As someone who initially bought in and is now buying out of the far left rehtoric, this piece (peace :) ) of writing was so helpful and emblematic of the current dynamics I deal with in many of my friendships. I have been criticized and told I have unexamined racism and am using the terrible 'white moderate defence' for trying to bring some nuance to a situation that definitely has it. It's frustrating to be out in the middle on your own in personal relationships and the wider world.
I am so glad to hear this piece was helpful for you - and hopefully a reminder that even if you're alone in taking the middle way within your personal circles, there are others of us who are forging a similar path of nuance, depth, and dialogue.
And I can relate to the unexamined racism accusations (specifically, assumptions that it's my 'white fragility' as to why I won't preach what the crowd is preaching), so I know it can be challenging to have to deal with that. We're with you!
Oooof you are speaking to exactly the kind of binary thinking trap this essay invites people to free themselves of!
Thank you for sharing your experience, it's so important and helpful for us to start putting more light on this issue. it's often growing simply because those pushing these rigid, extreme ways of thinking believe it's the norm and thus defensible. "Unexamined racism" is a great example of the ugly tactics used to shame and pressure us into conforming.
Grateful to know you're also out here trying to stay on the middle way!
This is who I am. I make lots of people angry, and I do tend to lean a little bit into traditionalist thinking, but I just can't hate all of an idea. Maybe we just disagree on how to implement. I can't bring myself to be wholly part of any "side" because life is just not that easy, not that clear cut.
"Maybe we just disagree on how to implement." That's such a great point. Often, the truth is that there's agreement on the reality of a challenge, transgression, or societal problem, but as individuals we hold differing perspectives on how we should manage or work with those challenges. Instead, we assume that other people feel 100% different than we do on the issue, when it's actually a matter of different ideas of how we overcome challenges. It would serve us to recognize that we probably have a fair bit in common with people who we ALSO have bit of difference with.
This, in my mind, is our greatest hurdle. I've looked at tons of poll results from multiple places over multiple years. Believe it or not, our society has a supermajority position on 20 out of 30 issues. Mostly, we all want the same outcome. It's the transportation we use to get there that's the problem. When I get angry at "the other side," I try to remind myself that most people want the same things I do. However, I do not believe anyone in D.C. cares what we want, so we are going about it all the wrong way. If they did, aupermajority positions would even be problems. They'd be solved long ago.
I will be sending this piece to so many people who have constantly told me not to dilly-dally on an issue, and take a stand, when all l'm trying to do is understand the origination and analysis of all the involved sides and their thoughts.
"Thought Fluidity" very much exists, where one should be able to decide for themselves which side they have a good affinity for, by critically analysising it over time, while also having an open mind towards the constant stream of new information on all the involved sides. The least people can do is acknowledge their own side's pitfalls and credit other's where it's due. Not a lot of them are capable of doing this maybe because of the reaction they fear from their own side or are just incapable of seeing outside the box they are entrapped in.
I sincerely hope, people start giving more importance to nuance and understanding of the grey aspect of issues rather than going the ooga-booga way of us or them and create more disharmony and toxicity in this already chaotic place we live in.
I resonate completely with your reflections, Geetansh. Thank you for sharing them! You raise such an important point that facts and truth often reveal themselves overtime - and most often (particularly for large, societal issues with complex origins), we just don't have all the information we would need to genuinely align with a single side and only a single side.
I do think that more and more people are realizing we NEED to find a new way. A lot of people are quiet about it, but I think a shift is happening. It's my hope anyway!
Your comment is so perfect, it's everything I feel and wish more people could see. Please do send this essay to anyone who's stuck in that broken binary approach. I think part of the problem—besides that Us vs Them mentality being part of our primitive instincts—is simply that people lack the mental framework for practicing thought fluidity (as you wonderfully described!) and don't know how to push back when others demand they instantly take a side.
The more we can highlight this "middle way" in our culture, the more obviously destructive the choice to reject it can become. And thank YOU for committing to this practice of seeking nuance and thinking independently in your own life. People don't get enough credit for this difficult and powerful ability in our culture today. Your comment fills me with hope.
Fabulous article!! This perfectly describes how I feel about most controversial / political topics - not necessarily in the middle, but on the outside.
