Now that the election is growing very close, the messaging from both parties is increasingly focused on some version of, “We’ve got stop questioning one another’s integrity, calling names and casting blame, and refusing to work together for the common good. Our common goal must be to put country above self and achieve harmony.” It’s not a new goal, but everyone would agree it’s a noble one.
But wait a moment. Given decades of such unanimous agreement, why hasn’t the goal not only never been reached but gotten more and more distant? I believe the answer is that the dominant beliefs of our culture have dramatically changed. Until we examine this development, there is little chance of achieving harmony in politics or society in general.
In the past it was generally believed that human nature is imperfect and all of us are therefore capable of both sound judgment and error. It was also believed that identifying and acknowledging our errors is not shameful but instead both sensible and rewarding. In other words, that admitting an error frees us from that error and encourages our alertness to other errors, which helps us appreciate the importance of valuing and seeking truth. That appreciation, in turn, reveals the foolishness of pretending we can’t be wrong. This progression from admitting error to gaining knowledge was understood to be made possible by humility. These understandings are not only compatible with social harmony but facilitate it.
Unfortunately, for more than 60 years our culture has embraced the opposite teaching. It replaced humility with self-esteem and claimed that identifying and acknowledging our errors destroys our confidence and blocks achievement. The same culture has taught that truth is whatever we believe it to be and we not only have a right to our opinions, but our opinions are right and therefore unchallengeable. In other words, that believing we are wrong about anything is a denial of our deepest selves and thus should be avoided at all costs. In contrast with past beliefs, these beliefs have created obstacles to social harmony.
The shift to the current belief about human nature has permeated American culture (among other cultures) for several generations. It has influenced virtually every aspect of life, notably parenting, education, communication, literature, entertainment, and government. Its impact accounts for a host of consequences, including these.
Countless parents taught their children about esteeming themselves rather than about being honest and truthful, forming good habits, examining their conscience, and acknowledging their faults. Many also encouraged self-assertion more than self-control, rights more than responsibilities, expecting apologies from others more than apologizing, and demanding respect rather than giving it.
Schools and colleges reduced the attention given to history, a subject central to understanding the foundations of our country and culture. They diminished the rigor of teaching and students’ responsibility for mastering what is taught. They reduced the emphasis on critical thinking, particularly its focus on its application to students’ own thinking. In many cases, they also deprived students instruction in analyzing controversial issues, and instead proselytized them.
Literature and Entertainment redefined age-old concepts to fit a more flexible notion of truth. Thus, lying is considered moral if we want it to be; thievery can be acceptable if the thief “needs” what is taken or the owner “deserves” to be robbed. Rape is inoffensive if the rapist perceived that the person gives the “impression” of “wanting it.” In short, authors became more likely to make unethical characters ethical, and vice versa.
Politicians replaced cooperation with intransigence. Because their allegiance to political party is an offshoot of their self-esteem, they placed it above philosophical principles and, in many cases, even above common sense. As a result, the only way political harmony makes sense to many of today’s politicians is if everyone embraces their political beliefs. Those who hold different beliefs are considered to be dangers to democracy and social harmony and therefore deserving of silencing or worse.
The saddest and most painful impact of these changes to American culture has been to personal relationships. At very least, hundreds of thousands of people can no longer speak to their parents, siblings, friends, or neighbors about religion, ethics, history, and other important subjects, especially politics. The reason is that the new culture has created this perspective:
“Self-esteem is vital to me; I have my own truth; my opinions are right and I cannot allow them to be challenged; the idea that any of those opinions could possibly be wrong is unthinkable; anyone who asks me to change them threatens my dignity and my very identity. This I cannot and will not tolerate.”
I believe that when a person who holds this belief enters a discussion with someone who has a different viewpoint, his/her reaction typically follows this sequence: Nervousness at first hearing the different views, fear of being psychologically harmed by listening to them, anger at the other person’s “offense,” forceful denouncement of the person and his/her viewpoint. One such sequence can damage even deep and cherished relationships. Repeated occurrences can destroy them. Widespread occurrences of the sequence throughout a culture can make the goal of social harmony impossible!
I am not suggesting the goal of harmony is unreachable; only that it will take a good deal more than political promises and the good intentions of concerned people. It will take millions of people embracing the ancient wisdom about human nature, good and evil, and truth. That is a formidable task, but it can begin quite easily—by small groups of relatives and friends embracing the following perspective and encouraging others to do the same:
Realize that simply listening to ideas different from our own cannot hurt us and need not drive us apart. In fact, it can expand our understanding and increase our mutual respect. All we need do is remind ourselves that we are all imperfect and therefore on any issue may be totally right, totally wrong, or partly right and partly wrong. The discussion should consist of taking turns sharing views and the reasons for holding them, and then politely commenting on what was shared. Even if the exchange doesn’t produce agreement, which is often the case, both sides will have expanded their knowledge, gathered ideas for consideration, increased harmony between the participants, and provided a model others can emulate.
Copyright © 2024 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved.
