For generations, humanity has gone through insurmountable experiences that question our very own existence. When thinking of the conflicts humanity has witnessed — either in recent years or served through the eyes of history — it is easy to succumb to the idea that we humans are a vindictive and callous species.
It reminds me of a famous line from Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot”: “Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.”
When we think of conflict, our sometimes fatalistic brains usually turn to images of those externalized experiences between countries, communities or groups; ideas of genocide, war, violence and pain seem to accompany these unavoidable experiences. However, I would like to invite you to reflect upon what comes up within ourselves when we talk about conflict. Sometimes it is not as easy to identify.
Throughout my many exchanges with individuals, either through my professional career as an educator or my many social interactions, I have understood that we humans have a tendency to always look for an external source in which we can deposit our trust, fears, hopes and, in many cases, our individual responsibilities. Today, rather than running away from natural predators in the wild, our natural fear to be guilted into uncomfortable situations we may have created, deprive us from actually facing that which makes us an adaptable species; we are always avoiding judgment, but it is precisely the first thing we do when presented with a conflict: judge.
It is not unnatural to use judgment when presented with a situation in which we are either invited to or forced to take a side, but the problematic nature of judging every single thing around us has traditionally been based on a dualistic perception that, when conflict arises, it is either right or wrong; no more options. Just day or night, sweet or bitter, you’re either with us or against us. To me, this lazy and limiting scope is what brings us to feel conflicted, because the reality is that everywhere we look, there are always more than two shades of the same color, shape, taste and, of course, reasoning.
Now, take a moment to think about how our brains may have evolved from this dualistic framework. We have pairs of nearly everything in our bodies, from our DNA to the hemispheres of the brain. The reality created by our senses mostly filters information into two categories, so we are biologically subjected to extrapolate this duality into what we perceive through our senses. Realistically, we encourage our minds to only judge what is presented to us from a simplistic perception that is in many ways flawed since it excludes so many experiences, variables and details that give rise to never ending conflicts, around and within us.
When faced with this predominantly patriarchal mentality, there is an exercise I want to invite you to consider. When presented with an idea that wreaks havoc in your normalized patterns, try to seek the source of the conflict rather than reacting immediately to what is coming at you. A few years ago, I binge-watched a Spanish series on one of the more renowned streaming platforms, in which a philosophy professor is forced to resign, facing unemployment and homelessness. The professor has no choice but to go live with his mother and get a job at a local high school as a philosophy teacher.
On his first day in the school, he invites the reluctant group of teenagers to exercise around the school. He takes them to the school’s cafeteria where they continuously loop around the prepping table until they get fed up with it. As they stop, one of the students asks the professor “Is everybody capable of philosophizing?” The professor stood speechless for a couple of minutes, the students grew anxious and began questioning why he was not able to respond quickly. The professor then said “I stood silently for two reasons: first, to think about how to respond, and second, to prove that when one thinks, people give you the side-eye. Isn’t it more censurable to react unreasonably rather than reflect before acting?”
This is the problem when we have been socialized to react instead of using our biology to listen and reflect upon our actions and words. The majority of conflicts around us begin when someone decides to act instead of reflecting on what is truly creating the source of the conflict. We can justify our responses to our biological nature as mentioned above, but in the case of humans we can never deny our animalistic nature; but we will always be animals who have the capacity and can choose to be reasonable.
I believe we humans exist on this Earth to face this dualistic reality in order to feel the limitations this represents, how much more capable we are in understanding various shades of circumstances and solving any conflict presented to us. If we choose to only react to the stimuli around us, either through the news, social media or whatever authority figure we rescind our decisions to, we move further away from the liberating experience given by reason.
In conflict, I invite you to always follow our basic biology in which we have been given two ears and only one mouth; this is a testament to the perfect start to what a life without conflict looks like. A world where we stop the chatter, the gossip and the judgment, and we start to listen more, feel more and understand the source of pain rather than running away from it. Only this will grant us peace.