I'm so glad you resonate with this, Ally! Yes - the word 'outside' is often more apt than 'middle'. It's a place beyond the magnetic field in between two poles, where one can see and hold it all and take action from that broader place.
I have found my way into the "third spaces" most of my life. I believe my background in Buddhism and education and work in conflict analysis and resolution have also benefited me along this path.
Nice to hear you also have a background in conflict resolution, Zander. That type of training really supports this understanding of the middle way, or as you call it, 'third spaces'. Thanks for reading!
Love the phrase "third spaces", particularly in todays Us vs Them, Left vs Right dichotomies.
I think you're so right about those different frameworks being helpful to discover third spaces. I'm convinced a lot of our collective rigid thinking today stems from the simple ignorance of the possibility of a third space. Once I developed a heuristic for asking myself "is there another perspective/option" beyond what seems stuck in a rigid binary, it became a regular, natural practice.
This is the way, Gillian. Core principles of humanity are the anchor we need as the world drifts and as every paradigm comes undone and needs reinvention. Your "exploration rather than a debate" sent my mind racing to imagine what replacing the terms could mean in everything. Facilitators like you can make this concept a mass inception.
I was abroad the last 10 years and returned to find that every label has changed without conviction or consistency. They're all vestigial. Left, right, even center—five people give five different definitions. I’ve been having this silly dream where a roundtable discourse is arguing only on solutions, with a jar in the center to drop a dollar for anyone who loses composure and drops a label. Imagine those rules in the presidential debate, err, exploration.
I love this Jonny! Doesn't sound like a silly dream at all - something we could certainly use. And I love that your attention landed on and resonated with the idea of having an exploration as opposed to a debate. In a sense, it's such a simple shift to look at our challenges and differences that way, but what an impact it would have for the ultimate outcome of things. It might mean that people become less reactive and open to other ideas, and openness is what we need.
Thank you so much for your comment and for reading!
Hi Gillian! It's great to see you writing again. I just came across this by chance through a re-stack on Notes. It's lovely to see so many readers resonating with your wise words.
I'd like to add that the third way, the standing outside the conflict, is also a radical act because it is the only way to not play the divide and conquer games set for us by those who seek to control us. From what I can see, the polarisation of which you speak exists because it is a quite deliberate strategy on their part. This looks like dividing again into Them and Us - the Controllers and the Controlled - but it's actually through the ability to see the game clearly that we can step out of it and live our own lives again. Also, I think, neither going along with nor fighting against something does not preclude saying a clear No to it. There are times when we need to stand tall and say No to engaging in a subject put before us by others to choose an opinion on. Not my game, not going to get caught up in it!
So nice to see your note come through, Helen! I hope you have been well and will send a note to catch up more personally :) I agree that these games of division could be deliberate as they keep us from uniting and actually turning our focus to the roots of conflict and the people that hold the true power to shape our society. And certainly, there's are times to take a stand and say no.
As I said, I will send you an email to check in and see how things are going with you! And to update you on where Jakob and I are at.
So well said Helen! Seeking that middle way perspective is such a powerful tool for not getting caught up in the endless cycle of Us vs Them conflict. I'm glad you see that too. I've noticed people who are themselves invested in that conflict are often quick to sneer at the mention of finding nuance or transcending the conflict in some way—I take that as a sign of just how powerful and radical the middle way is!
Thank you for lessening my feelings of social isolation. Years ago I looked into the Middle Way and it rung true. To find more in common with my peers in the West I explored pragmatism in a class that culminated with its use in "pragmatically" advancing feminism. It began with a study of Emerson so I did a restudy of transcendentalism and it's origins in German thought at that time and enjoyed how ingrained in American/western culture it has become. I think this could be a good access point for future change. To study this evolution to its use by Addams and Dewey for social change is a great lesson.
A few other thoughts. Krishnamurti said that even tolerance is division because one separates the "me" from the "not me." As the essay shows, these tribal mentalities of "if you're not for us you're against us" are really just simplifications to support ideologies; prejudice is a shortcutting by evolution to filter safe/unsafe stimuli. But, if we are to end decision we must first end it within ourselves, with each other, and to do this we must see that there is no difference between the observer and the observed; as one species. Sustainability can only be found when individuality is at peace with the community.
Thanks for sharing your reflections and elucidating other paths you've explored that connect with the Buddhist 'middle way'. It's lovely to hear that this piece lessened your feelings of social isolation. You're certainly not alone in looking for another way to end conflict and division.
