Tag Archives: Ernest Becker

Marriage Equality, Religion, and Polarization

This blog was originally posted on May 14, 2013 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was reposted here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

One of the most divisive and polarizing issues in contemporary United States society is marriage equality. Kirk Schneider’s new book, The Polarized Mind, aptly demonstrates why we should be very concerned about this not only because of the importance of the issue, but also because of the dangers inherent in polarization. Schneider (2013) describes polarization as “the elevation of one point of view to the utter exclusion of competing points of view” (p. 1).

According to Schneider (2013), polarization often has some type of fear or anxiety at its root, such as the fear of one’s own insignificance. However, many fears and anxieties can be at the root of polarization. Often, polarization emerges from our inability to tolerate the unknown. Similarly, Terror Management Theory suggests that in times of fear and insecurity we often cling to one’s own identified “in group,” while strongly directing anger or aggression toward an out group, especially if that out group is identifiably different in important ways (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2003). It should not be a surprise that both Schneider and Terror Management Theory draw heavily upon the work of Ernest Becker, and in particular, his important existential treatise, The Denial of Death (1973).

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

Polarization in the Gay Marriage Debate

Too often, the debate over marriage equality is ugly. This easily qualifies as a polarized issue. Frequently, individuals involved in the debate talk past each other, not able to recognize the arguments, or even the humanity, of the other person. This is quite evident when Pat Robertson, a popular Christian television evangelist, says that “a murder can change, a rapist can change, a thief can change” as a direct comparison in his argument that God can change a person’s sexual orientation. To make such an audacious and offensive claim seems to require “the utter exclusion of competing points of view,” as Schneider has stated.

Yet, despite being an ardent activist for marriage equality, I do not believe that all individuals arguing against gay marriage are polarized, nor are they “bad people.” Furthermore, there are individuals who are for marriage equality in such a way that it does not respect the humanity of those who are genuinely struggling with the issues of gay marriage because of their religious convictions. This is not helpful in the fight for marriage equality.

The place where transformation occurs is a space where we can move beyond our polarizations —a place where we can meet and listen to each other humanely, despite our differences. I am confident that if we can meet in this space, more people will be converted to supporting marriage equality than if we remain in our polarized camps villainizing each other.

Power and Victimization

It has become popular for Christians opposing gay marriage to claim victimization in the debates over marriage equality. Following Jason Collins coming out as a gay pro basketball player, there were many articles and captioned pictures saying that Collins was being portrayed as a hero, while Tim Tebow, the pro football quarterback who was very forthright in his Christian beliefs, was being told to “shut up” and portrayed negatively for being a Christian. This, too, reflects polarization, as it utterly disregards significant evidence that contradicts this portrait. First, and most obviously, there are many, many professional athletes who are open about their Christian faith who are never criticized for this and often praised. Tebow was criticized and made fun of for many reasons, with his approach to talking about his faith just being one of them. While this treatment of Tebow was often cruel and frequently crossed the line, it was not his faith, per se, that drew the criticism and mocking.

However, there is also a disregard for the issue of power when maintaining that Christianity is being victimized and discriminated against. Much of the first half of Schneider’s (2013) book, The Polarized Mind, presents case studies on what happens when polarization is combined with power. This is a dangerous combination. Generally, the more extreme the polarization and power, the more extreme the consequence will be.

Recently, many in the Christian community have started to point out that Christians are becoming the target of oppression, discrimination, and derogatory acts. There is some truth in this claim and to a degree I am sympathetic. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that Christianity has long been the most privileged religion in the world. This may be beginning to change; however, it is evident that it is still the most privileged religion in the world at this time and, in particular, in the United States. It may be that the marriage equality issue is the one that signifies the loss of this privileged position. Yet, if Christianity wants to advocate for sympathy, it ought to concurrently speak out against those who, in the name of Christianity, say harmful, extremist, derogatory statements. It ought be Christians, even those who are in agreement in opposition to marriage equality, who are the first to tell Pat Robertson that he crossed the line. Until this occurs on a broad level, I do not anticipate Christianity will receive
much sympathy except from within Christianity.

I want to clarify that I am not advocating for a statement against Christianity. I come from a background of Christianity, even earned degrees in Christian theology and studied at two Christian seminaries. I am also quite aware that many Christians are strong advocates of marriage equality. Rather, this statement is a human statement, and I believe that marriage equality is a human issue. Thus, I see marriage equality highly consistent with an existential worldview.

We ought to strive for all people to rise above their polarizations and for all people to rise above harmful prejudices. Yet, we are human and these will continue. If we are to become a more civil and less violent world, we must first hold our self and the groups with whom we identify accountable. We must also be honest about the role of power in all discourse.

