular communities, with particular expectations and beliefs.  If we are never exposed to different ways of seeing the world, we slowly lose our ability to understand how it could be any different from the way we’ve always experienced it.

When I have discussions with people who see the world differently than I do, sometimes it seems like I can’t get the other person to understand what I’m trying to say and vice versa.  We’ve grown to understand different languages.  How disorienting it is to travel to a place where you don’t understand a word someone is saying.  It can be exhausting to spend a day, let alone a number of days trying to navigate the streets, restaurants and hotels of a country (or another person) by any means possible, usually involving a lot of hand gestures and still not be sure that you’re where you thought you were.  That’s not to say that one is right and the other is wrong.  It’s just the only way we know how to talk. 

Apparently, babies who grow up in bi-lingual or multi-lingual families have a lifetime advantage in their brain’s ability to learn more languages, perform complex multi-tasking and a host of other desirable traits.  Wouldn’t it be beautiful if we could learn to speak some other “languages” than the ones we’ve always used?

The Wheels on the Bus

      
This post was inspired by singing The Wheels on the Bus with my kids. I had no idea what a controversial song it is. 

I started to sing the version I grew up with, adding a few verses I’ve learned as an adult. “The Daddies on the bus say ‘Knock it off—‘”

“No Mommy,” says my pre-schooler, “It’s not the Daddy who says that, it’s the teacher.”

“Okay, let’s try this verse: The driver on the bus says, ‘Ticket please—“

“No,” he interrupts again. “The driver says, ‘Move on back.’”

The song continues on. My kids don’t like the verse about mommy saying “Shhh shhh shhh.” My daughter doesn’t like the verse about the dog on the bus because her nursery teacher doesn’t sing about a dog. My son thinks I’m silly because dogs don’t ride on busses. I’m beginning to see his logic and wonder why I’ve spent my whole life singing about a dog on a bus when dogs really don’t ride on busses.

We’re finally at the end. I’ve sung all the verses I know, adding and changing to fit the ones my kid’s teachers sing. “What about the money Mommy?”

I let out a sigh. “What money sweetheart?”

“The money on the bus?”

“Okay what does the money do?”

“It goes plink plink plink.”

So I sing one more verse about money going plink plink plink. What can I say? We are a multi-verse Wheels on the Bus singing family.

Silly right, the Wheels on the Bus song being so controversial? But isn’t that how controversial topics are? Silly. I was taught something my way. You were taught something your way. So which way is right? It’s easy to put up barriers that leave us unable to see other ways of looking at things. I could have told my kids, “This is the way I learned it so this is the way we are going to sing it.”

What good would that have done? I doubt we would have gotten through the whole song. My kid’s perspectives would have been tossed out, unvalued. And I would not have seen the error of my ways in singing about a dog on a bus. Instead we sang the longest version of the song I have ever sung, we had fun discovering new things about this bus together, and I came away with a greater vision of what this bus really entails.

Oh how much we could learn from each other if we just pulled down our barriers and tried to understand each other from another perspective. One night my husband and I were debating over the origins of oil. He thought oil came from old dinosaur remains and I thought oil came from the earth’s core. Where these ideas came from, it was hard to pinpoint. Turns out…we were both right…and wrong. We must have been taught competing theories in school. He had been taught that oil comes from ancient waste materials under the earth’s crust. I was taught a theory that is not commonly accepted now, that petroleum comes from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the earth’s mantle. In our young, imaginative minds, those theories were watered down to dinosaurs vs. earth’s core. It took friction between the opposing thoughts (along with our google search engine) to create greater understanding.

So why do we try so hard sometimes to keep our perspective in a safe place, free from the taint of another’s opposing perspective? In psychology, the term for these opposing thoughts that threaten our current belief patterns is cognitive dissonance. It is painful to experience cognitive dissonance so we have mechanisms to avoid it. As humans, we like order. Through language and other means, our minds make sense of the world around us and try to preserve order by avoiding opposing thoughts that will cause chaos. Some of these mechanisms include only listening to what you want to hear, avoiding uncomfortable conversations altogether, and rationalizing away thoughts that oppose your own beliefs. Another option is to face the opposing information head on, and let your original beliefs change as they need to. By coming through that cognitive dissonance to the other side we come to see a beautiful world beyond the one that our brains have created for us. Enlightenment can come as much through unlearning as it does through learning.

I just read an eye-opening book by Jung Chang called, “Wild Swans.” In it, she talks about what it was like to grow up in communist China, thinking Mao Zedong (one of the most evil men who ever lived) was basically God. He was deified by propaganda and the whole country loved him. She was told by her parents to eat all her food because she should be grateful to live under communism. “Just think about those poor children in the capitalist world who are starving.” Funny, I’ve said something similar to my own children. I will think twice next time I make a statement like that. The cognitive dissonance that Jung Chang experienced as she grew up and realized that Mao was not God and that he was actually an evil dictator, was painful and difficult. Her world was turned upside down and she had to make sense of everything again, including living in a western country where she had always believed life was hellish compared to communist run countries.

I don’t like the pain of wrestling with cognitive dissonance. It leaves me feeling like the floor has been pulled out from underneath me. My stomach gets tied in knots and I feel like I can’t see straight. But I have seen the beauty beyond the pain. There is a rich world out there full of multiple perspectives. I want to spend my time learning from them rather than arguing the rightness or wrongness of them. The only person I can prove right or wrong is myself. I’m wrong if I keep singing the way I’ve always sung just because it’s the way I’ve always sung it.

So I am interested in hearing about moments of cognitive dissonance that you have experienced. Sometimes they are funny like my kids with the Wheels on the Bus song or my husband and I with the origins of oil. Sometimes they are painful like Jung Chang’s experience. Feel free to leave a comment and share your experience with cognitive dissonance.

The Relay Race of Life

I recently read this excerpt from a Utah newspaper:

            “As the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, I am joyful that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act and its discrimination against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional,” said the Right Reverend Scott B. Hayashi, Episcopal Bishop of Utah. “Gay and lesbian people are members of our families, congregations and communities. They raise children, celebrate birthdays, anniversaries and holidays. They rent apartments, own homes and pay taxes. They contribute and support the well-being of our state and country. They are people who are made in the image of God. I will continue to welcome them into The Episcopal Church.

            “I am well aware that others believe that the action of the Supreme Court is wrong,” Bishop Hayashi continued. “For these people these decisions are a cause for upset, unhappiness and frustration. My happiness is tempered with this knowledge. Understanding, compassion and prayer for people who deplore this decision is important. They are also made in the image of God. I will be offering my prayers for them and I will continue to welcome them into The Episcopal Church.”

Bishop Hayashi concluded that “all of us can work to make the state of Utah into the place where all people are brought together, where each person is treated with dignity and respect, and where God is seen in the face of each and every person.”
           Tears streamed down my face as I read this and I couldn’t help but wish that I worshipped in this particular congregation.  What kind of man can have that much love for both the LGBT community and the people who oppose gay marriage?

           As I have sought to look through the lens of someone who is gay my feelings on this subject have changed.  I used to debate the issues that surround homosexuality: Are they born that way or not, is it something they choose, is it a sin?  Those things seem inconsequential to me now.  I was not born with that experience and I will never know the answers.  But I was also born with experiences that are misunderstood by people who don’t share my experience.  I have felt unwelcome among people who should have been my friends.  I have also heard people say that the path I am choosing is a sin, that I’m on a slippery slope to hell, that my experience is counterfeit.  My problem is an insatiable desire for satisfying answers.  I need logic and spirit and context and reality and faith to all mesh into one beautiful whole.   

           I can’t accept that I or my religion have all the answers.  It is a vast and beautiful world out there and truth exists everywhere.  It exists in every religion, culture, work of art, and life experience.  It exists among LGBT members who are discovering that their bodies work differently than others.  It exists among conservatives who have a great love for God and want to do His will.  It exists among liberals who have an incredible capacity to love others who are different. 

            Life is an individual journey that we need to discover for ourselves with God.  We each have that capacity.  I have absolute faith in an individual’s ability to discover his/her own purpose in life and create beauty and goodness.  The older I get, the less use I see in the arbitrary lines that guide us all along a well-paved, well-beaten path.  We may all have the same end goal: happiness, love, a fulfilling life.  But we are all different and a path that makes me happy won’t necessarily make someone else happy.

            I just ran a Ragnar relay and at 2am as I ran through a dark mountain pass, I reveled in the relationship I had with the road I was running on.  This was my stretch of road to run.  I felt the curves and climbs, my legs ached with exertion.  The road was shaping me.  I had a living relationship with it.  My team was leap frogging me: stopping up ahead to cheer me on and make sure that I was okay, then driving further up to wait for me once I passed them.  It occurred to me that theirs seemed to be the better means of transportation along this road.  They were warm and comfortable, and they could move along a lot faster than me.  They didn’t have to struggle with the same path I was struggling with.  Part of me longed for the comfort of the car.  But I also realized that when I was in the car, and my fellow teammates came back gasping for air, the first thing they did was to tell us every detail of their experience along the road.  They had had a relationship with that stretch of road that we couldn’t have.  They felt the pressure from the hills, knew what it was like to stumble on rocks and dirt, felt the wind in their faces, felt the lonesomeness of a dark road with no one else around, felt the lifting of their spirits when they passed our van and heard our cheers. 

