Evolution

            As previously mentioned, when it comes to bettering our lives, our communities, and our world, we must make changes. While change will happen with or without our intent or interference, if we seek positive change, we must act accordingly. The becoming something better, in whole or part, applies to Acceptance Theory, because to reach that state of mind, we must grow as people.

The positive changes we wish to see/that we go through- these are examples evolution in action. Evolution differs from change in that change itself is not specific, and while a result of cause and effect, it is random. The causes that appear come as a result of natural forces, rather than a specific entity’s will. In the natural sense, evolution falls into this category, as it is essentially a specific sort of adaption to factors in one’s environment(or at least an unspecific adaption that is guided by the removal of competing, but inefficient adaptations). Typically this refers to a physical environment, but can also apply to social situations and interaction and other factors.

            In context of acceptance theory, evolution allows one to move beyond their comfort zone and explore things that wouldn’t, understand perspectives alternative to their own, develop patience for others who may or may not be as accepting, or are in whatever way different. It also includes the growing and acceptance of the self in regards to one’s limitations.

            On a personal level, this means reaching a place where one can approach foreign situations or people of differences with an open and curious mind, rather than having an intense predisposed response to such entities. It means reaching a place of being comfortable with self-diagnosis is a manner that is constructive rather than hypercritical.

            In regards to groups, evolution is a point where the community has come together to do these things, such that these practices become a part of a culture. A culture of accepting others without harsh judgement, of approaching life and the differences in it as a gift, rather than something to be feared.

            Evolution is a conscious change, something that we can influence, to a degree, provided we work at it. People typically have the capacity to grow as they choose, though most develop the way they are encouraged to do so, be it by the environment or the people around them. Some, therefore, adapt to be more hateful or divisive by finding new ways to invalidate or marginalize people and groups. This may be a result of an honest distaste for people or groups(justified or not), or a result of misinformation about others taken as fact.

If we are interested in positive evolution, in growing together, and as individuals, we need to make sure that we are not behaving or speaking in ways that undermine this effort. For example, we must not try to downplay significant issues for the sake of simply feeling good about ourselves or promoting a hollow peace. Instead, we should communicate about such issues and ask questions on the points we do not understand. We should avoid jumping to conclusions based on our initial observation and should look into causes behind behavior for understanding. We should be more concerned with the messages of others rather than the manner in which they are delivered. Fostering conversations rather than ignoring them is what allows us as people to evolve.

To evolve on a personal level, we must look at ourselves and understand who we are. We must learn about ourselves, questioning our behaviors, the things that have led us to where we currently stand. From there, we determine what we wish to change, and why. We determine who we are ideally, and we strive to connect the two.

It is important to realize that evolution is always a work in progress. Evolution is change, and change always occurs, and always will occur. There is no being ‘done’, only the journey. Furthermore, there are no guarantees: one may work long and hard, and perhaps it may not seem like much at first, but it is important to strive anyway. If nothing else, the effort to evolve will make for a more full and diverse life than one lived within the narrow confines of one’s original understanding. And yes, it is difficult. Enjoy the fun parts. Learn from the bad parts. People must accept that there is no perfection, and in realizing this, avoid being unnecessarily hard on themselves. Furthermore, we as people should avoid being too hard on others for the same reasons, and instead, we should help them grow as well.

