Long before psychotherapy was invented, healers have been using stories to help their people cope with life’s adversities. More recently, storytellers such as Joseph Campbell, Robert Bly, and Clarissa Pinkola Estes have demonstrated the power of myth for attaining personal transformation. Fannie Flagg dramatized this process in Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. Here, the elderly Mrs. Threadgoode inspired Evelyn, a dowdy, submissive housewife, by recounting her family tale. Through this encounter, Evelyn was able to discover her own inner strength (Towanda!).
Many such tales have been recorded and preserved as folklore. Countless others, though, are simply passed down orally from generation to generation. Many of these secret treasures risk oblivion in our mass culture, much as medicinal herbs are threatened with extinction from industrial society’s denudation of the tropical rain forests. I wish to share a particular tale from the Daniel family which has proven quite helpful for coping with stress and avoiding the pitfalls of “codependency” in helping others with their problems. So here’s the story of “The Quicksand Beds of Caramba Flats,” as told to me by my Uncle Lester:
The Quicksand Beds of Caramba Flats
“For generations, since long before the Europeans invaded the New World, people have been drawn to the quicksand beds of Caramba Flats. Not that anyone actually wanted to get stuck there, mind you. For miles around, as far as the eye could see, there is only desert, with little life. But here there is water, with its promise of restoration and renewal. Thus, people have sought out these potholes of clear, cool water that pocket the sandy beds. The Native Americans were well aware of the hazards of the quicksand. Yet through their caution and reverence for nature, they could reliably retrieve the water without being sucked under.
“For the Europeans it was quite another matter. Steeped in generations of civilization, they had lost touch with the ways of nature. They had neither the wariness nor the respect that such natural phenomena warrant. After days on the arid plains, they would catch sight of the shimmering water, and it was no mirage. Then they would dash down the nearby dunes and plunge headlong toward the pools. Before they knew it they were chest-deep in quicksand. More often than not, they would panic. And the more they panicked, the quicker the slurry would suck them under. Often, for just long enough to drown before their limp corpses float back up to the surface. From such instances came the lore of quicksand as the great gobbler of life.
“Now, I include these grizzly details because they convey a tragic irony. Namely, we are lighter than this mixture of sand and water. As such, we naturally float in it. Only by struggling and thrashing about do people dig themselves in deeper.
“With so many having lost their lives in these beds, authorities posted wardens to rescue the unsuspecting pioneers. While knowledgeable about quicksand, the first wardens had little understanding of rescue techniques. Legend has it that several early wardens had lost their lives, pulled under by the very victims they were trying to save. Tales provide graphic details of desperate victims clutching at the wardens and climbed up their backs. Thus, they submerged the hapless wardens, drowning them. With no printing presses there at the time, it is now impossible to separate history from myth.
“Whether these tales are actually true, later wardens developed rescue techniques to avoid the desperate clutches of the victims. Rather than venturing into the slurry themselves, they heaved ropes out to the reckless pioneers. Then, they anchored the other end of the rope to a boulder or a stump. This measure allowed the victims to pull themselves out with their own strength.
“Now it would be imprudent to say that the settlers actually tamed Caramba Flats. After all, nothing natural can be truly tamed. Still, they developed a respect for those quicksand beds that allowed them to establish the nearby community of Caramba Flats, right out there in the middle of the arid wasteland.”
The Moral
Now, my Uncle Lester is not the sort who leaves it to your imagination to fill in the moral of a story. So at the end he’d pause and lean over to say, “Now, Bob, I want you to remember this story whenever you feel overwhelmed, up to your neck in muck, so to speak. Just lean back, take a deep breath, and say to yourself, ‘Relax, no reason to worry . It’s only quicksand. I can float in it, and someone will come along to throw me a rope – maybe sooner if I holler.'”
And then he’d cock his finger and add, “Now if you see one of your friends thrashing around in the muck, so to speak, don’t you go jumpin’ in after ’em. Just remember – all you gotta do is throw ’em a rope. They can pull themselves out.”
Bob Daniel, Ph.D. is a retired clinical psychologist who has been practicing in Virginia Beach for over thirty years. He has worked in private practice with adults with mental health and substance abuse issues. While he has been accused of being an unabashed prevaricator, Dr. Daniel insists that his stories are 100% true, even if not factually accurate. Other such true tales include THE ESKIMO WHO LOST HIS ART AND SOUL and THE MAN WITH A MONKEY ON HIS BACK: A STORY OF THE STRUGGLE WITH SELF-BLAME. Still other tales in the “Stories and Fables” category are elaborations of older folk tales.
I was disheartened by our Department of Interior’s recent change of policy in assessing the value of our natural lands. It no longer assigns a value to the recreational experiences there. Instead, it only focuses on the extractive value, derived from harvesting timber, minerals, fossil fuels, etc. You know – the resources that support our materialistic society. This process of extraction inevitably diminishes what I would call the immersive value – our ability to commune with nature. What the bureaucrats cannot fathom is the human paradox regarding nature: we both are a part of nature and stand apart from nature. These modern-day Philistines always assess value from a detached point-of-view.
Walnut Bottoms at Dusk – What’s It Worth to You?
What Price Nature?
I do appreciate part of their dilemma: how do you quantify the value of communing with nature? For example, what price tag would I slap on my encounter with a wolverine while solo backpacking in the Colorado wilderness? Or on my seeing a bald eagle swooping across the marsh grass from my back door? Or on a mink and I briefly freezing in our tracks, six feet apart in my front yard? (Fortunately for me, neither of these intangibles has shown up on my real estate assessment.) Or on various other experiences in nature, more mundane, but nonetheless special? I would give the same economic assessment to all these examples. And it’s the same answer as the punchline from the MasterCard™ credit card commercials a few years back: PRICELESS.
I have little sympathy for the bureaucrats regarding another aspect of their policy decision. In their capitulation to Trump’s materialistic bias, loyalty wins out over integrity yet again. We must do a better job of balancing our relating to nature with our using nature. Similarly, we need to improve our relating to one another, rather than just making deals. Trump’s transactional approach has thrown all that out of balance.
by Bob Daniel, Ph.D., with Editing Assistance from ChatGPT
I recently read a graduation speech that called for a return to traditional values. In his commencement address to Hillsdale College graduates, Dr. Victor Davis Hanson highlighted three main virtues: honor, tradition, and optimism. While I respect these values, I find their application in today’s world not so simple and straightforward. They often mean different things to different people, and sometimes these values clash with one another. Instead of thinking in strict “either/or” terms, I think we need a “both/and” approach — one that balances competing values and even looks at ideas from outside our Western culture.
Which American Traditional Values?
Dr. Hanson claimed that tradition, honor, and optimism are timeless American values. But are they really? Honor depends on whose moral code you’re following. Tradition just means things we’ve done for a long time, whether or not they’re still useful. And optimism can be either healthy determination or blind faith. Such distinctions aren’t a matter of nitpicking. These differences matter when we apply traditional values to real-life situations.
Honor
Honor sounds good, but it can be abused. The standards can be rather self-serving, as the phrase “honor among thieves” suggests. Today, we see Congress divided over loyalty to one’s leader and party vs. allegiance to our country. To his credit, Dr. Hanson included compassion, honesty, and protecting the weak as aspects of honor. And he even challenged neutrality when confronted with indecent behavior. He illustrated such qualities with his example of his unsecured bicycle not being stolen on the Hillsdale campus. Yet he has remained silent on President Trump’s blatant dishonesty, intimidation, and retribution. Pointing out these moral deficits would require yet another feature of honor – that of courage.
Tradition
Traditional values are not all the same, and many directly oppose one another. Think of these pairs:
Order vs. Freedom
Security vs. Adventure
Individualism vs. Cooperation
Living in the Moment vs. Planning for the Future
We value both sides, but they often conflict. For example, freedom without limits can allow people to abuse others, while too much focus on order can restrict personal freedom. The challenge is to balance them – not to choose one over the other, or to endorse each independently, as it suits our purposes.
Optimism
Optimism can inspire people to push through tough times, but it can also make us ignore problems. The speech seemed to promote a “positive-only” attitude, which risks overlooking mistakes from the past. For example, praising America’s history without acknowledging the struggles of Native Americans or African Americans leaves out important truths. As George Santayana pointed out, “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.” Realistic optimism allows us to learn from both our successes and our failures.
From Either/Or to Us vs. Them
A big problem in today’s society is thinking everything must be either one way or the other. This either/or thinking can quickly turn into us vs. them when we disagree. By refusing to compromise, we feed division, making it easier for fear and anger to take over. If we want to protect democracy, we need to respect differences and work together instead of tearing each other apart.
Beyond Traditional Western Thinking
The speech praised ancient Greek and Roman ideas, but these traditions rely heavily on “either/or” logic. Eastern traditions, like yin and yang and Buddhism’s Middle Path, focus on balance. They show how two opposite values can actually work together, without canceling each other out. This perspective could help us handle the contradictions within our system of traditional American values.
No Easy Answers
Applying values is messy – there’s no simple, one-size-fits-all formula. Reliance on strictly traditional values can offer simple solutions, yet at a cost of critical thinking and current relevance. Classes that focus on applying values and principles to modern society can help us think through our tough issues. Including other perspectives can expose the limitations of our own ideology and expand our understanding.
Listening Across Divides
Some will dismiss this approach as “situational ethics,” a code phrase for moral permissiveness. Yet our values naturally clash, so we need honest conversations that respect different points-of-view. We may not always agree, but at least we’ll understand each other better. And in the process, we just might reconcile an internal conflict among our own values that we have been overlooking.
Diversity Broadening Perspective
Looking at this commencement address has helped me to sharpen my own views. I don’t reject traditional American values — I just think they need to be balanced and updated to fit our world today. Education isn’t about memorizing one set of ideas. It’s about questioning, discussing, and challenging our preconceived notions. Including a both-and approach helps us grow, both individually and as a society.
Epilogue
In recognizing how my writing style can be rather intellectualized, I decided to let ChatGPT edit my initial post. I was rather impressed at how it condensed my ideas rather accurately in plain, conversational language. Yet I noticed one other feature – it eliminated all personal references. No mention of Goldwater, Trump, or even Dr. Hanson, the commencement speaker whom I reviewed somewhat critically. I wonder – were the humans who programmed ChatGPT intimidated by potential retribution for their role in such projects? No matter – I reinstated the important personal references myself. We must speak truth to power, lest we surrender our democracy to authoritarian oligarchy.
American Values – why can’t we just agree about them? Why are we so polarized? These are important questions, but first, let’s start with a basic definition we can agree upon. I’d propose that a value system is a set of rights and responsibilities that enable us to function as a society. Pretty basic, no? Beyond that, though, we soon encounter controversy over the nature of values. Do we view values as fundamental and absolute entities, or do we consider them simply as social conventions? While we could view this disagreement as only a philosophical issue, it has real-life consequences. Here, we will be exploring this matter by reviewing a recent commencement address at Hillsdale College. Though contrasting with my own perspective, it has helped clarify my understanding of conflicting values and polarization.