Thank you so much for reading and sharing your perspective, I completely agree and really appreciate your commitment to seeking unity and nuance over tribalism and division!
I'm a fan of both Emerson and Krishnamurti! The latter's teachings in regard to dissolving the needless illusion of separation has only become more relevant.
This is such a fantastic piece. It gave me a sense of belonging that I haven't felt in a long time. Thank you Gillian for your well-written and insightful article. Thank you Salomé for sharing her with us.
I'm so happy to hear that this piece provided a sense of belonging for you, Nick. You're certainly not alone. I think there's more of us than we realize :)
I'm so happy to hear that Nick, I know exactly what you mean about that sense of belonging. I get particularly worn down feeling like I'm an outlier for seeing the value in concepts like the "middle way", particularly as applied to the most polarizing of subjects, like politics.
Brilliant! We must be highly suspect of those who push us to take a side quickly and without a thorough understanding of the varying perspectives. Sadly, our children are being taught the opposite. Not only are they ostracized if they refuse to choose immediately, but they are then instructed to plug their ears to any diversity of viewpoint. Civil discourse and reasoned debate have somehow become anathema to those who are interested more in indoctrination than education. I love your notion that we must learn to be "centered" personally if we wish to collaborate and progress societally. Reading Marshall Rosenberg's "Non-Violent Communication" was a turning point in my life. Sounds like the "Coming to Peace" resolution model bears many similarities to Rosenberg's NVC.
I agree whole-heartedly with everything you've written - and I really resonate with Rosenberg's NVC work as well. Definitely some similarities between it and Coming to Peace. Thanks for reading and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Beautiful! I particularly loved this bit: "In some ways, a person who has their heels firmly dug into one side of a conflict may be more triggered by someone on a middle path than by obvious opposition.". It's exactly what happens when another person's "centredness" or fence-sitting is seen as a threat by people who believe they need more fighters.
I like to think that when we relax into a confusing middle way because we realise that a fight is futile, fruitless or even plainly ridiculous, we are helping even those who are angry or triggered by our stance (or non-involvement); they get to see that it's possible to stand outside of it all, even if they don't understand right now. Their (re)interpretation is a personal journey they get to experience, at their pace.
When a person is seen as extreme for refusing to play "the societal game", it really means they are including everything that—in their centred view—bears noticing. It's society's way of bashing those who see and accommodate what looks like too many perspectives. Too much nuance. I'd rather be "extreme" in this way. It is freeing and life-changing. In relaxing our clenched fists, we get on love's side. God knows we all need love. Thank you for spreading it in this bold way.
What beautiful words, Ruqayyah. I completely agree - by embodying this way of thinking and being ourselves, we show others what's possible. They might not consciously be receptive to it, but we're always creating a ripple effect by how we show up in the world.
Thank you for writing such an eloquent and powerful piece. One thing that comes to mind about walking that path is that sometimes things are concrete and black or white. And many times they are not. We can have BOTH of the greys and the solid shades. For example, common sense things like if you fall off a cliff most likely your chances of living (depending on the height of the cliff) are super slim. Or if you do not look both ways on a busy road you might get hit and die.
My point is not in opposition to your wonderful article btw. I am just adding a complementary perspective coming from my own life experiences. I am also speaking more generally about life and not into anything specific like current events or politics.
I realize now that ironically to say there are no black and white things in life is well, very black and white. Singular. So I like to add to the conversation here that a big YES we walk the middle path and sometimes we might need to take a stand on morals and what is harmful vs helpful in any given situation. Somethings are black in white as far as if they cause suffering or harm to other beings. I think you would agree. Of course the way we interpret that can be biased and clouded by our own beliefs and past experiences. It's really subjective though with morals but I do think its has a place. Or rather what do we value?
I hope this makes sense. And I am curious to what you have to say about it. Also, I am on the autistic spectrum (high functioning) and I struggle greatly with black and white thinking. I am getting much better but I also now see that it has a place sometimes. :)
Thanks for reading and for your reflections! Yes, it makes sense what you're saying, and I certainly agree that sometimes things are quite clear - and indeed, walking a middle path doesn't mean we're wishy washy or always 'a little of this, a little of that'.