Conclusion

Marriage equality is arguably the civil rights issue of the current era. As a strong advocate for marriage equality, I have advocated that 1) there is an existential foundation for marriage equality, and 2) that the polarization of this issue is problematic and dangerous. Polarized advocates for marriage equality are less likely to be effective in garnering support for marriage equality. Additionally, many of the polarized statements of the opponents of gay marriage make statements that are discriminatory and hurtful. Our goal in this debate ought be to move beyond polarization into honest dialogue.

References

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York, NY: Free Press.

Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Schneider, K. J. (2013). The polarized mind: Why it’s killing us and what we can do about it. Colorado Springs, CO: University Professors Press.

~ Louis Hoffman

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Existential Activism

This blog was originally published on November 29, 2012, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

At the 2012 Existential-Humanistic Institute Conference, John Galvin presented on the topic of “Existential Activism.” It was a wonderful presentation that led to many interesting thoughts and discussions. Although I had long aspired to being socially responsible, I never considered myself an activist prior to a colleague referring to me as one. When this occurred, I was surprised. My vision of an activist was someone who spent much of their time involved in protests, marches, promoting petitions, and similar activities. I have come to recognize that this is too narrow of a definition of an “activist.”

Prior to Galvin’s presentation, I had given some thought to an existential approach to activism, and even developed a section of a course on socially engaged spirituality relevant to this topic. However, Galvin’s presentation inspired me to give some more thought to this topic.

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

A Zhi main Existential Foundation for Activism

Activism, at its best, is a complex process that is about more than an issue or cause. It is rooted in an honest, direct facing of many interrelated factors. This is represented in the idea of zhi mian, a Chinese concept that means “to face directly.” Zhi mian is a unifying concept that calls for people to face themselves, others, and life directly while emphasizing that facing each one of these requires simultaneous facing of the others.

Facing life directly and honestly is frequently what inspires one to activism. For example, much of the world has turned a blind eye to the horrible conditions in Darfur. When one becomes aware of what is really occurring in Darfur, many feel compelled to speak out for the many who are suffering in this region and begin to take action.

Authentic activism also calls us to face others directly. Too often activism is associated with anger; however, at its best, it is rooted in empathy. There are two aspects of this empathy; however, one is frequently neglected. It is easy to recognize the need for empathy for the individuals who are suffering, but we must also consider the importance of empathy for individuals or groups holding a different perspective that we seek to persuade through our advocacy. Some times this means empathy for the people occupying the role of oppressor. I will speak to this aspect of empathy in more detail shortly.

Existential activism also emphasizes facing oneself directly when engaging in activism. In particular, there are at least two important considerations of this aspect of zhi mian. First, it is important to consider why one is drawn to the particular issue and the motivation for advocating for it. Individuals often are drawn to be an activist for causes that are close to their heart. While people are often more effective advocating for issues they are passionate about, it is easy for this to cloud one’s judgment at times. Regular, honest self-reflection is vital in being an effective activist.

Second, it is necessary to face oneself directly regarding what one hopes to achieve through activism. It is easy for egos to get intertwined with causes, especially when one begins gaining some recognition for his or her activism. Shifting the focus from advocating for a cause to promoting oneself impedes effectiveness and often introduces some destructive elements.

Activism without an Enemy

What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.

(Becker, 1973, p. 204)

This quote by Ernest Becker is challenging for activism, especially if we interpret “kill” metaphorically. Activism tends to be activism against something, someone, or some group. In the discussion following Galvin’s presentation, I commented that there is a big difference between an activism for something, as opposed to an activism against something. When advocating against, too often we quickly turn those who we are advocating against into the enemy. We assume negative motives, we disconnect from our empathy, and we blind our self to any counter arguments that may be valid. As Sam Keen (1991) states, “In the beginning, we create the enemy. Before the weapon comes the image. We think others to death and then invent the battleaxe or ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them. Propaganda precedes technology” (p. 198). Keen goes on to state that the true heroes are those who can look inside themselves, acknowledging their own shadow elements and potential for evil. This skill is necessary for the activist.

Existential activism should be rooted in a bold empathy, one that is courageous enough to take an empathic approach to the oppressor as well as the victim. When this approach is taken, it helps the activist have greater sensitivity and wisdom when engaging those who disagree with our perspective on the cause we are advocating for.