(Yes, this is a bit wonky, but I am responding to academia. If this is too wonky, though, stay tuned for a scaled-down, practical version. Or if you want to learn more about life’s paradoxical dualities, check out Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life.)
Returning to Traditional American Values
I recently read Victor Davis Hanson’s 2025 commencement address at Hillsdale College, summarized in the Imprimis newsletter. Here, he advocated for a return to past Western values to restore American excellence. (Hmm, wait – that message sounds familiar – where have I heard that before?) In particular, he espoused the American virtues of honor, tradition, and optimism. While Dr. Hanson apparently views these values as fundamental and timeless, my examination reveals them as subject to social convention, and at times riddled with inconsistencies. Honor involves adherence to a moral code of conduct, yet whose code? Traditional values share longevity and time-honored acceptance, but not necessarily much else. And optimism spans a spectrum from hopeful determination to complacent blind trust. These features matter when we apply these principles to real-life problems.
A Question of Honor
I have no quibble with the virtue of honor as such. Still, its value hinges largely upon the particular social norms which it supports. The standards can be rather self-serving, as the phrase “honor among thieves” suggests. Often, the honor code serves a select group to the exclusion of others – consider the Gilded Age’s “robber barons.” And currently, Congress is grappling with the critical issue of allegiance to leader and party vs. to country.
The Challenge: Putting Honor into Practice
I commend Dr. Hanson for including compassion as an aspect of honor. And I certainly support his inclusion of being honest, confronting bullying, and protecting the vulnerable. Furthermore, I endorse his condemnation of neutrality toward dishonorable behavior. I just wish that he’d be more consistent in calling out that indecency. Notably, he focused fairly extensively on the dishonor of bicycle thievery, while remaining silent on Trump’s dishonesty, intimidation, and retribution. Furthermore, he praised Hillsdale College’s neutrality in staying above the political fray. Yet Hillsdale’s stance against taking federal funds makes it less vulnerable to retaliation for speaking truth to power. This undercuts the excuse of “discretion being the better part of valor” (though granted, not his argument). Therefore, I would include courage is an essential element of honor. So, practice what you preach!
The Case of Conflicting Traditional Values
Traditional values as such share limited essential common ground beyond their longevity and time-honored acceptance. Thus, inconsistencies should come as no surprise. Contradictions often arise, as many of our traditional values align themselves in counterbalanced pairs:
Freedom vs. Justice
Order vs. Spontaneity
Adventure vs. Security
Individualism vs. Cooperation
Living in the Moment vs. Planning for the Future
Even though each pair reflects a contrast in values, both sides of the duality have general acceptance. Daily, we make trade-offs between such contrasting values without much thought. These dualities establish the contrasting values as linked to one another, rather than being independent properties. Thus, these polarities pose challenges to those whose ideology views one or both values as absolute and fundamental. Here, Barry Goldwater enters Stage Right.
A Challenge to the Notion of Absolute Truth
Freedom vs. Justice
Barry Goldwater once notably proclaimed, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” In an ideal world, perhaps we could approximate both these aspirations. Yet living amongst us are the dishonorable, the entitled, and the careless. Here, unfettered liberty means having no constraints, even on those violating or simply disregarding the rights of others. Conversely, measures designed to guarantee those rights equally for all would necessarily impose significant constraints on our freedoms. Thus, we require a balanced approach, so that we all can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Goldwater apparently failed to appreciate the fundamental incompatibility between his absolute ideals, thus allowing him to maintain both extreme positions. Unfortunately, he has not been the last to assume this posture.
Being vs. Becoming
Another relevant polarity of values is that of being vs. becoming. The popular practice of mindfulness extolls the benefits of living in the moment, while practicality recommends planning ahead. The common saying, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too,” addresses this tension between living for today and preparing for tomorrow. Note that each position has its legitimate place, yet the adage imposes a false “either-or” choice. A “both/and” option would state, “You can halve your cake, eat one half now, and save the rest for later.” This interpretation conveys the benefits of a trade-off between the two positive values. This issue is particularly relevant today, when our government faces the challenge of budgeting our current programs and obligations without incurring overwhelming debt for future generations.
Balancing Competing Values
Freedom vs. justice and being vs. becoming are just two inherent polarities of values facing us. Other relevant ones include order vs. spontaneity, security vs. adventure, and competition vs. cooperation. In each of these dualities, we encounter competing values, each with a valid claim to virtue. Our pursuit of one value as an absolute virtue necessarily restricts its polar counterpart. Instead, we have the option of finding a healthy balance between the two poles. These various dualities are not just interesting philosophical phenomena – they carry real-life implications for a healthy society. Unfortunately, the unwelcome intrusion of absolutist ideology often brings with it disdain for compromise.
Optimism – Looking on the Bright Side
Dr. Hanson proposed optimism as a third virtue to guide the recent graduates throughout life. As with the other guiding principles, this one demonstrates a variability that affects its helpfulness. Does it involve an unbridled hopefulness that all will turn out well, regardless of our understanding and effort? Or does it inspire our striving to prevail over imposing obstacles? As with the other virtues, there is an either/or option for optimism. This perhaps is best summarized by the 1940’s Arlen & Mercer tune, Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive. The refrain applies this perspective by advising us to “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.” The tune’s caution, “Don’t mess with Mr. In-Between,” clearly espouses an “either-or” mentality.
Disregarding the Shadows
While Dr. Hanson does not specify an “either/or” sort of optimism, his comments suggest it. He notes how it is “now chic to be moody and pessimistic and uncool to be upbeat and cheerful.” Furthermore, he contrasted reverence for past generations with shame and self-loathing focused on our historical shortcomings. Many, particularly Blacks and Native Americans, would view this positive spin as a form of whitewashing. A complete and balanced history, rather than an “American exceptionalism” ideology, serves our national viability. As George Santayana reminded us, “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.” A critical assessment of both our strengths and shortcomings does not necessarily imply shame and self-loathing. Rather, it might cultivate healthy humility and compassion – essential values for bridging our cultural divide.
From “Either/or” to “Us vs. Them”
Unfortunately, the misleading “either/or” choices are prevalent in today’s social/political environment. While seemingly offering clear-cut answers, absolutist thinking provides little guidance for resolving the competing poles of our paired values. It is only a small step from “either/or,” right vs. wrong outlooks to a fractious “us vs. them” mentality. Such thinking pervades our polarized society across various issues, with “compromise” often treated as a dirty word. Our societal failure to reconcile our conflicting American values provides ample opportunities for diabolical agents to exploit. These forces use fear, distrust, and resentment to divide and conquer, laying the groundwork for an authoritarian state. In contrast, honoring our differences and respecting one another offer realistic optimism for preserving our democracy.
Our Western Heritage and “Either/Or” Logic
Dr. Hanson rightly cautioned the recent graduates about the moral decay in today’s materialistic society. He then offered the classical Greco-Roman culture as an antidote. Yet this tradition, too, has its limitations, particularly related to Aristotelian logic. With its Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, deductive reasoning lends itself to “either-or” conclusions. While logic helps to solve problems, it is inappropriate for resolving paradoxes, such as the countervailing values previously discussed. Instead, we require a “both/and” approach that balances the contrasting values. Here, we can benefit from expanding beyond our Western heritage to encompass an Eastern perspective.
An Eastern Perspective on Competing Values
Eastern culture offers an alternative to an “either-or” approach. Instead, it presents the concepts of yin and yang as complementary, rather than merely opposing forces. Similarly, Buddhism advocates personal balance through the pursuit of the Middle Path. From this perspective, the various values present as virtues when practiced in moderation, yet vices when applied at the extremes. Thus, while “either/or” thinking predisposes us to polarization, the “both/and” perspective encourages bridging our divides.
From “Us vs. Them” to “We, the People”
Entertaining the Eastern perspective presents an opportunity for integrating values from both Eastern and Western traditions. Thus, we can maintain our traditional values as the yang that complements the yin of Eastern philosophy. In doing so, we can pursue “both/and” resolutions that draw upon a more encompassing understanding. Of course, proponents of American exceptionalism might repudiate the introduction of Eastern perspective as a challenge to Western civilization. For them, we can point to our humanities, with their examination of societal values, as complementing logic and science.
Dealing with True Believers
Yet there are among us some who are suspicious of both humanistic and scientific perspectives. These are often the most vulnerable to authoritarian propaganda and the most resistant to logical reasoning. These “true believers,” as Eric Hoffer labeled them, gravitate toward fanatical cults, absolutist ideologies, and charismatic leaders. When others challenge these allegiances, they usually become defensive, close-minded, and verbally combative. Here, attempts at reasoning appears futile. Conversational discussions, focused around personal experience, and with minimal reference to abstract values and principles, will likely go better. Even with such a low-key approach, there appears limited chance for mutual understanding, let alone agreement.
Applying Values – No Simple Solution
I hope that the above discussion of values presents a compelling argument that the landscape of American values is too varied and complex to lend itself to simple solutions. I would assert instead that it requires a more thorough analysis of the specific applications. Such exploration would likely entail a more nuanced view of American virtues, as Dr. Hanson pursued in discussing honor. I expect that these discussions would lead to decisions involving an inherent trade-off in values. While the commencement address mocks various “studies” courses, I’d propose that they provide an opportunity to apply our values, traditional and contemporary, to current situations in a more thorough, thoughtful manner.
Contending with Ideology and Dogmatism
Of course, just having “studies” courses for applying values to particular issues is no guarantee for success. Optimally, such courses need to be open to diverse perspectives, rather than being wed to specific ideologies, whether traditional, libertarian, so-called “woke,” or other. After all, we can learn more from our adversaries than from our allies, who usually teach us what we already know. But first, we must listen. A little humility can go a long way toward being open-minded. And next, we need to recognize our own biases, and not just those of others. Also, nonjudgmental curiosity can in turn encourage open-mindedness and receptivity in our opponents.
The Charge of “Situational Ethics”
I would be remiss if I ignored the speaker’s dismissal of contextual applications of values as “situational ethics.” This term is a common code phrase implying moral permissiveness, as appears the case in this speech. I readily acknowledge the biases, whether liberal or conservative, involved in any given ethical dilemma. Here, “bias” is not a dirty word. Rather, it simply refers to the differing weights we assign to our various values used in decisions. Discussion offers the opportunity to address these differences of emphasis among the various, often-conflicting values. While such discussions might not achieve consensus, they can still foster mutual understanding – an increasingly rare commodity.