In the conflict resolution model I'm trained in, for instance, the process of 'coming to peace' only works if we are all in contact with the principles outlined in this essay. So if, for instance, someone is aggressive within the practice, the facilitator intervenes to reinforce the commitments to these principles. Firm boundaries or clear 'no's' very much have a role to play.
That's just one thought coming up in response to what you shared. Thanks again for connecting with the piece :)
Thanks again for writing it. It really helped open up my mind as I tend to get constricted with my thinking and have rigid patterns at times. Trying to unlearn that. I believe most humans have a load of unlearning, relearning and learning to do on so many things. After all that is why we are here, right? To learn by living and live by learning.
My current motto is: "I am living to learn and learning to live." That sums up my life.
Couldn't have said it better than Salomé. But to add a few things: Nuance is not a "nice to have"; it's actually foundational to true understanding and conflict resolution, necessary to overcome literally any challenge we face.
I'm also reminded of something Ayishat Akanbi wrote: "People think to be radical is to be confrontational, hostile, and angry when what is truly counterculture is understanding, curiosity, self-discipline, a backbone, combined with spiritual and emotional depth."
The article certainly doesn't advocate for apathy; rather, it's an invitation to take action from a grounded, principled place, rather than from a place that will only fuel division.
Thank you Gillian! And yes, that's exactly as I see it: when nuanced thinking goes out the window, you can be sure the irrational, domineering thinking that characterizes ideologies like fascism is that much closer to filling the gap.
I'd say because it's the opposite of fascism and authoritarianism generally. A culture where nuanced thinking and avoiding needless cyclical conflict is more prevalent is a culture that's more protected against the trap of authoritarian thinking, which is the first step to institutional authoritarianism.
If you study the rhetoric fascist leaders used to garner support, you'll see the exact opposite of what this essay advocates for. If more people were aware of this connection, they'd be more resistant to becoming pawns for an authoritarian ideology.
As someone who initially bought in and is now buying out of the far left rehtoric, this piece (peace :) ) of writing was so helpful and emblematic of the current dynamics I deal with in many of my friendships. I have been criticized and told I have unexamined racism and am using the terrible 'white moderate defence' for trying to bring some nuance to a situation that definitely has it. It's frustrating to be out in the middle on your own in personal relationships and the wider world.
I am so glad to hear this piece was helpful for you - and hopefully a reminder that even if you're alone in taking the middle way within your personal circles, there are others of us who are forging a similar path of nuance, depth, and dialogue.
And I can relate to the unexamined racism accusations (specifically, assumptions that it's my 'white fragility' as to why I won't preach what the crowd is preaching), so I know it can be challenging to have to deal with that. We're with you!
Oooof you are speaking to exactly the kind of binary thinking trap this essay invites people to free themselves of!
Thank you for sharing your experience, it's so important and helpful for us to start putting more light on this issue. it's often growing simply because those pushing these rigid, extreme ways of thinking believe it's the norm and thus defensible. "Unexamined racism" is a great example of the ugly tactics used to shame and pressure us into conforming.
Grateful to know you're also out here trying to stay on the middle way!
This is who I am. I make lots of people angry, and I do tend to lean a little bit into traditionalist thinking, but I just can't hate all of an idea. Maybe we just disagree on how to implement. I can't bring myself to be wholly part of any "side" because life is just not that easy, not that clear cut.
"Maybe we just disagree on how to implement." That's such a great point. Often, the truth is that there's agreement on the reality of a challenge, transgression, or societal problem, but as individuals we hold differing perspectives on how we should manage or work with those challenges. Instead, we assume that other people feel 100% different than we do on the issue, when it's actually a matter of different ideas of how we overcome challenges. It would serve us to recognize that we probably have a fair bit in common with people who we ALSO have bit of difference with.
This, in my mind, is our greatest hurdle. I've looked at tons of poll results from multiple places over multiple years. Believe it or not, our society has a supermajority position on 20 out of 30 issues. Mostly, we all want the same outcome. It's the transportation we use to get there that's the problem. When I get angry at "the other side," I try to remind myself that most people want the same things I do. However, I do not believe anyone in D.C. cares what we want, so we are going about it all the wrong way. If they did, aupermajority positions would even be problems. They'd be solved long ago.
I will be sending this piece to so many people who have constantly told me not to dilly-dally on an issue, and take a stand, when all l'm trying to do is understand the origination and analysis of all the involved sides and their thoughts.
