Aiming for Centre (Part 2)

What should be undeniable is that when all of our more superficial identity characterisations are stripped back, there is a core to our human existence that endows each person with a natural worth, dignity and right to flourishing of their unique personhood. While the precise source of this sovereign value might be grounded differently depending on the observer’s ontological positioning, it is no doubt present to be an orienting consideration for how human beings should perceive and relate to one another. Elevating this recognition to the status of knowing, what fails to reach this moral standard of ‘capital T’ Truth are the limited and limiting beliefs that we hold about other individuals and groups of people, which can’t help but be generalised, reductionistic, and serving of our egocentric prejudices. While it may have escaped your attention, my use of the word ‘hold’ in the preceding sentence, presents an accurate description of how these beliefs are not of their nature primary or emergent from the deepest recesses of our being, but are instead received from external sources to construct and perpetuate a culture that is integrative of those beliefs.

Currently existing in a culture that is preoccupied with power structures and the want to dismantle them, we see the binary oppressor/oppressed narrative being simplistically applied to this conflict by those whose ideological biases have them identify with one set of victims at the expense of others and their suffering. Days after the initial attack and since Israel has launched its counter-offensive, I have been shocked to see so much of the blatantly opportunistic and self-serving support of Palestine by those who yearn to publicly appear virtuous by siding with the ‘oppressed’ in the conflict, despite Hamas having clearly provoked the attack, and the historical evidence (see the Holocaust) of the Jewish people being one of the most persecuted minorities to ever walk the planet. Such a schism in perceiving these events leads to both absurdities in rationalising actions and a callous disregard for the innocent civilians who have been directly affected by the fighting.

One of the first casualties of being too ideologically consumed is being able to demonstrate empathy for members of an ‘out-group’. For those who believe they must choose a side in a conflict such as this, they will be unwilling to feel for the other, lest it serves to detract from the sense of righteousness that validates their support for the actions that have wrought the other harm. One of the positives that come from being a centrist is the ability to keep the space open from which this empathy can be felt. Even in making the observations from the previous paragraph, I can find a level of appreciation for what might lead people to protest so vehemently in the streets for one side over the other, even if I don’t support their position. At the root of a lot of this re-activism is trauma of some kind, or the feeling of belonging to a group where ostracism or victimisation have been experienced. I think this explains some of the solidarity demonstrated by segments of the LGBTIQA+ community towards the Palestinian cause, despite the clearly negative view that Islamic doctrine has towards those who identify as members of that community, and how they would be treated if they lived in Gaza themselves.

There is no doubt also that many members of the current generation of Palestinians have been directly impacted by previous iterations of the conflict which has produced deep-seated resentments and even a blinding hate for the Jewish state and its people. Feeding the kinds of extremism that have led to a group like Hamas coming to power, that viciously negative sentiment seems to be never far from consciousness as each new version of the conflict rips open old wounds that have never been healed. Neither would Hamas ever allow those grievances to be forgotten or forgiven, for were they to do so, the very basis of their authority and legitimacy would be undermined in the eyes of the Palestinian people. With such distorting influences and incentives at play, the barriers to finding a way back to centre, and the peace it enables, are made all the more difficult to deconstruct. The progress that the human heart seeks to affect will always be opposed by a polarised ideology that isn’t served by a reorientation of its adherents towards reconciliation and the furtherance of the common good. Just as common sense is not all that common when we are ideologically compromised, so is the common good not all that desired when we occupy that ego-based positioning.  

Sorry, Not Sorry (Some thoughts on Apologies) (Part 2)

7. When dealing with irrational and emotionally driven people (particularly online) don’t be naïve enough to assume that an apology will ward off criticism or personal attacks for something you have said or done. In the age of cancel culture, many people have a predetermined axe to grind, and they will bay for the blood of those ‘others’ who are ideologically opposed to their way of seeing the world. In the eyes of these people, what is said or done will be interpreted in the worst possible light, even amid inevitable ambiguities and alternate intentions that can describe your conduct. This is because these people need to not only validate but also defend their own identity and worldview as ones that are right and virtuous. To this end, they can give no ground. Give them an inch by offering an apology, and they will take a mile in trying to destroy your reputation. Better your reputation than their worldview, if they were actually forced to examine the tenuous basis on which it rests.

