To Those Who Encounter Difference

Let’s just admit it to one another: Our differences make us uncomfortable. They make us question ourselves; they make us question the way we are living. And that is why we usually surround ourselves with people who we think are “like us.” Republicans with Republicans. Jews with Jews. Homeschoolers with homeschoolers. I guess when we have our tribes surrounding us, we don’t have to question who we are as often. Evidently, differences are just not handled well in the social world.

But still we are counseled to celebrate diversity. I don’t know how you feel, but difference is rarely a celebration zone as far as I can tell. It is a work zone, an alchemical zone, a wild and raucous place where what we define as different actually becomes a pressure to transform. And we don’t usually think it’s in our interest to be transformed. Just think about Republicans and Democrats. Few of them get close enough to be affected by one another’s views, and few would look too kindly on becoming more like the other.

So when we encounter something different from us, one of two things usually happens—someone assimilates or we battle for dominion. The third option is less typical. It involves people living in the tension of opposites, embracing the dynamic discomfort of dissimilar ways of being. It involves the ability to maintain one’s own course in the midst of all the other fish swimming upstream.

When this kind of inner transformation happens (and it does), we are likely to no longer interpret that original difference as “different.” We have grown so much larger that what was formerly a foreign quality is now encompassed within ourselves. Think about couples. Very often, these formerly independent individuals begin to talk alike, act alike, even think alike. That kind of shift can be hard work when there’s no incentive like romance to fuel us. And it’s too much for most of us, even on our best day.

Maybe we should be told to “endure diversity unless you want to do the gritty work of expanding yourself.” Maybe that would be a better proscription. At least it would be more accurate.

I’m not suggesting that we not do this inner work, or that we turn away from opportunities for self expansion. I’m just observing our ever-present tendency to create tribes and to be fundamentally uninterested in ways that are unfamiliar. I think this tendency is important to note, maybe even to honor. We can’t force ourselves to cross a river if we don’t have the know-how or the tools or the gumption. Sometimes we just have to make camp on the bank. Sometimes that just makes a lot more sense.

Most people who I know and love have children. I don’t. That essentially puts our lives at odds. We make different choices. We have different opportunities. We like different things. We feel different things. I’m usually okay with that. But sometimes when we come together, and they are caring for their kids or talking about being a parent, or making life choices that account for private school or family time, I feel a detectable sense of discontent—like I should have similar concerns, like their focus may just be more important than mine. Or vice versa. I sometimes think that their concerns are narrow or self-centered. Either way I go on this, once those differences become particularly distinct, I either have to change or retreat to my tribe.

Consider how you react when your ways are different from the ways of the people you encounter. It is likely that you are left feeling uneasy too. You may examine your worth or you may examine theirs. And then you are likely to think—however subconsciously—that either you should be different or they should be different, that you should assimilate or they should. Either way, that push to eliminate the “differentness” relieves the momentary tension. (It takes your focus away from the discomfort you feel because you are being asked to stretch.) But it circumvents the very fact of our differences—that you believe in this and I believe in that, that you do it this way and I do it that way, or that I feel this and you feel that.

So though we always have the choice to either make tribes or expand our definitions of ourselves, most times we make tribes—and then we act as if we’re in enemy territory when encountering someone from the other tribe. I think it would help immensely if we recognized this everyday tribe-making as a quality of being human and refrained from characterizing ourselves as essentially “bad” because of it. Sometimes, I feel gleeful when I transcend my tribal thinking, but there are other times when there is a power, a deep sense of belonging, that comes with being a member of a group. My sense is that these polarities are two sides of the same coin. So it makes sense to make allowances for this, don’t you think? Of course, we should attempt to stretch beyond our limits, but we should also honor when we’ve stretched as far as we can.

Laurie and Sam.

To Ralph Nader

We've always admired your critiques of the power structure. But this past week, when you blasted Barack Obama for pandering to “liberal white Americans" by trying not to be “politically threatening to the white power class and the liberal intelligentsia,” we think you got it wrong. You critiqued Obama for not campaigning "as Jesse Jackson did," saying that you think he somehow should be, or naturally would be, interested in the issues of black people, pointing specifically to inner city poverty.

Your basic idea about Obama's increasing centrism was sound and actually not very extreme or even provocative. You were simply arguing that he is a middle-of-the-road politician, a mainstream moderate who is unwilling to challenge the power elite. This is the same critique you level at all "Demapublicans" and "Republicrats"; it mirrors your life-long political ideology.

But sadly, you fell on your face when you needlessly brought race into your analysis. Had you simply discussed the ways in which Obama is allowing himself to be coddled by political and economic elites, then you would have remained on solid ground. But when you made references to Obama being black, you lost your footing and revealed a naive understanding of race, a (perhaps) unexplored bias.

We don't think it's wrong to talk about race. But in this case, your essential argument stands on its own whether Obama is black, brown, or white. It is fundamentally about your belief that Obama, for all of his talk about change, is unwilling to truly pursue deep system transformation. And that is something worth examining.

Your critique has nothing to do with Obama's ancestry. But it sounds like you have mistaken him for being a representative of black people. And you've got to know that assuming that all people of any one group have the same agenda regardless of class is way off the mark. After all, half of all African Americans are middle class--not poor, not disenfranchised. Do you think they really want radical structural change? Probably not. So when you critique Obama as "a black candidate," you lose sight of your own argument--that he is a "mainstream candidate."

Mr. Nader, we're fairly certain that you don't expect to find yourself in the White House next year. So it seems important to this nation that you participate in the campaign in a way that forwards the cause of change, your cause for change. We think your critiques have the power to do that. But your own racial bias got you stuck in a corner that will only serve to marginalize you and your non-partisan views. If you had stuck with what was at the core of your message, you could have offered a challenge to Obama and his supporters that they would have had to address--that following the path of saddling up to more and more elites, Obama will not have the latitude to to bring about any significant change, regardless of his intent or message.

Instead you got lost in the netherworld of race. And often, people don't come back from there.

Sam and Laurie