Tense “historical” moments—such as the one we are collectively suspended in now, with the conflict that has erupted in Ukraine—afford special opportunities for all of us to test the authenticity and strength of our “spiritual” convictions, assuming we have any to begin with. No matter where we “stand” in such moments—regardless of whose side we’re on in such a showdown—we are being bombarded from every side by emotionally-charged images, news reports, button-pushing commentaries by experts and politicians, that are deliberately—often cunningly and calculatingly—framed in morally oppositional, good versus evil, terms. In such an atmosphere, there is little or nothing neutral, high-minded, or even-handed. Hyperbole, darkest speculations, and inflammatory rhetoric rule the day.
This oppositional, “us versus the bad guys” structure or mental framework has been so deeply implanted in us since childhood, so constantly reinforced and elaborated by mass media indoctrination, that it requires Herculean effort to objectify it and extricate our minds from its otherwise spellbinding power. And yet, it does not take a colossal amount of subtle argumentation to show that the only way lasting peace, tolerance of “the other,” and collective cooperation can be achieved is by questioning and gradually replacing this mutually destructive oppositional paradigm with a very different one. To put it bluntly: so long as the “us versus them,” oppositional framework persists as the dominant, collective “way of seeing” and of “making sense” of geopolitical events, entire nations and peoples, we are positioning ourselves for cannibalistic auto-destruction.
Two hundred years ago—prior to the developments of modern technology and various forms of (nuclear, biological, economic, and cyber-) warfare—before civilian populations became acceptable targets of violent abuse and mass destruction—the extent of harm generated by the oppositional mentality was limited, for the most part, to soldiers on battlefields. That’s where political and imperial power struggles were largely decided. Before automatic weapons, nerve gas, air bombardment, and giant artillery made it possible to slaughter the enemy remotely and, as it were, impersonally, it was easier to make a case for the “heroism,” honor, and glory of battle. But where is the faintest shred of honor or heroism in a drone attack (conducted from a military base in Virginia) that instantaneously incinerates an entire wedding party in Yemen or Afghanistan just to eliminate one “wanted” target who is a guest at the wedding?
But we are all “collateral damage”—at least potentially—now that the former lines of demarcation between combatants and civilians have been erased. “We”—the civilians—need ever to remember that we have always outnumbered the war-makers and their dupes who, as often as not, are more opportunistic than noble, more gullible than judicious, during their stints in the military. And usually, the decent, patriotic servicemen and women recognize, at some point, that they’ve been sold a bill of goods. But I digress.
Perhaps it is still premature to expect the multitudes of “little people” throughout the (now interconnected) world to collectively rebel against the (relative) handful of self-serving, self-authorizing “big shots” who see the world and us as their playthings, their exploitable-expendable resources, their chattel. We little people nullify our potential bigness—our largeness of heart, mind, and soul—when we timidly acquiesce to the “us versus them” narrative—the only narrative many of us have ever known! Little wonder that it is self-perpetuating. When the “other” has “enemy” projected onto him—when he is treated with scorn and contempt—there is sometimes overwhelming pressure from those around him who are in the same boat, to return negative projection for negative projection. Or worse, to get in the first punch in what seems an inevitable fight.
My uncertainty about our readiness for this sea change—wherein the organized strength of cooperative little people begins to outweigh the organized power of those exploiters of fomented divisiveness who presently run the game—is understandable. In order for this collective reversal to occur, we little people will first need to become individuals who are brave and reflective enough to think and act on our own. I do not doubt for a moment that we little people possess the necessary native intelligence to accomplish this momentous reversal. All of us are more or less capable of understanding our collective plight and the commonsensical steps that need to be taken in order to remove irresponsibly usurped power from those who, in many cases, perversely believe they are doing what is best for us by manipulating, exploiting, and keeping us in the dark by spreading divisive lies and mis-information so that they can hold on to power. There are certainly some persons in power who are working for justice and international cooperation, but it doesn’t take a genius to recognize the difference between our powerful allies in this envisioned “reversal” and those who want to preserve power only for themselves and their fellow kleptocrats.
Intelligence, then, is not the issue. It comes down to courage and to empathy—empathy, as it turns out, of one’s supposed (or “manufactured”) enemy. There is nothing weak, passive, or spineless about this empathy for one’s supposed enemy. The courage required for such “unconventional,” spiritually independent empathy for one’s purported (and perhaps genuinely hostile) enemy ultimately inspires admiration—since courage is a noble virtue that generally commands respect among humans. It is this courage in the individual who is willing to suspend and overcome his demonization of the “enemy” that stabilizes his will and bestows a sense of calm, a sense of poise, upon him. The empathy—when perceived by the ordinarily wary and suspicious “enemy”—is naturally disarming. It gently but effectively invites the disarmed “enemy” to hearken to his own “better angels”—to find equal, reciprocal courage, trust, and empathy within his heart.
The popular misperception of such empathy and lenity as weakness, instead of as moral strength, is supported by the oppositional, “us versus the bad guys” mentality. What is crucial to note about this oppositional mentality is its rootedness in shallow but pervasive mass-mindedness. The ‘humanity’ that triumphs over the inimical, oppositional, and retaliatory mentality draws its strength from individual moral courage, the source of which is buried inside of us and not given to us by others, even if others can occasionally support (and be supported by) it. It is this brave willingness to stand alone—come what may—with our moral and spiritual convictions that makes our humanity real, trustworthy, adequately grounded, and compelling.
So, perhaps a bit paradoxically, the “little man” is transformed into a “big man” by weaning himself from dependence upon the group, the crowd, the political party, and learning to trust himself, his own inner moral compass and resources. Thus she becomes “individual” by courageously differentiating her thinking, her values, her choices, and her stances from the otherwise determining, irresistible sway of collective factors, passions, opinions, propaganda, and ideology. No “little feat”!