I recently shared a FaceBook post that said, "Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has led to a lack of understanding of politics and religions. What we should have been taught was how to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic." While at the moment I thought this post was spot on, I am beginning to reconsider. "What?!" you are asking. Well, yes... kind of. I am reconsidering not because I think it isn't true, rather I think it leaves us in almost the same place it began. It like saying, "Here is a really difficult topic to talk about, so we don't talk about it. But now you should talk about it. Have fun. It sucks, and it'll probably be ready hard. Good Luck!"
While it easily seems true that an entire generation or more was taught "we don't talk politics or religion at the dinner table," which probably translated to most conversations, the real block here is not whether we were taught that or not. The resistance to these conversations, which could literally change the world if held in an honest way, is that these conversations should be hard! There is a lot of good reason for this. As humans we are wired to prefer a state of existence where we understand the world we live in. We like to know that the way we see things, that our frame of reference, is... well, correct. Our brains don't like ambiguity, and everything that we have experienced up until this point has informed us of "how things are." Because of this, we tend to think that everyone else has that same framework for understanding the world. "Well my view is the right view because it makes sense, so so should believe it too." Thats all well and good until we realize that there are as many different versions of "how it is" as there are people in the world. It is easy to understand then that when approaching a topic like religion or politics, things that often define our worldview for so many people, that we can easily have our ambiguity alarms go off.
If I think your worldview stands in direct conflict with my worldview then that means one of us must be right and the other wrong, right? Our brains start thinking, if I am not right then that means everything I know about myself and my world is wrong! Let me make sure I let everyone else know that you are wrong so that I can still be right. For sure, it can feel like this is true. Guess what! It's not. It may seem like only one way can be right and the others must all be wrong, and in reality that isn't true. But notice that the real resistance here has nothing (I repeat nothing!) to do with the other person or their worldview. The real resistance here is me! What if I'm wrong? What if everything I know about myself and my world is wrong? What would happen?
Honestly, probably not much. I mean really, the world still is what the world is. Just because we understand it one way, or misunderstand it another doesn't mean changing how we understand things will blow anything up. In a moment we will talk about what does happen though.
Let's ask this, would you rather live a life where you are curious and open to new ideas, or a life where you are committed to being right and may be clueless that some (or most, or all) of what you believe could be completely inaccurate? For some people, being right might seem that important. And, that is cool. If that is not you then clearly you see an advantage to being open minded about the things you don't know. That is also cool. (see what I did there, I didn't make either option right. Ha! kidding). Clearly, part of my worldview is that it is right to remain open minded and wrong to be closed minded. Not to say that it is correct. Even within this discussion there is still a framework in which the constructs of conversation happens.
Ultimately, what is correct is that no one is right. There is always more to know and always things we have never experienced. If what is "right" for us is based on our experience then it is impossible to ever truly be right. There is always more experience to be had. There is always the experience of others. And yet, everyone's experience is correct. This is where we come back around what to do with all of this - the point!
We do not have to be right for our experience to be correct And, our experience helps us make sense of the world around us. What is important to understand here is that our experience is always a malleable interpretation. Our interpretation can be bent and shaped without breaking. It is the stiff tree that breaks in the wind. In the case of talking politics and religion, it is not the topic that is without flexibility. It is our incognizance of the mental mechanisms at play behind such conversation that do not often allow for us to remain open minded while engaging in the topics of politics and religion. Really this post is not about politics or religion at all.
All of that being said, one can see why the topics of politics and religion might seem like difficult conversations to be part of. It is easily understandable why they might have been avoided. It has traditionally been looked at as a hard conversation, so instead let's just not have it. Turning this idea around is a great start, but I don't believe it would get us very far. What I hope is obvious at this point is that we must all look within to determine why we think these topics are hard to talk about. Is it because we were told that? Is it because our experience has shown us that it is hard? Maybe your experience has shown you that others are too close minded to listen to you. Or, that others are always trying to push their ideology on you. Or maybe it just feels really uncomfortable. No matter the answer, as long as we are holding the conversation from a place of challenge we will never be comfortable, be heard, or be able to hear.
It seems psychology might be another area of useful conversation that has been avoided. By understanding our own psychology we can much more easily engage in this conversation without taking on the "story" or baggage that might have otherwise come along. This is the key here. It is not the topics of politics and religion that were the issue to start. However, because of our collective attempts to bypass the conversations, the topics have become the issue. In order for anyone to get anywhere with this conversation we must realize that there is no such thing as a "difficult conversation," only personal resistance. If a conversation seems difficult then there is personal resistance. Even when it seems like it is the other, person the resistance is from within. Let us try to know ourselves well enough to see this resistance and heal it when it comes up.
It is not enough to "have a civil conversation about a difficult topic." We must dissolve the need to view our own resistance as someone else's "difficult topic." If we are able to remain open minded and curious, listen without judgement, and speak without trying to prove ourselves or our point, then (and only then) can we engage in honest, thought provoking, and healing conversation.
Here is some great conversation from the other week relating to this same topic:
Comments