Community

            Groups are to communities as individuals are to groups.  The community, therefore, is the group on a larger scale, with each group serving a role, as an individual might. Communities are what we are- all the people together. A community requires some measure of acceptance to even exist; therefore, we should build on this. When we move beyond the group, we reach the community, though in some instances the two are interchangeable. The difference is the matter of choice. That is to say, In regards to groups, individuals within them may be defined by their appearance or their belief. However, in terms of communities, groups tend to be defined by what they do.

            For the sake of simplicity in regards to Acceptance Theory, the community is an accumulation of individuals who have(perhaps tentatively) agreed to come together for the common goals of survival.

            When employed correctly, community is a relationship, a system that (ideally) allows everyone to survive and contribute, though the definitions of survival and contribution definitely vary between communities and the minds within them. By coming together, the needs of many may be met where such would otherwise be impossible. People can specialize in one aspect of a process in order to meet a survival need, and working together with others, complete the process in its entirety so that everyone survives. This is particularly sound in situations where resources are scarce, or difficult to procure for some groups, while processing or manufacturing techniques are difficult for others- working together allows both groups to thrive.
            When employed incorrectly, community may also bring oppression, if one’s needs differ significantly from the populace; if there are moral concerns for this difference, calamity may result. Community gives people a sense of pride and purpose, a sense of direction for those who may not know how they wish to spend their time. However, this can also be restrictive if the people are not educated in regards to possibilities, or are told by others that they must mind a certain place. ‘Practicality’ and ‘plausibility’ can hold the community together and keep those within it alive, but taken too far (or embellished) these things may also keep people within the community from reaching their full potential.
            Furthermore, in this world of perception(particularly when aspects that do not match the truth are magnified) people are encouraged to focus only on the self, and therefore they forget the strengths of working together. This makes it easy to discount others, trivialize their importance as people, their contributions to our lives and our communities. Worse, we may alienate them from our communities altogether; this may result in the hate and fear we associate with that we do not understand.
            The ideal community will be balanced in the sense that it is receptive to the needs of all its people, and does not tread upon the freedoms of some for the sake of others- this means allowing people to pursue their desires and their goals(freedom) , but also ensuring everyone has the opportunity to do so. As we are all inherently part of groups, by birth, and again by choice, we are all also part of communities in some sense. If we seek to understand others, we must recognize that we all seek the same things, and acknowledge that the best way to reach these is through a community- so that everyone’s needs are met and we and devote our focus to understanding and treasuring one another.

Grouping

            At the heart of a thing like Acceptance theory is interaction. Interaction exists not only within the self, but within the people, and between them and other people, and the endgame of Acceptance theory includes a look at (and a change of) how we interact with ourselves and the people we share this world with. Our interactions typically relate to those whom we are near, and with whom we have things in common. Though we are all individuals, made up of our trivial, yet interesting, details, naturally, the things that make us create a reality where we have a little more in common with some people, and a little less in common with others, and so we are all part of groups of some kind, superficially at least.
            Groups, put simply, define us in an incomplete, yet often convenient manner. One trait, or a small number of (seemingly) related traits are presented as representative of the subject matter and together, those individuals who possess such traits are then classified as a group. Defining features may include skin color, gender, sexuality, appearance, habits, professions. Grouping is not inherently harmful; it is a way for us as people to quickly organize and process the vast information in this world today. This categorization may range from a general guideline to how one from a given group might carry themselves, to a focused(and oftentimes ignorant) declaration of key, unwavering, qualities of certain individuals, for better or worse.
            Grouping allows us to make assumptions about others, and therefore interact with them accordingly. It allows us some small measure of learning and understanding in that if we can recognize that two individuals are related(part of the same group) then there is likely some overlap in their individual mannerisms as they pertain to what is typical(defining) of the group. Put simply, understanding the individual may give us perspective on the group, and vice versa.
            However, grouping can be harmful when the associated information is inaccurate, incomplete, or misunderstood. When false things are assumed about a group, and then processed as other information would be, such misconceptions may be taken as defining features of a group they have nothing to do with. This is related intimately with perception, as there is no guarantee that the qualities we associate with individuals and their groups are actually representative of that individual or their group. Oftentimes, the problem at hand is that an individual who is of the group for one reason or another(race, appearance) may express a quality or trait(behavior)  unique to them, and others, observing this behavior, move beyond it to apply it to all members of the group based on the other associated traits.
            Sometimes, the basis for group labeling is even less rooted in fact. Perhaps the trait ascribed to the group is one where an outsider witnessed part of an activity, or misunderstood the reasons and circumstances behind such behavior, and then carried on to communicate their misunderstanding as fact without approaching the group now incorrectly labeled.
            As people, we need to better understand just how well, or how far qualities go in defining us. We need to recognize the extent of the ‘defining’ and ‘typical’ features of groups. If we can determine what actually plays a part in classifying the group, and separate that from the qualities present in members of the group, and further still, the reasons for those qualities, we can move closer to understanding one another. Once we accept the limitations of such small pieces of information, we can actually take the time to get to know those groups in detail, and more importantly, the individuals that fall within them. Put simply, we must recognize the difference between what we perceive in the group, and the actual traits or features that define it.

Freedom and Control

            Freedom is a goal to be achieved via acceptance theory, because it allows people to live their lives as they so choose and without persecution. The ability to make choices that suit one without being dissuaded, threatened or outright attacked, without the denial of opportunities, benefits, rights- this is of paramount importance to an acceptance based society. Acknowledging one’s own freedom, and that of others brings a respect, a harmony.

