All right, what *is* so funny about peace, love and understanding?

[avevale_intelligencer]

telynor linked to a very interesting article about what it is that those of us who identify as "liberal" don't get about those who identify as "conservative." And it was very thoughtful, and fair-minded mostly, and it left me thinking that maybe, yes, there is truth in all ideologies, and a plurality of ideas is a great thing, and maybe if we on "our side" just tried to *understand* those on the "other side," we could all get along and the world would become a good and happy place.

And then I saw that rozk had linked to this, and I realised (or rather remembered, because I've known it for some time) that it takes two to make peace, and that some of those who identify as the "other side" (and I am speaking here of the most vocal and extreme on that side, not by any means of all) do not want peace, they want--they need--victory. They do not want to understand our way of thinking; indeed, they need *not* to understand it, because the moment they do, their own way of thinking becomes untenable, and if they change their way of thinking they will become different people. They have no room for co-operation, or compromise, or understanding. The world must be cleansed if their ideology is to be justified. Peaceful co-existence is an option for us, but not for them.

There is indeed truth in all ideologies. A plurality of ideas is indeed a great thing. But understanding the way the "other side" thinks, while it is a good and necessary thing, will not end the conflict of ideas. Because our ideas can include theirs, but theirs can only specifically exclude ours. Tolerance and fairness are at the heart of our ideology, and we willingly extend it to them. Authority, loyalty and purity are at the heart of theirs, and anyone who refuses to conform to their standards in these three respects--to acknowledge their authority, exhibit loyalty to them, and be pure by their lights--is excluded, anathematised, and rendered less than human.

So what do we do? Do we try to compromise, knowing that the other side will continue to fight uncompromisingly for the end of our way of thinking? Do we adopt their attitudes, and fight uncompromisingly for the end of their way of thinking, thus becoming like them in all the ways we hate? Do we try to appeal to the less committed and extreme on their side by pretending that we are not what we are? Do we become more and more defiantly ourselves, and polarise the opposition till they all want us gone?

I don't know. I wish I did. I just know that some ideas are right and some are wrong, that if black is good and white is bad then some ideas are a darker grey than others and to say "oh they're all just shades of grey" is to miss the point, and that if all kinds of people are to be allowed to live on the earth then our ideas have to survive, if not win outright.

EDIT: It's just now occurred to me that loyalty and respect for authority have always seemed to me to be contingent virtues, depending on what or who you are respectful or loyal to. To be respectful to a person or thing not worthy of respect, to be loyal to a person or thing who does not merit loyalty, can only in the most abstract sense be described as a virtue. This conclusion proceeds logically from what GKC would call the fallen state of man, or what someone else might call the fact that the mass of people are idiots and easily led. Purity, likewise, is contingent on what you define as being "pure." Purity for a Hindu or a Muslim is not the same as purity for a Jew or a Christian.

Caring for others is not contingent. It is absolute. Oh, you can come up with lots of hypothetical cases of people deciding they know what someone else needs, but that obviously isn't actual caring (which starts with finding out what someone needs by listening to them) and so isn't relevant. Fairness, likewise, is absolute. Equal rights for every human being under law, equal pay for equal jobs, this kind of thing does not depend on what the law is or what the job is.

Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, all need medical care when ill, need support if they can't work, need advocacy if they're accused of crimes. They are all ideally entitled to the same freedoms and subject to the same responsibilities. But ask them what they respect, who has their loyalty, or what they consider pure and holy, and you'll probably get very different answers, with no possibility of common ground.

It would be nice not to have to leave anyone's ideology behind, to accommodate every shade of belief and political persuasion; but again, I only think that because I espouse the notion of tolerance and pluralism. If I believed that my religion and/or my political stance was the only right and true one, I would want all the others swept from the board willy-nilly. It's a paradox; because I do actually believe that my political stance is right and true, but by the terms of that stance I cannot in conscience disallow other views even if I disagree with them. For some of those other views this is not a problem; and that's the problem.

Comments

[bardling.livejournal.com]

Food for thought here...

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Well, that says it, doesn't it ?

We either surrender to what They want to have happen, or we are Forever Damned for murdering them, when they leap into Mount Etna or whatever.

