Day 44

So there's a war going on right now on my Facebook feed and my Instagram posts, on my Next Door app and on my favorite sub-Reddits, between those fighting to open America back up for the sake of individual freedom and the economy, and those fighting to keep America closed for the health of the community. I've tried to tone down the verbal violence by "unfriending" those whose viewpoints disagreed with mine, but not only did that feel close-minded (am I really so challenged by differing points of view?) but it didn't work, anyway - people I don't know, but with whom I share a vastly different perspective, would still comment on my opinions and those of my virtual friends and cause chaos and disharmony in my social media.  

In The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1974), Erich Fromm points out that people need a picture of the world and their place in it that is structured and has inner cohesion.  Without a mental map of the natural and social world, we are confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently. Psychologists call this mental map schema; Buddhists call it samskara.  We all have it - all people in all societies - although it can often be quite different from those of others.  An individual may believe that he or she has no such overall picture or map and that they respond to the various phenomena  and incidents of life on a case-by-case basis, as judgement and logic guide them.  But these people are merely taking their own schema for granted.  To them, their perceptions and opinions seem to be common sense and they are unaware that their concepts rest on a commonly accepted frame of reference.  When such a person is confronted with someone with a totally different schema, they judge that person as "crazy" or "irrational" or "childish," while they consider themselves as being completely rational.

Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind (2012), uses the analogy of the elephant and its monkey driver.  The monkey, our rational mind, thinks it is in control and is steering the elephant, but in reality, the elephant, our intuitive, subconscious mind, goes wherever it wants and the rational monkey is just making up excuses and alibis for the elephant's behavior.  Liberals and progressives have one set of values that determines their schema, their subconscious elephants, and conservatives and fundamentalists have another.  To change someone's mind, Haidt points out, we needn't bother addressing the logical monkey - it's not in control anyway - but instead try to influence the elephant.

Easier said than done, but Ibram X. Kendi in an article that ran this week in The Atlantic, had a remarkable insight into the subconscious mind of our intuitive elephants.  Among other values and elements of their schema, liberals and progressives value fairness and the freedom from subjugation by others, which in coronavirus terms, means freedom from infection.  Alternately, the values and other elements in the schema of conservatives and fundamentalists is liberty and the freedom to exercise their will, which in pandemic terms means cooperating with a quarantine only so far as they are willing.    

In the fighting and the name-calling and exchange of insults I've seen lately on social media ("anti-social media"?), I've seen both sides argue about the facts and the data, and the sources of the facts and the data, but not address these underlying values.  Liberals are calling conservatives "crazy" for wanting to re-open the economy too soon; conservatives are calling liberals "irrational" for wanting to destroy the entire economy in a misguided attempt to not lose even a single life.  Both sides see the other as "childish."

For liberals, so convince a conservative to stay indoors, don't argue about CDC mortality and infection rates, the shape of the curve, or the mechanisms of infection, and most importantly don't tell them they don't have the right to go outside.  The former are just the rational monkey's excuses and don't change anything and the latter challenges the subconscious elephant.  Acknowledge their right to go outside (in most states, they legally do now, anyway) but also point out their right to stay indoors, to protect their families and children from the virus, and to maintain their health.  Without telling the elephant it doesn't have the right to do any one thing, instead suggest that  the elephant also has the right to do other things as well.

For conservatives, to convince a liberal that it may not be necessary to remain sequestered in place, don't argue about individual rights and constitutionality and don't challenge their models on epidemiology, but most importantly don't argue that they don't have the right of freedom from infection and from the effects of other people's actions.  Remind them that we're not all in the same boat, that many working people should have the right to provide for their families by going out and working, and that people have the right to maintain their physical and emotional health by exercise and fresh air and social, if distant, contact.  Without telling their elephants they don't have the right to freedom from infection, remind them that we're all maintaining our lives as best we know how.

Here's a case study.  Atlanta's July 4th Peachtree Road Race was postponed this year due to the coronavirus. An argument broke out on Next Door when someone said that he wanted to run the route that day anyway, and did anyone know of any others or organized groups that planned to do the same?  Many people were immediately aghast at the prospect of swarms of runners all bunched together without social distancing, infecting themselves and each other, their families, and the community.  The runners were called names, and the people that thought it was a fine idea to be out running responded in kind.  Numbers and statistics were thrown around along with insults by both sides, and were also widely ignored by both.

I decided I had to jump into the fun.  "Enjoy your run and good luck," I began, tacitly acknowledging his right to choose and thus not spooking his elephant away.  "I'm not an expert on medicine or infection," I continued, "but wanted to remind you that the virus is spread by droplets, including exhalation and possibly perspiration.  It's probably difficult to impossible to run with a dust mask on, so have you considered how to protect yourself and your family from the others?"  I ended by saying "I'm not telling you not to run - your choice - and hope for your sake that you stay healthy."

I acknowledged his right to choose his own behavior.  I exposed my own vulnerability by admitting I wasn't an expert, but framed his decision not as him-versus-the-community, but as to how he could remain safe.

"Thank you for your comments and your encouragement," he replied.  "Look," he went on, "all I want to do is run down Peachtree Street, which is still legal and allowable as far as I know, and if a few others want to join me for company and traffic safety, all the better.  After weeks spent indoors, I just want to get out and get some exercise."  He shared a few credible citations on the potential for the virus to be spread by perspiration (low, as it turns out) but be acknowledged respiration as a viable pathway.  He ended by saying, "Hope you stay healthy, too."

That was by far the most civil reply I'd seen in the tread.  He didn't say he changed his mind and wasn't going to run after all, but I wasn't asking him to say that.  However, I took his "all I want" as a signal that he now saw the problem with a large group of people in close quarters all running a 5-k together.  He may or may not still run that day, I would never know anyway, but I think the exchange may have influenced a few more elephants reading the comments than heated accusations of "You're going to kill everybody" and "There'll be blood on your hands" ever would. Also, no one else chimed in to debate either of us.

It's not abut right or wrong, it's about different schema and different mental maps of the world.  We're not going to get beyond this moment without some acknowledgement of that.