Finding Harmony amid Difference

What’s with the name “Conflict/Harmony”?

“Conflict/Harmony” speaks to a paradox characterizing society and polity. Human life, at its most fundamental level, is but a whole—a living, breathing reflection of the One Source, the singular essence that constitutes itself by flowing though each of us. Yet, at the phenomenological level, humanity manifest as millions upon millions of differently inclined individuals who affiliate into countless groups standing apart from, and often in tension with, countless other groups. Human beings identify themselves by marking themselves as “other than.” And otherness is more than an identity marker. Members of religions, nations, ideologies, ethnicities, and other identity groups see through eyes distinctive from their neighbors’ eyes. Otherness is a crucial dimension of experience. To realize our fundamental identity as one with our neighbor, we must honor rather than ignore or deny our differences from them.

Are humans hopelessly divided among themselves?

Certainly not. Acts of generosity, humility, and lovingkindness continuously bridge the gaps between us. On a personal, spiritual level, such acts can occur simply and instantaneously. But on the level of society and polity, conflicting groups or individuals—as we know all too well—often resist reconciliation. Although fundamental oneness runs through all human beings, it may seem inaccessible. Nor should leaders impose the singularity their constituents may sometimes desire. With good reason, liberal democracies resist treating their citizens as one. Our differences deserve recognition. Modern history has demonstrated the horrific results of societies and polities expecting their members to be as one with the nation, the religion, or the ideology. When human otherness manifests, as it inevitably does, the “general will” may seek to excise it like a cancer. However real our fundamental oneness may be, in matters of politics and society it cannot be accessed directly without profoundly harming dissenters. 

In societies as diverse as the United States, the first step toward harmony often lies in people approaching other people as profoundly “not themselves,” irreducible to their own perceptions, beliefs, and preferences. We must look into the face of the person next to us, or even far away from us, and acknowledge someone we cannot reduce to ourselves. We must look and listen carefully to that person and honor what we learn from her or him, without blithely fitting it into our own pre-existing narrative of “the way things are.” We must respect that person in the deepest way possible: as legitimate in her own terms that don't necessarily square with our own.

Herein lies the paradox. By gazing openly into the face of the other, we feel his apartness from us. And, by remaining receptive rather than judgmental, we ascertain the common threads that run between us. Our shared essence, shining through, stirs us. Gazing on another who shares our humanness affects us more deeply than gazing at ourselves. Much as romantic relations with another person thrill and satisfy us in a way that self-satisfaction cannot, so recognizing our commonality with someone different from us evokes something more profound than when we identify with someone we assume to be just like us. Sensing our commonality with the other generates love. We thereby cross the chasm of human difference without obliterating it. Humbly, we respect the other who differs from us and, most likely, enjoy her reciprocation. To love is to be open when being closed might seem the natural thing to be.