Five "Magic" Words to Save Society

A wee bit on the grandiose side? Perhaps.

Few would disagree that society is beset with significant troubles. Increasing hostile political divisiveness, absolute certainty and rightness, inter-and intra-personal dissatisfaction, narcissistic attitudes and impulses and, especially, high levels of incivility, all of which are both causes and effects of social fragmentation.

While formal and informal structures of all sorts make up societies, at root it is individuals and their various associations that often matter most. If a society is fragmenting, and I fear we show signs of that, it is primarily because of the behavior of average individuals towards each other. Large-scale social problems generally arise not at the top of any social system, but at the bottom, although there are obvious connections between the two. Germany’s rise to WWII occurred in part because of the intersection of Hitler’s insane vision with the populace’s increasing fear about the world economic condition, and the perceived loss of national identity caused in part by the Versailles treaty. Lacking that dissatisfaction, Hitler could not have succeeded, as his failures in the early and mid-1920’s show. It was only after the depression had done considerable damage that his message resonated.

Some think that incivility and the associated social fragmentation can be arrested by grand designs and major programs in a top-down fashion. But each side has its own versions of what would work, and whatever is proposed will likely have significant limits and may be applied selectively, depending on one’s political allegiance. Even if everyone were to agree on measures to diminish incivility, in my view no government or societal-wide program is going to change that to any significant degree. Of course, draconian measures a la 1984 might work, but we all know the result of those tactics. Unfortunately, promoters of top-down measures rely on the fiction that those efforts will automatically filter down to us at ground level.

Social fragmentation generally starts at the bottom when one or more groups is dissatisfied enough to begin agitating, often for very good reasons. But in many cases where it may be inappropriate, the dissatisfaction is tapped into by politicos and the media. They can push the aggravated groups to feed increasingly on their own fear and discontent, accelerating the trend into incivility and societal decline. When demagogues dangerously promote other people or groups as the causes of the discontent or at least contributors to it, incivility or outright hostility is encouraged. The more such aggrieved groups there are, and the larger they get, the more severe the fragmentation, until the whole system collapses. But the key is that the promoters of dissatisfaction would, like Hitler in the 20’s, have little impact if the populace was not already agitated, dissatisfied and fearful.

Wide-scale group dissatisfaction such as we are experiencing now is important, but fixing that depends on fixing dynamics at the lowest societal level. It is at that ground level, where you and I meet, that is of greatest concern. It is only there that we have the highest leverage for changing our unfortunately growing incivility to greater caring for each other.As Mahatma Ghandi said:

As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world---that is the myth of the atomic age---as in being able to remake ourselves.

Good-hearted and sincere people see aspects of society they don’t like, including the incivility. They display their concern in many valuable ways, often volunteering or working directly on helping people with their dissatisfaction. Additionally, they promote civility to their friends, most of whom share their concerns. Sadly, some of those very sincere and concerned people act in uncivil ways toward those they do not like or whose views they find wrong. On the one hand they want civility for themselves and favored others, and on the other are often unwilling or unable to implement it in their daily lives towards those seen in a less favorable light, perpetuating the incivility problem. But you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Either civility is a beneficial social construct or it is not. In a healthy society there is no room for a double standard.

Reducing incivility depends on us, and far less on large-scale, top-down programs. We have to change how we interact with each other on a day-to-day basis starting, above all, with those we are closest to and supposedly care most about. Obvious? Sure, but it’s hard to count the number of couples, parents, and friends I have known who are uncivil and disrespectful the moment something in the relationship doesn’t go their way. Some couples or friends have developed highly uncivil patterns of behavior lasting years or decades. Once a person has learned how to be uncivil, it can spread easily. It’s a simple transition from disrespecting someone close to disrespecting someone not close, especially when surrounded with like “thinking” people who may unfortunately encourage such disrespect. If we are sincere about reducing incivility, the obligation coming with that is to change our own behavior.

Perhaps it’s too late to stop the momentum of societal dissolution. But perhaps not if we overcome our own personal contributions to society’s unfortunate state of affairs. We can control only what we do. We cannot control what others do. But maybe we can influence them in behaviorally productive directions by our own choice of actions to be civil in all settings, especially when facing disagreement. Either I am civil to you, regardless of our differences, or I am not. It is these small, personal interactions that are the main drivers of societal civility or incivility. 

