Over the past year I’ve read a number of studies in reputable psychology and sociology journals that associate antisocial behavior, racial and white supremacist views as well as right wing religious beliefs with lower than average intelligence. In my view, the broad brush with which these studies paint the subject is ill intentioned and bad science.
Please do not misunderstand me; I am deeply concerned that in our country and around the world, division, extremism and violence are on the rise. I am challenged by the incivility bordering on violent rhetoric that attends religious and political difference. I do not know how to engage those who hold cognitively dissonant positions. Reason or authoritative sources are useless when those of differing opinion dismiss anything that does not align with their stance, cite Facebook memes as legitimate research, or simply change the subject. A palpable sense of victimization has become all the justification required for demonizing anyone who does not share one's views, however, I do not believe education or intellect alone sufficiently explain this rise in verbal assault, but rather what we might better describe as emotional intelligence.
In the event the term is unfamiliar, emotional intelligence or EI is the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage and handle emotions. The concept has been around since the mid 60’s but was popularized in 1995 by Daniel Goleman in his book of the same name. While it is not universally accepted as intelligence; some psychologists regard emotional intelligence (EI) as a behavior, a form of knowledge or an acquired skill, there is common agreement that individuals who display emotional intelligence are not only happier and healthier but also more accepting of differences than their counterparts. Indeed, social scientists have found emotional intelligence a defining characteristic among advanced as well as aboriginal peoples, and among the educated as well as those who have no formal schooling.
Moral awareness, whether gleaned from parents, caregivers or community, by observation of nature, or some other mechanism is an internal directive. Social conformity, religiosity or other external prompts do not confer it. It arises from self-awareness which leads to self-regulation and the acquisition of social skills, what we commonly describe as empathy. General intelligence or education may measure the propensity to land on one side or the other of an issue but they tell us nothing about our ability to identify with others and offer no path to resolution.
I want to be clear that among the causes of polarization and partisanship we face today, the increasingly divisive language employed by political and religious leaders has legitimized extremism. It is indeed a winning strategy, and it is not limited to one party or the other. Both rely on shock and outrage, emotional not intellectual appeals to repudiate the validity of any position but their own. While emotional appeals are nothing new in either politics or religion the tenor of such rhetoric at present is more about pandering to mob mentality than summoning moral awareness. The cynical characterizations employed by those in leadership, while reprehensible, succeed in creating division precisely because they do not address legitimate differences in policy but because they appeal to those who lack emotional intelligence, who cannot manage their feelings, distinguish them from reality, and are compelled by them to act without reason.
Whether we look to religions or our political charters, self-awareness and a concomitant commitment to the welfare of others is the organizing principle which guides us. 17th century religious author Jeremias Drexel writing to his fellow Christians put it this way: “.....you are putting the noose around your own neck whenever you ask God to forgive you for your own sins while saying to yourself I will not pardon my enemies but take revenge on all punishing them with implacable hatred.”
Our own Declaration of Independence states the case in more positive terms: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If we are to remove the death grip of our own hands from around our necks, if we hope to heal our divisions we cannot do so by looking to our differences but to what binds us. We are all humans, flawed, egoistic, and all too often servants to our emotions rather than its rulers. But we are equal—not better than, not more or less deserving of compassion, or of life, liberty and happiness, much less forgiveness. When we only see those who differ as less, than we are guilty of violating both our most fundamental political principles and our faith. But we cannot simply think our way to resolution of our differences, we must feel it as well.
If it is possible to back away from the looming precipice of disunion and hatred that lies before us we will not achieve it by argument, dialectic or injunction. We must harness the feelings of the people. We cannot succeed by doing so in a cynical and manipulative fashion, but by summoning those instincts that lie within in us all--love of family, a sense of justice, the desire for dignity, and the courage we have displayed in our past to rise against adversity in common cause.
Comments