Sadly, for these people, tearing others down is how they seek to build themselves up, but personal power can never be achieved in this way. Knowing this will enable you to preserve your own power in dealing with these bullies. By all means, if you have said something that is genuinely and objectively offensive then apologise unreservedly, but short of this, hold the line and wait for their wrath to be redirected to someone else who has repeated your cardinal sin of speaking against their dogma. You can hold your breath as it won’t be long coming. Insatiable predators of this type need fresh meat to consume and they won’t have the discipline or fortitude to continue haranguing you when confronted with your conviction to defend your ground at all costs.  

8. An apology should never be given instrumentally, as in, offered to another person to get something from them, or to stop them from doing something that we find challenging to deal with. Often in romantic relationships, for example, there are fundamental issues impacting the union that we don’t want to confront, so in the heat of an argument we might opt to shut it down by apologising for something that we have done to appease our partner’s angst. On the one hand, it is a good thing to have apologised for our actions if they have caused harm to the other person, but on the other, the underlying tensions that are present have now become further buried and exacerbated. I say exacerbated because if the other person in the relationship bears some responsibility for the substance of the argument and they have been let off the hook for not having to accept that responsibility by apologising themselves, the resentment that is produced in the person apologising will add another layer to the discontent that they feel in relating to their partner. While this may temporarily keep the peace, over a greater span of time it is likely to lead to passive-aggressive or even overtly aggressive behaviour when the top inevitably blows on that long brewing bottle of tensions. Reconciliation is not a one-way street, and the impetus for it requires the courage to truth tell by all those who seek a better quality of relationship.

9. I like the saying that ‘the best apology is changed behaviour’. Said another way, actions speak louder than words. It’s very easy to mouth an apology, but much harder to change behaviour that signifies our contrition for the harmful conduct previously engaged in. I think one of the sources of resistance with this is our ego which doesn’t have to risk as much by just mouthing an apology than it otherwise would have to by showing to the world the error of our ways by changing our behaviour in relation to it. Rather than being seen through this lens of fallibility, we can choose to see our altered behaviour as a sign of growth and maturity where we are better adapting to what the world requires of us as a fully-functioning member of the human family. Here, I am talking about the duties that we owe to it and others in order to contribute to their flourishing. If you or I were to just remain as ego-driven and infantile agents, we wouldn’t care less about how our actions impacted the world around us because our focus would be serving ourselves in all things. But where is the growth in that, in seeking to bend the world to our whim and have it conform to the fragile construction of our ego identity and desire for what we think the world owes us? Such a perspective of entitlement is entirely incongruent with any search for enlightenment that must start with facing the mirror of reflection firmly on ourselves to dis-cover what is to be addressed and corrected.  

10. The willingness to apologise is in the domain of relationships an act of leadership. If you and I are arguing, the life of our relationship is stagnant. Nothing further will happen until someone moves to break that stalemate. Whoever steps forward to offer their hand in reconciliation is a leader in that moment. We also know that a fundamental virtue of leadership is the willingness of a person to own their share of the dysfunction that their behaviour has caused. Bad leaders do what: they put themselves in the position of a victim by blaming anyone and anything for the harm they have caused because they lack the courage and character to confront their behaviour. This gives them an out for having to apologise, but this comes at the extreme cost of their leadership authority and credibility. Respect once gained, can’t help but be lost, as this responsibility is abdicated at the foundational interpersonal/relational level. As we are so often wisely instructed, when presented with two paths, choose the higher road, which has been built by the better angels of our spiritual nature to release us of the petty shackles that the stubborn ego and its virulent sense of righteousness is want to bound us with.

