Trying to Be a Better Person: and Hopefully Contributing to Greater Peace in the Process

This is an introduction to some ideas I've had kicking around for over a decade. I hope to continue writing and expand on them over the coming weeks. Many of the particulars in this piece were solidified in my reading of E.O. Wilson's book The Social Conquest of Earth.

As human beings it is our nature to create constructs for understanding the world perceived through our senses. It is the foundation of language to be able to categorize objects and events and to put them in their proper place in our minds. This necessary process leads however to binary thinking – either this is or is not a dog; it cannot be partially a dog. Binary thinking can become problematic though, as most people are aware. Another aspect of our nature is that we are tribal. We identify ourselves with a group of individuals (usually beginning with our families) and we closely ally with these people, often to the detriment of anyone outside of our “tribe.” Most humans in the world go to the extent of defining their own tribe as “the people” (fully human) and everyone else as “other” (at least partially sub-human.) To understand this as anything other than completely normal human psychology is a huge mistake. To think that you personally are immune is an even bigger mistake.

So now we come to the “us” vs “them” mentality. This is a combination of our tribal nature and our tendency toward binary thinking. If you are not one of “us,” you are obviously one of “them.”  “They” are always greeted with suspicion upon first introduction. Their motivations are given sinister interpretation first. Any transgressions are punished (if possible) in the heaviest possible way. “We” are greeted with trust from the beginning. “Our” motivations are given the benefit of the doubt. Any transgressions are treated as lightly as possible, and second chances are frequently forthcoming. Such behaviors have led us to our remarkable ability to thrive in small groups of extremely cooperative individuals.

Obviously this (natural, normal) state of human interaction is problematic in a world where peace and global cooperation is the ideal. The best we’ve been able to do, so far, as a species has been to expand this feeling of tribalism (belonging) to larger groups which encompass individuals who are not known personally to us but who do share our values. Examples of this are sports fandom, religion and nationalism.

Most people believe that it is not possible to move beyond this stage in our development without some kind of external attack (such as from an alien race, or an asteroid heading toward the earth to obliterate us all) and that even if we did, it would be only a temporary ceasing of conflict. I have every reason to believe that such predictions are correct. History and current events seem to show us the truth behind this idea. But I can’t help but wonder what steps we might take toward a more peaceful, inclusive, pluralistic, tolerant world. Obviously you need buy in from everyone, which is the first problem, because many people are committed to violently exploiting others to get what they want for themselves and their “tribe.” However, I believe the vast majority of human beings would like nothing better than a comfortable place to call home, clean air, clean drinking water, enough to eat, access to the natural environment, and the freedom to live unmolested by others.

So, again, the question is how. How can we create more unity and peace? I think the place to start is at home with ourselves and expand these principals to our children and then on outward to every member of our “tribe” and indeed everyone we come into contact with. We do this by engaging in prosocial (positive, unifying) behaviors and refraining from antisocial (negative, divisive) behaviors. Despite the fact that most of us are right now thinking, “yes of course, I do this all the time,” we are incorrect. It is challenging to do this uniformly and to extend prosocial, inclusive behaviors or thinking to our “enemies.” Think about a group for whom you have great distaste (perhaps Republicans, or Liberals, or the Westboro Baptist church, or terrorists) and ask yourself how much good feeling you can muster toward them, how much genuine understanding you can show. It’s much easier to think of them negatively and it is second nature to say that you are nothing like them. But I assure you, you are – because we are all fully human.

One of the habits of mind that helps to reduce conflict is to assume positive intent.  That is, when you feel angry at someone (or a group of people), you should ask yourself, “How might I understand this behavior in a light that makes me feel less angry? How might I better appreciate where they are coming from?” When you do this consistently, you begin to feel a greater sense of magnanimity. At minimum, this exercise will make you a better person, and the world could use one more better person. As an ideal, this attitude will begin to rub off on others, and it will spread out into the world at large.

I feel it’s important here to add the caveat that clearly, some people are sociopaths, sadists, narcissists or are simply too damaged to have more than the basest possible motivations. I am not asking people to be doormats and allow themselves to be exploited. You may understand where a person is coming from but still reject their position. In fact a healthy respect for your own boundaries is essential for lasting relationships. Allowing yourself to be used badly by other does nothing for the betterment of yourself or the world.

It is imperative to the cause of peace and unity that we recognize that all human beings have agency in the world, and all mentally competent adults have full agency. Full agency means that you are completely responsible for your actions. You get full kudos for your prosocial behaviors and full sanctions for your antisocial behaviors. While we must all appreciate the struggles that each individual or group has had to face, we must never allow violent behavior to go unsanctioned. To do so is to deny a person her full humanity, her agency in the world. There must always be a balance between magnanimity and empathy on the one hand and an intolerance for violence on the other. Telling people that they have a good reason to be violent is a terrible idea. We can say, “While I can understand and sympathize with your anger, I cannot condone your violent response. Perhaps we can figure out a way to work together to solve your problem in a constructive way.”

Lastly there is the issue of “provoking” violence. While it is antisocial to deliberately provoke someone, to deliberately hurt you brother’s feelings, it is far, far worse to retaliate with violence. As thoughtful, peace-loving humans, we should not go around trying to wound people emotionally. However, we cannot be expected to know the sensitivities of everyone we might encounter. If we inadvertently offend, we should apologize. But no one should ever be allowed to commit acts of violence in response to a real or imagined insult to feelings.  I also want to add the caveat here that certain people in a pluralistic society must be given free rein to insult people and hurt the feelings of others (as a matter of principle) – these are journalists, philosophers, artists, bloggers, etc. whose duty it is to inform, provoke and enlighten. Sometimes the best way to do this is through satire or harsh critiques.  It is never the government’s place to adjudicate the wounding of feelings in any case.