What readers are really thinking...

I received quite a number of private responses to my last essay, in which I continued my analysis of the psychological and spiritual dynamics underlying today’s extreme political polarization and what we might do to help heal those dynamics. I do find it interesting that most people chose to write me privately rather than respond in the comments section. I think this may illustrate the chill that is in the air around these topics, and our difficulty in discussing them substantively without fear of censure.

Several readers were very enthusiastic.

One writes:

…I salute you for putting this out in the world in a bigger way than I might have dared.  You have certainly risked attack & may receive it.  But Bravo!  It’s time for the higher vision of the eagle to help us rise out of our polarized near-sightedness and see the bigger picture of what is trying to emerge from this dialectical process.

Another says:

I congratulate you on weaving your way towards truth in a very complicated field of ideas, and having the courage to face what will undoubtedly be some negative feedback from the left. (I can feel my old leftist identity squirming at some of it :)

And another:

It’s been a relief to hear your honest assessment of these increasingly confusing times.

But others were less complimentary. I want to include in full an exchange I had with one reader. (I will call her Mary to preserve anonymity). I think it’s instructive for several reasons.

She started in a reactive place and called me a few names. I think a major reason we are unable to discuss these matters openly is that we are terrified of these particular labels being thrown at us if we question the underlying tenets of the ideology, even in the interests of developing a more effective approach to collective healing. I want to show that it’s okay to experience this kind of criticism and still stand by one’s truth. We won’t die.

But I also think our exchange illustrates that this kind of reactive response, so typical of online commentary today, only represents the very surface layer of each of us, not our deeper essence. After I dealt with my initial ‘ouch’, I sensed that she was mostly blowing off steam and was actually a very caring person. When I wrote back with that assumption in mind, she quickly responded in kind and we made a much more human connection.

Yet part of that human connection involved me also being honest about how her initial attacks had affected me. To me this is how we build relationship across these ideological divides. We may not have come all the way, but we made some steps to understanding each other and, more importantly, to feeling each other as real human beings, not political abstractions.

This was her first email to me (in response to this essay):

“Yes, I would agree with what your old friend has said and I'm glad it was said because your last essay left me feeling rather disturbed for the reasons mentioned, in addition to the following statements you made:

"Where I differ, though, is my conviction that the fundamentalism that has emerged on the left represents a threat not just to a privileged few, but to the very possibility of healing the wounds that separate us from each other and the Earth."

That seems to be quite an extreme claim ( a "threat"?)  and highly unlikely given the fact that whenever the pendulum swings one way in society (naming and calling out abuses of marginalized people and dysfunctional, oppressive systems of the past and present),  it tends to swing to the other before finally coming back to the middle.  There are plenty of committed mature, grounded, deeply caring individuals who make up that middle ground across the planet who are actually engaged in healing work on themselves and assisting other humans and the planet to heal and to unify.  They are not spending hours of their time perusing numerous articles and podcasts to make such a highly flawed assertion, which leaves out the fact that the fundamental right has already gone far beyond mere threat, leaving a trail of wreckage.

"Part of my purpose in this essay series is to propose a different kind of methodology for healing the wounds of history that I believe can lead to a more organic transformation than the coercive approach of today’s social justice orthodoxy."

Wow - your different kind of methodology has little chance of any type of receptive audience with such an obviously biased statement.  Referring to current social justice activism as a "coercive " is not only over the top but highly inaccurate, as well and loaded with judgment.  You spend a lot of time throwing out belabored intellectual theses and observations in a determined effort to prove your point and meanwhile have lost any credibility as someone who may be able to help others come to some beneficial realization because you've made this all about you and your superior intellectualism and being right. There is no heart or spirit or higher purpose here at all - it's simply an exercise in self-indulgence which benefits no one but yourself. 

"I believe that anyone who is sincerely committed to healing the wounds that have divided us needs to have the guts to name this dynamic. I’m prepared to accept the consequences of taking that stand."

Not only do you not come across as authentically "committed to healing the wounds that have divided us" but it doesn't take any guts at all for you to name this dynamic or to accept the consequences because you have nothing to lose (except angry readers or friends) and the quality of your life is not dependent on taking this stand.  It is mere egoic posturing and grandiose dramatics - positively insulting to human beings who have had the guts to name true social problems and injustices such as Malala Yousafzai,  and who paid real-world consequences (having to face physical harm and death on a regular basis) for taking a stand just to be able to have basic human rights and dignity for themselves and others.  You come across as an entitled, completely self-indulgent, white male who has absolutely no conception of true social justice work - in fact your statement above makes an absolute mockery of it and of the hundreds of people who have worked tirelessly and heroically at great cost to themselves to create better conditions for their fellow beings. 

