Appreciation and understanding: The missing ingredients in our critical world

After watching President Obama answer various questions from young voters in today’s MTV/BET/CMT public forum, one of Obama’s responses in particular filled me with hope and reminded me of an important class concept I teach my students.

When asked about cyberbullying, President Obama said, “All of us have an obligation to think about how we are treating other people…. if someone is different from you, that’s not something you criticize, that’s something you appreciate.”  To illustrate that concept, he explained how he and Michelle make specific efforts to talk with their daughters about people who are different.  Instead of criticizing people who are different, the President said he asks his daughters to try and see through their eyes, to think about what the world is like walking in their shoes, so to speak.

It’s a beautiful concept, and not one that we see very often in the political world or in our own social worlds.

Instead of trying to understand a different religion, we criticize it.

Instead of trying to understand the lifestyle of someone poor who cannot get a job, we criticize him or her. 

Instead of trying to understand the challenges of inner-city youth and education, we criticize the parents, or the teachers, or the school.

Instead of trying to understand a person who loves someone of the same-sex, we criticize them.

Instead of trying to understand a person who wants better health care, we criticize him or her.

Rarely do we appreciate.  Appreciation, however, is the key.

In my high school and college communication classes, we discuss intercultural communication and the concepts of ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism.  In short, ethnocentrism is the idea that one’s own culture, values, beliefs, and behaviors are the ONLY right or normal cultural identity; such values are superior to all others.

Ethnocentrism has several stages.  It begins with intolerance and stereotypes and often includes isolation from those who are different.  We criticize those who are different because we do not know them.  We don’t have a meaningful relationship with someone of a different religion, different socio-economic status, different background, different sexuality, etc.

At best, ethnocentric individuals will reach a stage of “minimization,” where cultural differences are minimized.  Basically, this type of person views everyone as the same.  He or she is nice, but cultural differences are not truly recognized and appreciated.

The fact is that we are not the same.  The problem is that someone who is intolerant of others and someone who views everyone as the same use their own culture, values, beliefs, and behaviors as the benchmark by which others are evaluated.  Clearly, if we have a negative view of differences, others will be evaluated in a negative way.  But even when people are nice and seemingly tolerant, if others are viewed basically as the same, then one’s own culture and values are still the norm, the right, and the benchmark by which we evaluate others.

The key to cultural growth is best explained in a concept known in my field of expertise as ethnorelativism.  To be brief, ethnorelativism is the active appreciation and understanding of those who are different.  While we recognize our own values and beliefs, ethnorelativistic people do not perceive their own values and beliefs as the only right way or the only normal way.  Ethnorelativism explains that there is not a superior culture or belief or value.  Moreover, we do not criticize.  Ethnorelativistic people are simply curious, appreciative, understanding, and non-judgmental.  When criticism is necessary, the criticism stems from an appropriate cultural context that is reached through education and understanding of those who are different, and not simply because our way is superior or better.

The key to ethnorelativism is empathy, which of course is to feel what another person feels.  When Obama described how he teaches his daughters to see the world through the eyes of those who are different, I thought of this concept.  We must strive for empathy.  If we want to grow and have a better world, we do not criticize those with different religions; rather, we step into their world and with a judgment free attitude, we simply try to see the world as they see it.  We do not criticize the poor as lazy; we try to see the world through their perspectives.  We explore, we learn, we appreciate, and we understand.

These concepts have helped shape my political views, and I hope that you think about these concepts and that they can help shape your views.  Here’s ethnocentrism in our time: controversies over the Muslim Mosque at Ground Zero, threats to burn the Qur’an, accusing Muslims of being terrorists, calling the unemployed lazy, not allowing homosexuals to “tell” in the military, arguing that people without insurance should get a job and that they must be lazy, not protecting civil rights, arguing that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are inferior to heterosexuality and traditional marriage and on and on and on.

Each of those examples—and I’m sure you can think even more—represents a negative evaluation based on the belief that one’s culture, values, and beliefs are superior to the others.

If only we could keep an open mind, appreciate, and understand: we’d have a much better world.

Warning: Conservatives Don’t Read This Blog (or Do! Oh, Please Do!)

I’m enjoying reading a variety of blogs, news stories, and information that both support and challenge my opinions.  I’d like to make an argument for all bloggers and readers on exposing oneself to challenging viewpoints.

