All of us have witnessed not just horrific religious and political violence recently, but giddy applause for that violence from some who likely consider themselves moral and decent, and violent rhetoric in opposition from people who also consider themselves moral and decent.
And while I hate to admit it, I know I’m part of the problem.
I feel an embarrassing amount of satisfaction when a comedian lands a great joke about a politician whose tenets I oppose. And if I’m honest, I let myself feel disgust toward people who hold certain positions opposite my own. I’m writing this as a public commitment to do better. Maybe by stating it publicly a few others will join me.
While I take no pleasure in violence, I am guilty of justifying my own rudeness or disgust. The processes that allow me to feel OK about rudeness or disgust are the same processes that enable others to feel OK about more extreme actions.
I should know better, because I’ve been trained better.
The renowned psychologist (and my hero) Albert Bandura found that good people (like you and me) use mental manipulations to feel justified in doing things that are, at their core, harmful. Sometimes we employ these rationalizations ourselves, and sometimes we are manipulated by others toward them.
I offer seven common patterns based on Bandura’s brilliant insights for anyone who would like to understand not just what’s going on “out there” but also what might be going on in ourselves, too. Here is how I make myself feel good about thinking or even doing bad things:
- Moral justification: I frame hostility as moral. “I’m only speaking harshly to stand up for truth!”
- Euphemistic labeling: I use softening terms to sanitize my actions. “I only shared a couple of clever memes.”
- Advantageous comparison: I divert attention by pointing to worse offenders. “Sure, my side has made mistakes, but it’s nothing like what they’ve done.”
- Diffusion of responsibility: I ignore my role in contributing to harm. “Just because some who share my views do awful things doesn’t mean I condone them.”
- Distorting consequences: I minimize harm caused to others. “It’s not my fault if they can’t take a joke.”
- Dehumanization: I reduce people to labels. “They’re idiots, losers or radicals.”
- Attribution of blame: I blame victims for their suffering. “They brought it on themselves.”
Recognizing these traps is the first step, but awareness isn’t enough. My emotions (and actions) are less about the world and more about the story I tell myself about it. I commit to practical ways to reframe my stories and build dialogue with people different from me.
Start with heart
I will ask myself: what do I really want for me, for others and for the world we both live in?
This helps me dig beyond the shallow satisfaction of one-upping someone to exploring the kind of human I want to be. Do I want to be part of creating a world where emotional and psychological violence are fair game in political disagreements? As I reflect, I find it harder to take pleasure in derision.
Watch your language
I will be more circumspect in how I characterize my actions and more humane in how I refer to those who differ from me. I know the hot emotions I sometimes feel are my own creation. As I characterize others in more measured ways, I will feel differently toward them.
I’m not suggesting soft-pedaling difference, only dropping the double standard of justifying my own pettiness while villainizing that of others.
Get curious
Rather than assuming people hold their views because they are dumb or evil, I will start with, “I wonder how the things that have influenced me differ from those that influenced them?”
I’ve had rich conversations with people from markedly different worlds by starting here. I plan to invite more. We may not end up agreeing, but I know I will more often end up appreciating.
Build common ground
I will spend as much energy identifying common values and beliefs with those who see the world differently from me as I do examining where I think they’re wrong.
Even in fierce disagreement, shared concerns like family, safety or fairness often exist. Naming them creates a foundation of mutual purpose. Most people with views extremely different from mine are motivated by desires for safety, fairness or faith — values I share.
There has never been a more important time to be aware of how susceptible we are to adopting stories fed to us by persuasive voices who thrive on division. I’ve fallen lazy victim to it myself — in spite of Dr. Bandura’s inspired training. If he were alive today, he would remind me that escalating rancor and violence are not evidence of irreconcilable differences. They are evidence of our failure to interrogate and master our stories about one another.
I’ll do better, Albert.