            Freedom, is a state of being. In a sense, it is an absence of that which might otherwise be referred to as ‘mandatory’. All that exists is possibility. A free person does not have to concern themselves with the needs and desires of others, and therefore may focus their time and energy on the things that matter most to them. Put simply, it allows one to do anything they so desire.

            When thinking of freedom, most people see it in a positive light- unless they are associating that freedom with an individual or a group with whom they are opposed. Suddenly, the blessing of freedom is inconvenient and upsetting at best, and dangerous at worst. Ironically, this fear and hatred that arises when witnessing someone else’s freedom strips one’s own ability to be free- ruled instead by turbulent, negative emotions, feelings. One might argue that expressing joy and celebration for another’s freedom is also enslavement to feelings; however, to be ruled by joy seems better than being ruled by sorrow.

            Acknowledging this duty to our desires, our emotions is to acknowledge that complete freedom is impossible; we will always have desires, and even if we do not act upon them, whatever brings us to refrain controls us instead of that which we desire, be it duty, law, or ability; after all, we are also limited by our physical bodies. However, complete freedom is impossible for another reason.

            Along with that which we do, that which we create or consume, part of freedom includes the aforementioned potential, possibility. The freedom to ‘can’, the freedom of capabilities. The very existence of others limits our freedom, for we must make room for their freedoms by corralling our own. This deals directly with the physical world. As two bodies of matter cannot occupy the same space, matters of mutual freedom become not so, shifted in favor of one or the other in terms of positioning. The same holds true for the consumption of resources. Who decides who gets to obtain positioning, resources?

            This is where control comes in. Control serves as a means to reach freedom, but in the wrong proportions, is an obstacle to it. Control allows one to make decisions regarding who gets what or goes where. There may be a system established for such directing, or it may be enacted through physical force; the specifics may differ, but the end result is the same. Just as (Self)Control allows us to dictate ourselves, control in general does the same for the world around us. By practicing self-control, we are able to strive for the things we want, and obtain possibilities and make use of opportunities that might otherwise pass us by if we are careless or less disciplined. Through the control of others, we likewise open opportunities for ourselves by closing them for those others. In effect, the more control one has over themselves and others, the more they can experience(freedom), and the more they can deny others in order to ensure that they have the first, best, or greatest experiences.
            Ideally, a balance must exist between freedom and control, as it is impossible for everyone to have complete freedom at all times. This however, does not mean that one cannot live a happy and fulfilling life. We must control ourselves to seek other pursuits and garner other qualities… patience, compassion, caring. This must be mutual in order to ensure no one’s freedom suffers greatly from another’s control. To exercise a proper balance of the two, one must realize the freedoms that all people should be entitled to, and strive not to take such away. We must control and limit the freedoms that would exert such control- the ones that cause harm or take away life, livelihood, happiness, free will.
             In short, we must ensure all can pursue happiness without denying others the capability to live out their own lives to a level of reasonable fullness.

Empathy

              Empathy by its very nature brings people together, which is the ultimate goal of Acceptance Theory. Anything that brings the people together in harmony is encouraged, and empathy goes further still by acknowledging and experiencing the feelings of others. To be concerned for the reality of such feelings, particularly the suffering of people, is to be aware that all people face hardships, and therefore are worthy of respect and understanding.

                Empathy allows people to understand each other’s perspectives through reliving and reassessing our own. In regards to Acceptance Theory, engaging in empathy is a challenge to actually immerse oneself in the feelings or the state of mind of another group or individual— especially if it is something far removed from one’s own typical experiences. It is a call to feel, truly feel, that which another feels. To reflect upon one’s own pain and suffering, or happiness, hope, relief, in a way that brings another’s into focus.

                The willingness to empathize is a token of good faith- that one would open themselves to hurt to establish a common ground. This allows different groups to remove some of the misconceptions between one another, specifically the ones that assume others are worse, or that we are better— put simply, the misconception that at the heart, others do not live as we do. The truth is, everyone requires the same things, and while we may meet these needs differently, we do continue to meet them, and in doing so, or failing to do so, we feel. This is true of all peoples, and nurturing empathy will reveal as much. By having empathy with a stranger, and other, one can move beyond the specifics and align oneself with others.

                Empathy can be achieved by recalling and acknowledging one’s own hurt and partaking of it to bring oneself in-line with the hurt of another. Given the often uncomfortable nature involved with such acts, some people refuse to empathize. Perhaps they are under the impression that empathizing is not about understanding, but more about making people suffer. In general, personal suffering is undesirable, and so, people tend to avoid it, particularly if this comes for the sake of others.
                Displays of empathy, while generally helpful as mutual acts, can become problematic if they are one-sided. When one group expects others to see their point of view and set aside their own problems to suffer with them, but refuses to budge for the other party, there is a hindrance of community.  This is also rather typical; we expect of others what we would not do ourselves, and will go to great lengths to disguise this, particularly in the face of opposition or interpretation. We polarize situations into right and wrong, and we, the ‘right’, therefore don’t have to empathize or change or suffer because we are right, but others, being 'wrong', should make pains to see our view.
                In our dealings with others, this may lead to a sort of ‘false’ empathy. Unhappy about our own situations, failing to perceive the circumstances of others, there arises the opportunity to centralize the discussion on our own woes at every turn, rather than listening to alternative perspectives. This may include the exaggeration or misrepresentation of our issues and lead to a ‘false alarm’ effect in others who might ordinarily be empathetic to our circumstances.
                In order to empathize, one must be able to relate without taking attention, sharing of the self to soothe and placate without dismissing or overshadowing the feelings of the wounded. We must be willing to take steps to stand with others, to celebrate and grieve with them, understanding that they feel the things we do, seek the lives we do.