Look Beyond Either/Or to the Both-And

I’m swamped with our new graduate programs right now, so here’s a repost from 7/20/09 that I hope you’ll enjoy.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the ways in which we humans seem to gravitate towards “either/or” choices. Either we protect Northern Spotted Owls or people’s logging jobs. Either we invade Iraq or not. Either we pull the troops out or stay. There are more. Either we trust our minds or hearts. Either we are Christian or Muslim. Either we are Republican or Democrat.

Yes, there are people who want to protect owls and jobs, think beyond either/ors and work creatively to come up with the wisest choices in Iraq, trust both their minds and hearts, see the connections between all religions, and consider themselves Independents. But it seems to me such people are the minority.

Among activists, the either/ors are sometimes cast starkly: either someone (or some company or industry) is good or evil. The CEO of Altria (formerly Philip Morris), of Exxon-Mobil, of Monsanto –- they must be evil, while the CEO of Working Assets/CREDO must be good.

It’s just not this simple. But complexity is, well, complex. Commitment to seeing both-ands instead of either/ors demands more from us. It may at first even appear wishy-washy, as if you’ve lost your passion and your commitment if you don’t immediately “take sides.” It shouldn’t. Instead, a commitment to both-and is a commitment to problem-solving at the deepest level. A realization that people have the capacity for dangerous, unwise, unhealthy choices, as well as compassionate, kind, and brilliant choices means that we can try to influence the former, rather than call people names and divide the population into us and thems.

There will be many times when taking sides is exactly what you need to do, but let’s not let side-taking become a knee-jerk reaction to everything that is presented to us in either/or terms. You’ll find either/ors everywhere. Listen for them. And then see if you can determine a more nuanced both-and…and a solution that works for all.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Racism of the Blind

I’ve often wondered what racism looks like if you’re blind.  In societies in which the color of our skin is still a powerful force in the way we are perceived and treated — our privileges and opportunities as well as our obstacles and challenges — what would happen if we could not perceive color?  Would we still find ways to create “us and thems ”?  Would some other factor emerge that we would use to separate ourselves?  Sadly, I think the answer is yes, as we can witness in cultures in which skin, hair, and eye color are consistently the same, while religion, ethnicity or class takes the place of color in our hierarchy of acceptance or rejection, inclusion or trepidation.

We find a dozen ways to create thems, carrying our agendas, our fear, and our sense of rightness and righteousness into the wider world.   Those outside our circles — however we come to define them — become other, the enemy.  This summer at our residency training, one of our students shared this quote: “An enemy is someone whose story has not yet been heard.”

Can we listen, like those who are blind, instead of perceiving what we set out to see with our eyes?  The final line of my favorite e.e.cummings poem is this: “Now the ears of my ears awake; now the eyes of my eyes are open.” The eyes of our eyes perceive a greater truth than the narrow vision we’re taught to accept as real or important, and the ears of our ears allow us to hear our perceived enemy, so that she may become our friend.

~ Zoe

Zoe’s busy with Residency this week, so this is a repost, originally posted 9/4/08.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Look Beyond Either/Or to the Both-And

I’ve been thinking a lot about the ways in which we humans seem to gravitate towards “either/or” choices. Either we protect Northern Spotted Owls or people’s logging jobs. Either we invade Iraq or not. Either we pull the troops out or stay. There are more. Either we trust our minds or hearts. Either we are Christian or Muslim. Either we are Republican or Democrat.

Yes, there are people who want to protect owls and jobs, think beyond either/ors and work creatively to come up with the wisest choices in Iraq, trust both their minds and hearts, see the connections between all religions, and consider themselves Independents. But it seems to me such people are the minority.

Among activists, the either/ors are sometimes cast starkly: either someone (or some company or industry) is good or evil. The CEO of Altria (formerly Philip Morris), of Exxon-Mobil, of Monsanto –- they must be evil, while the CEO of Working Assets/CREDO must be good.

It’s just not this simple. But complexity is, well, complex. Commitment to seeing both-ands instead of either/ors demands more from us. It may at first even appear wishy-washy, as if you’ve lost your passion and your commitment if you don’t immediately “take sides.” It shouldn’t. Instead, a commitment to both-and is a commitment to problem-solving at the deepest level. A realization that people have the capacity for dangerous, unwise, unhealthy choices, as well as compassionate, kind, and brilliant choices means that we can try to influence the former, rather than call people names and divide the population into us and thems.

There will be many times when taking sides is exactly what you need to do, but let’s not let side-taking become a knee-jerk reaction to everything that is presented to us in either/or terms. You’ll find either/ors everywhere. Listen for them. And then see if you can determine a more nuanced both-and…and a solution that works for all.

~ Zoe

Racism of the Blind

I’ve often wondered what racism looks like if you’re blind.  In societies in which the color of our skin is still a powerful force in the way we are perceived and treated — our privileges and opportunities as well as our obstacles and challenges — what would happen if we could not perceive color?  Would we still find ways to create “us and thems ”?  Would some other factor emerge that we would use to separate ourselves?  Sadly, I think the answer is yes, as we can witness in cultures in which skin, hair, and eye color are consistently the same, while religion, ethnicity or class takes the place of color in our hierarchy of acceptance or rejection, inclusion or trepidation.

We find a dozen ways to create thems, carrying our agendas, our fear, and our sense of rightness and righteousness into the wider world.  Just as “Joanne” is “other” to the group of residency students, those outside our circles — however we come to define them — become other, the enemy.  This summer at our residency training, one of our students shared this quote: “An enemy is someone whose story has not yet been heard.”

Can we listen, like those who are blind, instead of perceiving what we set out to see with our eyes?  The final line of my favorite e.e.cummings poem is this: “Now the ears of my ears awake; now the eyes of my eyes are open.” The eyes of our eyes perceive a greater truth than the narrow vision we’re taught to accept as real or important, and the ears of our ears allow us to hear our perceived enemy, so that she may become our friend.

~ Zoe

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 437 other followers