First, it must be stated that avoiding the arguments of opposing viewpoints is incredibly harmful.  In a world that is becoming more and more polarized, the only reasonable solution to polarization is to force ourselves to understand the rationale behind opposing viewpoints.  When we are exposed to challenging opinions, we develop greater political tolerance.  When we are exposed to only opinions that reinforce our own—or only watch biased news networks like Fox—we become increasingly intolerant of political differences.  Not exposing oneself to challenging opinions begins a vicious cycle: we become more and more polarized.

In communications, one of my fields of study, the theory of selective exposure explains that many people prefer to only engage in discussions and information with those arguments that support their own.  For the average person, selective exposure plays a significant role.  The World Wide Web may exacerbate the problem of selective exposure due to the plethora of political extreme groups and partisan news sites.  Furthermore, fear exacerbates polarization.  For example, in the last several political elections, the person we support will make our world “safer” and our lives will be “better” while the opponent will make our world more “dangerous” and our lives will be “worse.”  Fear is used—and this idea is an emphasis in previous blogs—to replace logic.  When people are afraid of the other candidate, then individuals seek more information to support their candidate and point of view and neglect to engage in critical thinking of the other candidate’s ideas and policies—resorting to fear and generalized negativity. 

Even more interesting is that political studies show that conservatives and republicans engage in more selective exposure than liberals and democrats (Sears & Freedman, 1967; Mutz, 2002, 2001; Amodio, Jost, Master & Yeee, 2007; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway, 2003; Tetlock, 1989; Garret, 2006, 2009—to cite a few studies).

Political study after political study reveal that republicans seek more sources that specifically favor the republican candidate while democrats engage in more discussion and have a more balanced mix of political information.  Studies further show that Bush supporters in particular were very deeply involved in selective exposure and did not – as a generalization—even try to engage in the intellectual arguments of the opposing viewpoints, instead just using fear and negativity.

I’m not making these studies up.  I’ll post them below, and these are graduate level academic, research studies.  Additionally, even people who claim they expose themselves to other arguments do not necessarily understand them on a critical level.  They know of the arguments; they have not critically engaged in the arguments.

So two things:

1)      Selective exposure is dangerous.  We must understand our opponent’s arguments and not simply vilify them. 

2)      Can someone tell me why by nature conservatives and republicans engage in selective exposure significantly more than liberals and democrats?  That’s the question I want to answer.  Does conservative mean holding onto traditional arguments and points of view and not recognizing the importance of other ideas?  Does liberal mean searching through all ideas and all arguments—no matter how new, how old, how challenging or contradictory?  If so, why would anyone label themselves as conservative? 

I guess you can call me liberal, baby.

 Here are a few complete citations for the info above.  You can search by the authors and years I listed on Google Scholar if you want to find the articles, or ask me for specifics, I’ll give them to you. 

Garrett, R. K. (2006). Seeking similarity, not avoiding difference: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Dresden,Germany.

Mutz, D.C. (2002) ‘The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation’, American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 838-55.

Mutz, D.C. and Martin, P.S. (2001) ‘Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: the role of mass media’, American Political Science Review 95 (1): 97-114.

Sears, D.O. and Freedman, J.L. (1967) ‘Selective exposure to information: a critical review’, Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2): 194-213.

No room for the “conservative religious right” in politics

                If we analyze the core views and conflicts between the extreme religious right and those more moderate in religious beliefs and those who support secularism, we will discover there is no room for the religious right in politics.I want to specifically discuss secular humanism (as applied to political policy) versus traditional religious right viewpoints (as applied to political policy).  I am convinced the left—in this case, the secular humanists who are more likely to be liberally left as well, and the right—in this case, traditionally conservative religions who are more likely to be conservative politically—can agree upon the need for social policy if only reason and science take priority over religion.

                Secular humanism is essentially defined as putting science and reason above reliance on scripture or belief in deities; secular humanists can be religious or non-religious.  The primary difference is that secular humanists consider the scientific method to be the most important aspect of research.  There is room for religion on an internal, personal level.  Traditional religions—at the strictest point of view—consider scripture to take priority over science. [1]

                I have always struggled with any religious belief that rejects scientific evidence simply because the science may contradict literal scripture.  I feel blessed to have had a religious education that also promoted science.  At my private religious school, I am grateful we were taught evolution, for example, and the school succinctly stated: “We cannot reject science.  Although we believe evolution is guided by God, religions will self-destruct if they reject science.” I am not sure if the religious right will ever be able to compromise unless they can consider the possibility that their literal interpretation of scripture may be wrong.  But in hopes of reaching a common goal that promotes social policy in our world, I present a few categories of comparison between secular humanists and traditional religions worthy of discussion.