Politics provides many examples of this. As is evident, there are good people on both (or many) sides of most political issues. Yet, in contemporary partisan politics, the tendency is to assume negative motivations on the part of those who disagree with our viewpoint and quickly turn them into the enemy instead of partners with a different perspective about how to improve conditions in our country. This is too easy. Furthermore, this stance is not one that is effective in most situations.

Activists are called to go beyond selective empathy, to engaging the world with an empathic stance. This is not to say there are not times when it is necessary to condemn individuals, groups, or acts as evil. Clearly, there are times to advocate against. However, this is not our first calling. Our first calling it to understand empathically, to allow people and groups to be innocent until proven guilty, and to seek change through compassion before condemnation.

Systemic Understanding

Although existential psychology has not always given adequate attention to systemic issues, it is important to do so when considering existential activism. Activism always occurs in a context, and good activism should always take into consideration how best to advocate within a particular context.

I worry that activism too often seeks extremist ends without an openness to compromise. It has a tendency to seek big changes in quick time frames. Often, this is not how effective change occurs within a system. When change occurs too quickly or too radically, it can create a lack of stability that can, in some instances, be ineffective and even dangerous. Of course, there are also times when quick or radical change is what is necessary. Yet, often the most successful forms of activism will promote a gradual, sustained change over time that allows for compromise and respects the interconnected, complex systemic issues.

Content and Process

In psychotherapy, we often separate content from process. The same is important when considering activism. Existential activism can inform both content and process. It helps us identify important causes, but it can also help us give consideration as to how to go about activism.

Learning to be an effective activist is challenging and complex in ways quite similar to becoming an effective psychotherapist. There is a great deal of knowledge needed that must be continually updated in order to be an effective activist. There are also challenging interpersonal and leadership skills, and a broader awareness of the interplay between individual, group, and larger social systems, which need to be developed and refined over time. I am thankful for places like Saybrook University, and their Social Transformation Concentration, that helps prepare individuals for this complex calling.

Conclusion

Existential activism is bold enough to speak the truth and, when necessary, confront evil while remaining compassionate enough not to create enemies through disagreement. It is honest enough to recognize when our motivations shift from our ego to our heart and when our own issues may harm our cause. Existential activism is audacious enough to take an empathic stance toward various sides and individuals involved with the issue, not just those who share our perspective. It is courageous enough to continually confront ourselves as we confront others. Existential activism is patient enough to let change gradually unfold and wise enough to adjust our approach to activism to the context. Finally, existential activism is humble enough to always remember the root of activism is beyond us.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. The Free Press.

Keen, S. (1991). The enemy maker. In C. Zweig & J. Abrams (Eds.), Meeting the shadow: The hidden power of the dark side of human nature (pp. 197201). Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Review of The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

This is an existential classic and must read for anyone interested in existential theory. However, most people do not understand the profoundness of this book in their first reading. This, in part, is due to the the complexities of the thought in this book. Yet there is more to it than that. This book is a difficult emotional read. Becker, writing not long before his own death, directly deal with an issue most people wish would just go away. Yet, Becker approaches the issue in a manner that makes it impossible for it to go away. In approaching the topic, Becker provides a powerful overview and synthesis of the work of Otto Rank and Soren Kierkegaard. Ranks idea of the heroic serves as an ongoing theme throughout the book and carries over into his next book, The Escape from Freedom, which is an important companion volume to The Denial of Death. The heroic is part of our nature, but also part of our demise. Becker helps for us to be able to see the heroic desire in ourselves — in its beauty and its ugliness. Reading tips for The Denial of Death: 1. It is common for people to complain that Becker is both attacking and complimenting Freud at the same time. While this is accurate, it is generally tied to a misperception. Becker is complimenting Freud’s frame or structure of psychoanalysis while critiquing his content. In essence, part of what Becker does is  take Freud’s frame, remove Freud’s sexual theory, and replace it with Becker’s own death theory. 2. Don’t read “death” as being used only literally. While Becker certainly does use it in a literal sense and arguably never goes beyond that. However, there is much which can be added to Becker’s theory if it is also interpreted symbolically. Death is a symbol of human finiteness and limitedness. If Becker can be read in this context, the power of his book is greatly expanded.3. Read this book slowly and discuss it as you go. Better yet, read it with a group of other people interested in the topic. Many find this book to be terribly depressing and, at times, overwhelming. I’ve found that through time I’ve come to see it as a book full of hope, but this was not my first read of the book. Maybe Becker’s own theory could help explain why this book is such a difficult read for many readers. Maybe the audience of the 70’s, when the book was first published, was more open to the issue of death. However, now, maybe our culture has lived in an ever-increasing denial of death that makes a book like this so much more of a difficult read.

 

Original Version added 2004. Never been updated.