A slightly edited version of the following was published in the Eugene Register Guard on February 28, 2010
I find myself in the midst of two public discussions. The first is the question of whether Oregon Research Institute should be allowed to build a building in the research park; I am a Senior Scientist at ORI. A second is the question of what Lane County should do to improve public safety; I am a member of the Citizens Advocates for Public Safety, chaired by Jean Tate and David Frohnmayer.
As I awoke this morning, I found myself thinking warmly about all of the people involved in these discussions—whatever “side” or facet they are on. Consider their basic humanity. They care enough about what happens in our community that they are speaking up, risking criticism, and trying to make a difference. And they are all trying to create a community that sees to the wellbeing of everyone—our safety, enjoyment, and ability to thrive. Even when some advocates for public safety demand more punishment for offenders, I have no doubt that their advocacy stems from the belief that doing so would lead to more people being safe.
The same is true of the Research Park controversy. I have met many of the students who are leading efforts to prevent ORI from constructing its building according to its current plan. Clearly they are motivated—as are ORI’s people–by their vision of a city that will do a better job of caring for the environment, while at the same time, creating a community where people can meet, recreate, work, and enjoy each other. While the details of people’s strategies for getting there differ, I have no doubt that everyone wants to create a city that thrives, cares, and sees to the wellbeing of all of its citizens—and all of the other species that inhabit our community.
This may seem like some new-age psychobabble, but there is hard science behind it. Conflict is stressful to all concerned. Communities that lack social cohesion—trust and social support among their residents–have greater crime, stress, and disease. That’s why our Promise Neighborhood Research Consortium is trying to help high poverty neighborhoods improve the prospects for their young people by encouraging people to listen to, respect, and care for one another.
Public discussion throughout the nation is hampered by the tendency of people on all sides of issues to criticize and attack those with whom they disagree. Frequently, they are egged on by their supporters. We can break free from this national disease by noticing and celebrating the things that people in other “camps” do that contribute to Lane County. This will require that our leaders boldly reach across ideological lines to publicly recognize what others are doing. And their supporters will need to thank them for doing so. Let us have a race to the top, where the first leader to publicly recognize the good efforts of traditional opponents gets credit for breaking the log jam of ideology and starting us on a new era of pragmatism.
Americans are a pragmatic people. In fact, we invented the formal philosophy of pragmatism. The essence of pragmatism is evaluating our ideas, in terms of how well they help us solve practical problems, rather than in terms of their consistency with an ideology or the number of people who agree with us. Recent research in psychology shows enormous benefits for people who learn to hold their opinions lightly and evaluate them in terms of how well they help achieve valued outcomes.
When people adopt this stance, they become more open to others’ opinions and more caring toward others. It is this way of thinking that makes me think that I have some good ideas about what we should do to improve our community, but that others may have good ideas and that all desire a community of safety, warmth, and wellbeing.
My half-awake vision of our future this morning was that people on different sides of these issues would meet in the community of the future—a future we are so vigorously debating–and be able to warmly greet and interact with each other; proud of the community we have created and pleased that all of us are able to live in such a kind and caring place.
It would be ironic if the very process of trying to create a better community made life more stressful for all us. So when someone with a different view speaks, notice their basic humanity. See if you can find the values that you share. Don’t they also desire a safe, thriving community where people like and respect each other? Perhaps we can foster the kind of community we want by first caring for each other in the very process of debating strategies for moving forward.
As I read this post, I was accompanied by two internal commentators–one saying, “excellent, excellent” and the other saying: “yes, but…..”. (It’s always noisy here in my head and we rarely all agree.) Further consideration provided this analysis:
I want to be part of that most fertile of experiences, the group that lays down its slogans and gets to work fixing problems. I have experienced it and it approaches having children for its ecstasy and its agony. Perhaps what is needed is a designated midwife–someone who recognizes the pain of the process, supports the labor, suggests strategies to mitigate the difficulty and helps the group stay focused on what we are bringing to birth. Such a midwife would be there to assist the process. The midwife would not create the outcome any more than a traditional midwife would raise the baby.
I’ve often found myself so caught up in making a point or in the beauty of my own speech that I was oblivious to the way I was effecting others. A sensitive midwife to refocus me/us on what we are here for would have saved me hours of post-meeting remorse AND we would have gotten a LOT MORE accomplished.