Lately I've seen a couple of things on Facebook to which I've had a predictable reaction given my worldview.
http://www.refinery29.com/2017/03/144819/sexual-assault-mugging-video-parody-viral
The above parody: a man comes into the police station after being mugged at knife point. The female officers intimate that maybe he was asking for it because he was dressed so well and he didn't scream.
My thoughts/reaction: funny but a profoundly true comment of gender discrimination.
And then there was this floating around a few days ago:
Short version of the above: a male employee accidentally -- then intentionally -- swaps email signatures with a female employee. Both are shocked at the worse/better treatment they receive based purely on gender.
My thoughts/reaction. Wow. Sexism strikes in 2017. I recall a female co-worker's story of being bullied by a male boss. I remember thinking at the time, he did what? He said what? He never treats me like that. Response from female co-worker: That's because you're a dude.
After congratulating myself on being such a modern, progressive, middle-age guy, I recall a time in my early to mid-twenties, when, I'm ashamed to admit, things were not so.
I belonged to a patriarchal church. I was into reconstruction theology -- very right wing economics/politics. I was also finishing my degree in English Literature. There was a fourth year course called Literary Criticism. A good chunk of the semester was spent on Feminism. I didn't get it. I waited patiently for it to be over so we could get on with real criticism.
I think I've blocked out some of the things I may have thought and/or said back then. I do, however, have one memory of reading a book on a bus ride from Ottawa to Toronto. It was something about Christian Reconstruction/Dominion Theology by... Gary North? On the several hour trip, I sat next to someone who turned out to be the daughter of a Global TV News producer.
As you might imagine, some people like to make small talk on a long bus ride. What are you reading? What's the book about? I recall my answer being really lame. In retrospect, I think it's because the book was really lame and because I wasn't buying into it. Have you ever heard someone trying to defend something when his heart's not truly in it -- when in his heart of hearts, he knows what he's trying to defend is indefensible? I know realize that was me.
I won't tell you that that Greyhound bus trip circa 1984 was a turning point. Too bad. It would've made for a clever title: "Greyhound Trip to Change" :) What I will tell you is that my journey from conservatism to where I am now started at around that time.
Which brings me to my point: how do you know what you don't know? It's kind of a stupid question in some ways. It's like asking, how do you know you have a blindspot? Well, one answer is, you don't know. You can't know. It's a blindspot, hence the not seeing.
On the other hand -- to extend the blindspot analogy -- a blindspot is primarily a problem when you're alone in the car and you're being lazy, on autopilot, and not checking those nasty places that don't show up in your mirrors.
A recurring argument in our marriage happens while driving. When I'm driving, my wife likes to point out what I might not be seeing. The light up ahead is turning red. That guy's about to pull out. Don't forget to take the next left. My favourite line for her when she changes lanes is: did you check your blindspot?
When you strip away the irritation of having a backstreet driver -- if you're willing to be humble -- you realize it's not a bad thing to have someone who's got your back (someone who sees what you might not be seeing) sitting next to you in the car. It might actually prevent an accident.
So, how do you know what you don't know? It's obviously difficult, but several answers do suggest themselves given the driving analogy about blindspots.
Humble reflection. Don't live in ideological autopilot. Investigate/read things you wouldn't normally read. Look in those places you wouldn't normally look. Have conversations with people who see things differently than you.
Facebook is a great playground for the above. Don't just read the things posted from friends with whom you align yourself politically; also read things posted from people you know will be on the other side of any given issue.
Secondly, relationships. Lean on people who won't just tell what you want to hear. Listen to people who challenge you. Even ask for it.
Last year, leading up to the USA election, I remember being with a group of people, most of whom were gleefully trashing Donald Trump. He was such an easy target. There was, however, one person in the room who, you could tell, wasn't happy with the conversation. When he finally spoke up to defend conservatism and warn us regarding Hilary Clinton, as you might imagine, the air was let out of our smug political know-it-all-ness. Social niceties prevailed, feeble attempts at ameliorating were made, the subject was changed. We moved on. As I recall, we had very delicious sundaes.
If we could turn back the clock, I wonder how much richer things could've been if someone had had the courage to call a time out and facilitate, not a debate, but a conversation where we actually just listened to each other.
I'm reminded of a friend from years gone by who studied philosophy at university and then became a pastor. He always used to say that truth must be held in tension. This is a good reminder for me because if I'm at all honest with myself, I'd have to admit that I doubt I'll make radical changes to my philosophy and/or beliefs any time soon. And that's because I've done some serious studying, consideration, and soul searching to get to the place where I am now with my worldview. The tension is the humility to ask what if? What if I'm wrong in some minor or major way? Do I have a toolkit of the intellect and/or the soul to work things out to make the shift that's necessary?
Six summers ago, I read Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Half way through the book, I started searching the internet to find out more about the author. I read somewhere that over the course of his life, Hugo changed his mind radically regarding politics and religion... several times. My first thought was that he was a flake. But then, I thought, how could someone so brilliant be a flake?
It's possible, I supposed. But isn't it more likely that Victor Hugo had that quality that I'm trying to nail down here? That recognition that none of us get it perfectly right and, therefore, what might we be missing if we're entrenched in our beliefs and never have the courage to reflect and self examine?
