Humans desire security. We want to feel safe. This is true on the national level. The desire is being revealed in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death, as many wonder when and where a terrorist attack might occur.
I think the desire for sanctuary also exists on the individual level, certainly in a physical sense — I do not want to be held up at gunpoint — but also in an ideological sense.
My natural reaction is to not let ideas contrary to the ones I adhere to influence me. They are invaders. Terrorists.
One of the natural defense mechanisms we implement in our antagonism toward the other is to flee to blow a bubble and live in it. Most people would agree this is wrong. Humans — not merely as social creatures but as beings sustained and strengthened by love — are obligated to interact with one another with integrity.
Our community lacks integrity when some members confine themselves to the comforts of their own ideological bubbles. That being said there are also forms of engagement that lack integrity. Some people emerge from their bubbles, not with interest in honest dialogue, but in order to gain knowledge over their counterparts. I’ll provide some examples of this after explaining what I mean.
Knowledge over another person or group is sought for the sake of control, for the sake of feeling secure. This is contrasted with knowledge of counterparts, which is acquired as we build accurate pictures of each other through our interactions.
Knowledge over others manifests as we construct categories in which to frame our peers and react with offense or confusion when those borders are crossed.
For instance, for the sake of ideological safety, say, to feel that my religion is right, I might frame my Muslim peers as violent, conspiring or coercive. When I meet a Muslim man or woman who fails to fit this category, my suspicion of or confusion about them would reveal a corrupt sort of knowledge, one fabricated in order for me to feel vindicated.
Another example, this time real life. A local group was recently formed for the purpose of abolishing the practice of human abortion. They have a blog containing various arguments and testimonies aimed at achieving this goal. It is updated regularly and anyone can visit.
Among the site’s visitors are those who oppose its goals. Pro-choice advocates are able to read and comment on posts and thus interact with the abolitionists.
Sadly, many of the pro-choice posts are laced with ridicule. Those writing them simply cannot believe a pro-life or pro-abolition group could have valid reasons for decrying human abortion. They have already framed the abolitionists as uninformed and ignorant.
I think this is because many of the group’s opponents have attempted to erect knowledge “over” their conservative counterparts. When the boundaries they draw are shown to be inadequate, they become angry.
I think this phenomenon is present in such polar groups because it is a question of human nature, of the heart.
This does not mean true knowledge agrees with its opponents. I can maintain Christianity is the way and truth, and pro-choice advocates can maintain disagreement with local abolitionists. However, we should have good reasons for doing so, and not simply let our fear or pride lead us to blindly reject those ideas different than our own.
As the year comes to a close and we continue to engage one another in relationships or over controversial issues, I encourage you to ask yourself whether your perceptions are made of knowledge of people and issues or knowledge over it.
If you find yourself trying to ward off alien thoughts through stereotypes, you might be guilty of the latter, sadder kind. And the only way of escape is through a change of heart.
— Trevor Clark, professional writing and religious studies junior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
bruenig 1 year ago
Each of the columns this week should be prepended with an Editor's note which reads:
Note: This is what happens when the competent columnists take a week off.
NormanAbolition 1 year ago
Jerod Coker is going to be upset.
Abolitionist_4 1 year ago
Thanks for mentioning our blog in your column Trevor. Hopefully a few brave souls will leave their bubbles and thoughtfully engage the abolitionists in future days. Abolish Human Abortion.
zeno 1 year ago
You sound so mature Breunig. Remove the facade of intellectualism and you just sound like a jerk.
Alex_Graham 1 year ago
Very tasteful job at sneaking in a conservative argument into a seemingly benign call for responsibility. This is what I have come to expect from Trevor Clark. Ugly religious bias hidden under a veneer of non-partisanship.
colinwkirk 1 year ago
Good points for the most part. However, pro-choice arguments are hardly the only ones that are known to use ridicule.
Pensees 1 year ago
Good to see words like these out and about for college folks and others to read. A change of heart indeed.
Good article.