"Thought Fluidity" very much exists, where one should be able to decide for themselves which side they have a good affinity for, by critically analysising it over time, while also having an open mind towards the constant stream of new information on all the involved sides. The least people can do is acknowledge their own side's pitfalls and credit other's where it's due. Not a lot of them are capable of doing this maybe because of the reaction they fear from their own side or are just incapable of seeing outside the box they are entrapped in.
I sincerely hope, people start giving more importance to nuance and understanding of the grey aspect of issues rather than going the ooga-booga way of us or them and create more disharmony and toxicity in this already chaotic place we live in.
I resonate completely with your reflections, Geetansh. Thank you for sharing them! You raise such an important point that facts and truth often reveal themselves overtime - and most often (particularly for large, societal issues with complex origins), we just don't have all the information we would need to genuinely align with a single side and only a single side.
I do think that more and more people are realizing we NEED to find a new way. A lot of people are quiet about it, but I think a shift is happening. It's my hope anyway!
Your comment is so perfect, it's everything I feel and wish more people could see. Please do send this essay to anyone who's stuck in that broken binary approach. I think part of the problem—besides that Us vs Them mentality being part of our primitive instincts—is simply that people lack the mental framework for practicing thought fluidity (as you wonderfully described!) and don't know how to push back when others demand they instantly take a side.
The more we can highlight this "middle way" in our culture, the more obviously destructive the choice to reject it can become. And thank YOU for committing to this practice of seeking nuance and thinking independently in your own life. People don't get enough credit for this difficult and powerful ability in our culture today. Your comment fills me with hope.
Fabulous article!! This perfectly describes how I feel about most controversial / political topics - not necessarily in the middle, but on the outside.
I'm so glad you resonate with this, Ally! Yes - the word 'outside' is often more apt than 'middle'. It's a place beyond the magnetic field in between two poles, where one can see and hold it all and take action from that broader place.
I have found my way into the "third spaces" most of my life. I believe my background in Buddhism and education and work in conflict analysis and resolution have also benefited me along this path.
Nice to hear you also have a background in conflict resolution, Zander. That type of training really supports this understanding of the middle way, or as you call it, 'third spaces'. Thanks for reading!
Love the phrase "third spaces", particularly in todays Us vs Them, Left vs Right dichotomies.
I think you're so right about those different frameworks being helpful to discover third spaces. I'm convinced a lot of our collective rigid thinking today stems from the simple ignorance of the possibility of a third space. Once I developed a heuristic for asking myself "is there another perspective/option" beyond what seems stuck in a rigid binary, it became a regular, natural practice.
You might like my book "The Third Space: A Nonconformist's Guide to the Universe" - https://www.amazon.com/Third-Space-Nonconformists-Guide-Universe-ebook/dp/B0D1R7JMML
This is the way, Gillian. Core principles of humanity are the anchor we need as the world drifts and as every paradigm comes undone and needs reinvention. Your "exploration rather than a debate" sent my mind racing to imagine what replacing the terms could mean in everything. Facilitators like you can make this concept a mass inception.
I was abroad the last 10 years and returned to find that every label has changed without conviction or consistency. They're all vestigial. Left, right, even center—five people give five different definitions. I’ve been having this silly dream where a roundtable discourse is arguing only on solutions, with a jar in the center to drop a dollar for anyone who loses composure and drops a label. Imagine those rules in the presidential debate, err, exploration.
I love this Jonny! Doesn't sound like a silly dream at all - something we could certainly use. And I love that your attention landed on and resonated with the idea of having an exploration as opposed to a debate. In a sense, it's such a simple shift to look at our challenges and differences that way, but what an impact it would have for the ultimate outcome of things. It might mean that people become less reactive and open to other ideas, and openness is what we need.
Thank you so much for your comment and for reading!
Hi Gillian! It's great to see you writing again. I just came across this by chance through a re-stack on Notes. It's lovely to see so many readers resonating with your wise words.
I'd like to add that the third way, the standing outside the conflict, is also a radical act because it is the only way to not play the divide and conquer games set for us by those who seek to control us. From what I can see, the polarisation of which you speak exists because it is a quite deliberate strategy on their part. This looks like dividing again into Them and Us - the Controllers and the Controlled - but it's actually through the ability to see the game clearly that we can step out of it and live our own lives again. Also, I think, neither going along with nor fighting against something does not preclude saying a clear No to it. There are times when we need to stand tall and say No to engaging in a subject put before us by others to choose an opinion on. Not my game, not going to get caught up in it!
