“These days, walking away becomes an attractive — and realistic — resort”
IN A closed environment with people having diverse political beliefs, social mindsets, individual quirks, and manners of expressing their views, how does one protect one’s sanity and keep the peace while still remaining uncompromising about one’s position?
“Closed environment” could be defined several ways in this hyper-connected world. It could mean people living together, as in family members or relatives. Roommates or dormmates, ala Big Brother House. It could also be people working together as in a conventional workplace setting. It could be members of a social circle. Or those who for some reason or another have to be in constant communication with each other, wherever in the country or world they are located.
The easy answer is to keep an open mind. Engage. Educate oneself and step out of one’s comfort zone. And always, always treat others with respect.
But this is not realistic, which makes the option of just shutting up and walking away seem attractive, even necessary.
For this resolution to be successful, the other party (or other parties) holding another view must also resolve to keep an open mind, engage, educate oneself, step out of one’s comfort zone. Respect is the most important requirement.
Committing to keep an open mind, and even agreeing to disagree, takes a certain humility – an acknowledgment that nobody has the monopoly of good sense, and that we can all learn from others. That one could be wrong, and that one could still improve.
If this basic requirement is not present – for example, we begin on the premise that we are correct, that others are stupid, and that it is our mission to “enlighten” others or change their minds, then the engagement would be doomed from the beginning. Any interaction would be superficial instead of substantive.
Any attempts at genuine conversation would fail if one party immediately resorts to mansplaining, arrogance, binary oversimplification or generalization, ad hominem attacks, or ridicule. Hashtag venomous words punctuated by a resounding “hahahaha.” One could almost hear the mocking tone even in chat boxes or social media posts.
And when you call them out or assert your own views, you are immediately dismissed as sensitive, “too woke,” or simply not used to the way the world works.
***
I bring these up in anticipation of the looming divisive political exercise (also spectacle) known as the impeachment trial of the Vice President, coinciding with the pendency of their petition for the interim release of her father, the former President, now in detention in The Hague and charged with committing crimes against humanity.
I struggle to understand the objection — would not a trial be good for all parties, because if the impeached official is truly guilty, the evidence would show the paper trail and other testimonies, bared to the public regardless of the ultimate vote count which is an expectedly political exercise?
And if the accused is indeed just being politically persecuted, would not a trial also give her the opportunity to present incontrovertible proof of her innocence? Would this also not be good for all?
Alas, the battle is turning out to be trial versus no trial, instead of guilty versus innocent which should be the real dilemma.
This is my take and I am sure many others have a different view. I do not intend to change their minds because I am quite sure their minds are made up – complete with a rabid, dripping-with-venom script that personally attacks those who do not agree with them.
Then again, beyond impeachment and beyond this set of political protagonists and antagonists (depending on who is talking), I also wonder: is the quality of our discourse truly stuck on this level, where the only resort to toxic conversation is shutting up and walking away?
And then I realize that the problem goes way deeper than these politically feuding families. Improving critical thinking skills is a long-term aspiration. The rewards are priceless, however: nobody can run circles around an informed and critical citizenry.
We must work toward that, even if we have to start it in our own small spheres. Only when many of us become truly able to engage others can we ponder a healthy, productive way to exchange ideas instead of talking down to each other, smug with our own superiority.
adellechua@gmail.com