I had a difficult realization today, which led to a self-assessment, and then an understanding that I was causing harm to someone who has been a friend. And because it wasn’t an in-your-face kind of harm, but rather one that was caused by retreating, by going silent, I was able to ignore it for a long time.
I only realized the degree of harm I might be generating
when I caught myself having thoughts of anger and resentment against someone
else for behaving in a similar way toward me. Both situations involved failure
to follow up with contact that had been assured, and which was both meaningful and
expected. The worst of it was that this behavior had been directed at me by a
casual acquaintance, while I’d directed it at a friend.
It isn’t as though I was ever unaware that my own callous
act was potentially hurtful. But, the situation was uncomfortable. Basically, I
had come to believe that I wasn’t likely to invest the energy in the
relationship that was called for, and I just backed off, knowing that it was
unlikely that my friend would pursue things. I was faced with a difficulty that
I found easier to ignore than to deal with.
This very sobering insight brought to mind the phrase ‘the
banality of evil’, coined by Hannah Arendt in her writing about the crimes
committed by the Nazis. I know that she used the phrase in reference to
particular circumstances and contexts that don’t align with my personal
situations, and that are far more serious. And yet, the phrase sticks because
what both sets of problems have in common is a refusal to think a situation
through, to the point of grasping how ones actions will affect another human
being.
My responsibility in this situation is something I want to
hold onto. I’ve reached out to the friend I hurt and I intend to endure
whatever discomfort may come if he chooses to respond. After all, it was a
desire to avoid discomfort that led to me acting as I did.
But I also reflect on the extent to which our society seems
increasingly to invite us to not think deeply about how our actions might
affect others. An example that resonates powerfully for me is how casually
people are fired these days. I have worked in social service programs in which
great pride was taken in dealing with clients in a very ‘client-centered’ way,
taking their feelings and circumstances into account during every interaction.
But employees were regularly fired from these jobs, with no notice or explanation, as
casually as documents were shredded once no longer useful.
And I can’t help but think of the political realm, in which
it has become more and more common to level devastating personal attacks,
picket a person’s home, depict them as monsters, and even issue death threats,
simply because someone holds a different political opinion. I don’t think that
these ways of treating people would be possible – certainly they wouldn’t be so
casual, so easy – if we forced ourselves to think deeply about that person’s
actual, physical, temporal humanity, how their human experience brought them to
the beliefs they hold, and how they will be affected by the treatment they
receive.
All this is pretty obvious, but laziness or the desire to
avoid the discomfort of seeing and thinking more deeply often keeps us from taking
this step. It plays such a role in racism and other forms of prejudice, as well.
We’re so quick to judge others’ behavior against our own perspective and
experience. When it might generate so much more understanding to ask ourselves:
What life experiences might lead me to act, think or feel as this other person
does? Even better, of course, would be to engage in direct communication, while
seeking to understand rather than convince or out argue.
Understanding requires effort. Empathy involves the
expenditure of emotional energy. It’s work. And it’s often hard work. I intend
to work harder.
No comments:
Post a Comment