Anthropological Insight, 2

In part one, I argued that we could benefit from seeking to enter into the thought world of those groups in our society with whom we disagree. Division is easy to foster, and understanding is a difficult task. But life is better when we understand each other and worse when we fight with each other.

How do we approach others with a stance that seeks understanding? Some might expect that the kind of curious listening I advocate (thanks to an anonymous commentator for the phrase) shows up most often in the big issues of our day – tariffs loom large in our imagination; immigration is a thorny issue dividing even families; and so on. It is good to listen non-judgmentally to those who disagree with us in these and other areas. We will understand vaccine hesitancy, for example, if we listen to the fears and concerns that drive it rather than simply condemning it. Condemnation turns quickly into name calling and real division. But I am thinking of something deeper even than these issues.

Curious listening is listening for the underlying assumptions about life that drive our convictions and our conversations. Seeking to enter the thought world of the other person as a coherent whole. The anthropologist learning the culture of transients who ride the rails (hobos, if you like) enters their world and lives with them. George Orwell’s fascinating book, Down and Out in Paris and London, is an excellent example. He does not judge, and his portraits give real insight into the thoughts and actions of people in France and England who live on the margins of society. Orwell goes beneath the surface of what vagrants simply do to the way they see themselves and the society around them. By the end of the book, we have entered a new world.

Similarly, conservatives who care about progressives in their lives need to listen for the underlying assumptions that drive progressive convictions and actions. And progressives who care about traditionally-minded people in their lives need to listen – not for the conclusions conservatives come to, but to the assumptions about life that lead to those conclusions.

Consider an assumption that conservatives and progressives may think that they share, but that each holds in a way that operates differently from the other. I refer to the conviction that we are all equal – not simply that there should be equality before the law, but that any kind of hierarchy is bad because it contradicts an egalitarianism that is basic to our society. We state it in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …”.

Progressives interpret this equality through the lens of equity: Everyone should have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else in society. Conservatives interpret this equality through the lens of personal and individual rights: My view about life is as good as anyone else’s. Both are inconsistent in their application of the assumption, and both are sure that their application is right.

I want to question the assumption at a more basic level. We assume that hierarchy is bad and that egalitarianism is good. The anthropological approach suggests that we bracket that assumption and treat both hierarchy and egalitarianism as ways that societies organize themselves. When we do this, we discover that our culturally egalitarian approach has strengths and weaknesses, and that the hierarchical approach of many African and Asian cultures also has strengths and weaknesses.

For example, we value individual rights and freedoms. We also place a positive value on community. Sherwood Lingenfelter (in Transforming Culture – I give the reference without having checked it) observes that hierarchy in cultural systems tends to correlate with stronger community, and egalitarianism in cultural systems tends to correlate with individualism and consequently weaker community. So, our value placed on individual rights weakens community. Hierarchical systems strengthen community, but they also weaken individual rights.

The anthropological lesson is that both are valid cultural systems, which the people of a society may choose to use. If that is the case, then we in North America should hesitate before condemning others use of hierarchy. Further, we should hesitate before condemning the way that others apply hierarchy or egalitarian thinking. First, we should enter their thought world as far as we can and seek to understand.

What I have just written requires many qualifiers for which we don’t have space or time. Egalitarians obviously accept some form of hierarchy. Individualists also seek community. I am describing general trends in broad brush strokes, but I think that my observations are generally accurate.

A closing thought concerning egalitarian thinking and individual rights. Conservatives appeal to this assumption in such areas as vaccine hesitancy and the restrictions placed on society during the Covid epidemic. As a friend of mine said, “It is almost always wrong to violate someone else’s body in the name of public health.” (My memory of his point.) Progressives are readier to rely on hierarchy in this area – trusting the expertise of the medical profession.

When we come to the issue of abortion, the application of assumptions is reversed. Progressives appeal to individual rights to support choice, and conservatives appeal to hierarchy – the expertise of medical science to assert the personhood of the unborn child. None of us are fully consistent, and we do well to seek understanding rather than simply condemning.

Note that I did not declare my own view on either of these issues. My view is not the point; the point is to seek understanding. So far as my own views go, I am a child of the 60s, and I have the broad egalitarian convictions fostered by “the age of Aquarius”. (And like many other children of the 60s I have become more conservative as I grow older.) Still, I resonate with the Fifth Dimension singing, “All the world over, it’s so easy to see, people everywhere just gotta be free.” It is precisely that conviction that all people should be free that impels me to seek understanding rather than control.

Peace out.