I’m not sure why, over the holiday season, I was thinking about end-of-the-world scenarios… but let me lead you, for a moment, through my train of thought. Fundamentalist Christians think the world is going to end, that that end is coming soon, and that the “increase in sin” is bringing it faster. When that religious fervor gets mixed with a political ideology, it allows politically right-wing Christians to blame the coming of the Apocalypse on Gays marrying, Feminism and the loss of “family values,” terrorism and the rise of “fanatical Islam,” and anything in general that smacks of liberalism, freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality or drug use. They see their world crumbling around them—and it’s everybody else’s fault but theirs.
Now, if you’re progressively minded, or at least modestly aware of and respectful of knowledge that can be gained through observation (i.e. science), you probably are aware that the earth is going through some climate change, that a large consensus of experts believe that climate change is going to intensify (& possibly worsen), and that a fair proportion of the community of scientists actually believe that things have gotten so bad already, that we might be facing severe environmental collapse in the next few decades. The progressively-minded are also aware of the large degree of war and violence in the world, and the fact that so many of those conflicts are actually about diminishing resources. Human rights abuses are worsening in many places, and there is an increasing militarization of large states, as well as of some multinational corporations with interests around the world. It is all very frightening, and in many cases it looks like civilization as we know it could collapse. Combine this awareness with a political ideology, and it allows left-wing progressives to blame the coming of civilizational and environmental collapse on the right-wing corporate & war-mongering interests, on fundamentalist Christians who support the greed and racism of the political right, and on the comfortable middle of America (and/or all of the First World) that over-consumes, over-pollutes, and ignores the consequences of its actions. The left-wing sees the world crumbling around them—and it’s everybody else’s fault but theirs.
Are you beginning to follow my point? I’m not interested in denying that there are serious problems in the world, or that there is conflict. I cannot make a judgement on whether the world is going to end or not, as I’m not even really sure what I’m going to do five minutes from now. It is clear that the feeling that things are heading toward disaster is a common one in America—and in my experience in the Middle East, it is true there as well. People have had such feelings many times in history—and of course, as we look back, the world never ended at any of those points. Yet particular civilizations have collapsed, ways of life have been destroyed, whole races and cultures have been wiped out by others. That feeling, that sense of impending doom, is really a psychological sense of what is going on now, the state of the world at present. We, because of our psychology, tend to project those images into the future, we tend to come up with worst-case scenarios, in other words, humans are by nature paranoid. Like language and breathing, it is part of the structure of our minds and bodies. (We are designed to jump to conclusions, to make unwarranted assumptions about our immediate environment and social group, because these behaviors enable us to survive in situations where we need to make difficult decisions or avoid imminent dangers.)
So bad things are indeed happening in the world, no matter from what angle you look. That paranoia about the world ending is at least partially based in the reality of conflict, tension, and destruction we see around us. But it comes to a fever pitch when we consider the part those other than ourselves are doing, to contribute to the conflict and destruction in the world. The feeling that “it’s their fault things are going so bad” leaves us feeling hopeless and despairing, because there’s nothing we can do about it—other than ranting and raving—since they are the ones actually causing the problem.
Many Americans think Arab and Muslim terrorists are the sources of violence & conflict in the world, that Islam is “less a religion than a fascist political ideology” (as a sampling of some of the ignorant nonsense people put up on the web.) Many Muslims think that America, Israel, and “The West” in general, are the source of all the conflict in the world—they are, after all, the ones with the large militaries, invading and occupying the Middle East. I know next to nothing about the Far East, and very little about Latin America and Africa, but I predict that if you look at many of the conflicts within those regions, as well as between those regions and perceived external enemies and rivals, you will find that you have multiple groups of people who believe that things are going badly, and that it is almost entirely the fault of the other party(s).
Let’s say you have two roommates who are having a conflict about which one of them is supposed to do the dishes. Each one thinks it is the other one’s responsibility, each one thinks that they have already done more than their fair share, each one feels taken advantage of by the other. And meanwhile, the dishes pile up in the sink, the resentment builds, and the cockroaches and ants come out to feed. Now, we must admit that there is a real problem (dishes not done, cockroaches all over the kitchen, resentment and hurt feelings on all sides). The question is, who is responsible? Of course, if you are one of the roommates, you think it is the other one who is responsible. But we, stepping outside the conflict can see that both of them are responsible. If we allowed them to present their cases to us, we might lean toward one side or the other in assigning particular responsibility for some aspect of the problem—one of them doesn’t do the dishes right away after he eats, but does them at night or the next morning. The other one goes in and obsessively cleans up the dirty dishes of the first roommate, without telling or asking, and gets in the habit of doing that and building up resentment. Each of them is more responsible than the other for some particular aspect—however, and here’s my point, both of them are responsible overall for the existence of the conflict and the problematic results of the conflict.
