“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald
I returned from a week in Gauteng on Friday – buoyed up by great connections, good energy, engaged, smart people and in my customary state of hopefulness about South Africa, the world and humanity. During the week away I had facilitated a course on positive conflict and appropriate assertiveness, and I was on a high from the thoughtful responses and dialogue, the willingness to hold nuance and uncertainty. We spoke a lot about curiosity and (mostly) agreed it was a useful way to approach difficult emotions and conversations. We also spoke about a very basic principle of conflict management: essentially what is referred to as ‘staying on your side of the net.’ In other words, in any interaction we can only be sure of:
- our own intent and emotions (I feel offended/disrespected)
- the objective facts/events (a ceremony took place with folk in drag seated at a long table)
However, we can never assume to know anybody else’s intentions or emotions without dialogue and without hearing directly from them what they intended or felt with regard to the objective facts.
So we should ask for their input. This is an important concept for peacemaking and good relationship building and applies the rules of natural justice (audi alteram partem – listen to both sides of the story). As far as I can tell there is nothing upsetting or offensive in suggesting this. I would imagine it feels prudent to any reasonable person in any potential conflict or misunderstanding they may be dealing with.
So I commented on the events of the Olympic opening ceremony on Sunday to say more or less the following:
I am neither in favour of or opposed to the opening ceremony, (it was completely bizarre and very French). Before we assign the intent to mock Christianity, we should maybe acknowledge that that is our own interpretation and that (if we are to apply the above principle) it would be worth considering the possibility that there are many potential explanations and interpretations for the folk at the long table, the horse and the calf. They are not exclusively Christian symbols. It would be useful (if we value peace and good relationships) to direct questions to the organisers of the ceremony rather than assuming their evil intent.* It is a wonderful idea (that is excellent for my head space) to jump to the most positive conclusion about others (at least until there is clear evidence to the contrary). It is excellent for peace and harmony to be curious rather than rigidly certain that we are 100% right.
I was curious and troubled by how offended folk seemed to be at my above suggestions. There were many violent knee-jerk reactions that seemed illogical. Many people appeared to assume that I was promoting the ceremony at the expense of Christianity, that I lack morals or discernment or was ‘deceived’ without (apparently) actually reading the content of my post. My post was essentially saying ‘hey guys lets gather more info before we decide’. So I got curious and tried to understand what is going on. Why are people so angry? What are they afraid of? Why do we respond with such outrage without any attempt to ask questions or arrive at a fuller picture? One thing I know for sure is that when I am outraged my neocortex gets hijacked by my fight/flight response and I become unable to be empathic or creative or logical. This is why I am fearful of outrage and righteous indignation and of my own certainty: it hampers my capacity to think clearly and creatively and to approach others with kindness and humanity. I imagine that this is not a good place to proceed from if peace is something we value.
Every single day there are a myriad of things to polarize us and to violently disagree on: Trump or Harris, Palestine or Israel, vax or anti-vax, Last Supper or the Feast of the Gods? Can I ask that we exercise care and kindness and pause before demonizing the other side? Nothing is ever black and white, everything is nuanced, beneath the anger there is always fear or shame or anxiety. Let’s be curious and compassionate and as generous as possible in our dealings with everyone. Let’s try to remember that we are all connected more than not.
Its really helpful to become curious and reflective about our own reactions – maybe this will be of interest to someone? Thanks to ChatGPT and Mike Abel for the summary:
The difficulty some people have in allowing opinions different from their own, (even when they identify as liberal and open-minded), can be attributed to several psychological and social factors:
1. Cognitive Dissonance: Encountering opinions that contradict one’s beliefs can cause cognitive dissonance, a state of mental discomfort. (We prefer certainty). People often seek to reduce this discomfort by automatically rejecting or dismissing the opposing viewpoint rather than engaging with it.
2. Confirmation Bias: People naturally seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and avoid information that challenges them. This bias can make it hard to consider and accept differing opinions.
3. Ingroup-Outgroup Dynamics: Social identity theory suggests that people categorize themselves and others into groups (ingroups and outgroups). They tend to favor and support the ingroup’s beliefs while being more critical and less tolerant of outgroup views. (Loyalty over independent thought.)
4. Emotional Investment: Strongly held beliefs are often tied to personal values and emotions. When these beliefs are challenged, it can feel like a personal attack, leading to defensive reactions that shut down our neocortex.
5. Moral Conviction: People with strong moral convictions about certain issues may view opposing opinions not just as different, but as morally wrong. This can lead to a lack of tolerance for those differing opinions.
6. Echo Chambers and Social Media: Online environments and social media often create echo chambers where individuals are exposed primarily to opinions similar to their own. This reinforces their beliefs and reduces their ability to handle differing perspectives.
- We could consider following to address this selective tolerance:
Mindfulness and Self-Awareness: Encouraging individuals to become more aware of their own cognitive biases and emotional reactions can help them engage more thoughtfully with differing opinions. - Empathy and Perspective-Taking: Practicing empathy and trying to see things from the perspective of others can reduce defensive reactions and increase understanding.
- Critical Thinking and Open Dialogue: Developing critical thinking skills and engaging in open, respectful dialogue can help people consider different viewpoints more objectively.
- Exposure to Diverse Perspectives: Actively seeking out and engaging with a variety of perspectives can help individuals become more comfortable with differing opinions.