            Those of us who were in the car didn’t look down on our runners and say, “Your experience is invalid because it’s different from ours.”  We cheered them on.  We supported them in whatever way we could think of to support them.  We gave them water and told them how much longer they had to run.  We couldn’t take the burden or the experience from them, but we could sympathize with them because we had been down other stretches of road as runners.  It was pointless to say the legs I ran were better or harder or more worthwhile than my teammate’s legs because comparison was worthless.  I would never know my teammates legs and they would never know mine.  But we supported each other anyway and shared a communal sense of love, support, and teamwork.   

            How wonderful would it be if life could be like a Ragnar relay.  I don’t just mean that it would be great if life had room for all the crazy people that think it is fun to run for 30 hours with barely any sleep, although that would be great too.  How wonderful it would be if we could support our fellow teammates and trust that what they are feeling and experiencing is legitimate.  What if instead of telling them that the way they are travelling on their path is wrong because our means of transportation seems better, we accept that they are forming a relationship with a life experience that we can never know or fully understand?  What if we remember that we are all runners and will all have our turn?  What if we realize that what we really need is love, encouragement, and maybe sometimes a little help to see what is up ahead?

            I recently left a well-paved, well beaten path that I was on.  It was scary to leave, and the further away from that path I got, the scarier and lonelier it became.  It was of course my path to run alone.  But what I really wanted was support from others.  I wanted someone to cheer me on and give me water and say, “You’re doing great.  It’s hard, but you’ll make it.”  I needed someone to say, “It’s okay that we have different experiences in life.  I can’t fully understand your experience and you can’t understand mine.  But I love you…not in the loving you back into the fold kind of way.  Just loving you and learning from you and being grateful that God gives us different experiences so that love can truly abound.”

            So that is what I say to members of the LGBT community.  I don’t understand your experience, but I am trying to understand you.  And I love you.  I love that you are experiencing what you are experiencing and trying to understand the body you inhabit.  I hope that you find more love and acceptance in the world.  I love that there are people in the world like Bishop Hayashi who aren’t bound by arbitrary lines that force his allegiance to one side or the other.   I am happy to know that there are people who can rise above these lines and purely love both sides. We need each member of our team.  Life is a relay and when we work together, we’ll get to the finish line.

What if the concept of “other” is an illusion?  How much would your world, my world, our world change if we came to the conclusion that we are all part of a whole?  This idea may seem obvious to some people.  Intellectually we understand that human beings are fundamentally built the same.  We share a desire to live lives of satisfaction without active threats of violence and persecution or the passive threats of the absence of food, shelter, and safety.  The problem for most people seems to come when we begin to prioritize our own need for these things above the needs of others.  When we do this, we allow the poisons of worry and fear into our lives.

What I believe to be the greatest flaw in human nature is the inability to recognize and resist fear.  Fear is a natural response to the unknown.  In the history of human kind fear has had an invaluable role to play.  Fear makes people cautious.  What is that dark shadow lurking outside my cave?  It could be a saber tooth tiger that wants me for dinner.  Who is that person approaching our home?  He may be looking to kill me in order to take my food and shelter.  For women in particular, the question of sexual violence is even more of a motivating factor in maintaining a healthy dose of guardedness.  The problem is that fear does not empower.  Fear is the motivating factor in nearly every case of inhumanity that we perpetrate on each other.

We, as human beings, have organized ourselves into groups that share values, customs, beliefs and standards of accepted behavior.  That’s all fine.  What is so hard about recognizing the arbitrary nature of these groups?  Why do so many groups believe that they have it all figured out?  What is so frightening about the unknown?  If we could learn to embrace uncertainty instead of staking our lives on protecting our illusion of truth, what do we have to lose?  More importantly, what can we gain?  Truth can stand up to any test.  Let’s take those tests with ardor and open hearts.  How liberating it could be to not have to stand behind our fortress anymore, to understand that “truth” means different things to different people.  As human beings I believe that we are beginning to understand that we don’t have to be ruled by a negative emotion like fear.  What we can choose is the enlightenment of love.

Think about some of the great catalysts in modern human history.  Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr.  These people started major social and political movements with the philosophy that fear and hate can be overcome with love and kindness.  Gandhi stopped an entire rebellion by going on a hunger strike.  People stopped hurting each other so that this man who had helped so many would not perish.  His love inspired love in others.  Mother Theresa helped to overcome the stigma of caring for and touching the ill and poverty-stricken.  Martin Luther King  helped countless people find the courage to stand up to constant and virulent threats of violence and palpable hatred to demand their civil rights.

It is my belief that each of these leaders was inspired by the idea that we all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.  Each of us should treat others as we wish to be treated.  This is a timeless and timely concept.  Of course we all want to survive and thrive.  What many people don’t seem to realize is that in order to do that, EVERYONE has to have a chance.  You can’t survive on your own.  You just can’t.  We need each other.  Get rid of the fear and embrace the light of love.