The 'other' is a concept discussed by Elizabeth Lesser in a TED talk from 2010, a topic I perceive has only increased in relevance to our society over the last decade. Everyone has their own 'other', that is those from another side of our own personal beliefs and convictions. Religious and political identity are clear examples of this discussed in her speech. Unfortunately, our media benefits so much on sensational reporting and generating controversy that it has fanned the flames of the enmity between the opposing political sides immensely.
Here is a link to the 11 minute speech if you'd like to listen.
It is central to the human mind to categorize persons and things broadly, as a shorthand of sorts to more efficiently utilize the finite resources of our brain. One consequence of this is the 'us vs them' mentality, grouping those like us in any way our mind deems important. It can be difficult to maintain respect and not fall into negative stereotyping when considering the 'others.' Elizabeth Lesser makes a case for having an open mind and humility, with a 'I don't know it all' mentality. Our world is sorely lacking in humility, with a tendency to believe our perspective on the world is the only correct one. Even many of those who proclaim tolerance and diversity are just as guilty.
An exercise proposed here is to take 'the other' to lunch. Find someone who we have opposing beliefs with and spend some time getting to know them and attempt to understand them as more of a multifaceted human rather than a preconceived stereotype. Because of the echo chambers we tend to insulate ourselves within, with media that supports our existing views and like-minded friends, we tend to focus on the most extreme and negative examples of the other side without acknowledging that those notable examples may not represent the majority. So this exercise can help to break through these pervasive beliefs.
In order to accomplish this, she suggests some rules both should agree to beforehand:
1) Don't persuade, defend, or interrupt.
2) Be curious, conversational, and real.
3) Listen.
There are also three questions she suggests asking:
1) Share some of your life experiences.
2) What issues deeply concern you?
3) What have you always wanted to ask someone from the 'other side'?
Thinking personally on this topic, I have my own identity like anyone else. I am a Christian, I consider myself nondenominational and Bible believing. Although I believe there is only one path to salvation, I believe a spirit of humility is essential and I am a sinner just as imperfect as anyone of any other faith. Politically I consider myself a right-leaning libertarian in the spirit of Milton Friedman. I usually vote Libertarian although I consider the candidates as individuals and have voted for members of the Constitutional party, Independents, Republican, and even Democrat parties.
Although I don't identify as a Republican, I did in the past, and many of my friends and family identify that way. In talking to Republicans, we find a fairly high amount of common ground, and usually have a pleasant conversation, even on topics we disagree on. Many Republicans are Christians, and those who aren't at least have some respect for the religion. Because of this, I can't help but feel a bit personally attacked when Republicans are characterized negatively as a whole, as if nearly half of this nation can fit a particular negative stereotype. So therefore, for me the other would be Democrats, especially atheists who often have negative preconceptions about Christians.
A moment from the video struck personally with me, when she asked her conservative 'other' "Why do you stereotype us so badly?" and she responded that she felt it was them who was unfairly stereotyped more often. This characterizes a lot of discussions I've had with 'others' as issues one side is concerned about, the other side thinks is not prominent. It's almost as if both sides exist in different realities, no doubt thanks in part to the echo-chamber effect mentioned above.
Someone that comes to mind I could potentially try this experiment with is a coworker who I see whenever I go in to work. We have talked politics before a little and I'm aware he is a left-leaning atheist. We haven't discussed religion yet, and I'm not sure how he would take it if I told him I was a Christian, and not just an in-name only one. We have somewhat of a friendship and I enjoy talking to him, but we've never met outside of work. However, I think I've gleamed enough from him that we would be able to share our perspectives with each other and still come away from it with respect for each other.
Although I've not tried this exercise exactly as described, I do have some 'other' friends and family and have engaged in a wide variety of discussions. In some discussions I mostly let them talk and don't contradict them. One example of this is a business trip I went on last year with a (higher ranking) coworker of mine. He freely shared his political views and inquired about mine, I felt a bit intimidated by his fierce conviction and his higher rank to me, so I wasn't eager to risk souring his opinion of me. I did state that I'm a libertarian, a position he began challenging, and ended the conversation by saying I disagree without really explaining. However, I did learn a lot about him, his personal experiences, and the reasons for his beliefs. At the end of the day, I still respect him as a person and I know he's definitely an intelligent man.
Communicating open and honestly in these situations can be a bit scary, as none of us like to invite conflict with someone we respect. However, if the interaction is predicated on heightening mutual understanding rather than convincing then that concern disappears. Having a spirit of humility is important, as one can communicate with thoughtfulness rather than arrogance, and listen with interest rather than incredulousness.
Having an honest discussion like this with coworkers can lead to mutual respect and understanding. When we view our different perspectives not as barriers and weaknesses but rather as something with its own potential merit, then we have true diversity. Not the kind of diversity that comes from people who look different, but from people who are different people by choice, and that is the kind of diversity that matters most.
It's much easier to learn to respect someone for being different because they came from a different part of the world than it is to respect someone who grew up in the same nation but chose to be different. It's not easy, and only possible with a spirit of humility. But achieving that respect is a kind of fulfillment unique to itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment