A few days back I was chatting on the phone with a woman I know, not terribly well, whose opinions on several subjects diverge from my own. Our interactions are typically lighthearted and superficial. That’s the nature of our friendship. We all have friendships like that, don’t we?
Now, my political inclinations are somewhat left of center (as many know), and hers are somewhat to the right. I’m also fairly certain that we voted differently in last November‘s US presidential election. Nonetheless, we get along, we frequently make each other laugh, and our conversations, especially these days, are very pleasant.
And why shouldn’t they be?
There have been a few occasions when we’ve gotten into it on two “social” issues (for lack of a better term), and I found her arguments to be a wall of talking points with little ability on my part to pierce. Perhaps she thought the same of my point of view. But I did my best to listen (as long as I could), always ending up “agreeing to disagree” and then changing the subject.
Never Assume
Just because we have differences, that doesn’t mean that one of us is more correct (even though I think I am, of course). That doesn’t mean one of us should have an attitude when dealing with the other (neither of us does). And that doesn’t mean that we can’t get along.
Moreover, I can’t assume that she is glued to media sources that I would consider less than truthful or factual. I suspect that assumption would be wrong since I know that her life is filled to the brim with both family and work. More likely, she’s so busy she has little time to read (or watch or listen to) the more extensive sources that are part of my usual routine (because I am not living an over-scheduled, over-obligated life these days).
The bottom line: The “warfare” that some would have me wage against her (or her wage against me) makes absolutely no sense. Can’t we agree to disagree? Can’t we at least listen to each other, enjoy each other where we find common ground, and stay open to each other‘s points of view?
And no, I am not talking about points of view that are hate-filled, exclusionary, or prejudicial. Our differences are largely in the “how” of reaching common goals rather than disbelief or rejection of those goals altogether.
I’m also recognizing that the reasons why different views exist need to be understood and explored.
Walking in Someone Else’s Shoes
Let’s talk empathy for a moment.
I’ve never lived on the West Coast although I’ve visited a few times. I’ve never lived in the Midwest although again, I’ve visited. Those visits were few and limited by business trips. I’ve lived in the deep South for a great many years. I’ve also lived in the Northeast (where I was raised) and the mid-Atlantic (for a number of years).
Oh. I’ve lived in Europe, too. Specifically, France.
Beyond pure geography as a reference — I have almost always lived in cities or close-in suburbs — I have also lived in large-city exurbs, which I confess are not much to my liking. As for rural areas, I have virtually no experience except for the occasional weekend here or there. I am an urban creature at heart. It is what suits me. It always has been.
Because this is my experience, my foundation, my preference — I doubt I will ever be able to fully comprehend the motivations, satisfactions, and challenges of someone who has grown up in the country, on a farm, for example. Consequently, I will need to work hard to understand someone whose life is grounded in a very different reality than my own. Add to the mix factors like religious upbringing or lack thereof and familial-cultural upbringing and you have the potential for further barriers to mutual understanding.
When communicating with someone of very different background, experience, and opinions, I will need to walk in their shoes as much as I possibly can. Sometimes, that will take an effort. Likewise, they will need to walk in my shoes.
A More Proximate Example
Many years ago, my then-husband (who is an immigrant to this country) would argue his views vociferously. He was far more conservative than I am relative to social programs. He grew up in Europe where he was subject to a very high tax rate in a country with a substantial safety net. His life experience was very different from my own. He had never actually needed that social safety net. And when our discussions on these issues would grow heated, I argued for a bit, but ultimately backed down (and shut up). I learned not to bring up these topics.
Here’s the point. I already knew what it was like, through no fault of one’s own, to be dropped down a well with nothing to break your fall. My spouse had no such experience.
Since we’ve been divorced for a very long time, I have only an inkling of his current views, those views conveyed to me by my now-adult sons. My understanding is that he’s more centrist these days.
Still, I don’t think he’s especially good at walking in someone else’s shoes. He has never experienced what it is to be laid off, to be unemployed for an extended period of time, and to be responsible for a family with no income on which to depend. He has no experience of the desperation, humiliation, and anxiety that results. He has no experience of choosing between paying for a roof overhead or healthcare, or any number of other trade-offs that leave a parent feeling like an abject failure. And I’m speaking about times that precede the pandemic.
Avoiding Conversations
I have another acquaintance whom I know better than the first I mentioned. Again, we get along, we can laugh together, and we can talk about a number of subjects. On the few occasions that we have touched on politics, I’ve been glad we weren’t face-to-face or he would have seen my reaction: jaw dropped, hands slapped over my face, expression of surprise mixed with dismay, and peeking through my fingers to see if the world really was as upside down as it seems to be!
Unlike the friend I mentioned at the outset, this man has good, steady employment and free time which he fills with various interests. He tends not to keep himself informed, takes the word of one or two friends – relying on this secondhand or third-hand information alone – and those individuals listen only to conservative media. He parrots their views without looking into anything himself. (Can I admit this gives me agita?)