Delineating Masculinity and Misogyny

Over the past couple of weeks I have been contemplating the questions, what is it that makes a man what he should be, and how is that different from the noxious embodiment of misogynistic qualities that give men a bad name? While I am no fan of the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ which I believe is a weaponising label conceived by more radical feminists to both demonise men and deny their own capacity for destructive behaviour, I do not doubt the propensity for harm that some men have (think of the dark triad types – narcissists, psychopaths and Machiavellians) when they act to diminish the value of women in the eyes of the world. What piqued my interest in this topic was the controversy surrounding online influencer Andrew Tate, and the labels that have attached to him since his initial cancellation from social media and his subsequent re-emergence on Twitter. How much of these accusations are fair, or beyond the pale? Needing to do my own research into the ‘manosphere’ for a counter-extremism project that I am involved in at work, this presented a valuable opportunity to learn more about this distinction and form some nuanced views on the topic.

When I think about the concept of masculinity, it defines for me the requirement for men to bring the best of what they have to offer to the world into form. This contribution includes the fulfilment of their life purpose and the development of character that will allow them to manifest virtue in their dealings with others. Being complimentary to the best of what women have to bring to the world, there is space enough for these energies to exist alongside and invigorate each other so that we can advance the station of what our shared humanity has been given life to become. To all initiatives and agents that faithfully serve this purpose to actualise our collective potential as men and women, they have my abiding support.

What too often clouds this picture of advancing men (and by extension women) towards this end of mutual thriving are less integrated actors who are more ego driven then they are animated by the better angels of their masculine nature. Whether that takes the form of narcissistic men who use and abuse women for their sexual gratification, or wounded men who have unresolved tensions with maternal figures in their past which they externalise to bring present harm to the women they encounter, these embodiments represent a shadow descent into the misogyny that masculinity can too easily get confused for in this current climate. While I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that men are being victimised by our modern culture, I think there is strong evidence of a movement towards certain segments of society wanting to feminise men in order to counter the harms that misogyny which is mistakenly equated with masculinity can bring about. But there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and neuter men who are trying in good faith to chart their course in the world. For them to make inroads in this positive direction, they must have strong role models in the home and their extended networks to imitate until they can establish the solidity of character that defines masculinity in the terms I have described above.

The irony in all this is that far left figments such as toxic masculinity, the patriarchy and the desire to disband the nuclear family often play a significant role in the introduction of men to misogynistic modes of thinking through the gateway that is the manosphere. By shaming men into denying their fundamental masculine nature, they stimulate a sense of isolation and resentment towards society that moves them towards the online communities that are led by pseudo-charismatic personalities like Tate and other opportunistic grifters. Even Tate himself has acknowledged the role that the disenfranchisement of young men in society has had on his emergence as a prominent influencer in the space.

How well he serves the role as a leader of men is very much up for debate, and after consuming a decent amount of his content to come to my own conclusion, I am reminded that we humans are complex creatures with nuanced perspectives on different matters that can’t be neatly lumped together under the labels ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘masculine’ or ‘misogynist’. To give Tate (who some would equate to the devil) his due, he does advocate for men to embody virtuous qualities such as discipline, emotional control and responsibility, but tempering the potential for positive impact that this messaging has are a raft of sexist and degrading statements about women that can’t be overlooked. By his holding of the beliefs that women are the property of their husbands and that they should not be allowed to drive, amongst other more chauvinistic takes, his credibility as a paragon of masculinity is fatally undermined. Even for the legitimate or useful things that he may have to say, I can think of numerous other sources who would be more reputable dispensers of that information, such as Ryan Holiday on the benefits of practicing stoicism, or boxing champion Tyson Fury on the necessity of focus and hard work to achieve success in any endeavour.

Why it is important to delineate masculinity and misogyny is that the former is the antidote to the latter. To be in the presence of integrated leaders and father figures in the home and the other domains of social life, obviates the need for surrogates such as Andrew Tate to fill that mentoring role. By the substantive guidance and means for meaningful progress that these integrated men provide, the backwardness of the misogynistic worldview becomes obvious to see. Lying at the heart of the masculine spirit is the impetus to do the work of unfurling its gifts in service of the broader needs of society. Aligning with this truth and orienting purpose undoubtedly makes men a force for good in the world, and there is nothing toxic or worth flagellating about that.

