Healing America’s Divides Begins With You
In his book, The Reunited States of America: How We Can Bridge the Partisan Divide, author and founder of Mediators Foundation, Mark Gerzon makes the case that everyday citizens have the power to heal the divides that are rampant in our society. And through narrative in the book and demonstration in the film by the same name, his fellow believers went about seeking to communicate this personal capacity that we all have. Being among those who believe in this capacity, I have made a commitment to do my best to facilitate people growing in this ability. Through my many conversations with people from all walks of life, I have come to see that most folks have boundaries that are a lot more permeable than they let on. In other words, they are vulnerable. They are just not practiced at connecting with folks across differences and many are afraid of making a mistake. So that very vulnerability works against them and they don’t engage at all. Caught up in the win-lose paradigm that is prevalent in the American context, they feel that if they can’t “win” the conversation, it’s not worth entering into and coming out the “loser”. My job is to talk us out of this notion, so we can discuss what really matters–building systems, processes, and organizations that work optimally for more people.
More Arguments. Less Fights.
Recently, I had the honor of participating in and facilitating two events at the Jaipur Literature Festival in Colorado–one on peacebuilding that I called “The Pedagogy of a Peacebuilder” where I invited the hearers to consider where they learned their concepts of what is and isn’t peace and the other was a panel that I moderated called, “Split Wide Open: The Polarization of America”. In both, I invited the listeners to consider the fact that very often Americans tend to use the word “fight” to describe a disagreement rather than the word “argue” which in most cases is a more accurate description of what is transpiring. I implored them to consider replacing the word “fight” with “argue” whenever possible and witness how differently they experience some of their encounters. This is an important distinction and one I recommend more people pay attention to for some of the following reasons:
- The objective of fighting is to win against the other. More precisely, the objective is to defeat the other and, to the degree that you can, suppress their ability to fight again. Taken to its furthest extreme, war, fighting brings disagreements into the realm of life or death combat and consequently ignites a response that often outweighs the actual situation.
- In contrast, the objective of arguing is to win over the other by presenting a well thought out explanation of why you hold the position that you do. The greater aim is that through the deliberation, both you and the person you are arguing with will arrive at a better understanding of the issue. Respect is a part of the process and no one sees changing their mind as a failure if the other person presents a better argument because both parties ultimately are more committed to truth than they are to winning.
- This fighting mentality is prevalent in American society in every place from people’s homes to the halls of congress and it is deteriorating the already thin social fabric of our society. And unless we can find the courage to get this awareness into perspective, we will be forced to experience the consequences of ignoring the fact that that when one side is arguing and the other is fighting, everyone loses.
Sometimes Winning is Losing
“I guess you’re happy now,” said the voice that came out of nowhere. “You beat me.”
I look over to see a fellow airman with his face looking frustrated. I scan the immediate area to see if he could possibly be talking to someone else. But, there is no one in earshot. So, either he was talking to himself or he was talking to me. I ask to confirm.
“Are you talking to me?” I ask with the universal sign of pointing my finger into my own chest.
“Yes. I know you feel good about finally beating me.”
I had no idea what this guy was talking about. I had gone bowling by myself just to pass the time. Apparently he made the same decision. But, I wasn’t even looking over at him. We hadn’t spoken a word to each other. And yet, in his mind, we were in competition and he was beating me, until he wasn’t. Something that disturbed him to the point that he had to say something to me.
When I realized what was going on, I assured him that I was not playing against him and didn’t even know what his score was. He was incredulous and persisted in suggesting that I was trying to rub in my “win”. I am not one to get into these exchanges if I can avoid it. So, I told him he was free to think that and proceeded to put on my regular shoes so I could leave. To which he protested asking for another chance to “win”. I told him that I wasn’t interested and walked away to him saying that I wasn’t being fair.
As I walked back to my dorm room, I thought a lot about our exchange and how it explained so many of the relational experiences I had in my life up to that point. That man seriously thought we were in competition with each other even though we literally had no interaction. All I was trying to do was play my best game. I was enjoying myself not even thinking about him. Whereas, he was in some non-existent match with me that likely destroyed any enjoyment that he may have had if he continued to play his own game. And as a consequence of him “losing” in a game against no one, he tried to pull me into his mess. And this sums up the prevailing American mindset. We think everything is a competition–often experienced as a fight. When it isn’t always so.
A Contagious Cancerous Consciousness
A common expression in the American vernacular used when something is bothering a person is “It is eating me up inside”. That is also the functional activity of cancer. When this guy was in a non-existent competition with me, he was operating from a cancerous consciousness. He was letting my score eat him up inside. And as a result, he tried to engage me in his inner turmoil. When we extend that mentality out to the national level, consider how America persistently positions itself as being in competition with every other nation on earth. We are constantly looking at the illusory score card and trying to win to our own detriment and that of the world causing us to devour ourselves from the inside out.
Now, I assume that there will be people who will have a problem with me saying this. And yet, there are few people I know “on either–so called–side” who will disagree with me that one of the major challenges facing America is our toxic polarization. But what is this toxicity if it isn’t America being eaten up inside–a cancerous consciousness? You tell me. Present your argument and if it is cogent, I will take it into full consideration and perhaps write a new article refuting my present position. But, until then, I maintain that by framing so much of our disagreements both personally and politically as fights (aka Wars), we are exacerbating our issues of division and societal dissolution.
Arguing for Peace
In both sessions, I submitted to the audiences that ultimately arguing is a peacebuilding tool. Although this notion might seem counterintuitive, if you examine it directly, it is hard to avoid the fact that there is a cathartic element to constructive and respectful argument. So often in our lives we keep our vulnerabilities to ourselves. Unlike when we fight trying to defeat the other, when we argue, we are inviting people into deeper sense of self awareness by making an effort to articulate why they believe what they believe. Some of the most transformative moments in my lives have happened in mindful argument. Some of the most diminishing moments in my life have been when I allowed myself to get into a fight.
Now I See You
In my personal life, one of the reasons why I value the power of argument over fighting when possible is how I experience the stories of Job and Abraham in the Hebrew scriptures. In those instances, the characters argue with the ultimate authority and come out wiser for it. But, what is more telling is the authors could fathom God going back and forth with humans. So, if that can be accepted, why can’t we argue with one another respectfully. The Book of Job closes out with its namesake saying, “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.” I can’t count the number of times that I went into an argument with another person thinking that I understood something from what I had heard. But, the truth is, I couldn’t see the other person or even myself more clearly until we displayed our vulnerabilities with one another. That is what arguing facilitates where “fighting” is merely the clashing of armor between parties too consumed by fear of the other to feel the other.
It’s no secret that fighting has always been a part of the American story. But, it isn’t something we should lead with. It should be a last resort. Unfortunately, we are too unpracticed in the way of arguing. It requires listening to others as well as listening to ourselves and being honest about what we know as well as the limits of our abilities to understand what we have limited exposure too. In essence, we have to embrace our vulnerabilities. In my work and in my relationships, I desire to see others and be seen by others. That’s what I hope for for more of us in this country and beyond. That means dropping a lot of the armor and exposing ourselves to new ways of being and seeing with less fear as our primary lens.
If learning how to do that interests you, let’s get in touch.
Higher Up Consulting 