Bridging the Cultural/Political Divide
I recognize that some will view this critique as a challenge to the conventional wisdom of traditional Western values. Alternatively, this rebuttal offers a viable “both/and” framework for incorporating these values into modern life. I welcome the opportunity to assume a bully pulpit, from which I am reaching out beyond my own choir. I view it as essential to democracy that we have meaningful dialogue across our political divides. Otherwise, divisive ideology prevails. Open discussions can facilitate the tempering of our opinions. This is true for two meanings of “tempering” (i.e., both moderating and strengthening our positions). Reviewing this commencement address has helped to sharpen and articulate my own values and opinions – even if by contrast. Such is the value of true education, in contrast to mere indoctrination.
While many evangelicals have endorsed Donald Trump for president, their support likely undermines his chances for spiritual redemption. During the waning days of the 2024 presidential election, Trump reveals his true colors – that of a crass and spiteful lost soul. Addicted to power and adulation, this false prophet cloaks himself in the American flag and wields the Christian cross. MAGA followers profess blind allegiance, while foes ridicule and vilify him. In my opinion, his redemption can only come through repentance – and how often have you heard him express remorse?
A Recovery Program
As practiced in 12-step recovery programs, redemption involves a searching and fearless moral inventory, a humble confession of wrongdoings, a willingness to mend one’s ways, and a genuine attempt to make amends to the injured. Absent these steps, Trump cannot find true redemption. He apparently needs to hit rock bottom before even considering this journey. His continuing popularity among the MAGA crowd distracts him from this option. For him to achieve spiritual awakening, his presidential campaign must first fail. Then, his adoring fans, his political apologists and enablers, and his ridiculing critics all need to stand down. Only then might this prodigal son pursue redemption in earnest.
The Slim Prospects for Trump’s Redemption
As a retired psychologist who worked in substance abuse, I have come to respect and admire those who have taken such tortuous journeys. While Charles Colson apparently found redemption in prison for his Watergate involvement, I’m not that hopeful for Trump. We might just witness the proverbial camel squeezing through the eye of a needle before that happens. So, one final question for devout Christian Trump supporters before voting: Are you going to jeopardize his potential salvation by condoning his abusive behavior through voting for him?
Addressing Our Role
Whether or not Trump undertakes such a spiritual quest, the rest of us can begin the healing process. Authoritarian stances such as his do not occur in a vacuum; rather, they develop in relation to others. We can only do our parts not to feed into the toxic interactions that support his wayward wanderings. Here, my articles on vicious cycle patterns in relationships can help us to recognize these unhealthy patterns. And even if our efforts have no effect on Trump, they may help to overcome the polarization that divides us. Then, we might find compassion for one another, despite our differences.
The Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer Cycle
Currently, Trump attains power by championing the cause of his loyal followers, whom he identifies as the victims of an oppressive regime. This mobilizes the classic Rescuer-Victim-Persecutor cycle, identified by Steven Karpman and addressed in my previous posts. This pattern is reinforced by yet another version, in which Trump proclaims his own victimhood at the hands of the Deep State, thus currying sympathy from his supporters. And finally, his promise of retribution for unfair treatment offers another version of the Persecutor role, that of the Vindicator. His alternation among these roles makes him a more elusive target for his critics and bolsters support among his followers. This description provides an admittedly dense summary of the relationship dynamics around Trump. Here, a review of my previous article, Vicious Cycles in Relationships 2.0, may provide a helpful background.
Looking Within to Break the Cycle
To break out of such vicious cycle patterns we must take an honest look at ourselves, rather than focusing on others. After all, we are the only ones over whom we have any direct control. For example, do we assume a judgmental attitude toward others, thus adopting the Critic role, a somewhat tamer version of the Persecutor? Instead, we might express our disapproval of Trump’s speech or actions, yet without attacking his character. We might also seek to understand his Followers, rather than dismissing their viewpoints out-of-hand. This is just one example of how we might modify our approach. While it may not break the cycle, it might just lessen the intensity of the polarization. Although too late to impact the course of the election, it may promote the needed healing in the aftermath.
Pilgrimages often reveal their most poignant insights during the journey, rather than at their destinations. The demanding physical ordeal of the trip itself poses a trial of perseverance. For cloistered monks, though, the quest offers additional challenges. The journey often exposes them to the temptations, distractions and aggravations from which the monasteries have shielded them. Unplanned and unanticipated events along the way test their commitment to their spiritual paths. In the process, the monks have the opportunity to renew and deepen their spirituality.
The Two Monks on a Pilgrimage
Such was the case with two monks who embarked upon this quest. Brother Kim was a novice, relatively new to the monastery. He looked upon Brother Lee as his mentor. In particular, he admired his elder’s equanimity in his deep spiritual practice within the sheltered confines of their monastery. Their pilgrimage was their first venture outside the monastery together, opening up opportunities for spiritual teaching. Little did they know just how this quest would test their fraternal bond.
The Course of the Pilgrimage
We withhold the pilgrimage’s route and destination so as to protect its sanctity for this order of monks. Recognize, though, that it is a strenuous journey, crossing two ridges and two valleys before arriving at the sacred grotto. As it turns out, each descent and river crossing embodied a particular trial. The preceding day’s torrential rains made the trails muddy and slippery. The rivers in the valleys had become swollen, making ferry crossings impossible and ford crossings treacherous. Still, with diligence and caution, our two monks could wade across. Others, particularly those of slight or frail build, found the crossings impossible – but we get ahead of ourselves here.
The First Crossing
After descending into the first valley, our two monks catch sight of the swift-flowing stream. There, on the riverbank, they catch sight of a fair young maiden, one of radiant beauty. She – the proverbial damsel in distress – sought their help in crossing the river. She explained that the swift current blocked her access to her ailing father across the valley. Without even thinking, Brother Lee lifted her up in his arms and proceeded to carry her across at the river ford. He noted to himself how her additional weight, however slight, lent greater stability to his footing. He felt his feet pressing into the muddy bottom, grounding him and helping him to resist the current.
Meanwhile, Brother Kim was quite unsettled by her beauty, leading him to avert his gaze from her. He was ever so aware of his vow of chastity, and he fought hard to honor it. Eventually, he managed to regain sufficient composure to allow him to navigate the swirling waters to the far bank. There, the maiden and the two monks parted ways, she into the valley, and they up the path to the next ridge.
The First Reckoning
The monks proceeded on their journey, climbing the next ridge and following it a ways. Brother Lee was rather nimble and light on his feet, while Brother Kim was downright klutzy. The young novice was constantly tripping over twigs, brushing against tree limbs, and getting snagged in vines. Soon, his aggravation was readily apparent to his mentor. Brother Lee inquired, “What’s wrong? Why are you so out of sorts? You weren’t like this at the start of our trip.”
After a deep sigh, the novice spewed forth, “How could you? We are supposed to be on a sacred quest, and you grab that beautiful girl and lift her to your bosom – I mean, chest.– Then caress her in your arms as you sway about in the churning torrent. What happened to your repudiation of the flesh, and your vow of purity? Does that mean nothing to you? And to think that I looked up to you and sought your guidance!”
When Brother Kim’s rant subsided, a tense silence followed. Then, Brother Lee casually noted, “My young brother, I left that young maiden back at the riverbank. You’ve been carrying her with you ever since.” Gradually, the silent pall lifted, and they continued on their way.
The Second Crossing
Downed Suspension Bridge at the Second Stream Crossing
Before long, our two monks descended into the next valley. There, they soon approached its river, just as swollen as the previous one. As they neared the bank, a shriveled, contorted figure slumped before them. Here was likely the vilest, most ill-tempered curmudgeon that either of them had ever encountered. And that was before the wretch had even opened his mouth! His screechy voice conveyed utter contempt as he demanded immediate passage to the other side.
Whereas most would be taken aback by this demeanor, Brother Lee acted without hesitation. He heaved the wretch over his shoulder and proceeded into the swift stream. The monk immediately noticed that the riverbed consisted of slippery, loose rocks, requiring constant adjustments to stay upright. These maneuvers provoked the wretch’s barrage of complaints, curses, and insults, liberally punctuated by jabs and slaps. In his passage across the river, Brother Lee maintained an acute focus on maintaining his balance. He came to a startling realization – all these adjustments were actually helping to center him in his body! He even felt a hint of exhilaration, as a bronco-busting cowboy might experience.
Meanwhile, Brother Kim grew increasingly impatient with the abusive wretch. This frustration was no doubt built on the foundation of his earlier disappointment with his mentor. (Although he had come to understand and appreciate his mentor’s stance, his body still retained a substantial residual tension.) And while he was rather indignant on behalf of Brother Lee, he was also quite disappointed in him for tolerating that abuse.
The Second Reckoning
Upon reaching the far shore, the monks parted ways with the ill-tempered curmudgeon. They could hear his nagging complaints faded off into the distance as they headed down the trail to the grotto. The monks still had more ground to cover to reach the grotto by nightfall, so they hurried down their path. And as before, the mentor was fleet of foot and poised, while the novice was klutzy. This time, Brother Lee cut to the chase, “What’s the matter now, Brother Kim? You seem all out of sorts.”
After a deep sigh, Brother Kim let out a yelp. He then exclaimed, “This pilgrimage is not going at all as planned. I came looking for a deeper spirituality, and this is what we get – nagging complaints from that ingrate. He has totally ruined any possibility of spiritual transcendence that I was hoping to find. And as for you, how can you have any respect for yourself? You allowed that pathetic idiot to abuse you – both physically and verbally. Now, I’ve lost all respect for you.”
After a lengthy pause, Brother Lee responded, “My young brother, I left that poor wretch back at the riverbank, but you are still carrying that load with you. What a burden that must be for you, especially since you seem resigned to keeping it the entire journey.” After a while, he continued, “You know, you have a point about my tolerating abuse from that poor soul. I had not experienced such condemnation, I guess, since earlier today, when you denounced me for helping that young maiden. Now, that abusive wretch is no longer here with us, so it makes no sense to fret over him. But you are here with me. So how would you have me respond to your harsh judgment of me, both now and earlier in the day?”
The novice was stunned and speechless, and had no answer. Brother Lee allowed him his space, and the two completed their pilgrimage to the grotto in silence.
The Descent into the Grotto
The Shrine near the Grotto, at the End of the Pilgrimage
Upon arrival, the two monks descended deep into the dark recesses of the grotto to complete their pilgrimage. There, they entered an extended silent retreat. Brother Lee, grounded and centered in his body from the stream crossings, sat in utter stillness with a quiet mind. Brother Kim, on the other hand, had some sorting out to do.
Danger: Proceed with Caution
The above parable, like The Monks’ Interesting, Not-So-Silent Retreat, is an adaptation and embellishment of a spiritual story in the Buddhist tradition. Minor variations of the original can be found by googling “fable monks taking maiden across the river” or similar phrases, so I assume that this story is in the public domain. You will also see that “The Second Crossing” in my story adds one or two new dimensions to the tale. Spelling them out is somewhat akin to explaining the punchline of a joke. Just as such an endeavor can spoil the humor, explanations can disrupt the story’s impact. So, if you share this concern, I advise you to skip the following commentary.