When we have broached these subjects in conversation, I try my best to stay open, I do. But too often, my impatience gets in the way of quality listening and a real exchange of ideas. We have butted heads on multiple occasions, and I have been unable to break through a sort of war of resistance to his learning more. In other words, he is simply disinterested in anything that smacks of the political, stubbornly clinging to certain viewpoints. Or so it seems.
Instead of driving myself crazy when we’re talking, I have found that I have to avoid certain topics altogether. That said, I try to keep us to areas of common ground. There’s almost always common ground, don’t you think?
Bottom Line
Look. Am I saying that we should tolerate ugly and utterly inaccurate declarations without pushing back?
Absolutely not. I believe in fighting the “good fight.” And I know myself well enough to state that I’m incapable of holding my tongue in many circumstances. Besides, I have no interest in a friendship, casual or otherwise, with someone whose values are the polar opposite of my own.
I also have friends who are far to the left of me on several topics. Over the years I have listened to their points of view trying to remain open-minded. I have adjusted my stance on a couple of issues as a result, and on others not so much — again partly a matter of my own experience and partly opening myself up to theirs, supplemented by other sources of factual information. And isn’t this the way it should be?
Listening to one another, exploring what different ideas might actually mean, not only for ourselves, yet unavoidably factoring in our own experience.
God knows, there are plenty of people I don’t want to engage with in any way! But we can certainly make more of an effort with a wide range of people in our lives. And we don’t need to throw away friendships of all sorts because we’re living in a bubble of anger or in media echo chambers that continue to ratchet up the temperature for profit instead of encouraging us to listen to each other.
Just my two cents during these (still) frustrating and divisive times.
I welcome your thoughts.
You May Also Enjoy
Yes, we can ALL find common ground somewhere, I think. Like you, I mostly try to stick with common ground subjects, although I have several friendships where true disagreement can take place with respect remaining intact. These are the ones I treasure most.
You hit on a reality that I think is important to note: Experience often shifts our perspectives. As such, it become immature or dismissive to reject another person’s point of view without knowing how he or she has come to that position.
Thanks for sharing your continuing conversation.
So happy when you stop by, Missy. That staying open thing… I think it’s easier (for some of us) as we get older. 🙂
While I respect and appreciate different points of view and philosophies on politics and economy, I find I have little tolerance for tribalism and delusional beliefs with zero basis in fact or logic. While parts of the world have symptoms of this, the USA is in the middle of a plague.
I have friends family and acquaintances of various socioeconomic demographics, politics, religion, ancestry and nationalities. I appreciate that people have different points of view but when stuff is made up out of the ether or mimics complete religious adherence I question the sanity.
The United States right now lacks a fundamental agreement on facts, while lies and whatever actions are acceptable, regardless of how egregious, as long as they are from your tribe. In essence, America has become radicalized for a multitude of reasons. I do not know to what extent and how widespread the radicalization is.
I do not feel the need to listen to the ramblings of Republican or Democrat jihadis. I do not know where this will lead but if it is to be overcome there needs to be reflection and understanding as to how it started and developed. Tribalism needs to give way to facts, logic and a respectful difference of opinion that may or may not be swayed due to persuasion.
It is easy to point at the other tribe and demonize instead of reflecting upon one’s own actions and tribe.
“E Pluribus Unum”
Some of us, having absorbed Enlightenment values at an early age, truly believed that by demonstrating good intent and clear logic we might convert anyone to our point of view or, when our own logic or assumptions were found to be wanting, ourselves to be humbled. Whether true or not, this was a valuable and age-appropriate perspective, in that these are the people defining the culture that each generation comes to live by.
With maturity – very imperfectly correlated with age – we arrive at the expectation that we will very rarely convince anybody of anything, by whatever means. But we also understand that we must find a way to build a society together. The most basic form of peaceful coexistence is simple toleration, but there is much more that we can do. We can share our perspectives not to convince, but to inform – to make our motives as transparent as possible, to be held accountable for our actions within our own value systems, to be a dependable ally on matters large and small with friends, neighbors, family with different values and different motives, and only then, having demonstrated these qualities, to expect to have earned some level of respect.
We have the right to expect the same of others. Many will fail. Most subcultures (i.e., tribes) are not based on criteria such as these. They make sharp distinctions in the treatment accorded to members of the in-group vs. the out-group, and transgressors (real and imagined) are quickly ostracized. The world-view is Manichean; the tools of discipline are binary rather than dialectic; the culture stagnates rather than evolves, until it eventually meets the fate of everything that does not evolve.
Species evolve, but individuals thrive or perish based on their suitability to their immediate environments. For some of us, this dictates a change of environment. For others, it impels work to change the environment, using whatever meager tools we individually command. The environment always resists. But not all of our opponents are adversaries, not all of our adversaries enemies. (One may offer comfort to an opponent; one defeats an adversary; one eliminates an enemy.) The hardest part of all this is that such attitudes are often not reciprocated. That’s the thing to work on: the rules of engagement. For this we must stand somewhere outside the immediate conflict and invite our opponents to do the same. This is not avoidance, appeasement or reconciliation; it is setting the rules of engagement and of accountability. It is an exercise in inter-cultural competence. If no agreement on principles is to be found, or if agreement is reached and then broken, then we have an adversary.