During my undergraduate study in philosophy I was required to take World History. Like so many other of my general education requirements I put it off until my senior year, which actually made for a very fun final semester full of freshman level courses punctuated with a senior seminar with my department adviser. The world history class I ended up taking was taught by Dr. Yamamoto, who I quickly grew to love. There are two things he taught that stuck with my about that course more than anything else, and have profoundly shaped the way I try to interact with other people, both as I view them historically. Funnily enough I think he discussed both of them in his opening lecture.
The first is only generally true, but nevertheless helpful. And that is that it is the duty of the student of history to assume that most of the people they study sincerely believed that their actions were justified and right. From Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa to Woodrow Wilson, they all believed their actions were justified. Even during those times when people are behaving in ways that are manipulative, oppressive, or violent there is usually a justification for their actions--whether that is simply the belief in their own superiority over others or the perceived righteousness of the cause they are working for. In a sense Dr. Yamamoto was expounding a nuance that runs across the hermeneutic of suspicion. It is not there is no use for deconstructing the actions of others to reveal the intrinsic prejudices, hostilities, etc.; but rather that isn't the best way to start. If I want to understand why almost an entire nation could either passively accept or actively participate in the genocide of World War II I have to come to grips with their own self-understanding or why they believed the holocaust was justified.
The second principle Dr. Yamamoto taught that has shaped my thinking comes from a distinctly Christian perspective, and that is that there are no good guys and bad guys--there are only sinners in need of God's grace. And that doesn't change when someone is converted to faith. In one sense this completes the first principle--while people tend to think their behaviors are justified very rarely do people act in ways that are actually completely right or just. But that applies to the apparently saintly as well as the more obvious sinners. Pol Pot was no more in need of Christ's atoning blood than Mother Theresa of Calcutta. The only difference we can point to between the two on this front is that Mother Theresa seems to have got what she needed, whereas Pol Pot did not.
It is hopefully not to difficult to see how these two principles might be helpful in our interactions with those people we interact with in contemporary life and not just history. While the second principle may only appeal to those of a Christian persuasion who believe sin and grace are valid categories, the second seems like it could be accepted more broadly. My belief is that broader acceptance of the first principle within culture at large and the second principle within Western Christianity would greatly improve our ability to disagree in a way that is both humble and respectful.
That the political climate in the United States is increasingly toxic and vitriolic is of the few political statements one can make that isn't currently controversial. While I think there are certainly some causes to be found within the last few decades of government policy and the increasing role of media, I think a great deal of it is also due to a broad failure on the part of common people to treat those who differ from them with authentic respect, the kind of respect that would seek to understand their own self-assessment of their position and not just paint them with the brush: "subversive" or "bigot" or "unpatriotic".
Let me be clear, I think evil is real, and I think those within politics are capable of and sometimes do commit acts of heinous and reprehensible evil (this belief fits in with my second principle). But I also think that except in very rare occasions those people at the very least believe they are choosing the lesser of two evils but more often than not are choosing what is good and right. My first order of business, if I want to dialogue with someone I disagree with is to attempt to understand why and how this action is believed to be right. The more passionately I disagree the more crucial this becomes.
The benefit of this is three-fold. First I may come to see that they have a point worth conceding. In short I may realize that I'm wrong. The second is that I can actual meet them in conversation and speak to the heart of the issue, speak to the root of their belief instead of tearing down a straw-man of my own making. And the third is that this humanizes the one who otherwise is only my adversary. As a Christian who wants to actively engage with the world; be a participant in the events of our age; and think clearly and carefully about difficult and thorny issues I owe it to those I interact with to treat them like the people that they are. They think they are right (and they might even be right!) and even if they are wrong, they are in the same boat I am, desperately in need of forgiveness for all the places that I am wrong and still think I'm perfectly and completely justified.
The first is only generally true, but nevertheless helpful. And that is that it is the duty of the student of history to assume that most of the people they study sincerely believed that their actions were justified and right. From Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa to Woodrow Wilson, they all believed their actions were justified. Even during those times when people are behaving in ways that are manipulative, oppressive, or violent there is usually a justification for their actions--whether that is simply the belief in their own superiority over others or the perceived righteousness of the cause they are working for. In a sense Dr. Yamamoto was expounding a nuance that runs across the hermeneutic of suspicion. It is not there is no use for deconstructing the actions of others to reveal the intrinsic prejudices, hostilities, etc.; but rather that isn't the best way to start. If I want to understand why almost an entire nation could either passively accept or actively participate in the genocide of World War II I have to come to grips with their own self-understanding or why they believed the holocaust was justified.
The second principle Dr. Yamamoto taught that has shaped my thinking comes from a distinctly Christian perspective, and that is that there are no good guys and bad guys--there are only sinners in need of God's grace. And that doesn't change when someone is converted to faith. In one sense this completes the first principle--while people tend to think their behaviors are justified very rarely do people act in ways that are actually completely right or just. But that applies to the apparently saintly as well as the more obvious sinners. Pol Pot was no more in need of Christ's atoning blood than Mother Theresa of Calcutta. The only difference we can point to between the two on this front is that Mother Theresa seems to have got what she needed, whereas Pol Pot did not.
It is hopefully not to difficult to see how these two principles might be helpful in our interactions with those people we interact with in contemporary life and not just history. While the second principle may only appeal to those of a Christian persuasion who believe sin and grace are valid categories, the second seems like it could be accepted more broadly. My belief is that broader acceptance of the first principle within culture at large and the second principle within Western Christianity would greatly improve our ability to disagree in a way that is both humble and respectful.
That the political climate in the United States is increasingly toxic and vitriolic is of the few political statements one can make that isn't currently controversial. While I think there are certainly some causes to be found within the last few decades of government policy and the increasing role of media, I think a great deal of it is also due to a broad failure on the part of common people to treat those who differ from them with authentic respect, the kind of respect that would seek to understand their own self-assessment of their position and not just paint them with the brush: "subversive" or "bigot" or "unpatriotic".
Let me be clear, I think evil is real, and I think those within politics are capable of and sometimes do commit acts of heinous and reprehensible evil (this belief fits in with my second principle). But I also think that except in very rare occasions those people at the very least believe they are choosing the lesser of two evils but more often than not are choosing what is good and right. My first order of business, if I want to dialogue with someone I disagree with is to attempt to understand why and how this action is believed to be right. The more passionately I disagree the more crucial this becomes.
The benefit of this is three-fold. First I may come to see that they have a point worth conceding. In short I may realize that I'm wrong. The second is that I can actual meet them in conversation and speak to the heart of the issue, speak to the root of their belief instead of tearing down a straw-man of my own making. And the third is that this humanizes the one who otherwise is only my adversary. As a Christian who wants to actively engage with the world; be a participant in the events of our age; and think clearly and carefully about difficult and thorny issues I owe it to those I interact with to treat them like the people that they are. They think they are right (and they might even be right!) and even if they are wrong, they are in the same boat I am, desperately in need of forgiveness for all the places that I am wrong and still think I'm perfectly and completely justified.