Change

            Change has often been a subject of this blog, in part because it is intertwined with everything, and in part because it exists as perhaps the one constant in this existence. Regardless of all else, things will change. I have written that change is important for us as people, for Acceptance Theory, and really, for progress of any kind.  Yet, while acknowledging that change is a constant, we must also realize that the fact that things will change on their own is no promise that they will change in the way that we most desire them to. It is for this reason that we must be vigilant in living the changes we would like to see.
            It’s difficult. As I’ve mentioned, change occurs ‘voluntarily’ only when alternatives are worse. Because of this difficulty, even when we have initially made up our minds to change, we may find ourselves slipping back into old habits or situations. Perhaps a temporary comfort convinces us that what we sought to change was not very important after all. Perhaps we look at the scope of what must be changed and we begin to have second thoughts. Whatever the specifics, it is easy to let things run their course and change as they will, rather than the way we would like.
            In my conversations with others, I find an attitude of letting life unfold as it will, a contentment with how things develop on their own and simply adapting with it. In truth, this is a part of Acceptance Theory; the allowing of things as they are(provided they are not detrimental). I have also found a different sort of contentment, if one could call it that. A belief that an individual’s actions have no weight, no merit, such that even if one wants to make a change, even if one is suffering or sees the world in a dismal light, there is no point in putting forth the effort, for there will be no return.
            As I have said before, that is not Acceptance Theory. Acceptance Theory is the recognition and acknowledgement of individuals as neutral beings with their own quirks and qualities. It is the examining and understanding of practices and traits in order to include one another. If there are characteristics and practices that bring harm to individuals or groups, these must be dealt with- because this harm is the opposite of acceptance, driving people apart and placing some above others. To argue otherwise is to champion this separation and oppression, willingly, knowingly, or otherwise. Allowing things to flow as they will only applies to happenstance, that which naturally occurs, evolves. It does not apply to constructs of ignorance and separation.
            Perhaps there are some who argue for this chaos, not for any personal prejudice, but for the opportunity to take advantage.  Following a different sort of ‘neutrality’, they are motivated by the self, without regard to the larger picture, written off in any case as ‘unchangeable’. It’s a rather convenient solution. This complacency allows one to avoid the discomfort one would face acknowledging problems in the way things are, or more specifically, the source and solutions for such things. But we should not settle for contentment, especially if we are not actually content. Taking advantage of one another only leads to strife and suffering.
            The need for change is as important for the self as it is for the world- or perhaps more so, for we cannot change the latter without changing the former. We as people must determine for ourselves who and what we are going to be. We must understand how our environments affect us, and when we interact with others, we must be mindful to address them and not their traits, and hold them to do the same for us. Furthermore, we must address ourselves in kind as people, rather than our qualities. Perhaps most importantly, we cannot give up on ourselves, because such is the one true way we can deny our change. Even if we look at ourselves and see failure, and look ahead to insurmountable roads, perseverance is important. With the constant of change, we have unlimited potential- to settle for hate or misery(of self, or others) stifles that. It’s no way to live. It’s no way for the world to be.

Shame as Deflection

            The previous post discussed shame as a tool for division- viewing neutral behaviors and characteristics in a negative light, and condemning those who practice such. At the end, the recognition of such behavior coming to light, and the combatting of such practices. This is a good thing; if we as people can let go of the desire to criticize others, we can move forward to acceptance in spite of our differences.
            However, in the wake of shaming and those who are disarming such movements, there is another practice that stands in the way of connecting with one another. While there are legitimate situations in which people are unjustly shamed for their behavior, there are those who are simply playing the part. These individuals may take any opposition as evidence of being shamed without respect to the situation as a whole.
            Shame as deflection is the ‘disarming’ of critique by claiming such opposition comes with no intent beyond the shaming they perceive. This may be intentional or unconscious, as a means to avoid discussing or taking accountability for one’s behavior, or to maintain one’s sense of comfort. It is harmful for this way that it avoids honest discussion about legitimate issues, because one party claims persecution in a situation where they are not being persecuted. Beyond that, the ‘cry wolf’ nature undermines people and groups who are truly victims. People begin to assume all who protest shaming are of the ‘shame as deflection’ variety, and take no time to reevaluate the circumstances of the wronged party.
            In determining the difference between actual shaming and shame as a means of deflection, the question to ask is ‘what’s at stake?’ Real matters of shaming deal with an attack or othering of individuals for a practice or trait of neutral value(or no specific reason at all). Among those who claim to be suffering attacks of shame, there is the matter of investigating what is under attack(a neutral target or a harmful/negative one), and if there is a negative behavior to be remedied, determining how that is being accomplished. As mentioned in the previous post, shame, even well intentioned, is not the answer when one is seeking to remedy a problem. Encouragement and discussion do much more. All that changes is the nature of discussion: When dealing with a person who believes they are being shamed when critiqued, explain the difference(constructive vs destructive criticism)- but also ensure the critique is actually a critique, and together, deconstruct why offense is taken.

