If you have major points of disagreement with somebody, yet are obliged to keep some kind of relationship going, there is no avoiding compromise - however much of a naughty word that may be to brethren. As I am not as detached from my past life and acquaintances as others in my position, I rub up against this all the time.
In the case of working relationships, the simplest thing is to pretend there are no differences. Anything that can be ignored is ignored. I don't alter my appearance unduly, don't talk overmuch about life outside work, and so any potential problems can be treated as nonexistent. Out of sight, out of mind. And I refrain from commenting when the tide of rules ebbs and flows, whether it's heading in the direction of sanity or further into insular oddity.
But overall (and this is more noticeable in less formal and more emotional relationships), it isn't possible to disagree with someone over a point that one or both consider to be important without wishing that the other person thought differently about it. That's where the compromise bites a bit more. Especially where something in the belief on one side or the other results in harmful attitudes or behaviour. What can anyone do about that?
Many, I know, would say that the disagreement must be open in such cases, if one is not to be tainted with blame for harm that one knows is happening. And that is a reasonable point of view. What, though, if one's judgement is that persuasion is unlikely, but a large decrease in influence very probable as a result of expressing an opinion? In that case the clear conscience would be at the expense of the possibility of practical good. You can wash your hands of what you don't approve of, but if you hope to retain any way of edging the person away from what is going on, you must also retain some moral grubbiness from acquiescing to it in the meantime. And if no movement happens, you stay grubby for nothing.
I see this happening with me and those brethren who maintain contact with me - in both directions, depending on whose views you agree with!
A bit of practical psychology comes in handy here. It helps that, for the moment, I think they are more worried about losing influence on me than the reverse. So all conversations must be like walking on eggshells for them, whereas I needn't worry so much. That means conversation tends to range widely ... but only on subjects that have nothing to do with anything we might disagree over. But there is more to it than that.
I find that agreement is habit-forming. If I can find some subject where we will definitely agree, ideally one where they might expect me to differ from them but I don't, that agreement feels good. If the conversation then heads onto more uncertain ground, but still with some effort to find points of agreement, it can be amazing how far we get. I have found staunch brethren members able to see my point of view on some very surprising things when led to it by sufficiently diverting paths.
In a way, this is just a method of subverting conditioning. My point is that some subjects, to a person brought up to hold strong opinions, produce reflex reactions. There are many such things for brethren - a certain subject comes up, and there are instant warning lights so they know that all they are permitted to think on that subject is the party line. They expect people to disgree with them, and disagreement or argument will be pointless. Approached differently, their thoughts may be different.
Anyway, that's my self-justification for not openly disagreeing too often and making waves. I keep my conscience as clear as I need for mental comfort by straying onto subjects in conditions where I feel it will do some good, and I hope that by carefully making room for unfamiliar opinions, those opinions may gradually become less alien to them and begin to shift things. I never did have much faith in revolution and changing the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Acquiescing in something less than criminal, and refraining from expressing an opinion have always seemed to me to be tolerable forms of grubbiness, so long as it serves to keep lines of communication open, and hence the opportunity of exerting a beneficial influence at a later date.
However, a moral dilemma occurs if the other party presses you to assent to an opinion that you do not share, and you have to choose between causing major offence and being hypocritical. In that event, a major dose of fudge will usually limit the damage on both sides.
When chatting to people who press you in that way, I usually find it best not to respond in like manner: i.e. do not try to pin them down to an opinion, or force them to confront their inconsistencies. Say enough to suggest where you think their inconsistencies lie, but do not try to nail them or force them to admit to irrationality or hypocrisy or morally questionable behaviour. Leave them with something to think about, but leave them also with a dignified route of escape.
The confrontational approach, as I am sure you know from experience, does not work in religious disputes. It can cause doors to close, or it can cause long-lasting distrust, and thereafter any influence you might have had is lost. The only people who can make the confrontational approach work are those with major clout, with the power to impose excommunication or other sanctions: in other words, bullies.
I find confrontation stressful under any circumstances, so I have to fight the temptation most of the time to just say what people want to hear. But I can disagree smoothly enough by now that people don't necessarily notice that's what I'm doing!
However, I do consider it a worthwhile project to draw attention, subtly, to some things that worry me, and I find the way I describe is as effective as I can imagine anything being.
Post a Comment