If you have resisted the urge to indulge in the following objective interpretation, I want to hear from you. How were you able to accomplish that? (Or are you just delaying it?)
Commentary on the Original Tale
The original tale follows the Buddhist tradition in dramatizing the spiritual path as a river crossing. It addresses the pitfall of fantasizing in desire for this pursuit, whether of deeper spirituality or simply serene mindfulness. This message is obviously relevant for monks and nuns with their vows of chastity and purity. Yet it is also relevant for those of us who have not disavowed our sensuality. Here, the challenge is to keep the sensuality embedded in a personal relationship, rather than expressed in unadulterated lust. This presents a more daunting challenge than faced by the monks. A secondary theme is the importance of honoring the vow’s spirit, not just the “letter of the law.” When we focus too much on the latter, we miss the forest for all the trees.
Commentary on my Embellished Version
This embellished version’s addition of a second river crossing expands upon how judgmentalism disrupts spirituality, or mindfulness. Such a constraint is implied in the “letter of the law” approach, as dramatized in the original version. My amended version notes how we can be intolerant of others’ shortcomings. Brother Kim was paradoxically hypercritical of the curmudgeon’s harsh treatment of Brother Lee. He also revealed his criticalness toward Brother Lee, both for presumed carnality and for tolerating abuse. Brother Lee modeled living in the moment by focusing on Brother Kim’s judgmentalism, as the curmudgeon was long gone. He further highlighted the challenge posed in responding to abuse, while modeling equanimity in the face of it.
I also snuck in a secondary theme, as well. This addresses the paradox that deeper spirituality often involves greater “embodiment.” Note how Brother Lee’s focus on his body experiences (both groundedness and balance), helped him maintain his poise. Thus, he could resist the distracting influences of sensuality, annoyance, and criticalness in his spiritual crossing.
If you decided to entertain the more objective perspective in this commentary, I welcome your feedback, as well.
We are all familiar with the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Variations of this guideline appear throughout various cultures and religious traditions. Most of us probably endorse it, whether we follow it or not. Yet this adage focuses only on how we treat others. How we treat ourselves, though, is also worthy of attention. We shall consider two variants which mirror and complement the standard Golden Rule. The first proclaims, “Do unto ourselves as we would do unto others.” The other version advises, “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Then, we will address the roles of experience and action –being compassionate and doing generous acts – in this endeavor. But first, we need to consider the focus and assumptions of these sayings.
Golden Rule Variants for Self-care
All three versions presented here address our treatment of ourselves and others. Of course, this advice would hardly be necessary if we all demonstrated abundant caring and generosity. Similarly, these sayings would be virtually meaningless if we already showed similar concern for all involved, ourselves included. However, by encouraging us to treat ourselves and others comparably, these adages all assume a disparity in caring. Whereas the Golden Rule encourages us to treat others better, our two variants urge better self-care. And while the standard adage relates to self-absorbed individuals, our two variants apply to those who habitually put others first.
Selfish and Selfless
Thus, the traditional Golden Rule and our two variants address two contrasting groups. Together, they represent polar opposites along a continuum ranging from selfish to selfless. Generally, we judge the former critically while praising the latter. Most of us recognize the shortcomings of being self-centered, with its tendency to alienate others. (I explore this orientation in more detail in my post, Narcissists’ Self-Promotions Trump Cooperation.) In contrast, we tend to disregard the downside for the selfless givers, who consistently put others first.
Being Generous to a Fault
Unbridled generosity often has adverse consequences for the giver. When we are constantly giving, without replenishing our emotional supplies, we become depleted. Our recipients come to take us for granted, such that they show little appreciation. We might then become resentful, which only builds over time. That sabotages our spirit of generosity, which we have been cultivating through our self-sacrifice. (I address these drawbacks in my post, Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue.)
Fostering Entitlement
Our pervasive giving frequently has dire consequences for the receiver, as well. With the support of their benefactors never in question, the recipients often take it for granted. This feeds into their sense of privilege, which cultivates unrealistic expectations of others. As such, they feel more deserving, such that they disregard others’ wants and needs. In fact, the term “afluenza” has been coined and used to describe the unhealthy entitlement of teens spoiled by their doting parents.
“Killing with Kindness”
In some instances, excessive generosity can foster dependency, rather than or in addition to entitlement. This is especially true when givers offer services which their recipients can provide for themselves, though not without some effort. These donors further “enable” dependency by implicitly defining their recipients as incapable of fending for themselves. Particularly when coupled with critics’ harsh judgment, the enablers’ good intentions transform their recipients into victims of low expectations. While not literally killing their charges with kindness, they often deaden their spirit. (I delve into this topic further in my post, Escaping the Victim Role.)
Thus, the recipients’ feeling bad about needing help often mirrors the givers’ feeling good about providing the needing support. After all, who wants to be considered a charity case? Yet committed caretakers often overlook this connection, as their core identity is so tied into being helpful to others. Without it, they can feel disoriented and lost, without a sense of purpose.
Striking a Balance between Polar Opposites
The Golden Rule and our two variants all propose solutions to our self-care and concern for others being out-of-balance. Selfish people need to treat others better, while selfless ones need to take better care of themselves. When taken together, the Golden Rule and our two variants suggest a balance between these two extremes. This is but one instance in which choosing a middle path works out better than operating at either opposing pole. (In Muddling down a Middle Path, I note various other polarities for which this advice applies. These include freedom vs. order, security vs. adventure, and belonging vs. individuality.)
The Two Inverse Variants of the Golden Rule
With all the preceding concerns, it may seem like I’m saying that generosity is bad. That’s certainly not my intent. Rather, I am asserting that an excessive commitment to serving others can be bad for all involved. Furthermore, I am affirming the helpfulness of balancing generosity with a healthy dose of self-interest. Now, we can consider how our two inverse variants of the Golden Rule address this imbalance. While one version explores how we treat ourselves, the other focuses on how we encourage others to treat us.
“Do unto Ourselves as We Do unto Others”
Perhaps we best demonstrate the meaning of treating ourselves as we treat others when we don’t follow this guideline. What does it mean when we take better care of others than we do of ourselves? Are we not implying that others are more deserving than us? Or that they are needier? If so, others may take us up on this attitude by expecting our support while disregarding our needs. Or are we suggesting that our service makes us better than others? Then others may resent our condescending attitude and perhaps feel bad about receiving our support. Whichever message we send – whether of being undeserving, less needy, or morally superior – it undermines healthy relations.
By contrast, treating ourselves as we treat others puts us on more even footing with them. We attain our identity and self-worth from both our advocacy for ourselves and our generosity toward others. On the one hand, we proclaim our self-worth through our self-assertion. On the other hand, we feel good about ourselves when we give to others. This balanced approach does not lay claim to any special treatment or entitlement. Taken together, these two sources of self-esteem support our being “just as good as,” but not necessarily “better than.” Furthermore, these ways of establishing our self-worth are less likely to convey a “holier than thou” attitude. Thus, it puts us more on par with others.
“Allow Others to Do for Us as We Would Do for Them”
Our second variant of the Golden Rule focuses on letting others help us. “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Just as we feel good about ourselves for helping others, so can they feel good about themselves for helping us –yet only if we let them! Research studies have shown that generosity has a positive impact for the giver as well as for the receiver, and sometimes even more for the giver. So, do we really want to be selfish in hoarding those warm, fuzzy feelings for ourselves? Or are we willing to allow others those feel-good opportunities by accepting and appreciating their support?
Reluctance to Accepting Support
When such occasions arise, we may resist accepting support. We might be unwilling to giving up what we consider the moral high ground. (“’Tis nobler to give than to receive.”) Or we might balk at relinquishing the control of being in charge. Still yet, we might hesitate because receiving help implies that we are needy and therefore deficient. Whatever the cause, such staunch independence deprives others of the opportunity for feeling good about extending themselves.
Receiving Compliments
This hesitancy to receive support even extends to fielding compliments, which have very little cost for the giver. We have all witnessed occasions when someone receiving a compliment has minimized, qualified, or refuted it. Perhaps we can even recall instances when we have done so ourselves. While we might justify this response in the name of humility, we are also questioning our admirers’ judgment. Is that really how we want to reward someone’s graciousness? Just how hard would it be to show appreciation for their admiration?
Motivation Matters
Thus far, we’ve been focusing on the act of giving. We should recognize, though, that the intentions behind the support matter. We might offer support in response to social pressure, or to boost our reputation. Or we might give out of a sense of obligation. Recipients are less likely to respond favorably to these intentions than to giving out of caring. They might well feel beholding or obligated to us in return. Or they might even resent being used to bolster our status. Still yet, they may feel inadequate for needing help. In contrast, giving out of caring is more likely to engender gratitude. Motivation matters. Thus, effective charity involves being as well as doing–being compassionate while doing the giving. We might even propose yet another variant of the Golden Rule: “Be for others as we would be for ourselves.”
The Golden Rule Applied to Conflict
Thus far, discussion of the Golden Rule and its variants has focused on support, whether for others or for ourselves. But what if we are in conflict with others? We might well find ourselves disapproving of others, rather than accepting. Does the Golden Rule apply here? Well, it does state “do unto” others, not “do for” them. We’re probably not feeling so charitable in such cases – nor should we be. Offering acceptance or support implies condoning, if not actually enabling, those actions of which we disapprove. So how does the Golden Rule – and our variants of it, for that matter – apply in those cases?
Exercising Accountability
We all have the right to challenge others’ actions that affect us — as they do with us. For exercising accountability, a qualified version of “Love the sinner, hate the sin” appears in order. Our reservation centers on the blame involved in our labeling an action a “sin” and the doer a “sinner.” We should recognize that it is not our place to pass judgment. We can reduce this judgmentalism by regarding the offending action as a transgression against ourselves or others, rather than as a moral defect.
A general rule of thumb is to demand accountability for actions, rather than passing judgment on the person. Here, the distinction between doing and being comes into play. We challenge the doing of the action, while still showing respect for who the person is. Indeed, failure to call out the transgression conveys our low expectations for the transgressor. That hardly expresses respect. Thus, holding others accountable appears quite compatible with the standard Golden Rule – provided that we welcome constructive input ourselves. We address our readiness to receive challenging feedback in an upcoming section, “Being Called Out by Others.”
One particular insight helps us to cope with others’ transgressions against us. It is the realization that each transgression gives us the opportunity to advocate for ourselves, thus affirming our self-worth. Without such conflicts, we would have little need to take such action.
Calling Out Ourselves
Exercising accountability for ourselves involves taking stock of ourselves. This can be particularly problematic for those of us who are our own worst critics. My story of The Man with a Monkey on his Back dramatizes such struggles. And indeed, a “searching and fearless moral inventory” is often the most challenging of the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.) Here, the distinction between being and doing applies. Focusing on the kind of person we see ourselves being likely evokes shame. This feeling often immobilizes us, thus interfering with our efforts to change what we do.
Holding Ourselves Accountable for our Actions
Identifying how our “doings” transgress against others, or even against ourselves, however, likely causes guilt. This feeling calls our attention to our actions, which we can work at changing. Changing what we do is generally easier than changing who we are. With sufficient work at changing our behaviors, we might notice ourselves developing positive traits. And when we acquire enough healthy traits, we develop our character, or who we are. While this might be a “fake it till you make it” approach, it usually works better than an attempt at a “total makeover.” We might identify this variant of the Golden Rule as, “Hold ourselves accountable, as we would do with others.”
Being Called Out by Others
It would be great if we were able to recognize our transgressions toward others consistently. Unfortunately, that is often not the case, as we all have our “blind spots.” As a result, others often recognize our shortcomings before we do.” When they point these flaws out to us (or to others in our presence), we often experience shame and humiliation. This one-two punch usually involves our feeling judged, even if others are attempting constructive feedback. If this be the case, another variant of the Golden Rule applies: “Allow others to call us out, as we would want to call them out.”
Receiving Constructive Feedback
In accepting criticism from others, we recognize that they can help us with our personal growth – even if that’s not their intent. We also appreciate that our adversaries might more readily point out our shortcomings than would our friends. Furthermore, they are more likely to offer perspectives different than our own. Thus, we can often learn more about ourselves from our adversaries than from our allies. Again, this applies only if we listen! Of course, we may need to filter out their toxic judgment or blame to hear their constructive feedback.
Constructive Feedback, or Judgment and Blame?
How can we best respond to feedback, whether constructive or judgmental? I would suggest that we respond to each in the same way – with due consideration and gratitude. For input intended as helpful, this would obviously be an appropriate response. But what about for accusatory feedback? Yes, the same approach for that, as well. For one thing, we can learn valuable lessons, even if we don’t particularly care for how they are packaged. Furthermore, our adversaries would likely be unprepared for such a receptive response, thus catching them off-guard. Additionally, our not following their script for an “us versus them” confrontation can knock them off-balance. This often flushes out their agenda to shame and humiliate us. Thus, this strategy can prove effective for exposing and deflecting their verbal sneak attacks.
This approach warrants caution and skill, though. If we are too deferential, our adversaries might attempt to dominate us, particularly if there is an audience. In exercising due consideration, we can inquire into the assumptions behind their criticism. First, this exploration can help us to understand their outlook, such that we adapt valid aspects to our purposes. Second, this inquiry serves as a strategy for challenging their perspectives. Our questioning might just reveal some unwarranted assumptions or logical inconsistencies which they had not considered. And third, we can command respect through our discerning inquiry and poise. Even if they deny us their respect, they cannot take away our self-respect – that is, unless we let them.
Summary and Recommendations
Hopefully, our exploration of the Golden Rule and our proposed variants of it has expanded and deepened our understanding of fair treatment. In particular, we have noted how these concerns apply both to others and to ourselves. This is best achieved when our self-interest and our concern for others are fairly comparable. This balance both validates our self-worth and strengthens our emotional bonds with one another. Furthermore, the support works best when involving both experience and action – being compassionate and doing good works. This is equally true and relevant for our treatment of others and ourselves. When we alternate between the roles of giving and receiving, these guidelines help to foster greater understanding and cooperation.
I should note that I am not advocating a limit to the amount of compassion and generosity. Generally, more is better. In practice, though, judgmentalism is often the limiting factor: more judgment generally means less compassion. Instead, I am espousing that caring and giving be fairly evenly distributed between ourselves and others. When others claim more than their fair share, we should be ready to call them out. And by the same token, we should accept others calling us out. In this way, we can maintain our balance of self-interest and care for others. And when we all practice this balancing act and alternate between giving and receiving, we transcend independence and dependence. Instead, we foster healthy interdependence, and that works best for all.
You may have great techniques for relieving stress, but how are your strategies for handling the stressors causing the stress? Using meditation, yoga, exercise, venting, or just plain relaxation to relieve stress is all fine and good. Even so, you’ll likely continue to encounter stressors throughout your daily activities and social interactions. And just where does that relief get you, if you continue accumulating stress? You may feel that your life is a revolving door, facing the same challenges day after day. Or worse yet, you may feel like a hamster on a treadmill, unable to keep up with your accelerating pace. If so, it only makes sense to develop and practice effective strategies for managing your recurring stressors.
First, a Matter of Perspective
Before focusing on the different types of stressors, it is helpful to recognize a factor common to all stressors. That is, the actual situation doesn’t determine the intensity of our stress, as much as our perception and interpretation of it does. In other words, we can make a mountain out of a molehill. It’s simply a matter of perspective. While this insight is a cornerstone of the cognitive behaviorism school of psychology, it is no new revelation. Epictetus shared this wisdom with his contemporaries back in the days of the Roman Empire.
For most of you readers, this article serves as a reminder for what you already know. You may simply have found yourself swallowed up in the mire of a particular crisis. Here, a simple story, such as my Uncle Lester’s The Quicksand Beds of Caramba Flats, can help regain perspective. Or various sayings might help. Do we see the glass as being half-full or half-empty? Can we see the silver lining of the dark cloud? Such analogies and metaphors can help us regain our firm footing when we find ourselves on shaky ground. Now, we can consider the various strategies and techniques for handling the different types of stressors.
Different Types of Stressors
If you are like most, your stress comes from a variety of sources. It’s unrealistic to expect the same strategies to work well in all situations. Thus, it can be helpful to identify guidelines for handling some common types of stressors. That is just what this article proposes to do. For this task, I have compiled a list of four types of stressors, each of which suggest different approaches. These include Workload, Problems, Conflicts, and Losses.
Workload
Workload consists of our various chores, tasks, and demands. These stressors serve our needs and wants and our various obligations and responsibilities to others. They often involve satisfying direct or implied contracts (e.g., work for a paycheck, sharing household responsibilities, obeying laws). Here the work is pretty straightforward – we know the routine, and the main stress is the sheer amount.
Problems
Problems are aspects of our workload which are not so straightforward. These stressors involve certain complications that must be resolved to meet our needs or to satisfy our obligations. Sometimes the solution to problems is simply a matter of acquiring the needed knowledge and skills. At other times, it involves developing a game plan of strategies and tactics for applying this knowledge and skill.
Conflict
The stressor of Conflict is a particular type of problem, one with opposing and mutually exclusive objectives. In other words, you can’t have it all. We can further break down conflict into two types, internal and interpersonal.
Internal Conflicts
Internal conflicts are those between our own needs and wants. These often involve pairs of opposing values, such as security vs. freedom, order vs. spontaneity, and individuality vs. belonging. We might consider them as paradoxical dualities, as they do not lend themselves to clear-cut, rational solutions. In other words, logic will not determine which value should prevail. Rather, the resolution of these stressors typically requires a balancing or trade-off between the opposing values.
Interpersonal Conflict
Interpersonal conflicts involve a clash between our needs and wants and those of others. Even in the best of relationships, we will differ with our partners in terms of our goals and expectations.
Loss
The stressor of Loss involves our no longer have access to the people, things or events that are important to us. Such losses may be permanent and irreversible, as in the cases of death, destruction and severe injury. Or they may be only temporary, though still posing significant difficulties for us. We may lose actual people or tangible possessions, or our loss may be more abstract. Our self-esteem and reputation are examples of such abstract losses.
The Perspective of This Approach
The forthcoming guidelines are not particularly profound – “they’re not rocket science.” Rather, they offer practical reminders for when we get “so mad (or sad, anxious, etc.) that we can’t see straight.” Although presented from my own particular perspective, they are not original. I call upon the Serenity Prayer to sort out the types of stressors in terms of change and acceptance:
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
The Serenity Player offers guidelines for addressing different types of stressors.
Within this framework, workload consists of those stressors that we can resolve (with sufficient courage and commitment). Losses are those that we cannot change, but must accept (hopefully with some serenity). Problems are those that we are not yet sure whether or how we can work them out (thus, requiring wisdom). Conflicts are those stressors that typically involve some trade-off or balance between change and acceptance. Each type poses particular demands and requires particular strategies, skills and attitudes to resolve the stressors.
The Stressor of Workload
Issue:
The sheer amount of work, responsibilities, tasks, and demands
Challenge:
To complete the various tasks and responsibilities in a satisfactory and timely manner
Strategies & Techniques:
Organize – make a list, breaking the task down into manageable parts
Prioritize – decide which tasks are essential and urgent, and which are less important
Plan which tasks to tackle first, which to save for latter, and which to drop altogether
Establish a reasonable schedule you can stick to
Start work, one task at a time
Pace yourself
Delegate responsibilities, contract out to others
Check the items off your list as you complete them, to monitor your progress
Give yourself intermittent rewards after completing the different steps or stages – not before!
Pitfalls:
Feeling overwhelmed, perhaps even unfairly victimized
Self-criticism and blaming
Procrastination and avoidance – breaks become unconditional surrender, rather than strategic retreats
Demands and tasks accumulate, making the workload feel all the more oppressive
Coping skills atrophy, or weaken, through non-use (“If you don’t use it, you lose it.”)
The Stressor of Problems
Issue:
The Workload is not simple and straightforward. Rather, it requires developing a new approach or modifying an existing one in order to get the task done.
Challenge:
To find a solution to the problem(s) thwarting completion of the task
Strategies & Techniques:
Take time to develop your own knowledge and understanding of the problem – to find an answer you must first understand the question.
Remember that working hard is a good strategy for workload, but working smart is generally better for problems
Step back and take a break to get a fresh perspective, especially if you “can’t see the forest for the trees.” (Make sure this is only a strategic retreat, not an unconditional surrender.)
Seek out others’ expertise and guidance, perhaps even hiring a consultant
Brainstorm: If “two heads are better than one,” just think what several can do.
Pitfalls:
Tunnel vision – not questioning your own perspective – one definition of insanity is “taking the same approach and expecting different results”; finding a solution often requires looking at the problem in a different way (i.e., “thinking outside the box”)
Working harder, rather than working smarter, thus “spinning your wheels”
Negativity – adopting a negative outlook discourages a positive solution – “self-fulfilling prophecy” – rather, look at the problem as an opportunity to discover & practice new understanding and skills
Complaining about how the problem shouldn’t be, rather than accepting it as reality and dealing with it
Procrastination and neglect, which often allows it to get worse – in contrast to “a stitch in time saves nine.”
Avoidance of problems interferes with developing positive problem-solving skills.