Shame

                I’ve spoken about identity before, and pressure and perception, and choices, and change. Who we are, how we see, how we act(which depends on how we see and determines who we are). These things make for the possibility of change- or they do not. On matters of choice and change, I mentioned that change is hard; that oftentimes we as people take the path of least resistance(least pressure), so in order to change, one’s state of existence(again, the amount of pressure) must become more unbearable than the alternative.
                Pressure influences our desire and effort to change, be they pressures of the discomforting  nature explained above, or perhaps the promise of something greater. A reward for good behavior, rather than an ultimatum. Sometimes it is merely a matter of whims or discovery. However, the pressures that encourage change may also dissuade it. Shame, for instance, is a powerful force in influencing the actions of individuals and groups.
                Returning to identity: We are all complex beings, combinations of various details that others often perceive individually, but fail to piece together. A lot of these details we are born with, and some of these we simply cannot change, and as such, we may become firmly rooted in them, because quite literally, they define what we are. Thinking about that in conjunction with connection, a desire that most people have to some extent, sheds some light on how shame can make or break change, connection, and identity.
                Put simply, shame is an attack on identity. Shame is directly harmful to our identity, because it prevents us from exploring and experiencing and enjoying who we are. Instead, we are forced into a mold of who we ‘should be’… but who decides that? As a shaming culture, we have been led to feed on those who appear different, weaker. We are taught to ignore the suffering of others. The truth is, what is ideal to some is not so for others, and situations of enforcing that ‘should be’ means only that the ‘should-self’ destroys the ‘ideal-self’.

                But why shame others?

                It depends. For the sake of connection, protection, belonging, ‘unity’. In regards to connection, I have spoken of the pains taken to belong, betrayals of the self in order to avoid being ostracized(shamed). This may include shaming others. On one hand, an act taken to fit in. On the other, a redirection or reflection away from qualities that would also/instead be shamed by the group. For such reasons, people may feel the need to ridicule others, badger them, insult them, and tear them down for their differences.
                 In truth, such mockery is its own kind of violence, because it is the first step in distancing and othering that allows one to inflict atrocities upon another, or to further ridicule,  simply observe, or turn  away when terrible things to befall a separate entity.  When calamity occurs, the first  person scrutinized is the victim, to see if they have done(or not done) some particular behavior which therefore justifies whatever ill they receive(regardless of the legality).
                Furthermore, shame is harmful because it fosters division, rather than connection. It singles a person out for who they are, or their behavior, and ridicules them. This prevents connection with other groups who might otherwise participate in the shamed behavior, as the person seeking to explore or understand may become self-conscious, and ostracized for their interest. At the same time, the ostracized person cannot really connect with those among their own group either, due to being shamed by them. They are ‘stained’ in the eyes of their community, and shunned, and may even harbor resentment against those who shamed them- a bridge burnt at both ends.

                There are other situations. When dealing with shame, one must ask if the disapproval is directed toward the individual or the incident of behavior; in the case of the well-meaning, there is an objection to the action, rather than the person who performed it- this capacity to separate people from actions, traits from choices, is what allows for connection. Attacking a person for possessing one particular trait does only harm.
                Even then, the behavior must be examined- is it harmful, or just different? Does it pose a threat, or is it simply unfamiliar? What is REALLY at stake if it persists? Definition? Destruction? As I have said, the majority of traits, the things that in their combinations create differences between people and groups—these are neutral things, and should be regarded as points of interest. But what about the truly, undeniably destructive?
                Even assuming such is proven, then there is still the matter of the approach. Honest discussion and instruction will go further than an emotional attack. If one truly seeks to build a stronger, better person by steering them away from harmful practice, then one should actually build, rather than tear down. Fortunately, people are realizing this, and as that happens, behaviors once criticized are beginning to be seen in a more neutral, or positive light. Still, there’s a lot of ground to cover in that regard.