Now to my (partial) solution---using 5 important words more often and more sincerely, especially with those whose views or behavior we find odious. But even before using the 5 words, our effort begins by adopting a more humble attitude and demeanor. In this challenging time, we must be especially aware of self-righteousness, taking ourselves far too seriously, which is humility’s enemy, and hostility's handmaiden. Lacking humility, it becomes nearly impossible to use these 5 words sincerely, if they are used at all. Of course, the words won’t change societal incivility much in the short run, but millions making this small, if demanding, effort has potentially great consequence in the long run.

I’m sorry. Thank you. Please.

Trade-offs

In Christopher Marlowe’s play, “Doctor Faustus,” the latter makes a critical trade-off. Successful but very unhappy, Faust desires great wisdom and riches. Lucifer---in the form of Mephistopheles---offers Faust what he wants in exchange for his soul at a later date. Faust agrees, valuing what he can get now over what will happen many years hence. Presumably aware of his ultimate fate, at least we can say that Faust made an informed, if ill-advised, choice.

Important or minor, life is choices, and every choice means a trade-off of one thing (or more) for something else. We make trade-offs constantly, some consciously and some not, some beneficial and some not. Even at the most positive level, whether to go to Mexico or Hawaii on vacation, the situation involves giving up one thing for something else, at least at that moment. Naturally, trade-offs occur in less desirable settings, as when a person with little income must pay the rent or fix the car, but cannot do both.

Many choices are made with conscious awareness and intention. But others are not. Some are made with little thought to what we are really doing and the consequences, bad ones being ignored or denied. Think of parents who fail to instill limits in a child because they have an unconscious need to be seen by the child as a friend, or because they unthinkingly imagine that limits will stunt the child’s emotional growth. Positive outcomes are unlikely for either parents or child. The parents are not looking at their actions and motives with a true critical eye. Thinking they are doing a good thing, they are really trading their needs to feel good or their concept of emotional growth for the true well-being of the child, whose healthy growth requires limits.

At the personal level, cooperation and competition are two important personal and societal elements that can also be inversely related. For a real test of balance, can a person be competitive and cooperative in the same situation? Imagine spouses having a spirited conversation about a conflict they have. Is the posture to be cooperation or competition? Yes, both. First, each partner has right to a view, and to putting that forward. Those views often conflict, and airing of that difference is a partial key to successful resolution. Competition can be factor as each partner seeks the maximum appreciation for a view or position. Second, cooperation can simultaneously exist if the partners do not let the natural and often beneficial competitiveness take precedence over each partner’s wellbeing. Both aims can be achieved by thoughtful and sensitive people in control of their behavior. Creating safety and trust is a pre-requisite to positive outcomes for both.

Trade-offs are also part of both our mental and emotional universes. For example, occasionally we can hold two contradictory thoughts in our minds at one time. But acting effectively often requires that one be at least partially and temporarily dominant, or we will be paralyzed or act inappropriately. A balanced thinker will see that paradox is often at work. She understands that generally both aspects of the issue have merit, and that one should almost never overwhelm the other. Even if she has a strong allegiance to one position, that does not overcome her ability to weigh them fairly. Not needing to be right or to win, which could push her into emotional imbalance, she has open and fearless conversations with those who differ. Fear and its handmaiden anger push people far off balance into self-righteousness and the need to prevail at all costs. The more fear, the more absolute the stance, and the more anger, the harsher the implementation. True both for societies and for individuals, and sadly evident when the social fabric is dissolving or when the emotional bonds are fragmenting. Absolutism is the result, generally anathema to personal interactions as well as to social systems.

Like individuals, a society cannot be healthy if it fails to understand and make appropriate trade-offs. Politics is the process of reaching outcomes through tradeoffs. Consider those inherent in the relationship between freedom and equality, two very important societal values. The challenge is that these two values are generally inversely related---as one goes up, the other goes down. If the proponents of one value attempt to push outcomes that supporters of the other value see as radical, push-back will occur. This will either be resolved healthily through the political process of trade-offs, or the society will experience polarizing fragmentation, with increased hardening of position on both sides. If one side succeeds in imposing its value beyond a certain point, much worse than hardening of positions occurs. Consider a society with unrestrained freedom, or one with complete equality. Nightmares both, without mentioning the possible violent push back.