                METHOD OF THINKING

                The secular humanist relies on reason.  The scientific method and empirical evidence, which is fact based on observation, determines truth.  Traditional religion relies on faith and confidence in scripture to reveal truth.  Sadly then, the initial thought process of traditional religion is flawed.  Scientific evidence cannot be rejected because of scripture.  I cannot imagine any educated individual thinking otherwise, and yet I find time and time again so called “educated” people rejecting science because it challenges their faith.

                Why can’t you find a balance? Why can’t you see the Bible as a source for personal growth?  The only compromise I can see here is if the religious right uses scripture for personal development and makes religion an internal process.  When the religious right makes religion an external process—by using scripture to dictate policy—we enter a very dangerous ground where science and reason are denounced and replaced by faith. I by no means am condemning the Bible.  I enjoy it, and there is great food for thought in scripture.  But we must stop using it to reject science.

                VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE

                The secular humanist views human nature in an optimistic manner—people are good by nature.  The traditional religious right views human nature in a pessimistic manner—we are born with original sin and need God to save us.  Again, the religious right must make religion internal.  Perhaps you need God to save you, but I’ve known great people of all religious backgrounds who do great things for humanity.  My friends in Europe and Asia are great people because they care about each other, and they do not need the traditional religious view of God to save them from original sin.  This pessimistic view of the religious right certainly translates to policy.  One could describe policy from the religious right perhaps like this: “You don’t need government to create policies to help you; you need to turn to God for help.”  Again, I don’t intend to slam religion, but if I am unemployed for example, I will get more help from man than from prayer.  I don’t condemn prayer either.  The religious right can certainly use prayer to strengthen them, and in fact, many religious people seek spiritual guidance through prayer.  I have prayed for the strength to be a better person and to help others, but I have never solely relied on the actions of a supreme being to solve the world’s problems.  We are the source of power and change.

                GOAL OF LIFE

                The secular humanist is interested in bettering this life and improving the world.  They commit fully to the environment and to social justice issues such as eliminating racism and poverty.  The emphasis is on personal development for the sake of making significant contributions to the here and now and to mankind.  The religious right is most interested in securing an afterlife and emphasizes complete obedience to the scriptures in order to secure the afterlife.  The problem with this extreme right point of view is that the religious right believes God will intervene in the world’s problems.  God will help the environment—they don’t have to.  God is testing people through racism and poverty, and God will eventually intervene to solve those problems according to some “plan.”  Again, the only compromise is that the religious right must acknowledge alternate “plans.”  Perhaps God does want you to intervene in the environment and help social policies like poverty.  Perhaps it is a test for you as well as all of us.  The religious secular humanists believe we have the power to do God’s work now, and that a goal of an afterlife is not obtained simply through scripture but rather through the work we do in social policy to help each other.  We therefore must recognize a need to help each other through social policy, and we must prioritize our goals in the here and now and not in an afterlife.

                VISION OF CULTURE

                Lastly, secular humanists teach tolerance.  Each person has the right to individual liberty no matter race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.  To the contrary, the religious right again has such a strict adherence to scripture that the religious right claims human desires and tendencies must be restricted.  The right believes individuals must restrain from any “sins” scripture discusses, even if such restrictions limit human freedoms and liberties.  How do we compromise?  The religious right must leave judgment up to the God in whom they believe.  No matter the religion or the scripture, government—with its supposed separation of church and state—must tolerate and support human freedoms, no matter race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.[2]

                CONCLUSION

                There is no room for the religious right in politics.  There is room, however, for religion in politics if religion falls within the domain of secular humanism.  Reason must come before faith.  The scientific method must be prioritized over scripture.  We must come together to make our lives and world better in the here and now, and not rely on God to intervene in the world’s problems.  We can be religious, we can pray, we can read scripture, and we can also be logical enough to accept science.  We can leave evaluations of culture for God and support tolerance in the here and now.  No matter our religion or lack of belief—we can come together to promote social policy in our government to help humanity and the environment in the here and now. 

Please subscribe to this blog by entering your e-mail in the “sign me up” box in the upper left of this page.

---

[1] http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main

[2] Categories and basic descriptions come from graduate level courses at Bradley University in Peoria, IL.  Classes were “Religion in the Modern World” as taught by Dr. Robert Fuller and Dr. Daniel Getz.