Contents
We all have prejudices and stereotypes. To learn how to live together, psychologist Charles Roizman suggests abandoning the habit of communicating only with “ours” and openly speaking out against views that are alien to us.
Psychologies: In your opinion, we are prevented from getting along with each other by the inability to see reality as it is …
Charles Roizman: We filter facts through the filters shaped by our personal history. Depending on whether we were treated harshly or kindly, whether we belong to a persecuted group or to a privileged environment, we will, following our usual logic, identify with the strong and despise the weak, or vice versa. Always, on any issue – ecology, migration, public institutions – there is a camp of those who blame the strong side – the government, the army, financial markets, corporations, bosses, Americans … – and are eager to protect the oppressed: the unemployed, the homeless, minorities and the like. similar. And there are those who admit that the former are right and blame the latter.
This dualism paralyzes everyone, turning some into persecutors and others into persecuted. It sets the stage for a public safety discourse in which all young people from poor neighborhoods automatically turn out to be scumbags. These arguments are reminiscent of Islamist rhetoric, in which all Muslims are victims of racism and Western states. But we all bear our share of responsibility for what happens to us and what can be done to improve the situation. Recognition of responsibility for only one of the parties makes it difficult to work together to find a solution.
Read more:
- On the crest of reality
That is, the first thing you need to dare is to think differently?
Sh. R.: You need to learn to think with your own head! Realize that our point of view, especially in areas where we are incompetent and yet have a priori ideas, is largely imposed on us by the communities to which we belong: family, social circle, professional environment. These views are saturated with prejudice, propaganda, social stereotypes. And how many residents of big cities talk about the province without knowing it at all? We think like leftists or rightists, liberals or conservatives, intellectuals or policemen… Or we think contrary to principle, rebelling against our environment. In any case, we remain within the framework of ideology and “erase” in reality those features that we do not want to see, because they confuse us or contradict our ideas about the world. It is important to understand why we do this: what image of ourselves or our circle are we trying to defend, instead of defending the truth? Who can reject us if we try to think for ourselves?
S. Gross “The Art of Living. Real stories of parting with the past and happy change”
“How praise deprives self-confidence”, “how anger saves from sadness”, “how love torment does not allow us to love” – these are the titles of the chapters of this book, which contains the most precious – the experience of the lives of different people, amazing stories, secrets and their unexpected clues.
What are the consequences of our blindness?
Sh. R.: It makes it difficult to discuss real issues. Under the banner of this or that ideology, a “sense of instability” is cultivated in us. As a result, we forbid ourselves from recognizing true instability and responding to it in any other way than by calling for the strengthening of social order. When citizens are forbidden to talk about what they are experiencing, they become extremists. I organized a social therapy group in Liege (Belgium) with police officers and social workers. One of the social workers said: “I’m sick of the fact that all Roma are considered criminals.” The policeman looked up at the sky, irritated by what he considered naivety. I asked him: “What do you think? Do we have gypsy crime?” And then, feeling that he was being listened to, he began to go into details: “Romanian gypsies specialize in car theft, but not all. And there are no problems with the Yugoslav gypsies.” If he did not feel that he was respected as a bearer of knowledge on this issue, he would continue to indiscriminately blame all the gypsies. By making people feel guilty about what they think, we create resentment. And we strengthen the mutual hatred of those who are told that they are victims of xenophobia, and those who are told that there is nothing to be afraid of and that they need to be more tolerant. The situation of “civil war in the minds” runs the risk of developing into a real civil war.
“The absence of conflict leads to violence. To live together means to achieve harmony with such a world in which not everyone and not always agree with each other.
That is, the second thing you need to decide on is to listen to all points of view?
Sh. R.: Yes, and especially those that we don’t like, because the clash of different points of view allows us to work together to develop a more global and more complex understanding of the real state of affairs. When there is no communication, people remain with their prejudices and demonize those they don’t know. At the level of civic institutions, the courage would be to encourage discussion within the school, the apartment building, the neighborhood. On an individual level, courage is going beyond your own circle. I recently gave a lecture on violence in an area where half the population is North African. There were 500 people in the hall. Only whites. Why? After all, this topic concerns everyone, but residents of different origins prefer not to intersect. Meanwhile, coexistence can only be built on the basis of conflict: first you need to declare problems, so that later you can jointly find solutions that meet the interests of all parties. Otherwise, we are left with our fantastic ideas about the world and solutions, divorced from reality.
The absence of conflict makes room for violence. To live together means to achieve harmony with a world in which not everyone and not always agree with each other. And for this you need to make it a rule to talk with those who hold a different opinion. But it is not at all obvious: to engage in a discussion with those whose point of view seems to us, at best, uninteresting or erroneous, and at worst, disgusting. It is not easy to go to talk with nationalists, go out into the streets to talk with disadvantaged youth, or go to conduct a dialogue in a gypsy camp or in the wagons of illegal workers.
To begin with, we can try to talk at least with members of our own family whose political views differ from ours. To understand why they think so, to see what we can change in our argumentation and in our position, to look at things more broadly and see a more adequate overall picture. Even if we are sure that we cannot reach an agreement, we can at least start an argument and see what happens …