Finding a functional balance between two important societal values generally does not mean a literal balance. At times, one side will need to be more heavily weighted. If terrorism is rampant, aspects of privacy will have to take second place to societal safety via crime detection and prevention. But such changes in weightings should usually be temporary, responding to current conditions. If terrorism decreases, less emphasis is placed on crime detection and prevention, and more on privacy. A danger for any society occurs when proponents of a particular policy assume that what worked for a while should work forever in the same form and to the same degree. This would be the case if significant encroachment into privacy becomes permanent, or even expands, when the need for it is clearly less.

Trade-offs are a necessary part of the human condition, impossible to avoid. For individuals and groups, as well as societies, a major goal is to maintain a reasonably healthy state by carefully managing a variety of trade-offs. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. We must accept that we are unlikely to ever get everything we want, or that a person or society will achieve a perfect state. Working astutely and honestly with trade-offs means we move with the river’s flow, not against it.

“There are no solutions to human problems, only trade-offs.”

Thomas Sowell

Intimacy, Independence and Space

“Our paradoxical longing for intimacy and independence is a diamagnetic force — it pulls us toward togetherness and simultaneously repels us from it with a mighty magnet that, if unskillfully handled, can rupture a relationship and break a heart. Under this unforgiving magnetism, it becomes an act of superhuman strength and self-transcendence to give space to the other when all one wants is closeness. And yet this difficult act may be the very thing — perhaps the only thing — that saves the relationship over and over.” (Maria Popova, brainpickings.org)

We live in a world filled with paradox, but seldom like it. We prefer the world, and especially other people, to be defined by simplistic “either/or” conditions, when reality constantly challenges us with “both/and.” One example is that any healthy relationship, romantic, familial or friendship, demands paradox---intimacy and independence. Each relationship has different needs for these characteristics, creating the dynamics for a beautiful connection or an unpleasant one.

The dynamic nature of this paradox means we are constantly balancing conflicting needs, both within ourselves, and in relation to the other person. A balancing act rigidly fixed is anathema to fine relationships. Frequent adjustments are necessary as the relationship matures, although the need for those gradually declines, assuming two people with goodwill and courage.

Popova refers to offering space, the most obvious of which is physical. Literal separation and solitude are sometimes necessary, but not always. My wife and I work in the same twelve-by-twelve office for hours without interacting. Close in proximity, but separate and independent nonetheless. Importantly, space can be seen more broadly than physical. Mental space and emotional space are less obvious, but possibly more important than physical separation.

Can I give myself the mental space to entertain an objective stance on an issue about which I feel strongly? Can I give a friend the mental and emotional space to see an issue differently than I do, without punishing him? Can I offer emotional space when my partner accuses me of inattentiveness to her needs? Engaging constructively in the face of such an accusation, really in the face of any difficult news, is difficult enough under normal circumstances. But it is very much worse when our emotional state is chock full of unrecognized needs abiding far below our surface consciousness, but which are visited upon others when we are under stress. In spite of such personal challenges, which we all have, successful relationships still require that we offer space and safety.

I know people who at times (or chronically) cannot give space of any kind, even to a loved one. They are into their own self-centered needs to such a singular degree that those must prevail. For many people I have known, myself included, the real but deniable goal in such interactions is to limit safe space for the other, preferably to zero, so the desired outcome of winning, or getting one’s way, is achieved. Even relationships decades old can suffer terribly from this unaware self-focused acting out.

Managing the oppositional pull of independence and intimacy requires self-awareness, self-discipline, and respect for the wellbeing and unique needs of both ourselves and the other person. It demands a sensitivity difficult to cultivate, accustomed as we are to shoe-horning things into an “either/or” box in an often desperate bid to get our own way.

There is little better for a relationship than to have respectful on-going conversations about relative needs for space. Only through this open and fearless exchange can a relationship reach pinnacles of intimacy and closeness. 

As Rilke said, “I hold this to be the highest task of a bond between two people: that each should stand guard over the solitude of the other.”