I'm sorry -- Ive watched the documentaries :: the wildebeest does not conquer its predadtor, by leaping into its mouth, nor is the hyena guilty if it eats a water buffalo that's broken its leg.

[bedlamhouse]

Again, that presumes that We are diverse and honest in our opinions and that They are monolithic and united in agreement at all levels.

To assume that there is no possible point of agreement is the first fallacy on the way to war.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

If you read the post, I did actually say in so many words that I was not presuming any such thing. Check out the part where I say "(and I am speaking here of the most vocal and extreme on that side, not by any means of all)."

I do like it when people actually read all the way through before commenting.

As for any possible point of agreement, if you can see one in the second post I linked to, do feel free to jump in.

[bedlamhouse]

It was meant to be a reply to the comment preceding mine, I pressed the wrong "reply".

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Oh, I am sorry. I misunderstood.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

[NODS]

The critical thing, I think, is to be careful and accurate in the identifying of who is a "them", who is an "us", and who is a "somebody else who unfortunately put on the same colour jacket today". When battle becomes necessary - as it sometimes does - it's all too easy to lose track of who has been positively identified as who.

Always be ready to say what you believe, and stand by it and act accordingly; Never be too quick to assume you know what the other fellow believes... But once he declares it, judge it on its merits, and speak acordingly; and try not to confuse it with what the other guy standing next to him believes, which is slightly different, and therefore recquires a slightly different response. And then when either of them acts, judge his *actions* on their own merits, and act acordingly.

(I speak both of literal and metaphorical battles, natch.)

(Also: "his" & "him" adopted for the sake of rhetorical style, not as indications of actul genders involved. =:o} )

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

My ground state is to assume "us or neutral" until proven otherwise, and I try not to judge anyone by what someone else says, (unless they're quoting the someone else with approval, and even then they might just be admiring the sentence structure).

But then, my ground state is to agree with the first article. I hate confrontation, I hate the idea that these problems can't be all ironed out and resolved by getting together round a table and talking, and I resist it with all my might. Unfortunately, from what is being said by the more extreme and vocal people on the other side as well as on this side, I'm wrong...and since it seems from what I read that the less extreme and vocal people on that side would rather support and defend the more extreme and vocal than be disloyal to their side (which I understand completely, thanks to that first article) there seems little chance of a compromise that will suit both sides.

And that's rather a shame.

[howeird]

The age-old quandary of whether to take the high road and become extinct, or stoop to their level and survive/conquer. It's a true dilemma.

loyalty and respect for authority have always seemed to me to be contingent virtues, depending on what or who you are respectful or loyal to.
In politics, there's a long-term value to remaining loyal to an institution even though it is currently run by an idiot. In the US, there is a respect for the office of the President which I think helps keep the country from total melt-down regardless of who occupies the office. The Vatican is another example of this. Perhaps the UK is too, maintaining a token monarchy whose only purpose is symbolic.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Mm. I think though that there must be a point beyond which the act of remaining loyal becomes too much of a stretch for any rational person. I'm not saying the presidency has got to that point yet, but the problem is not merely that it's being occupied by a venal moron (though the nature of the person in office can't be totally ignored), but also that it remains in dispute whether it is still possible in America to get a democratic mandate and make it stick. If this coming election is finagled the way the 2000 one was, and possibly the 2004 one as well though I'm not sure on that, then I think the office of the presidency will have moved one step closer to the position on the scale occupied by the office of Emperor of Rome when the Goths were banging on the doors.

[howeird]

I'd take the analogy of the American and French revolutions over the one with the Goths, because those were both expressions of the citizens' remaining loyal becoming too much of a stretch. But yes, there has to be a limit. I think the US constitution is brilliant for forcing a vote every four years, it reminds the citizens just in time that they have an alternative to armed overthrow. And yes, both the 2000 and 2004 elections were suspect.

[coth.livejournal.com]

Jane Jacobs talks intelligently (imho) about this in Systems of Survival. She steps back from the argument to identify two basic ethics - taking (requiring loyalty, authority and purity) and trading (requiring openness, tolerance and fairness) - and explores the circumstances under which the two ethics develop and survive and what happens when they clash.

You inspire in me a powerful urge to read it again in order to join this debate, but meanwhile do go read it for yourselves.