Here's another and final way of putting it: would you rather have a conversation with someone who pontificates and knows everything there is to know on any given subject, thank you very much, or would you rather have a conversation with some who says, yeah maybe... and I've never thought about it like that... and tell me more...?
http://www.refinery29.com/2017/03/144819/sexual-assault-mugging-video-parody-viral
The above parody: a man comes into the police station after being mugged at knife point. The female officers intimate that maybe he was asking for it because he was dressed so well and he didn't scream.
My thoughts/reaction: funny but a profoundly true comment of gender discrimination.
And then there was this floating around a few days ago:
Short version of the above: a male employee accidentally -- then intentionally -- swaps email signatures with a female employee. Both are shocked at the worse/better treatment they receive based purely on gender.
My thoughts/reaction. Wow. Sexism strikes in 2017. I recall a female co-worker's story of being bullied by a male boss. I remember thinking at the time, he did what? He said what? He never treats me like that. Response from female co-worker: That's because you're a dude.
After congratulating myself on being such a modern, progressive, middle-age guy, I recall a time in my early to mid-twenties, when, I'm ashamed to admit, things were not so.
I belonged to a patriarchal church. I was into reconstruction theology -- very right wing economics/politics. I was also finishing my degree in English Literature. There was a fourth year course called Literary Criticism. A good chunk of the semester was spent on Feminism. I didn't get it. I waited patiently for it to be over so we could get on with real criticism.
I think I've blocked out some of the things I may have thought and/or said back then. I do, however, have one memory of reading a book on a bus ride from Ottawa to Toronto. It was something about Christian Reconstruction/Dominion Theology by... Gary North? On the several hour trip, I sat next to someone who turned out to be the daughter of a Global TV News producer.
As you might imagine, some people like to make small talk on a long bus ride. What are you reading? What's the book about? I recall my answer being really lame. In retrospect, I think it's because the book was really lame and because I wasn't buying into it. Have you ever heard someone trying to defend something when his heart's not truly in it -- when in his heart of hearts, he knows what he's trying to defend is indefensible? I know realize that was me.
I won't tell you that that Greyhound bus trip circa 1984 was a turning point. Too bad. It would've made for a clever title: "Greyhound Trip to Change" :) What I will tell you is that my journey from conservatism to where I am now started at around that time.
Which brings me to my point: how do you know what you don't know? It's kind of a stupid question in some ways. It's like asking, how do you know you have a blindspot? Well, one answer is, you don't know. You can't know. It's a blindspot, hence the not seeing.
On the other hand -- to extend the blindspot analogy -- a blindspot is primarily a problem when you're alone in the car and you're being lazy, on autopilot, and not checking those nasty places that don't show up in your mirrors.
A recurring argument in our marriage happens while driving. When I'm driving, my wife likes to point out what I might not be seeing. The light up ahead is turning red. That guy's about to pull out. Don't forget to take the next left. My favourite line for her when she changes lanes is: did you check your blindspot?
When you strip away the irritation of having a backstreet driver -- if you're willing to be humble -- you realize it's not a bad thing to have someone who's got your back (someone who sees what you might not be seeing) sitting next to you in the car. It might actually prevent an accident.
So, how do you know what you don't know? It's obviously difficult, but several answers do suggest themselves given the driving analogy about blindspots.
Humble reflection. Don't live in ideological autopilot. Investigate/read things you wouldn't normally read. Look in those places you wouldn't normally look. Have conversations with people who see things differently than you.
Facebook is a great playground for the above. Don't just read the things posted from friends with whom you align yourself politically; also read things posted from people you know will be on the other side of any given issue.
Secondly, relationships. Lean on people who won't just tell what you want to hear. Listen to people who challenge you. Even ask for it.
Last year, leading up to the USA election, I remember being with a group of people, most of whom were gleefully trashing Donald Trump. He was such an easy target. There was, however, one person in the room who, you could tell, wasn't happy with the conversation. When he finally spoke up to defend conservatism and warn us regarding Hilary Clinton, as you might imagine, the air was let out of our smug political know-it-all-ness. Social niceties prevailed, feeble attempts at ameliorating were made, the subject was changed. We moved on. As I recall, we had very delicious sundaes.
If we could turn back the clock, I wonder how much richer things could've been if someone had had the courage to call a time out and facilitate, not a debate, but a conversation where we actually just listened to each other.
I'm reminded of a friend from years gone by who studied philosophy at university and then became a pastor. He always used to say that truth must be held in tension. This is a good reminder for me because if I'm at all honest with myself, I'd have to admit that I doubt I'll make radical changes to my philosophy and/or beliefs any time soon. And that's because I've done some serious studying, consideration, and soul searching to get to the place where I am now with my worldview. The tension is the humility to ask what if? What if I'm wrong in some minor or major way? Do I have a toolkit of the intellect and/or the soul to work things out to make the shift that's necessary?
Six summers ago, I read Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Half way through the book, I started searching the internet to find out more about the author. I read somewhere that over the course of his life, Hugo changed his mind radically regarding politics and religion... several times. My first thought was that he was a flake. But then, I thought, how could someone so brilliant be a flake?
It's possible, I supposed. But isn't it more likely that Victor Hugo had that quality that I'm trying to nail down here? That recognition that none of us get it perfectly right and, therefore, what might we be missing if we're entrenched in our beliefs and never have the courage to reflect and self examine?
Here's another and final way of putting it: would you rather have a conversation with someone who pontificates and knows everything there is to know on any given subject, thank you very much, or would you rather have a conversation with some who says, yeah maybe... and I've never thought about it like that... and tell me more...?
Comments
Post a Comment