NOTE: As I write this, news has broken of Tate’s arrest in Romania on charges of human trafficking and sexual assault. While these allegations remain unproven until his guilt is established at trial, I can’t say that I am surprised by them being made given what would be the logical extension of some of his more extreme views about women.

Musings on our Primary Responsibility as Human Beings (Part 2)

While the risk aversion that this older generation had appeared to be non-existent because of the drastic actions that they had to take to ensure their survival, they clearly wanted their children and grandchildren to enjoy a lifestyle where the risk of it being taken away from them by arbitrary forces was alleviated. It is often said of education that once you have it, it can never be lost, and that is true, so perhaps because those opportunities were so few and far between for them, they really understood the value of that maxim, more so than entitled members of succeeding generations who have enjoyed the privilege of being presented with a growing range of possibilities for advancement.

In receiving this privilege and a vast array of others that we unawaredly benefit from on a daily basis, we have stood on the shoulders of giants, and should be grateful, not only for what they have taught us about life, but also for how these building blocks have enabled us to create a better human condition for all people. While it is very easy to look back and be critical for the deficits in our forebears’ worldviews (and some of those worldviews about race and a woman’s role in society, for example, were worth criticising), I believe that we should also be cognisant and understanding of the different societal contexts in which they lived. Just as our modern culture has a very influential and limiting impact on shaping acceptable norms, so did the culture of previous generations bind them in mores of being that weren’t always conscionable. With this, we might also exercise the humility to recognise that generations beyond ours might look back at the times in which we have lived and judge us harshly on how far we have allowed our liberality to extend.

With this gratitude for how far we have advanced, should also come an optimism for the further progress that we can effect in the world. To have this optimism requires us to be forward facing in a way that is aligned with the definition of our primary responsibility as human beings which I articulated in Part 1 of this entry. Being forward facing in the way that I am advocating here does not mean that we deny the past or the horrors/inequities that occurred in it. It means that we accept that reality so that we can effectively integrate those lessons, and by so doing this avoid repeating them. Here, I want to make something clear. By accepting that reality, we should not take on a burden of shame or guilt that is not ours to carry. We are not responsible for the ignorant or destructive beliefs or actions of our forebears who we share some identity characteristic with, for example, their race, nationality or religious affiliation. Whatever harm was brought to others as a result of their exercise was for the perpetrator’s conscience to bear, not ours.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where groups of people are preoccupied with past suffering and grievances, and want to try to guilt members of the current generation to effect changes in society that are advantageous for them, despite the array of privileges that they enjoy to be able to advance their own position in that milieu. This blame game to attain increased status on the victimhood scale ignores the reality that the past is littered with a myriad of injustices that have been suffered by different groups of people across time. While clearly some adversities and atrocities have been felt and perpetuated at a greater level than others (for example, the World Wars, slavery, the holocaust, the great depression, colonisation and natural disasters), that doesn’t detract from the futility of this approach in effecting meaningful progress where it is most needed. To seek to blame a person for something that they themselves have not done is not only to undermine their sovereignty, but it creates an animus that perpetuates cycles of opposition rather than breaks them down. Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that continues to rage because members of both of these populations are seen as unbroken links to an inter-generational chain that wants to achieve the destruction of the other group. While no doubt it is a multi-layered and complex conflict, much of that complexity has been exacerbated by bringing grievances forward and laying them at the feet of the other group’s succeeding generations.

Clearly, this is not a fruitful path and history has taught us that much. In order for each of us to be an instrument, not only for change but for evolution, we have to remember what our primary responsibility as human beings is. Without this inner transformation to leadership and inspired action, we are useless in being able to effect that positive transformation in the world. As within, so must it be without, and by responding to the sovereign call of our spiritual heart, we avoid the perpetual suffering that is wrought by the holding and weaponisation of the ego’s basest instincts to blame, shame, guilt, incite conflict and play the victim every chance it gets.