Tag Archives: terror management theory

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.

Embodied Racism

This blog was originally published April 3, 2014 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here on after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued. Some updates to the article were made.

“Racism is located in your body.” I first heard this stated when I was struggling with the realization that someone very important to me was having a difficult time accepting that I was engaged to a Black woman. As I was talking about how painful it was for me that this person, who I knew was a good person with strong character, could not seem to get past their prejudice, it was gently pointed out to me that, “Racism is located in your body. If it was just in one’s mind, it would be easy to overcome and change. But it is not easy, because racism is in our body.”

I was trying to change my friend’s mind through logical arguments, along with some attempts to motivate the change by pointing out that he was hurting the woman I loved through his prejudices. My approach was not effective. Although my fiancée (now my wife) also advised, “Just let him get to know me. Once he gets to know me, he’ll get over it,” it was not until this insight that racism is in the body set in that I began to accept that I could not change my friend through logical argument. As I let this go and trusted the relational process (primarily the relationship between him and my fiancée), he was able to gradually work through most of his prejudices.

Racists Are Not Necessarily Bad People

We often want to categorize racists as bad people; however, there are several problems with this. For one, to label people “good” or “bad” is an oversimplification. No one is all good or all bad. Second, I would affirm the common assertion that everyone has prejudices to some degree. But these are more philosophical suppositions that could take us away from the point I would like to make.

Many intelligent people with strong character, good intentions, and solid morals struggle with racism and other forms of prejudice. If racism were simple enough that we could rationally disprove it, and through this process, end racism, the destructiveness of racism would be much more contained. If all good people, and all people who would like to have no racism, could easily overcome it, there would be much less racism in the world. The problem lies deeper; it is in our bodies.

How does racism get in the body? One way that racism gets in our body is through experience. This can be role modeling as well as direct experience. For instance, children are often exposed to racism. Regardless of whether this is through word or action, it can begin to become internalized through this modeling. Second, it can occur through bad experiences with individuals or small groups from different cultures, which then gets generalized to all people from the culture. Often this bad experience may be rooted in being uncomfortable with differences or difficulty understanding soemone from a different culture.

Many would argue that the roots of racism are encoded in our genes. It is not that there is a racist gene in our DNA, but rather a tendency to identify with one’s own group for safety reasons while being distrustful or suspicious of those identified as other. Terror Management Theory, which is an existential social psychology based upon the work of Ernest Becker, maintains that particularly when we are reminded of our mortality we tend to identify more closely with our own group and often against other groups.

Empathy for Racists

As I will discuss, I am not suggesting that people who are causing harm with their racism deserve empathy, nor am I suggesting people who have had racism directed at them should have empathy for those who have harmed them. People causing harm due to racism need to be held accountable. However, accountability and empathy can, at times, coexist.

I consider myself to be a highly empathetic person. Yet, it is difficult for me to be empathetic with racists, in part because I generally don’t want to be empathetic with them. However, for those who would like to overcome their racism, empathy can be a powerful tool of change. Empathy takes us beyond the surface level. One of the reasons that empathy is effective in bringing about change is precisely because it takes us beyond the rational; it takes us to the embodiment of the struggle.

Empathy is also effective at disarming defenses. When someone voices, “I know I am prejudice toward black people, but I don’t want to be,” and are met with empathy, this may allow them to explore this and begin a healing process. Yet, this is not always the case. When they are met with condemnation and judgment, or pushing them to quickly overcome these struggles, they often put defenses up to emotionally protect themselves from the perceived attack. In protecting themselves, they also protect their racism, even if inadvertently so.

It should not be expected for someone who is the target of racism to be empathetic with the person who harmed them. To place the responsibility of change on people who have experienced racism is an unfair burden that can cause more harm. Too often, society expects people of color to carry the burden of change in addressing racism. This is addressing injustice with further injustice. For White individuals such as myself, there may be times where the use of empathy combined with holding people accountable can be effective in promoting change.

I am not suggesting that there is not a place for the rational or impassioned arguments in the struggle to overcome racism. Nor am I suggesting that we should be soft on people who do hurtful things—intentionally or unintentionally—because of their prejudices. Quite to the contrary, I believe it is necessary at times to be confrontational and speak from our righteous indignation. Yet, while the confrontation may help someone recognize the need to change, rarely is it successful in helping implement the change. Confrontation must be followed by empathy, and it is the empathy that generally empowers the change. For advocates and activists, the shift from confrontation to empathy is difficult, but an important part of the art of promoting social change.

Conclusion

Racism is complex. This is a primary reason why racism continues to thrive even though it is no longer considered socially acceptable. Because racism is complex, any attempt to counter or overcome racism requires something more than simple or superficial solutions; it even requires something more than sophisticated logical arguments. Like most forms of deeper change, overcoming racism requires relationship. The relationships required to overcome racism are, in many ways, risky relationships and they are not for everyone. It is hard to open oneself up to someone who demonstrates racism. For us to overcome racism, we a wide array of strategies with different people playing different roles. Without compassion, concern, and empathy for racists, we will never succeed in the goal of eradicating racism. Timing is important when considering compassion and empathy for people struggling with racism. If it is offered when someone is still entrenched in racism, it can pacify them and work against overcoming their racism. However, when someone authentically accepts their struggles with racism and commits to change, compassion and empathy in the right context may help them attain the change they are seeking.