Essential Pluralism

What living together (without domination/destruction) requires of us

Last week I started focusing on morality in today's world… trust me, not a subject I ever thought I would want to write about! But through my work with the S1 Project (I've mentioned them before, but it bears a reminder!), recalling my college philosophy classes (when social/moral philosophy was my favorite area of study), reading David Brooks, and thinking about why this presidential administration seems so different and disruptive, moral philosophy has come to the fore.

The word “moral” unfortunately brings to mind Jerry Falwell and the so-called “Moral Majority” of the 1980's, movies like “Footloose,” and more recently the “Handmaid's Tale” series. And when I started writing this post, I found myself on a bit of tirade about folks for whom morality is generally viewed in a very binary (no ambiguity) way, which also leads me to wrestling (or boxing… or street-fighting!) with my own Christian faith and what it might require or represent in today's world. I really do understand (I think) where the more conservative Christians are coming from, and while on one level I believe some of it comes from wanting to save us from ourselves, it also deeply troubles — and scares me... their certainty scares me. So much so that I'm finding it hard to seek any common ground, and even at times resisting the label of Christian.¹

But I don't want to:

• Allow others to co-opt the title out from under me and other more progressive (for lack of a better term) Christians, nor

• Give up on finding common ground, a hope of peace, détente, an opportunity for a diverse and pluralistic society that remains democratic. ²

And I am realizing that one of my own highest values that is in direct conflict with such folks is pluralism. I suppose that is why when I worked in campus ministry, in a co-sponsored space that was shared with other Christian groups (though without any real sharing of ideas or meaningful conversation), I began buying and handing out Coexist stickers (like this one:

On at least one occasion, that sticker was torn off my office door by someone (a student or other campus minister) who apparently disagreed with the sentiments. I've sometimes wondered which of the symbols they disagreed with the most? Regardless, their action suggested that they disagreed with the idea that we should seek to coexist, to get along with others. And that they believed their worldview ought to (and ideally would eventually) be accepted by everyone else.

Pluralism is complicated (maybe the understatement of my blog thus far 😅). It is a product of a coming together of various cultures, customs, values and trying to find a way to live together without one culture (etc.) dominating or destroying the others. But I fear that unless we can find new ways to make pluralism more desirable than domination or destruction of contrasting belief systems, we will find ourselves (if we haven't already) in a cultural holy war. And the biggest problem with holy wars is that they are fought over ideals, rather than territory, leaving little/no room for compromise or peace treaties.

Does pluralism represent a kind of watering down of human culture, a catering to the least common denominator? It may if we only look for the common ground. Which brings me to another really important value of mine: Diversity, which I'll define here as a valuing of difference for its own sake. It takes the form of curiosity — wanting to know more about the world and other people. How and why they think/believe/act differently than people in our own (comfortable, safe?) space. And finding ourselves changed by our interactions. OK, so there's another one: Personal Growth (which also suggests self-awareness, and education, to name just two more... I should probably be keeping a list 😅).

Having said all that (and I'll surely be saying more later about the value of difference), common ground is at least a good place to start. I recall a friend suggesting some years ago that my Coexist bumper stickers might not be adequate because we need to go beyond just coexistence, and he was right; but my response was that we need to get to that point before we can get to something deeper (cooperation? co-creation? community?). Coexistence within our own culture feels to me more fragile than at any time in my adult life. (Some who are older might refer back to the Vietnam era as one of great social fragility… I wonder how this time compares?). Obviously we are finding ways to get along in all kinds of settings: at work, in local government, in civic organizations, churches, hobby groups, etc. (Although ministry colleagues tell me that the “ties that bind” are fraying, and I have seen many videos of highly contentious town hall and school board meetings). I would guess that in most cases where we're successfully coexisting, there are rules (formal or informal) about not discussing politics. And maybe that's what it takes to coexist; but that seems to me to just drive the problems underground, where they fester and deepen. (Certainly that has happened with racism in much of the US because we didn't talk about it).

So how can we begin to chart some common ground that would leave room for a broad majority of US citizens? As many have suggested, a big challenge is finding ways to reach people who believe differently than we do. We have mostly tended to fracture these days into various social media “communities” in which we find only reinforcement of our own thinking/beliefs. And I suppose that for many folks, that makes life easier. Ambiguity is tough to live with; it can lead to anxiety and paralysis. But it is also an essential aspect of personal growth and psychological development. (Though as I am writing this, I begin to wonder about how much of a factor the pain of ambiguity might be in driving folks toward fundamentalism in religion, politics, etc.? Is there more of it in our lives than ever before?) Not to mention the stress that comes with conflict between people.

I wonder how conversations around things like values might offer a starting place in our culture? For example, I suspect that many people would put family and/or community very high on their list of priorities. Here are a few questions that might lead to discovery of common ground around this value:

• Why is this a high priority for you?

• What is important about family/community?

• How do those groups make your life better?

• How have they/do they help you find meaning and purpose in your life?

• How do you define love, and what are some of the ways family/community have helped you experience/understand yourself as loved?

• What is it like not to feel loved or appreciated?

As I wrote these questions, I realized that I might be missing a pretty big step, which is some combination of trust + some willingness to be vulnerable. How much trust in others would we need to engage in even a preliminary conversation about our values? And how much risk am I/are we willing to take to have such conversations?

But I'm a bit stuck on how/where to start here, and I suppose it's both because of that sense of risk and also because I have more or less intentionally separated myself from those who believe very differently from me on political and religious matters. I don't want to be attacked, and I'm not sure how to enter contested cultural space with enough a) curiosity, and b) courage to invite conversation. If you have thoughts about that, would you please share them in either the comments or the chat?

Here's an idea I've considered: I don't watch Fox News, but I think I would be willing to if I could find a Fox News watcher who would switch for a while to PBS. We could at least have conversation/arguments over what we heard presented, rather than arguing over other peoples’ comments about what was presented (which is most of what I see on social media).

Just a few more things I wonder about:

• Where does democracy fall on the list of values for different groups (including you)? I.e. is it more important than pluralism or religious strictures?

• If protection for minority opinions/groups is baked into our constitution, what would it mean if one worldview wins the game in such a way as to end it? (My short answer is that we would no longer have a democracy, nor in all likelihood a civil society…)

• What does it mean to be civil? (Including both the rights/responsibilities of ordinary people in a society, but also behavior that recognizes those).

• In what ways are current administrative policies idealistic (in support of a larger worldview) v. pragmatic (in support of plutocrats — the wealthy)? And does that matter to more conservative Christians?

The only real alternative to pluralism is uniformity (or at least constant attempts to enforce one worldview over others). What does it look like to resist this uniformity with meaningful conversation, rather than with protest, civil disobedience, (which I won't take off the table…) and win-lose scenarios? I'm not sure. I could use your help!

I'm not sure how hopeful this is, but right now Wendell Berry makes even more sense to me than he has in the past, including this brief poem:

“With God all things are possible” —

that's the beginning and the end

of theology. If all things are possible,

nothing is impossible.

Why do the godly then

keep slinging out their nooses?

[This reflection, as often happens for me, has led me to the next which will focus on the connection/disconnection between pluralism and religion or faith… I'm not sure yet if or how I'll differentiate between them].

I hope you'll keep reading and sharing this blog if it feels helpful and (at least usually) hopeful!

Peace, Dana

1. Perhaps of interest — originally the name “Christian” was used in a derogatory way by the Roman Empire, as in these foolish people acting like little Christs… Christi-ans.

2. I suppose I should note that my idea of pluralism is not absolute, as that suggests the possibility of anarchy. I'm talking about pluralism within a democratic governmental structure.