One of the biggest sources of confusion and regret amongst people in modern times is the idea of ‘keeping an open mind’. When someone tells you to keep an open mind, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Is it the idea that you must learn to understand all perspectives, regardless of whether or not you disagree? Or is it more of an *embrace*-type understanding, where you are expected to accept as a universal truth that all truths can be true? The problem with modern discourse is that it’s gotten to a point where you are required to accept what the majority of society accepts — disregard any of your prior conceptions, feelings, religious/moral convictions, etc. and go with the new world order. I think a good way of describing it would be as a ‘democratization’ of thought. You must believe what the majority believe. The most popular opinion is the opinion that everyone should have. Whether we would like to accept this as a truth or not, the truth is that it’s true. And, unlike the many other topics that constantly receive attention and discussion, this is one that lacks general address and requires more focus.
Sometimes, we need to drown ourselves of Facebook, Twitter and what the world is telling us to believe and ask ourselves what we really think about certain topics. Time and again, I have found my use of social media regretful and almost remorseful. I would not be alone in this feeling, yet we continue to use it since we are looking for a community to fit in. I found myself encroached in certain circles that have shaped my opinion drastically, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. That’s just the nature of social media, and we need to take a good look at who we follow and what our circles look like.
I am Muslim, and I tend to keep a close knit of good people that help me grow in my faith, as well as friends and colleagues that respect my faith and my boundaries as a Muslim man. There is a very popular hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (may God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “you are on the religion of your friend”. In the same way, the extrapolation can be made in that you think in a similar fashion to the community you choose to surround yourself with. However, for some reason, there are many that would not admit this reality and choose to dismiss it.
I do not believe that surrounding yourself with a circle of people that have the same thought-process is a bad thing. If anything, you want to keep yourself surrounded with individuals that want to see you grow and become a better person. To keep within what people call (for lack of a better term) a ‘safe space’ is OK, but there is a fine line I would draw where I would say you need exposure to other groups. If you are finding yourself in a situation where you are starting to develop a ‘cult-like’ mentality, then I think it’s time to take a couple steps back and observe/examine your perspective. Many a fringe group have been created and sprung forth from sticking with a small group of people that share the same acute principles, whether it be an extreme alt-right group, a fanatical religious group (don’t just think Islam — there are many instances of religious/athiestic fringe groups that have gained traction), and extreme liberal-progressive groups that seem to be extravagantly offended at the slightest of pushback. Unfortunately, some of these have gained traction in recent years, developed as a form of reaction to the latter, opposite ideologue. And not to excuse this type of reaction, but what do we expect except that an extremity would be met with another to counter-balance it out? Two opposing extremes added to bring out a zero-sum game (i.e. no one wins at the end of it all).
I am no trained psychologist on this subject matter, but I believe some introspection would be of benefit to us all. When we think about something, we need to ask ourselves a couple questions. Where did I develop this thought/idea? Is my opinion heavily influenced by the company I choose to be around? Am I finding that the opposing argument to my belief on this specific thought is absolutely unbearable to discuss? Do I just tend to go with the flow/what society tends to agree with? Am I trying to maintain a balanced, ‘open-minded’ approach?
After you ask yourself these questions on multiple opinions that you hold, tell yourself to face this reality (which I think is an extremely uncontroversial statement) — everyone will have an opinion on every minute issue that exists and will continue to exist until the end of time. Whether one would like to admit so or not, the truth is that not everyone will share your opinion. So, what is the significance of coming to this conclusion (as obvious as it may be)? This means that you have a stance/position on something that society either deems acceptable, tolerable (i.e. disagreements are not a big deal) or unacceptable. This means that you will have people that will agree with you and disagree with you, and depending on the topic of discussion, some more so than others. And on varying scales/degrees of agreement. Some will hate you for your opinion, and some will love you for it. This means that your opinions cannot, and probably will never, be able to make everyone happy.
But that’s exactly the point. The reason why we have been able to put our differences to the side and live as a peaceful society is that we have been able to agree to disagree. That, (and the industrial revolution) and the fact that we as a species understand that peace leads to longevity. While it’s great that we’ve come to this understanding, I do tend to see that modern discourse is shifting towards a more toxic ‘force-feeding’ — one opinion is pushed down your throat and opposing arguments are not heard. We need more dialogue.
Dialogue is all about discussion, less about changing opinion. To have the ‘opposing side’ hear you out. A goal may be to change someone’s mind (and it tends to be the case if we really do it right), but this is not the primary objective of dialogue. If someone deems a position to be the most logical, they would do their utmost to make a convincing argument to prove their stance. These discussions are never going to be comfortable, but they were never meant to be. Sometimes, pain is necessary to make gain. To stand taller, you must fall down. This saying is not just applicable to work-outs. It’s applicable to any and all topics that may cause someone to skirmish in their chair (i.e. universal truth/religion, morality, politics, etc.). I think an important note here is that it is implied that dialogue is respectful and courteous.
An example of how it applies to me (which may be uncomfortable for the average reader, but learn to overcome the mental barrier): I am Muslim. I believe Islam is an ultimate, universal truth. Even if you factor all societal pressures and external circumstances facing Islam and Muslims. Do I have reasons for this belief? Yes I do. Am I willing to discuss them with someone who vehemently disagrees with me but can maintain a level head and respect in dialogue? Absolutely. Does that person/I have to change my mind? No, but if there are convincing enough statements made by either party, then there may be some shifting of opinion that occurs. Is it an issue if the dialogue leads to no avail? It could be, but it could also not be if that dialogue is courteous and respectful. At the very least, we could have a good opinion of one another. Will I have a problem with someone believes that Christianity / Judaism / (Insert Religion Here) is a universal truth? My problem may lie with that belief/argument, but not with the person, and I would be willing to discuss the matter with one that wants to discuss it in a respectful and courteous manner, and leave the discussion respectfully if it’s to no avail.
We need to open the door to dialogue, even if we know it’s not going to lead to a middle ground. Sometimes there is no middle ground. At the very least, we can leave the conversation having a good opinion of one another. We just need to have some decency and respect for our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity.