So nice to see your note come through, Helen! I hope you have been well and will send a note to catch up more personally :) I agree that these games of division could be deliberate as they keep us from uniting and actually turning our focus to the roots of conflict and the people that hold the true power to shape our society. And certainly, there's are times to take a stand and say no.
As I said, I will send you an email to check in and see how things are going with you! And to update you on where Jakob and I are at.
So well said Helen! Seeking that middle way perspective is such a powerful tool for not getting caught up in the endless cycle of Us vs Them conflict. I'm glad you see that too. I've noticed people who are themselves invested in that conflict are often quick to sneer at the mention of finding nuance or transcending the conflict in some way—I take that as a sign of just how powerful and radical the middle way is!
Thank you for lessening my feelings of social isolation. Years ago I looked into the Middle Way and it rung true. To find more in common with my peers in the West I explored pragmatism in a class that culminated with its use in "pragmatically" advancing feminism. It began with a study of Emerson so I did a restudy of transcendentalism and it's origins in German thought at that time and enjoyed how ingrained in American/western culture it has become. I think this could be a good access point for future change. To study this evolution to its use by Addams and Dewey for social change is a great lesson.
A few other thoughts. Krishnamurti said that even tolerance is division because one separates the "me" from the "not me." As the essay shows, these tribal mentalities of "if you're not for us you're against us" are really just simplifications to support ideologies; prejudice is a shortcutting by evolution to filter safe/unsafe stimuli. But, if we are to end decision we must first end it within ourselves, with each other, and to do this we must see that there is no difference between the observer and the observed; as one species. Sustainability can only be found when individuality is at peace with the community.
Thanks for sharing your reflections and elucidating other paths you've explored that connect with the Buddhist 'middle way'. It's lovely to hear that this piece lessened your feelings of social isolation. You're certainly not alone in looking for another way to end conflict and division.
Thank you so much for reading and sharing your perspective, I completely agree and really appreciate your commitment to seeking unity and nuance over tribalism and division!
I'm a fan of both Emerson and Krishnamurti! The latter's teachings in regard to dissolving the needless illusion of separation has only become more relevant.
Grateful for your thoughtful comment!
This is such a fantastic piece. It gave me a sense of belonging that I haven't felt in a long time. Thank you Gillian for your well-written and insightful article. Thank you Salomé for sharing her with us.
I'm so happy to hear that this piece provided a sense of belonging for you, Nick. You're certainly not alone. I think there's more of us than we realize :)
I'm so happy to hear that Nick, I know exactly what you mean about that sense of belonging. I get particularly worn down feeling like I'm an outlier for seeing the value in concepts like the "middle way", particularly as applied to the most polarizing of subjects, like politics.
Thank you for the kind words, it means a lot!
Brilliant! We must be highly suspect of those who push us to take a side quickly and without a thorough understanding of the varying perspectives. Sadly, our children are being taught the opposite. Not only are they ostracized if they refuse to choose immediately, but they are then instructed to plug their ears to any diversity of viewpoint. Civil discourse and reasoned debate have somehow become anathema to those who are interested more in indoctrination than education. I love your notion that we must learn to be "centered" personally if we wish to collaborate and progress societally. Reading Marshall Rosenberg's "Non-Violent Communication" was a turning point in my life. Sounds like the "Coming to Peace" resolution model bears many similarities to Rosenberg's NVC.
I agree whole-heartedly with everything you've written - and I really resonate with Rosenberg's NVC work as well. Definitely some similarities between it and Coming to Peace. Thanks for reading and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Beautiful! I particularly loved this bit: "In some ways, a person who has their heels firmly dug into one side of a conflict may be more triggered by someone on a middle path than by obvious opposition.". It's exactly what happens when another person's "centredness" or fence-sitting is seen as a threat by people who believe they need more fighters.
I like to think that when we relax into a confusing middle way because we realise that a fight is futile, fruitless or even plainly ridiculous, we are helping even those who are angry or triggered by our stance (or non-involvement); they get to see that it's possible to stand outside of it all, even if they don't understand right now. Their (re)interpretation is a personal journey they get to experience, at their pace.