I can't wait to read your next installment where you so magnanimously educate us all on the insidious dangers of the far left and about your truth, which for some reason, you feel so compelled to share in hopes of what, exactly? Oh, that's right - to heal the wounds that divide us while your essays serve the purpose of doing exactly the opposite - further dividing us. Amusing, isn't it?”

My response:

“Hi Mary,

I think we are all very sensitive at the moment about these topics and there's a lot of pain close to the surface. I find myself feeling sad that I wasn't able to express myself in a better way that could make a connection with you. I know this is touchy terrain, but I feel that we have to go into it together, being as honest as possible about where we stand, if we are to have a chance of transforming these patterns, rather than just burying them out of fear or not wanting to rock the boat.

I am actually not so interested in winning a debate as I am in entering into spaces where we can heal these wounds together. I've been focused on creating those spaces in my work for the last 15 years. But I reached a point recently where it felt like an issue of integrity to state clearly where I stood on these matters. I wanted people who are interested in my work to know where I'm coming from so they can make a conscious choice about whether they feel aligned or not.

I also felt a sense of responsibility to speak out about what I see as a truly dangerous authoritarianism that has emerged on the left in recent times. I'm hardly the only one who has noticed this. I'm under no illusion about the threat of authoritarianism from the right. But I think the far right and the woke left have become locked in a kind of dangerous death spiral that is causing us to fight each other rather than coming together to heal.  My sense is that in order to create transformative spaces that feel safe for people on both sides of any given historical conflict, we have to be willing to name the shadow on both sides. Otherwise there's only a superficial buy-in and a superficial transformation. I want to do it for real.”

Her response to that email:

“Hi David:

I do appreciate your kind and thoughtful response and I feel sad, too, that a connection could not be made.  As your old friend said, there are points where we can agree in your second essay and, now that I have read it, in your third one, as well.  And yes, this is touchy terrrain, but making statements that could actually be harmful to the immensely difficult work marginalized people have historically been engaged in and continue to be engaged in is something I cannot abide.  Social and civil rights activism is still very necessary, despite your claim to the contrary (Critics of today’s social justice orthodoxy often (rightly) point out that in terms of structural change, the major battles against institutionalized oppression have already been won. Voting rights have been secured, gay marriage has been legalized, discriminatory hiring practices have been outlawed, etc.)  We are far, far from any sort of "win" on that front.

I see that you are trying to bring to light the shadow sides of both the left and the right but they are very different shadows and I'm not convinced they are equitable.  The right has never been about the greater good (the 'we') but only about the individual good (the 'me'). That's the fundamental difference.

It's commendable you've been doing healing work for the last 15 years, however, I'm curious just how much of it has been with marginalized people (indigenous, Black, American Indian, aboriginal, Latino/Hispanic, Asian, those in poverty, etc.) and how much time you have spent with them gaining a true understanding of their experiences.

In order for there to be safe spaces for real healing, buy-in and transformation for both sides, information needs to be accurate and there has to be a desire for ensuring basic dignity and human rights for all, as well as for other sentient beings, (and of course, respect and honor for the earth).  The greater majority of people in this country occupy the sane, middle ground but it's the extremists on both sides who are the loudest and get the most airplay. 

I'm not very clear about your actual stand, though it appears that you tend to fall more on the right side.  And it appears that we are not very aligned, though we both value healing of the collective and the individual and understand it will need to go deep. Unfortunately, most people don't want to do the hard work and that's the challenge.

I wish you well in your endeavors and I will continue to be a committed social activist.  It will be very interesting to see how it all turns out.”

And my response to that email:

“Hi Mary,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. It provides an opportunity for us to make a human connection, beyond the positionality so easily triggered these days. I feel the sincerity of your commitment to doing the work of real healing.

I had a conservative upbringing, but have moved in very progressive circles most of my adult life, and have always identified politically as progressive. It's just that in recent years the shift on the left toward extremist dogma has truly concerned me, and I have surprisingly found myself feeling in resonance with certain conservative critiques of this extremism (though as I wrote those critiques are shared by many traditional liberals who are seeing the same thing as me). But I am under no illusion about the threat of authoritarianism on the right — I think, as you said, the extremists on both ends have taken control of the wheel and are pushing each other toward authoritarianism as both seek to ‘save’ democracy from the extremism of the other.

In terms of my healing work, the most meaningful and moving experiences I’ve had have in fact come from working with mixed race groups to address these historical wounds. I’ve helped facilitate some breakthrough experiences in this regard that I will never forget my whole life. (Here I sent her a short video clip of an example from a workshop I helped facilitate, which I’m leaving out here to keep certain identities private.)

My own spiritual path is deeply Earth-centric and as such I have a profound respect for and connection with indigenous wisdom keepers and ways. Most of my subtle activism work involves opening profound channels of connection between people and the Earth.