The Stressor of Conflict
As we have addressed above, conflict can be either internal or interpersonal. Actually, this stressor typically involves both dimensions. This is chiefly related to the tension between being an individual and belonging to a group. It is here that our concern for our own individual well-being and our caring for others collide. Only if we were totally selfish or totally selfless would we escape this internal tension.
Interpersonal Conflict
Issue:
A disagreement with someone prevents you from getting what you want, poses a hardship, keeps you from completing your work effectively, or disrupts your relationship
Challenge:
To resolve the conflict and restore harmony. This is part of a broader, ongoing challenge: that of striking a balance between looking out for your own self-interests and demonstrating your commitment to the relationship and caring for the other. The only time that you really proclaim you own sense of individual self-worth is when you take a stand in opposition to someone else. And the only time that you really demonstrate your caring for the other is when you sacrifice your own self-interests for their benefit. Through the ongoing series of conflicts, large and small, we are perpetually fine-tuning the balance between individuality and relatedness.
Strategies & Techniques:
Two fundamental prerequisites for resolving conflict are safety and respect: without safety, any resolution is achieved under duress, and resolution without respect is often a hollow victory.
Be flexible in your styles of dealing with conflict. You wouldn’t construct a piece of furniture with just one type of tool. When various styles are used in balance and moderation, they typically are adaptive. Excessive use of any one style may be counterproductive.
Common styles of dealing with conflict are Avoidance, Confrontation, Accommodation, Cooperation, and Collaboration. (These styles are discussed in more detail elsewhere.)
Conflict resolution involves three basic components: self-expression, active listening, and negotiation.
Listening
Usually both sides need to have their feelings heard before they are ready to consider possible solutions.
Keep an open mind: just as your point-of-view make perfect sense to you, so, too, do your adversaries’ perspectives make sense to them. It is unrealistic to expect that a conflict will be worked out only from your perspective. Afterall, no one’s going to let you have the home field advantage all the time. Besides, discovering another perspective expands your horizons.
If you want your partners and adversaries to consider your perspectives, you’d better demonstrate your willingness to listen to theirs. It’s not enough to comprehend their point-of-view. You must demonstrate your understanding of it to them. It’s even better if you can show that by “reading between the lines” – that is, if you don’t do it in a critical, defensive, or controlling manner.
Listen to your partner before expressing your point of view. That way, you’ll have more of their undivided attention.
Expression
Your partner or opponent is not a mind-reader: the more clearly you can state your position and its rationale, the better your chance for a fair settlement. Define the problem from your viewpoint, describe how it is affecting you, state your expectations, and perhaps indicate the incentives for your partner agreeing to your proposal.
Incentives probably work best if they are concessions you are willing to make or are natural consequences of the agreement. Otherwise, they may convey a sense of manipulation, bribery, extortion, blackmail, etc.
Expanding the discussion to include other complaints to justify your position tends to make the negotiations complicated and contentious. While it can be helpful to put your position in a broader context to enhance mutual understanding, it is often better to address one issue, or just a few related issues, at a time.
Negotiation
Negotiation needs to take both perspectives into account. While compromise often involves a “50-50″ solution, in which both sides get some of what they want, collaboration can strive for more of a “win-win” situation, in which both sides can get more than half. This involves the additional use of problem-solving techniques, discussed in the previous section.
Incentives probably work best if they are concessions you are willing to make or are natural consequences of the agreement. Otherwise, they may convey a sense of manipulation, bribery, extortion, blackmail, etc.
Know the rules of the game: if your adversary is playing his or her hand with the cards close to the vest, and you are laying your cards on the table, you are not going to win your fair share of poker hands.
Pitfalls:
Blame and focusing on whose fault a problem is accomplishes little more than creating animosity. It’s often not necessary to know how a problem got that way in order to fix it.
Complaining may be a safer form of communication than expressing one’s feelings, but it tends to foster defensiveness and counterattacks.
Trying to find a solution before your partner expresses their feelings may convey an attitude that you don’t care about them.
Insisting on getting your way all the time puts off the other person, reducing the chances of a resolution, or making the settlement a hollow victory.
Accommodating or giving in to others regularly usually leads to them taking you for granted and to your feeling resentful.
Avoidance of conflict may involve losing by default – giving in rather than addressing the differences.
Avoidance of conflict prevents you from developing the skills needed to negotiate a favorable settlement for yourself. This tends to give others an advantage in future conflicts.
Internal Conflict
Issue:
Life frequently involves internal conflicts, in which something must be given up. Often these conflicts are unavoidable, as they involve an inherent paradox of life, generally requiring some trade-off. Security vs. freedom, order vs. spontaneity, and individuality vs. belonging are examples of such paradoxes.
Challenge:
To reconcile opposing needs, feelings, urges, values, and interests in ourselves, in order to achieve an integrated self, that balances and reconciles opposing values and perspectives.
Strategies & Techniques:
Values clarification: identifying the various implicit values on each side of a conflict situation.
Recognizing conflicts as opportunities to clarify and articulate our basic values, thus helping us to know ourselves better.
Identifying the pro’s and con’s on each side of a conflict situation, weighing the likely and possible consequences of a particular resolution to a conflict.
Recognizing that a healthy resolution of a conflict often involves a trade-off between competing sides, rather than having an either-or or all-or-none resolution.
Realizing that something must be given up in the trade-off, and perhaps going through a grieving process.
Pitfalls:
It is often tempting to “project” one side of an internal conflict onto someone else, so that it is experienced as an interpersonal conflict, rather than an internal one. For example, baiting others into condemning one’s drug abuse might distract attention from one’s own shame over using.
“Projecting” one side of a conflict onto others allows ones to pursue one side of the conflict, perhaps as an act of rebellion against their censure.
The Stressor of Loss
Issue:
Something or someone that has been an important part of your life is no longer available,
Challenge:
To accept a loss, to honor the positive in what you’ve lost and to forgive the negative, to let go and move on with your life. The loss may be something tangible (e.g., death of a parent or sibling, divorce, job loss, disability from chronic illness) or something more abstract (e.g., self-esteem, reputation, respect, honor, trust, sense of identity). Whichever it is, we are called upon to give up something that can’t be entirely fixed or replaced. Or we may simply come to a realization of the natural limitations and paradoxes of life (e.g., not being able to “have our cake and eat it, too”).
Strategies & Techniques:
Expressing sadness and grief over the loss, rather than simply complaining
Recognizing the difference between grief and self-pity
Utilizing social support, allowing others to bear witness to our mourning
Dealing with the loss emotionally, not just intellectually
Working through the various phases of the grief process (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance), rather than distracting yourself from this work
Letting go, both of the longing to regain the lost person or thing, and of any anger and resentment over the loss
Honoring what you’ve gotten out of what you have lost. This work at incorporating the positive qualities into your own life serves as a remembrance for what or whom you have lost.
Establishing a balance between healing the wound of the loss and moving forward in your life. Over time, the balance should be gradually shifting toward the latter.
Pitfalls:
Getting stuck in longing for the past, or in bearing a grudge or resentment over what was taken away from you, rather than letting go of the lost person, thing, or quality
Confusion between complaining and grieving. Complaining involves holding onto ones grievances, rather than letting go.
Confusing sadness with weakness. Ironically, we best regain our strength and resiliency by giving into our sadness and working through the grief process.
Toughing it out, not wanting to let anyone see you sweat, especially sweating tears
Numbing oneself to avoid the pain of the loss, thus staying stuck in unresolved grief
Wariness over establishing a similar involvement in the future, to avoid a similar pain and loss
Summary
The above discussion utilizes the Serenity Prayer in sorting out four types of stressors and recommending strategies for each. Many of these tips are common sense and likely already familiar. Thus, these lists serve as useful reminders of helpful outlooks and skills in the midst of stress.
Additional Resources
In calmer times, more extensive exploration of this topic can strengthen these perspectives. Thus, the strategies and techniques can be more readily available when called for. Such further discussions are offered in other posts on this website. Baring Your Soul, Bearing Your Stress goes into more detail with the Serenity Prayer to explore the use of expression and emotional support in coping with stress.
We often get trapped into viewing our stressors as obstacles that interfere with our lives. This typically leads to avoidance and its associated negative feelings, such as dread, resentment, and shame. Another option is to view stressors as providing opportunities to grow. Here, we can expand our perspective, develop our skills, and affirm our place in the world. Embrace the adventure!
I awoke about 3 am this morning, just as a nightmare was coming to a resolution. I’d just dreamt that I and a crew of renegades were making our escape from an oppressive authoritarian regime that had overtaken our country. And when we were on the cusp of achieving freedom, some glitch occurred, such that we were being found out. That’s when I awoke from this nightmare.
Fantasies of Chaos in America
It didn’t take much insight to realize that my nightmare was my personal reaction to our national crisis. Just this Tuesday I watched the Presidential Debacle, in which President Trump highjacked the debate. I had fantasies of the follow-up to the election November 3. In one scenario, Republican state legislators overrode the election results, backing Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud. They declared the vote null and void and sent their slate of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. In another version, I envisioned a defeated Trump activating his vigilante stormtrumpers, whom he had on stand-by. He justified and supported this move by declaring martial law, blaming antifa and Black Lives Matter for the unrest.
I make no claim regarding the plausibility for either of these nightmarish scenarios. I’m simply reporting on how our current political specter has haunted me, even in my sleep. I fell into a black hole fueled by fear, distrust and anger. And the pull of this nightmare continued in the above fantasies after I awoke. This susceptibility gave me some appreciation for how Trumpsters could fall prey to QAnon conspiracy theories.
Subduing the Nightmare
I was all keyed up from my nightmare, and I realized that sleep would not easily return. So I got up and read from Steven Mitchell’s translation and interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. I realized that I could open it up to almost any page and experience some solace. It did not disappoint. I felt centered. My mind quieted. And I felt sad. Sad for the toll our current socio-political climate is taking on me – and on my brothers and sisters across this country. I mention the Tao Te Ching not to plug it, though it contains some profound truths. Rather, I seek to encourage others to turn to their sources of inspiration and solace.
Mourning in America
And I wept. Lest some Trumpsters interpret this as a sign of weakness, these are not tears of a victim feeling sorry for himself. Nor of a bleeding heart pitying poor, helpless victims. These are tears of grief. I was mourning for the emotional poverty this country has been experiencing as it prays at the altar of property, power, prestige, and privilege. And out of this grief comes not resignation, but resolve. Resolve to confront these false gods and to recover our lost humanity.
A Prelude to the Nightmare of Trump‘s America
This fall from grace did not start with Trump. We had plenty of warning signs along the way. There was Robin Leach’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. More recently, we have the Kardashians and The Real Housewive’s of LA, NY, DC, or wherever. Perhaps our idolatry of material success and fame provides some distraction from our nightmare of unspoken discontents. We seem to have lost our moral compass. We reveal the values we practice through the icons, memes, and idols that we follow on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. All this continues while our wealth disparity widens, the pandemic spreads, and our climate heats up. These crises are brought to us courtesy of our sponsors – dark money from superPacs, special interests lobbies, lax oversight for business practices, and tax breaks for the wealthy.
Trump – Type-Cast for the Role of Demagogue
Trump has been but a mere symptom of this cultural decline. His niece has portrayed a profile of emotional poverty in his upbringing. Perhaps as an antidote, he has bought into the religion of the 4 P’s (i.e., property, power, prestige, and privilege). And as a result, he has been a lightning rod for the current cultural tensions. Perhaps his impending defeat, financial downturn, and the risk of criminal prosecution have led to his escalating desperation. In any event, he has played his character to the hilt in this reality TV melodrama.
Any Chance for Redemption?
I offer such speculation not to excuse his abusive behavior, but to understand it. I could muster up some compassion for him, as he appears to be pretty miserable. However, his willingness to inflict harm on others for his ego needs discourages me from doing so. He first needs to repent, before he can find true redemption. He likely needs to undergo the humiliation of defeat before he can develop the humility to beg forgiveness. Then there’s the matter of making amends. And just how likely is that?
A Silver Lining
Just one note of gratitude. I am thankful that Trump’s flaws are becoming increasingly apparent, such that most of us can now recognize them. Hopefully, this will pull us back from the brink of despotism. In contrast, a more polished demagogue would have posed an even greater risk. Perhaps this episode can enlighten future generations of such threats to our democracy.
A Call to Arms (Figuratively Speaking)
Thank you for indulging my rant, as it has been cathartic. Hopefully, it strikes a chord with some of you, so that you might feel somewhat less isolated in this toxic climate. And maybe it’ll prompt you to take some action – like voting! And volunteering for and contributing to campaigns supporting our ideals of democracy would be even better. Still better, you might share this post with others who may be on the fence. Note that I plan to exercise my resolve by completing my post, entitled Bridging the Great Political Divide. This work will be a follow-up to my last post, Understanding Political Polarization. Meanwhile, I’m going to catch some shut-eye – hopefully, without any further nightmares .
(Author’s note: I wrote this post prior to the news of the Trumps’ positive tests for COVID-19. I extend my wishes for their complete recovery.)
Political polarization has been on the rise over the past few decades. This division has only intensified during Trump’s presidency. In today’s climate, the discussion of our political differences appears nearly impossible. This post will explore how the interplay of beliefs and values shapes our political positions. We will see how our quest for certainty can result in adopting polarized positions. Yet normal conflicts between values undermine our confidence in taking such absolute stances on issues. “True believers” resolve this dilemma by compartmentalizing their conflicting values. Additionally, they seek refuge externally, embracing dogma, cult, and authoritarian leader for their longed-for reassurance. This post will expand upon this rather compact summary for a more complete understanding of polarization.
Our Quest for Meaning and Security
First, our political principles do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they are part of an overall outlook on life that also encompasses culture, society, spirituality, recreation, and occupation. Our various beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and values generally hang together in at least a somewhat coherent fashion. This system helps us make sense of the world around us, anticipate relevant events, and plan accordingly. We rely on it not only to find meaning and purpose, but also to achieve a sense of security.
Beliefs and Values
Here, it is helpful to distinguish between beliefs and values. Our beliefs concern how we see things being, whereas our values are about how we see things should be. Our political positions concern the discrepancy between what is and what should or could be. If the current situation is consistent with our values, we support the status quo. This conservative stance by no means implies complacency – we can be quite vigilant in preserving the current order. And when the present doesn’t measure up to our ideals, we promote change. This can be progressive, in trying something new, or regressive, in going back to the old ways. Through this process, our systems of values and beliefs shape our various political opinions, attitudes, and policies.
Diversity Breeds Insecurity
With the diversity of beliefs and values, how can we be confident in our own? And with severe polarization, we disagree sharply in both our values and our beliefs. This makes for considerable conflict and confusion, thus threatening our sense of security. In the face of this situation, we long for certainty.
Logic and Our Search for Clear-cut Answers
Threats to our security are not just external – they can be internal, as well. Our outlook on life bolsters our sense of security by providing a consistent, straightforward guide for making choices. We generally like clear-cut, logical answers – true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. Logical analysis is custom-designed to deliver the goods, in either-or terms. And when we can all agree on the basic assumptions in a logical argument, we can usually agree on the conclusions. Such are the ingredients of an orderly, productive society.
The Initial Assumptions – Therein Lies the Rub
The main challenge to our societal ideals lies outside the realm of logic – actually, prior to it. Logic does not create something out of nothing. In order to use deductive reasoning, we require some initial statements to apply it to. These premises are basic beliefs which we presume to be true. With no logical proof of their validity, we believe them because they make sense to us and others whose opinions we respect. With polarization, we often disagree on the basic premises underpinning our arguments on a particular policy. Usually these assumptions go unstated, resulting in a stalemate in discussions.
Agreeing on the Facts
Another problem is agreeing on the facts. We’d all like to think that we share the same knowledge base in debating our positions on issues. After all, facts are facts, right? Yet political developments highlight this challenge. For example, Kelly Ann Conway proposed “alternative facts” in justifying the claim that President Trump had record attendance at his inauguration. While hardly an expert in epistemology (i.e., the philosophical study of how we know things), she backed this position by questioning how we can know anything with certainty. More recently, the distinction between anecdotal and scientific knowledge has emerged in the battle against COVID-19. All this highlights the need for consensus regarding “rules of evidence” for determining fact. (I plan to take this up in an upcoming post, with the working title of “Knowledge: Anecdote, Analogy, and Logic”.)
How Logic Speaks to Values – Or Not
Values present an even more daunting challenge to a sense of security that rests on a foundation of certainty. In the world of philosophy, the logical empiricists are rather dismissive of values, or ideals. Purists consider them to be non-sensory phenomena (or nonsense, for short?), and thus unworthy of logical inquiry. (Scott Adams has delivered a rather pithy commentary of their bias in Dilbert.) By embracing the value of objectivity, they appear quite willing to relegate the topic of values to the more subjective ethicists. The resulting separate study of beliefs and values complicates our efforts to understand their interplay in creating polarized political positions. Still, we must proceed.
Values in Conflict – Incidental and Paradoxical
All this goes to say that values do not lend themselves well to logical analysis. While deductive reasoning offers “either-or” conclusions in establishing facts, “both-and” resolutions appear more appropriate to values. This situation is particularly relevant when values are in conflict – as they frequently are. These conflicts may be incidental, arising randomly in specific situations. Yet, quite often certain values are inherently opposed to one another. These include order vs. spontaneity, individual freedom vs. the common good, adventure/risk vs. security, living for today vs. planning for tomorrow, and being-for-self vs. being-for-others. Such polarities in values serve as the basis for much polarization. You can probably recognize how various political controversies involve one or more of these dualities.
The Issue of Paradox
If logic doesn’t solve the problem of conflicting values, where do we turn? Another option is to view our conflicts between values not as problems to be solved, but as paradoxes to be accepted. Here, I might quote from my doctoral dissertation over years ago:
Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.
Robert Daniel, Ph.D., 1986
An Example of a Paradoxical Duality of Values
A common saying offers some insight into the dilemma posed by one such paradoxical duality: “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” This simple statement embodies the tension between enjoying life in the moment and planning for the future. There is one significant flaw with this assertion, in that it considers only a binary choice, with either-or options. It overlooks a middle ground: “You can halve your cake, eat one half now, save the rest for later.” While flawed, the original saying conveys the opposite extremes that characterize polarization. Furthermore, the altered version suggests a “both-and” resolution involving a trade-off between the two ideals.
Political Implications of This Paradox
In politics, this issue plays out in the decision to get immediate relief from deferring payroll taxes or to continue full funding of Social Security for our futures. It also applies to the threat that the extraction of natural resources poses to future pollution of our environment. Our next generation will judge us by how we leave the earth, their inheritance. To listen to Greta Thunberg, we’ve already been indicted (and rightly so, I might add).
Yet another example of polarization comes straight from the political sphere. Here, former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater famously stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Ultimate liberty means having no limits, and thus no rules or order. Without restraints, those in power are free to do as they please. As Lord Acton noted in the 19th Century, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus, the powerful get their way, creating injustice for others. Goldwater was able to compartmentalize freedom and justice so as not to recognize this inherent conflict. And many other politicians are doing the same with the various paradoxical dilemmas that underlay our political polarization.
Paradox: Where Logic Falls Short
As I suggested through my two examples, polarization arises out of our tendency to view dualities in either-or terms. Deductive logic emphasizes such binary solutions to our problems. This, along with the inductive reasoning of the scientific method, has promoted major technological advances. Yet logic falls short when it comes to paradox, which by definition defies logical solution. We cannot totally have it our way for both savoring the moment and building a nest egg for tomorrow. Nor can we have absolute freedom and total justice in our society. Of course, this also challenges Madison Avenue’s sales pitch that “you can have it all.” So, where does that leave us?
Paradox: A Challenge to Certainty
Our alternative resolution to paradoxes is acceptance. This involves recognizing that we cannot totally attain both ends of polar dualities. Rather than the polarized choice between the two extremes, we can resign ourselves to a trade-off between the two. We can opt for some of both, but not all of either. But just where do we draw the line? Well, this is where ambiguity sets in. As much as we might want definitive answers, these choices are generally a matter of personal preference. (More on this later.) While that might relieve us of the burden of proving ourselves right, it leaves us on shaky ground with our sense of security. No straightforward, clear-cut answers here – only a debate on the relative merits of a proposed policy.
Finding Balance between the Paradoxical Values
I have proposed one basic guideline in my previous post, Muddling down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life. Actually, the title aptly summarizes my message, which draws on the Buddhist principle of the Middle Path. The general rule of thumb is that the middle ground works out better than polarized extremes of the spectrum. Simple, no? Well, there is one slight complication: there can be a wide range of healthy, adaptive positions in the middle. This leaves plenty of room for honest differences of opinion.
Balancing Logic and Paradox
Earlier, I expressed regret for how the separate studies of logic and ethics complicate our understanding of political opinions. Instead, I suggest that logical determination of facts and tolerance for conflicting values ideally complement one other to achieve informed political opinions. This integration utilizes both objective and subjective perspectives for a deeper appreciation of our political differences. In doing so, this model views science and the humanities as complementary, rather than opposing forces.
In Praise of Ambiguity and Uncertainty
Political dialogue based upon the above principles support greater tolerance for our differences and less judgmentalism of one other. Thus, we can have honest disagreements without each declaring ourselves right and others wrong. We can broaden our perspective by considering ideas and values other than our own. We can stand in awe of this complex and diverse world, especially since we can’t entirely comprehend it in logical terms. So, why not embrace life’s ambiguities? Indeed, Alan Watts recommends this in The Wisdom of Insecurity, a spiritual book that transcends particular religious traditions. So, what’s not to love?