Or think about dysfunctional family relationships. Everybody has their own points of view, everybody thinks the other family members are acting selfishly or unfairly or unjustly, everybody feels that he or she is the victim. It’s all true—they are all victims. But they are also all responsible. Sometimes that responsibility consists in not walking out when they should have—as in the case of a wife abused by her husband. But even those who, on first glance, appear to be the most innocent, are still responsible in their own way for maintaining the conflict, and for the problems that result. That’s not to say that one of the parties may be more responsible than others—like the abusive husband. When we look at genocide and exploitation around the world, it’s clear that there is one party that bears much more responsibility than the other. However, that does not absolve the other party entirely. What happens when they turn around and oppress their former oppressors? Or what if they did commit some minor offence, which their oppressors were able to exaggerate into an excuse to exterminate them? Tribal or family feuds are of this variety—perpetuating themselves through the generations, with each side alternating in its role of victim and victimizer.
I want to encourage us to think in terms of a family, for a number of reasons. One, we all share the same house—the earth. And there’s nowhere to go to escape—the entire earth is colonized, settled, known, exploited, and part of several vast global networks—those of political entities, trade, and corporations. We are all facing the same problems: pollution (which, from its point of production, gradually spreads over the whole earth), dwindling resources, overpopulation, armed conflict, poverty, etc. No matter how much some of us may appear to be insulated against some of those problems, in fact that is a temporary illusion: these problems affect every single one of us.
A family that decides it wants to solve its problems recognizes, first, that they are stuck with each other. Muslims, Christians, and Jews had all better recognize that the others are here to stay. Right- and Left-wingers all over the world are going to have to realize that their opponents are here to stay. I could go on. Catholics and Protestants, Hutus and Tutsis, Ethnic Minorities and Racial Bigots. America and the rest of the world.
And to engage with each other, we must all recognize—no matter what side we are on, no matter the color of our skin, or the “content of our creed,” etc.—that we all bear a measure of responsibility for the conflict in the world today. When one member of a family so hates another that he wishes him to be kicked out of the family—when one race believes the world would be better off without some other race—he (or that race) is refusing to accept responsibility—projecting and pinning it all on that other family member. We must all accept that genocide and discrimination will never be solutions to the world’s problems. We must all except that all sides should be given equal rights.
But these things, these declarations of human rights, etc., are what happen at the beginning of the therapy session, the conflict resolution, the discussion. The real work is the acceptance of individual responsibility. Rather than looking to the responsibility of the others, every party to conflict in the world today (and that means every single human being alive, and every single group of human beings) has to first (and primarily) recognize his or her own responsibility, and the responsibility of the group with which they self-identify. Even if you believe that the responsibility of some other group is greater than the responsibility of your group (say, for example, you are a Native American, poor, living on a reservation—whose culture was destroyed and whose lands were taken long ago by the invading white man), it is your job, first, to look to your own responsibility. And I don’t mean “historical responsibility.” We cannot be responsible for the failings of our ancestors. I mean: what are you doing now, to remain in conflict with the rest of the world. What are you not doing now, to prevent conflict. What principles are you not standing up for. What beliefs are you violating in your daily activities. In what ways are you a party to the fictional notion that some races or groups of people are inherently better than others—and therefore deserve dominance or superiority.
Yes, we must be allowed to air our grievances. But in doing so, we must recognize that all sides have grievances. Therefore, all sides should have an equal right to air grievances.
Yes, there are some immediate injustices that must be remedied—there are some great portions of blame and responsibility to be parceled out, to the worst of offenders. But those worst offenders, are they not merely acting out (with the aid of armies, police, or guerrilla fighters) what everyone else feels? That is part of the acceptance of responsibility.
Some are going to have to recognize that in order to move on to real solutions to global problems, they are going to have to swallow their pride, or their hatred, or their resentment. In a family, the one who is most wronged has a choice: either leave the family altogether, or forgive the wrongs done against them. Either hold the family together or destroy it. In that choice is a great responsibility: and it is often the acceptance of responsibility by those most wronged that can enable others to accept their responsibility. But we here on earth don’t even have that choice to leave—therefore, our responsibility is, paradoxically, greater: we can choose to hold our resentments and feelings of victimization—and as a result to sustain conflict indefinitely. Or we can choose to forgive them, and work with those who have wronged us.
Addressing global problems, and looking for global solutions, we must adhere to some basic ground rules: everyone’s grievances must be heard and addressed. But no one group’s grievances or feelings of victimization can be allowed to trump another’s. And the solution to the most difficult problems must be considered from all angles, all points of view, with all cards on the table, all potential solutions considered. No group can be allowed to maintain some right that would prevent the implementation of global solutions. All sides must accept responsibility for engaging in the process—which means that nobody can back out just because they don’t like the direction things are going (as America does consistently when it comes to any global discussion on any issue).
We must see each other as family members in conflict—rather than as implacable foes. Nobody can be considered an enemy—all are family. Our universal belief that we have enemies in other groups of human beings is the most basic responsibility of every single one of us to shed. We must all accept the fact that if we don’t want the family to fall apart—the world, civilization, etc., to end—we are all going to have to sit at the same table to work it out, no matter how much we may initially hate the others across the table.
And if we fail or refuse to sit at the table, we are going to have to accept, on our shoulders, the responsibility for all of the violence, destruction, and hatred in the world.
Happy New Year!
I enjoyed your blog on personal responsibility- the analogy to roommates was good, especially in the Middle East context - folks there really are "roommates"! Unfortunately, there are so many vested interests that we might not see any solution for a long time to come...but that's what we used to say about South Africa, and there was a resolution, after all!
Posted by: Diane | January 16, 2007 at 07:41 AM