It’s actually my deepest passion and driving mission to be involved in helping to heal these historical wounds of separation between people and cultures, humanity and the Earth. Indeed the reason I’m taking this stand in this essay series — in spite of the risk to my professional reputation — is that I’ve come to sincerely believe that the dogma on the left represents a sign that the movements toward justice and sustainability have become infiltrated and co-opted by forces that are actually, in spite of appearances, serving Empire and the Machine and as such have become an insidious obstacle to the possibility of authentic healing.

I agree with you that “in order for there to be safe spaces for real healing, buy-in and transformation for both sides, information needs to be accurate and there has to be a desire for ensuring basic dignity and human rights for all, as well as for other sentient beings and respect and honor for the Earth.” That is in fact my point to a T. I feel that we have to come into alignment with the complex truth of history in order to heal together — not one seen through the lens of denial, but not one seen through the lens of trauma either.

And here I take issue with something you wrote. In relation to “the major battles against institutionalized oppression” you wrote ‘we are far, far from any sort of ‘win’ on that front.” This claim really goes to the heart of the matter, I think. In terms of progress against institutionalized oppression, there has of course been a civil war fought, involving the sacrifice of hundreds of millions of lives, to bring about the abolition of slavery through the 13th Amendment. There was the civil rights movement and the passing of the Civil Rights Act and Right to Vote Act. We’ve had the Great Society programs of the 60s and 70s involving trillions of dollars of aid to marginalized communities. Title IX for equal opportunity for women in college sports. Affirmative action programs to support students from marginalized communities get to college. The legalization of gay marriage. A black President elected twice. More than 6,000 Black public officials elected, including over 300 Black mayors.

My position is that in spite of these structural achievements, there remains many deep and subtle layers of inter-generational trauma that need to be healed together. And that this may indeed lead to further creative structural changes that would reflect that shift in consciousness. Yet to deny these substantial accomplishments in overcoming institutionalized oppression by saying “we are far, far from any wins on this front” feels to me to be a blatant manipulation of the truth. And it's a manipulation that is being used for political purposes by (usually white) liberals to gain power.

And this indeed is a core tenet of woke dogma. One is not meant to question the dogmatic belief that America remains just as institutionally oppressive toward minorities as ever, in spite of the obvious and extensive evidence to the contrary. And anyone who questions this belief by pointing out these facts is then denounced — as you did to me in your initial email — as an “entitled, completely self-indulgent white male.”

In all honesty, your willingness to do that — for which you have not apologized — makes you untrustworthy to me in terms of whether I would feel safe to engage with you in a collective healing process. I wouldn’t trust, for example, that if I were to say or do anything in contravention of this dogmatic belief — even in the interests of creating a balanced position that makes healing spaces safer for all — that you might not attack me on social media as an ‘entitled self-indulgent white male.” And so you then would represent a threat to the integrity of the healing work I feel called to do.

And this kind of thing is not innocuous. It’s happening all over the Western world, and has embedded itself in most mainstream institutions to the point where it’s almost impossible for anyone who holds a different view to get a job in academia, large corporations, mainstream media etc. Even if you believe in the value of diversity, it’s hard to deny that this kind of institutionalized coercion to comply with a particular ideology on pain of losing one’s livelihood represents a threat to the foundations of pluralistic democracy, which is supposed to allow for a variety of beliefs, religions, and ideologies to co-exist. Further, in the way that this ideology has been co-opted by large corporations, it’s now serving as a moral cover that justifies the expansion of Western extractive capitalism even further around the world, to spread and enforce the ‘good news’ of diversity (even while dismantling local cultures that do things differently), in much the same way that Christian dogma provided moral justification for the atrocities of Western Imperialism.

Yet the way I see it, we need to come together in healing circles and be more nakedly honest about where we stand, including the distortions around power that we all tend to run, while cultivating a field of deep compassion. I don’t think any of us know very well what it means to relate to each other from a power-with stance, rather than a power-over or power-under position. Power is sneaky — it’s sneaky on the left and on the right, in people from historically dominant groups and those from historically marginalized groups, in me and in you. I think that if we are to create spaces that both sides can trust then we need to be able to come clean about the distorted ways that power tends to play out in all of us, while holding these patterns together in profound mutual compassion. But that means acknowledging patterns of denial on one side AND patterns of manipulation on the other. Then -- and only then -- we might have a chance of working our shit out together and discovering what it’s like to transmute these power-over and power-under dynamics to power-with.

That takes a lot of trust. It’s not going to happen in forums like this when you are I are just emailing each other from afar. But where my confidence comes from is that I have experience in helping to create profoundly coherent group fields where the collective spiritual intelligence of the group IS capable of holding these complex wounds with the compassion and courage needed to face them. That's where I place my faith.

Anyway, thank you for engaging with me Mary. I wish you the best.

David