Contemplating the Gray

In the years that I have been writing and reflecting on non-duality, I have witnessed many people around me grow increasingly dualistic. It seems that gracious disagreement and civil discourse have been replaced by an eagerness to write people off at the slightest difference in opinion - particularly opinions related to religion, social justice, gender and sexuality, race relations, and political affiliation. More and more people seem to prefer an echo chamber where their own ideas are repeated back to them in a way that builds and hardens their ego. Changing and evolving in your views is unfortunately seen as a weakness rather than growth.

In my own experience navigating divisive conversations, I find the most comfort not in those who agree with me, but rather those who are willing to discuss hard topics with humility, compassion, and a desire to learn more. The virtue of humility often seems lost in modern dialogue, but humility allows us to hold our own values and opinions loosely while acknowledging that there is always more we can learn. It also allows us to change our mind with ease when presented with new information rather than sticking our head in the sand any time we learn something that challenges our established worldview.

"Only humility will lead us to unity, and unity will lead us to peace." - Mother Teresa.

The best conversations I've had tend to start with everyone admitting that these difficult topics are complicated. Acknowledging that my limited experiences will never allow me to understand the full complexity of any given issue allows me to explore nuances and the "gray areas" that require more thought than simple black and white categories. But the gray is the only place we will find common ground and empathy for those with experiences different than our own. It is where enemies become neighbors, and foes become allies.

Our judgements and hot takes about situations we have never been in personally only serve to highlight our own ignorance. Too often our opinions are based on nothing more than second-hand information: a biased news source, an out-of-context quote, or a sacred text with little relevance to the topic we impose it on. The speed at which we can reach a zealous level of certainty about an array of complex topics is baffling. Perhaps if we could assume the role of the student, rather than the "expert", we might regain to the ability to dialogue rather than jumping from one soapbox to the next.

Consider the following:

How confident can someone who has comfortably lived their entire life in one country be in their views on immigration and refugees? How can we expect to understand the motives of someone who has had to struggle to survive when we have always had a safety net?

How confident can a man be in dictating the laws regarding a woman's body? How much thought goes into an opinion that has no real consequence for the one holding it?

How confident can a religious follower be in the superiority of their own religion when they have only learned about other faiths through a lens of hostility? How can we expect to understand the value of other worldviews when we have never attempted to sincerely learn from those who hold other beliefs?

How confident can one family be that their "traditional family" structure is the only right way to have a family when they have only ever rejected LGBTQ folks on principal, rather than getting to know them personally? How much harm do we cause when we reject their identity based upon beliefs that stem from an ancient culture and language we have little expertise in?

“Even if a unity of faith is not possible, a unity of love is.” - Hans Urs von Balthasar

With these, and many other topics, the diversity of human experience prevents us from finding an easy one-size-fits-all answer. Assuming that the tiny cultural locale we inhabit on this planet somehow gave us all the right answers, while everyone else got it wrong, is not only lazy, but dangerous. With this sort of arrogance comes the dangerous need to defend and protect that way of life from those who live differently. Anyone simply asking to be respected for their own lifestyle choices becomes a treat to those who insist on uniformity and assimilation.

Uniformity is not required for unity. We can affirm the dignity of others, despite their personal beliefs, for the simple fact that they are fellow humans. If freedom is what we seek, we must be willing to let others be free as well without imposing our views on them or penalizing them for their differences. If you want to live with conservative values, do it in a way that doesn't make others suffer. If you want to live with progressive values, do it in a way that doesn't make others suffer. If you don't fit in any category, do that in a way that doesn't make others suffer. On this broad spectrum of human experiences, we should all be able to insist upon our mutual right to live and love the best way we know how.

"Society is unity in diversity." - George H. Mead