When a person is seen as extreme for refusing to play "the societal game", it really means they are including everything that—in their centred view—bears noticing. It's society's way of bashing those who see and accommodate what looks like too many perspectives. Too much nuance. I'd rather be "extreme" in this way. It is freeing and life-changing. In relaxing our clenched fists, we get on love's side. God knows we all need love. Thank you for spreading it in this bold way.
What beautiful words, Ruqayyah. I completely agree - by embodying this way of thinking and being ourselves, we show others what's possible. They might not consciously be receptive to it, but we're always creating a ripple effect by how we show up in the world.
Thank you for inspiring me to share them! Exactly! We truly are; I want to trust that choosing my own path as one puny individual is something. ❤️🔥
Thank you for writing such an eloquent and powerful piece. One thing that comes to mind about walking that path is that sometimes things are concrete and black or white. And many times they are not. We can have BOTH of the greys and the solid shades. For example, common sense things like if you fall off a cliff most likely your chances of living (depending on the height of the cliff) are super slim. Or if you do not look both ways on a busy road you might get hit and die.
My point is not in opposition to your wonderful article btw. I am just adding a complementary perspective coming from my own life experiences. I am also speaking more generally about life and not into anything specific like current events or politics.
I realize now that ironically to say there are no black and white things in life is well, very black and white. Singular. So I like to add to the conversation here that a big YES we walk the middle path and sometimes we might need to take a stand on morals and what is harmful vs helpful in any given situation. Somethings are black in white as far as if they cause suffering or harm to other beings. I think you would agree. Of course the way we interpret that can be biased and clouded by our own beliefs and past experiences. It's really subjective though with morals but I do think its has a place. Or rather what do we value?
I hope this makes sense. And I am curious to what you have to say about it. Also, I am on the autistic spectrum (high functioning) and I struggle greatly with black and white thinking. I am getting much better but I also now see that it has a place sometimes. :)
Thanks again!
Hi Jamiel,
Thanks for reading and for your reflections! Yes, it makes sense what you're saying, and I certainly agree that sometimes things are quite clear - and indeed, walking a middle path doesn't mean we're wishy washy or always 'a little of this, a little of that'.
In the conflict resolution model I'm trained in, for instance, the process of 'coming to peace' only works if we are all in contact with the principles outlined in this essay. So if, for instance, someone is aggressive within the practice, the facilitator intervenes to reinforce the commitments to these principles. Firm boundaries or clear 'no's' very much have a role to play.
That's just one thought coming up in response to what you shared. Thanks again for connecting with the piece :)
Thanks again for writing it. It really helped open up my mind as I tend to get constricted with my thinking and have rigid patterns at times. Trying to unlearn that. I believe most humans have a load of unlearning, relearning and learning to do on so many things. After all that is why we are here, right? To learn by living and live by learning.
My current motto is: "I am living to learn and learning to live." That sums up my life.
Some more thoughts to add to the convo :)
100% agree! The unlearning is crucial, and it's a sign of courage and wisdom to be able to recognize when our thinking gets rigid.
Couldn't have said it better than Salomé. But to add a few things: Nuance is not a "nice to have"; it's actually foundational to true understanding and conflict resolution, necessary to overcome literally any challenge we face.
I'm also reminded of something Ayishat Akanbi wrote: "People think to be radical is to be confrontational, hostile, and angry when what is truly counterculture is understanding, curiosity, self-discipline, a backbone, combined with spiritual and emotional depth."
The article certainly doesn't advocate for apathy; rather, it's an invitation to take action from a grounded, principled place, rather than from a place that will only fuel division.
Thank you Gillian! And yes, that's exactly as I see it: when nuanced thinking goes out the window, you can be sure the irrational, domineering thinking that characterizes ideologies like fascism is that much closer to filling the gap.
Love that quote from Ayishat!!
I'd say because it's the opposite of fascism and authoritarianism generally. A culture where nuanced thinking and avoiding needless cyclical conflict is more prevalent is a culture that's more protected against the trap of authoritarian thinking, which is the first step to institutional authoritarianism.
If you study the rhetoric fascist leaders used to garner support, you'll see the exact opposite of what this essay advocates for. If more people were aware of this connection, they'd be more resistant to becoming pawns for an authoritarian ideology.