I think this; you think that. She sees this; he sees that. They believe this; but you believe that. We think, see, and believe in such contradictory
manners that our country seems to be severely fractured along cultural, political,
and religious lines. What accounts
for such conflicting opinions among people with seemingly similar backgrounds and
educational levels? Nature, nurturing,
and experience seem to share a role in how we establish our opinions as
adults.
Someone raised in a family with strongly held beliefs,
liberal or conservative, is more likely than not to share those beliefs as an
adult.
Then there is our DNA.
We are born with certain basic “mind sets” or psychological profiles
that play a role in determining our worldview. Introversion and extroversion are probably the most well
known examples of this. (And there
are many more?) I would like to
propose two polar mindsets that are at work here: fear and insecurity opposed
by hope and trust.
These are traits buried deep within our psyche where they
quietly exert their influence on us.
They are not feelings or concerns that we are consciously aware of in
our daily lives, yet they determine many of our life choices. I find it helpful to look at many of
our contemporary social and political conflicts within this framework. I have listed in separate categories,
but they all share these fundamental differences.
Absolute v
Contradiction & Relativity
Fear and insecurity can be relieved by beliefs in absolute,
infallible truths that cannot and should not be questioned. They provide the comfort and security
of a foundation that erases conflict, doubt, and contradiction. The appropriate authority provides the
answers to any question. The
authority can be a father, a man of the cloth, a sacred text, or a political prescription
that points the way.
This is in contrast to those who are suspicious of authority
and continually question it’s edicts.
They prefer to explore endless options in an attempt to gain insight and
understanding. They see gray
instead of black and white, and are more likely to recognize nuances that
preclude simple answers.
Simplicity v
complexity
Some see the answer to current social and economic problems
in very simple terms, and have no need to get involved in issues and notions
that only complicate matters.
Opposing them are those that want to expand the search for
answers to questions they believe demand more than a simplistic response. As is so often the case, each extreme shares
part of the truth, but sadly they cannot see it, or they refuse to see it.
The individual v
Community
Here the virtues and desires of the rugged individual come
face to face with the need to coexist with a growing and diverse
community. Our liberties as
individuals, more than ever before, have to be weighed against our responsibilities
to the community and the common good.
The 21st century bears little resemblance to its
predecessors, and some of the liberties of the frontiersman are no longer
practical today. This polarization
can be seen in conflicting views of the roles of government and major
corporations, states rights, and how the Supreme Court interprets the
constitution.
The Past v the Future
History offers us facts, describing events, recording dates,
and documenting people and cultures.
It also provides us with fodder for myths, and the opportunity to
remember times that were never quite like we remember them. The “good old days” were not so good
for some, and outright bad of others.
Whatever was in the past was in a country and society that no longer
exists. There are valuable lessons
to be learned from history, but some feel more attention should focused on what
lies ahead. The world is rapidly changing;
bringing us problems we have never faced before, problems that past experience
alone cannot resolve. America in
the 21st century bears little resemblance to 18th century
America. Change can be frightening.
There is comfort and security in the familiar, even if the familiar is
associated with some unpleasantness. For some, it is easier to deal with the known than
face the unknown. To be open to
change, and to embrace new ideas and new ways of interpreting the world,
requires trust and confidence, and a willingness to take risks. It leans heavily on a strong sense of
hope and optimism.
I have described these traits in a broad and general manner
to make a point. In fact they are
not so clearly defined, and many individuals share some from both ends of the
pole. And I make no judgment
regarding them. My point, no, my
passion, is the need for us to see the middle and to be willing to listen to
one another and be willing to compromise.
We cannot succeed as a democracy without it.