Fine Line Between Shared Opinions and Hivemind
--
There are certain beliefs that are commonly seen as indefensible; the sort of values, attitudes, and speech that will remove an individual as a viable option for social connection. For me and many who are committed to ideas of social equity, that line would encompass unchecked racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. That is to say, a white person who refuses to acknowledge white privilege, and deems themself superior to people of color — and has no interest in changing these actions and beliefs — would not be someone I would befriend or date.
Human nature invites people to construct their own value system and prefer like-minded people. Cults are essentially an extreme variation on this theme, with people being forced to shut out anyone who disagrees with the tenets of the cult from their lives. These ideologies are typically constructed by one person, or a small group of people, for personal gain and the ability to control and manipulate followers. People on opposing sides of modern issues such as gun control, abortion, the COVID vaccine, educational systems and tax hierarchies are more than excited to accuse their detractors of being cult-like or unable to think for themselves.
To be clear, I have very strong values and become frustrated and upset at actions that clearly obstruct one’s rights (particularly BIPOC and women, who tend to be the most frequent targets) and disregard for human life. That said, it is not possible (nor should it be) that everyone on the planet agrees in every way with the “correct” way of viewing the world.
So, that leaves the question: where do we draw the line?
There are certain topics that are so innocuous that they typically do not have the power to end relationships or widen deeply entrenched gaps in belief. Tea over coffee, dogs over cats, and beach vacations over trips to renowned museums are some examples. We make concessions about opposing beliefs in order to maintain relationships with people that we find kind, loving, compassionate, interesting, fun, or any number of attractive traits.
When do we become so insular as to develop aggression toward those who disagree with our perspectives on life? Maybe your friend agrees that police should be held accountable, but doesn’t think abolishing law enforcement altogether is the best solution. Perhaps a coworker who invites you to barbecues thinks that the United States is doing the right thing by continuing to support Israel in the violent, oppressive conflict with Palestine. Your own mother might agree that white supremacy is real, but she doesn’t think it’s wrong that France bans Muslim women from wearing hijabs.
Is the natural resolution to these gaps in opinion to argue with your moral opponent until you both can hardly stand being in the same room? Does attempting to persuade them to the “correct” belief system, and failing to do so, a negative reflection on your commitment to social change and equity? Should we consider burning these bridges if they never come around?
Human rights, correcting discrimination that continues in the present and is rooted in the history of the United States, and having open, honest discussions about how to transform power structures are all nuanced, complex topics. There is a certain level of formal education that make it possible for white people to even access some of this knowledge. It is unjust and inexcusable that Black people, Indigenous people, and all people of color have the lived experience (and trauma that often comes alongside) to form their understandable perspectives on societal structures and social life.
How can we best instill values and adopt policies that address historical and modern traumas exacted against people who continue to experience the most harm? This is one of the topics that I won’t compromise about, no matter how much I am accused of trying to be “woke” or a “snowflake.” I am much less concerned with avoiding name calling than I am with trying to contribute to efforts to make the world a more equitable place.
I am the child of an immigrant and I was born in another country. I had no support for my education as the first person in my family to go to college. I live with chronic mental illness. I am transgender and queer. These are the things that have made my life more difficult.
I am white. I am able-bodied. I am a citizen of the United States. I am thin. I have formal education that has allowed me to become self employed. These are the things that have made my life easier.
I mention these things to show my values. I do feel strongly that abortion is a right, that we need serious reform to make gun violence less common, and that all people deserve food, housing, education and health care (e.g., I believe that no one should be houseless, regardless of employment status).
These are things that I won’t compromise on. And I don’t have the answer, but I continue to wonder — how do we determine when we can withstand a differing opinion? And when does it diverge to the point of losing interest in maintaining a connection at all?
