Awhile ago, an old school chum of mine who has made the military his career sent me a "joke" that really offended me. He sent lots of jokes related to his brand of patriotism, the military, and his generally conservative viewpoint. Anyone who knows me can imagine I didn't find most of them funny, but until that one, I had always just read them and cringed or deleted them and remained silent.
I really don't like conflict and normally avoid political confrontation. This time, though, I began to wonder why he assumed everyone on his email list enjoyed being treated to his political viewpoint, and felt the need to let him know my previous silence didn't represent a tacit approval. I replied to him (and the entire list) with a less than positive (okay, it was downright negative and actually, pretty sarcastic) response. He fired a few shots back which I didn't respond to, and that was that. I heard from a few others on the list. One told me to "lighten up," one supported his sending the joke, and a few responded privately and thanked me for speaking up. Since then, I've heard from this person, but only very superficially and a few times the messages were, I felt, an attempt to further express his views. I haven't responded at all since the original.
To be honest, the whole thing bothers me on many levels, not the least of which is feeling disappointed in myself for not being able to resolve this difference in a more congenial manner. This brings me to the following...
When, if ever, should we allow political differences to create conflict in a friendship? Moreover, can those who hold disparate political views really be close friends? We hear so much about the intense partisanship in American society. Have I fallen victim to this, or is there a point at which one is obligated to speak up? Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's really baffling, isn't it? A very similar thing happened to me with one of my friends. He started sending me e-mails in support of the political views very distant from mine, and with hostility directed towards the opposite camp. Incidentally, I don't think I belong to any camp, but he assumed I did. Afte a few e-mails, I couldn't stand it any longer, and wrote him that his e-mails were offensive to me, and also I asked him how he would feel if I did the same thing to him - bombarded him with the views he did not share, criticized his own, and assumed that he was already a convert, and if not, he ought to be! He replied that he was absolutely unaware of the effect his correspondence had on me. Baffling, isn't it? I sometimes think that I will never be able to truly understand anyone. So who am I to judge him, if he, too, doesn't seem to understand me? So it's good that out of conflict some truth was born, though I hate and avoid conflicts, just as you do.
As to the subject of friendships broken by politics - a cliche would be to say that the real friendships withstand that test, but I really don't know if that's true for all cases. One would think that being friends entails sharing certain attitudes, yet there are some very dissimilar people who are friends, too.
Gypsy, I think your comment "So it's good that out of conflict some truth was born," is wise and important. When we think about it, who really enjoys conflict? It's ucomfortable and messy, but the most uncomfortable conflict is the kind out of which no truth is born, isn't it?
When we run from conflict, we lose the opportunity to find truth in the situation. Yet, the old "pick your battles" must also be applied.
Perhaps whether we engage or disengage is more than just the fight or flight response at work. Maybe our desire to engage (and of course the way we choose to do it) is also a measure of the value of the relationship involved. As we face conflict, we find out whether it is important to us to accommodate the other's truth.
One could say that in a true and just world, conflict works itself out. Unfortunately, as I get older, I find that my true and just world is often times much different than those around me.
Is there a synonymous way to measure intent if our worlds are vastly different? Is intent what we should be measuring in the first place?
Just a few thoughts.
There's a lot here that is interesting. First, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that conflict, once it occurs, works out without some kind of effort. Are you referring to times when conflict occurs and we decide to "let it be"? Even then, haven't we decided on a course of inaction?
I definitely agree that there are times when this is the best course of action. As I age, I've learned I don't need to insert myself into every situation. However, it must be the humanist in me who believes that the world is not a just place, that the real work of human beings is to create justice for themselves and others.
My limited understanding of Buddhist philosophy is that actions born of human desire often create the suffering we experience, that we must strive to extinguish the perceived need to act on our desires. A worthy consideration in the face of conflict. Does it differentiate between desire and need? If I remember correctly from my Eastern Religions class, it doesn't.
Have I created a circular argument for myself here? I do that a lot-ha!
Well, trying having a family that the parents (ME) "vote and lean one way" and the two oldest children "vote and lean the exact opposite"
Just like friends, relatives and anyone else that you come in contact with- choose your battles, respect each other, and learn the phrase "you could be right" (all the while thinking ya, in a parallel universe with alien recombinant DNA.
Oh and in my family the youngest child is our "swing voter". We always laughed when the four of us went to vote because we knew we were "canceling each other out"- now the youngest most often votes my way!
There are things emails (jokes and stories) that never get passed on to the oldest children and are always shared with youngest...
Life- isn't it GRAND!
Cuz'Sue
Post a Comment