The Threat to our Sense of Security
There’s just one catch, though. Remember how we addressed our desire for certainty to insure our sense of security, especially in contentious times? Well, conflicting values challenge our having straightforward, clear-cut answers. Do you recall that game of Jenga, involving removal of building blocks from a tower? We can remove only so many select blocks before the structure topples. Well, that illustrates the fears that some have about giving up their right vs. wrong, black-and-white thinking. It is indeed ironic that seeking this internal certainty fosters the polarization that is so divisive to society.While we may seek certainty to reassure our sense of security, the resulting polarization ultimately threatens our actual security.
The True Believer
Seeking certainty for a sense of identity and security is by no means a new concept. In The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951), Eric Hoffer coined the term, “true believer.” Since his profile of this phenomenon remains valid, I will borrow his term in discussing seekers of certainty.
The Illusion of Absolute Certainty
This illusion of certainty and security is not achieved without some serious mental gymnastics. True believers commonly deny, rationalize, distort, and suppress evidence contrary to their polarized positions. Yet their really problematic challenge is more internal – that of conflicts among the very values they endorse. I have proposed that we optimally have a balanced trade-off between opposing values. These include law-and-order vs. freedom, individualism vs. the common good, and adventure vs. security. Many true believers view most all these values positively. They even treat them as dogma – absolute ideals, written in stone, never to be violated. Maintaining this illusion, though, requires not seeing them in conflict with one another. Goldwater, for example, was apparently able to achieve this with regard to liberty and justice. Such is the defense mechanism of compartmentalization.
The engraving of this saying in stone offers an ironic challenge to the notion of Absolute Truth.
Compartmentalization
Compartmentalization involves erecting internal firewalls between contradictory positions which we hold. We consider each of the opposing sides one at a time, so that we don’t recognize the contradictions. When we delve more deeply into our policies promoting one ideal, we encounter how it limits its complement. For instance, we might promote freedom by allowing business owners to select their customers by whatever standard they choose. When they do so on grounds of race, religion, or gender, this discrimination infringes on justice for these groups. With compartmentalization, each value is addressed independently, allowing sequential coexistence of opposing polarized positions. This defense worked so well for Barry Goldwater, that he didn’t recognize the contradiction within two consecutive sentences.
A Sea of Uncertainty
So far, I have argued that limitations of logic, relativity of conflicting values, and ambiguity of paradoxes all challenge certainty in our convictions. Earlier, I had noted how our choices among various competing values boil down to personal preference. With so many viable options, our decisions can feel rather arbitrary. This only further diminishes our sense of certainty. If we base our security on such certainty, we won’t feel particularly safe. Then, we are likely to look outside ourselves, to rely on external sources for clear-cut answers.
Finding External Sources of Certainty
External sources of doctrine, group, and leader may promise straightforward answers to contentious political issues. These areas correspond to three moral values proposed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his Moral Foundations Theory. Here, he supplemented the usual standards of fairness and harm avoidance with sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to authority. Each of these three additions can reassure true believers of certainty in their polarized convictions.
Sanctity Backed by Religious Doctrine
Sanctity involves an ethical code emphasizing purity of thought and action, usually based on religious doctrine. Typically, the dogma affirms the absolute truth of its tenets. These are seen as trumping other values that may conflict with them. The Catholic Church’s claim of papal infallibility is but one example. With such dogma superceding other viewpoints, true believers can rest assured that their values and beliefs are absolute truths.
Loyalty to Group
Loyalty to the group is another external support that enables the illusion of certainty. True believers can achieve a sense of personal identity from being a member of a larger group. The pressure for group conformity, though, discourages the other principle component of individual identity – one’s uniqueness. This is consistent with Hoffer’s notion that mass movements actually discourage self-affirmation. Any sense of uniqueness is shared with the whole group and is in opposition to other groups. This establishes an “us vs. them” mentality, which lies at the heart of polarization. While this solidifies the true believers’ sense of meaning and purpose, it envisions a more hostile world. This ominous perspective likely leads them to hunker down in their polarized beliefs and values. It also leaves them even more dependent upon their external support system.
Allegiance to the Leader
Finally, true believers gravitate toward charismatic leaders who lay claim to having all the answers. They thus obtain their sense of value vicariously, through identifying with their leader. When the Wizard says to pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, they oblige. No questions asked.
Dogma, Cult, and Authoritarian Leader
The values of sanctity, group loyalty, and allegiance to the leader present a formidable force for polarization. In their extreme versions, they promote rigid dogma, cults, and authoritarian leaders. This combination leaves the true believer almost impervious to influence from sources outside this triad. Logical reasoning seldom penetrates their political polarization – they simply are too well defended. Yet the authoritarian leaders and the proponents of the “us vs. them” dogma are even more resistant to change. They are simply unwilling to give up their power. This leaves the true believer as the weak link in the movement. My upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, will address the difficult challenge of engaging the true believer.
The Broader Perspective on Polarization
Prior to this last section, we have addressed political polarization primarily on the individual level, in basically psychological terms. It is when we step back and examine it on the larger political scale that we realize the potential for real danger. Then, we see political cults that poses challenges to our democracy. Factions at both poles of the political spectrum get locked into dysfunctional vicious cycle patterns. As I addressed in Vicious Cycle Roles on the Societal and Political Level, a common political pattern involves law-and-order conservatives and bleeding heart liberals clashing on how to handle major groups. Where the former see threats to our way of life, the latter see society’s victims. In a polarized society, there is little room for a nuanced perspective on the group in question. As the saying goes, “You’re either for us or against us.”
Where We Stand Today
We appear to be in one such vortex today, in the shadow of George Floyd’s tragic death. We could characterize the 2020 presidential race as a classic battle between law-and-order and bleeding hearts. That, however, would be a gross simplification – and wrong. On the one hand, Donald Trump’s position is polarized and dogmatic. He panders to his base by promising to quell and “dominate” the unrest and violence. If he has made any distinction between peaceful protesters and anarchists, it was only a passing footnote. He has excused bad cops for their “choking” under pressure and characterized right-wing vigilante militias as patriots. On the other hand, Joe Biden has highlighted the distinction between peaceful protesters and vandals, looters, and rioters. He seeks reform of our imperfect institutions, not their dismantlement. He seeks unification and healing, while Trump pursues division and dominance.
A Statement of Disclosure
I admit that I am not providing “fair and balanced” coverage in focusing on the polarized right. In my defense, I do so because that is where the power is. And as Lord Acton noted, corruption soon follows. Whether that be voter suppression, violations of the Hatch Act, seeking foreign assistance in elections, or other abuses, recent history bears that out. Such violations are not currently so apparent or menacing on the polarized left. Yes, there has been destruction and violence by a left-wing fringe, which warrants punishment. I fear that any harm to life and property, bad as it is, will be overshadowed by the law-and-order measures taken to suppress dissent. I like to think that I would challenge the political left similarly for any abuses comparable to the polarized right’s. When the pendulum of power swings in its direction, I could well be tested.
Behind the Scenes – Conspiracy?
I have my doubts whether the corporate/governmental complex, backed by their Super PACs, special interest lobbyists, and biased think tanks, will give up power willingly. They are just too invested in their pursuit of power, property, prestige, and privilege. Yes, this offers an alternative to the Deep State conspiracy in describing the behind-the-scene power structure. Still, I’d assert that it offers vastly better documentation than QAnon, Alex Jones, Fox Media, Breitbart, and OAN. But don’t take my word for it. Check out Common Cause, Public Citizen, and other lobbying groups serving the public, rather than special interests.
Where to from Here?
Hopefully, I have offered some clarity on the issue of political polarization. The 2020 ballot box has affirmed democracy over polarized dogma, autocratic leadership, and true-believer cult followers. Still, the gains are not written in stone. To paraphrase and extend a famous saying of uncertain origins, “The price of freedom [and justice, for that matter] is eternal vigilance.” There still needs to be major reckoning and healing before we can restore collaborative governance. We may not be able to reach die-hard true believers of the polar extremes, but we might try a fresh approach. Watch for my upcoming post, Bridging the Great Political Divide, where I will introduce “verbal judo.” If nothing else, perhaps we can reach enough independents to attain the critical mass needed for true reform. Stay tuned, keep an open mind, breathe deeply, and hang on for the roller coaster ride of a lifetime.
How is it that being self-aware is generally viewed favorably, whereas being self-conscious is not? After all, aren’t awareness and consciousness pretty much the same thing? Much has been made of being self-aware, going back to ancient Greece and the Socratic counsel to “know thyself.” More recently, mindfulness meditation, particularly with its focus on experiencing our bodies (e.g., our breathing), encourages self-awareness. As for being self-conscious, I recall the scene from The Lonely Guy in which the Steve Martin character eats out alone. A spotlight follows him as the maitre d’ escorts him to his table. The scene, with a gauntlet of gawking couples staring at him, captures the essence of self-consciousness.
The Mirror as a Symbol of Self-reflection
Being self-aware and being self-conscious both are examples of self-reflection. The most apt symbol of this is a mirror. A mirror allows us to gain perspective in viewing ourselves. We are looking at ourselves looking at ourselves. Yet, if we were in a hall of mirrors, we would quickly become disoriented and overwhelmed. This is the physical equivalent of watching ourselves reflecting on our experience of examining our thoughts. Difficult to follow? Well, then I’ve made my point. Such an internal hall of mirrors is one facet of self-consciousness.
Conducting our own Experiment
We can explore the quality of our self-reflection by looking at ourselves in the mirror. No, this is not one of Einstein’s “thought experiments.” So get up off your duff and go into the bathroom and look at yourself in the mirror. Who and what do you see? How much of this experience would you label as self-awareness, and how much as self-consciousness? And on what basis do you make this distinction? Is this distinction important to you? Why, or why not?
What’s Your Take?
Do you buy into Socrates’ dictum that “An unexamined life is not worth living”? Or does all this self-reflection just get in the way of living? And is the distinction between self-awareness and self-consciousness relevant to answering this question? And if so, what distinguishes the two experiences from one another?
An Invitation to Participate
If you are looking to me for answers on this, you’ll have to wait a while. Rather than waiting until I’ve thoroughly addressed these questions, I want to put this topic out there now. Furthermore, I would like this exercise to be more interactive, so I welcome your input. I’ve done the exercise in front of the mirror myself, but I’ll hold off on sharing that. After all, I wouldn’t want to lead the witnesses. I will post your responses, either attributed to you or anonymously, as you wish. If you don’t specify, I’ll use my judgment. And if I don’t get much feedback, I might just go off on my own tangent. You wouldn’t want that, now would you?
