One of the inevitable results of the polarization in our nation is us-them, either-or, right-wrong thinking. Complex issues are treated as black-and-white issues with either-or solutions.
This kind of us-them, either-or, right-wrong thinking is fundamentally self-serving. It allows us to blame the other for the problem, making them responsible for fixing it. (Fixing it means doing things our way.) It exempts us from any responsibility - for the problem, for fixing the problem, for helping, for caring. It makes us "right" and validates our anger-condemnation-judgment of the other. It shields us from having to do any self-reflection or exercise any self-awareness. It allows us to avoid the hard work of thinking. It frees us from having to feel compassion or empathy for the other. It does not require us to change. It means we win and the other loses.
Us-them, either-or, right-wrong thinking creates a false dichotomy. The choices it presents are not real.
One of the false dichotomies being promoted today is law and order versus protests ... All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter versus Black Lives Matter ... Back the Blue versus Defund the Police. This false dichotomy pits those who support police, representing law and order, against those who protest the misuse (abuse) of police authority and power. Both sides paint with a broad stroke that ignores the multiple layers involved in the issue. Both sides struggle to hear the concerns and fears of the other.
This one false dichotomy is but one of many being tossed about during this presidential election cycle. The only thing such false dichotomies and their underlying us-them, either-or, right-wrong thinking produce is more rigid polarization. Resolution that addresses the concerns of both sides (yes, it is possible) calls for better, more mature thinking.
Just as healthy boundaries are a prerequisite for healthy relationships, so structure (law and order) is an important part of any society. But those of us who advocate for law and order tend to overlook a fundamental feature of law and order functioning: law and order works to the advantage of those who have power, position, and wealth. It often works to the disadvantage of those who have little power, position, or wealth. In our society, law and order supports a culture structured by white people for the advantage of white people because white people have been the majority. (This reality underlies the concept of white privilege that white people struggle to recognize.) As diversity grows in our nation, this aspect of law and order functioning is being challenged.
The protests that have occurred this summer are not about law and order. They are fundamentally about power and place ... or, more specifically, about the lack of power and standing black people have (and have historically had) in American society.
Blacks are not the only ones who have held a "one down" position in American society. Throughout our nation's history, other groups have been denied equal standing and opportunity guaranteed by the constitution: Chinese, Irish, Blacks, Hispanics, immigrants from non-European nations, Muslims, gays, the poor. Those in positions of power and affluence (read: white people and the affluent) have historically used their power against these groups, in effect telling them to "stay in your place." That place is a place of disadvantage, without power or voice or standing. Protests are an attempt to claim what the constitution proclaims: equal standing under the law.
It seems to me those who advocate law and order today are those who have enjoyed the advantages law and order provides. They are predominantly white and affluent and older. They are quick to defend the symbols of our nation, particularly the flag and the military. They unapologetically speak of our nation's greatness. They are quick to label the victims of police brutality as criminals (as though criminal activity justified their experience of an excessive use of power). They complain "If they would just obey the law, they wouldn't get in trouble with the police!" They have never been followed, viewed with suspicion, treated with disrespect, stopped, or questioned (profiled) because of the color of their skin. Thus, they cannot conceptualize such a reality, much less empathize with it.
It seems to me those who have dared to protest are those who have not enjoyed the advantages of law and order. They have experienced law and order as authority and power used unfairly against them. They and members of their family have been profiled by police and people in positions of power. The only voice they have is that of protest. (Those who advocate for law and order argue that their vote is their voice. They overlook the way the votes of Blacks have been and are being suppressed.)
The law and order position almost always represents the status quo ... the way things have always been ... to the advantage of those who have power, standing, and affluence. In order for all to enjoy equal standing under the law (as promised by our constitution), the law and order status quo must be willing to hear and honor the voices of those who have little or no power, standing, or voice in the status quo. The law and order status quo must be willing to hear the message being voiced by the protests. In order to hear what is being said, the law and order status quo must move beyond being reactive and defensive to being open and responsive. In other words, it must be willing to die to its current reality in order to grow into a more mature expression of what law and order could be ... for all.
An interesting feature of today's protests is the involvement of people who would be classified as white, many of whom are younger people. The awareness that law and order does not serve all people equally is being recognized and challenged by more than those in a "one down" position. A more mature society may yet evolve.
Many (most) of those who advocate for law and order identify themselves as Christians. They seemingly fail to recognize the prophetic voices of their Hebrew tradition that confronted the abuses of power and affluence in the nations of Israel and Judah. These voices advocated for the poor and the powerless - those in a "one down" position in their society. They seemingly forget that Jesus empowered the powerless. He treated every person with dignity and worth, particularly those who were treated with disrespect by those in positions of power. Jesus opposed systems that took advantage of others. He challenged social customs that kept people in positions of powerlessness and disadvantage. He challenged the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others, self-indulgence to the neglect of others, and wealth-based standing and status. In other words, Jesus challenged the law and order status of his society.
Which raises the question: would Jesus align with the law and order position in our society or with those who are in a powerless, disadvantaged "one down" position?
Which raises another question: what position does the Church take? and what is the rationale for that position?
These are hard questions - questions that call for mature thinking, not simplistic, either-or, polarizing answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment