2 weeks Ago
I grew up in a world that believed in spanking children. I spanked my own upon occasion. But then I came across a cartoon that changed my mind.
An angry father stands loosening his belt and a young boy stands before him, quivering in fear. The caption reads, “I’ll teach you not to hit your brother.” I think of that cartoon when I hear political talk that demeans the opponent, rather than promoting a different point of view.
I can see that no problems are going to be solved; no hearts or minds will change. Meanness will prevail, and possibly — probably — result in escalation. Personal attacks, or significant vendettas between individuals and groups who hold differing views have become commonplace.
At times they gain surprising levels of support. It’s been noted that contempt likes to disguise as self-righteousness. Perhaps this helps explain why treating people with contempt on social media is often rewarded with clicks and celebrity.
Every religion with which I’m familiar recognizes the dignity of each human, while setting out rules to help all of us humans get along. But, we’ve somehow gotten sucked up into this culture of contempt. There may be short-term satisfaction in the stinging insult or innuendo, but any long-term benefit is murky.
Tim Shriver, educator and past President of the Special Olympics, says our country looks like a dysfunctional high school, with tension and fights breaking out between group members, especially in political arenas. In growing concern over this, Mr. Shriver and a team of students at the University of Utah constructed an index, scoring actual political language along an eight-point scale, from contempt to dignity.
At level one, a phrase would suggest that “the other side is so bad It’s our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us.” At level eight, on the other end, a statement would imply “we are all born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity — no matter what.” Most political dialogue falls somewhere in between.
Level four mocks and attacks the other side’s background, their beliefs, their performance, etc., implying that “they don’t really belong in OUR world.” Level five takes a huge leap by first acknowledging the other side’s position, then trying to explain one’s own.
The concept is that “they have a right to be here and a right to be heard. It’s their country too.” (I find this one difficult at times, yet reasonable, and strangely comforting.
) Shriver tells us the index was designed as a grading tool, but it turned out to be a mirror. It creates awareness of our own participation in the cycle of contempt. This makes us more sensitive to the language we use, to the language used in the news we read, and to that of the candidates and promoters we listen to.
Shriver suggests that if we refuse to listen, read, or take part in destructive dialogue, we can begin to change things. He sees this as a practical way to help move the country forward, balancing the desire to be right with the need to be connected. If we don’t feed it, it won’t grow.
More on this at: http//:www.dignity.us.
Isaac Saul, journalist and creator of the newsletter Tangle, spoke in a TED talk recently about the importance of the words we choose and the way we say them when hoping to communicate across the political divide. Saul says that as a reporter, and in his personal life, he tries to follow some basic rules. The first is to be sincere.
(People know when they’re being patronized, or taunted, he reminds us.) His second rule is to be tolerant of the other’s language choices. There are words, (equity, illegal alien, gender affirming, and woke, for example) which often elicit a strong reaction and, once said, can turn a conversation sour.
Saul, whose objective is to offer a fair look at all points of view, has recognized that a speaker may be totally unaware when a word or phrase has given offense. Focus on hearing the intention of others, he recommends, even if their choice of terms may put you off. He also says this: “Tolerance is a pretty easy bar to clear, if you try.
” Another player on this “dignity” stage is Braver Angels, an organization devoted to bringing people together through civil conversation. Depolarization Within is a favorite free seminar that helps unmask our own polarization and teaches skills for better listening and disagreeing. No matter which candidate or party wins the upcoming election, conflicts will certainly continue.
We, the people, will still need to find better ways to talk with others, building on common goals and interests, promoting goodwill strong enough to balance the differences that divide us..
