(2/2) Living through the Shattered Lenses of Unhealed Wounds
From empathy to entropy: Your unresolved tensions distort the way you see others. Part Two: An Analysis.
This is the second part of two posts. To read part one, the narrative, click here.
TLDR: When we have not healed from the horrors of the past, it becomes easier to see others as horrible. When we have not come to terms with our oppressors, we begin to see anything and anyone who bears even the smallest resemblance as their replicas and spawns. This misattribution invokes a desire to eradicate any form of similitude in a person, tradition, or religion — no matter how innocent they may be. Living through the wounds of our unhealed traumas paves a path. Not for us to liberate the world of all oppression, but to become oppressors ourselves as we embark on a journey toward the death of diversity and the establishment of one homogenous way of being.
“Perpetually living through a traumatizing fragment of this (or any) country’s gruesome and inhumane history inhibits us from seeing, acknowledging, and accepting other traditions as they actually are.”
WHAT IS SEPARATE BUT EQUAL?
“Separate but equal” refers to the infamously racist decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that allowed the use of segregation laws by states and local governments.
The decision’s aftermath resulted in African Americans and whites having separate facilities that were perceived to be equal, but in reality, were the exact opposite. This applied to everything from schools, buses, and restaurants, to water fountains, parks, and public facilities.
Each of these facilities was ‘separate’, and de jure equal, but not de facto.
The letter of the law “enforced” a recognition of separately equal facilities, while the spirit of the law facilitated the continuation of racism through a more officially sanctioned and “civilized” medium. One that proliferated segregation — white folk facilities would superiorly outperform the dilapidated conditions of African American ones.
Ayana seemed to have fabricated a connection between Salik’s traditional views on gender and Separate But Equal on the reductionist and culturally incompetent basis of similar wording.
Understanding history’s blunders is imperative. Especially for those who vigilantly attempt to prevent the same mistakes from happening in the future. Living through criticism and scrutiny to identify these mistakes is not a difficult task.
But it’s a slippery slope.
This same effort could just as easily render erasive tendencies. One can end up unintentionally cleansing an entire culture or tradition on the basis of the wrongs one experienced or learned about through their own history.
But it may not be Ayana’s fault that she commented the way she did.
Her portrayal of grouping a tradition with an American past on the basis of “similarity” however, indicates the problem at large. That is, a tendency for justice-seeking Westerners to look at other cultures, traditions, and practices through the shattered lenses of an American past. And in some situations, through their own personal pasts.
Perpetually living through a traumatizing fragment of this (or any) country’s gruesome and inhumane history inhibits us from seeing, acknowledging, and accepting other traditions as they actually are.
That is, without an overly dominant Western imposing tinge.
And without an inclination to want to change, suppress, or banish a traditional practice—or the tradition in its entirety—just because we may be triggered by how it upholds a notion we falsely equate to our unfortunate experiences.Thus, a vigilant attempt to prevent history’s mistakes may very well cause a kind of traumatically backed imposition, leading to the intolerance of the past as a whole . This, in reality, is the intolerance of diversity.
And this, ironically, is the exact opposite of what justice-hungry Westerners claim to be working towards — acceptance, belonging, and most importantly; empathy.
“To undo the trauma, there may be a subconscious desire to undo any and all resemblance to the traumatizing perpetrators — no matter how slight or disproportionate.”
Here, a paradox presents itself.
The overt mission and vision of some ambitious justice seekers — like Ayana — is to be as inclusive to as many beliefs, ideologies, and opinions as possible. Every mission, however, has to have a marketing and advertising strategy. What better one to use than to paint the picture of arriving at a euphoric space for minorities? One that brings together each individual’s differences while ensuring that everyone can be whoever they want, together.
Forever.
You can almost drown in the pompous declarations of premature and unconditional positive regard. Such pseudo-inclusive propaganda claims to work towards empathy and acceptance — the very qualities they ironically seem to lack the most.
However, it is not entirely false advertising.
Covertly, the warm qualities of acceptance, compassion, and belonging are reserved only for certain kinds of minorities and diversities. Perhaps those who pledge loyalty to the apparent sameness of the group, which is more homogeneous than celebratory of differences.
What does that mean?
What we witnessed from Salik was a living representation of selective empathy. The interaction symbolically illustrates how diverse students, teachers, clients, employees, and ultimately human beings are seldom heard and accepted in the very spaces that advertise so many of those happy words. Things like trust, safety, a judgment-free zone, open expression, unconditional positive regard, etc.
Even though people like Salik are technically “minorities” and are labeled by society as “diverse”, their beliefs, principles, and perceptions of reality are too different from present ideologies and too similar to the painful past. Hence their diversity is not accepted into the pool of pseudo-inclusivity.
To perceive the world and exist solely through the lenses of trauma is a frightening thing. The very word trauma comes from a Greek root that means a wound that does not heal.
The inability to remove the shattered lenses of our pains before interacting with others likely indicates the following:
- Traumatized individuals begin actively searching for their trauma in others, weaving a false narrative with the needle of confirmation bias. This is likely because their way of dealing with their unhealed wounds is to destroy them wherever they think they may find them — despite how exaggerated their comparison may be.
- The wound(s) will never heal, as they will be continually brought to life over and over again for the traumatized individual — thanks to the first point.
- The wounds and traumas are all that will be seen in other individuals and traditions, no matter how virtuous their differences.
Ayana may very well have been burned in the past regarding the issue of gender. Perhaps some crooked religious figure made her feel less than as a woman by speaking or committing exploitative sentiments. Or maybe a staunch Trump supporter yelled at her from his pickup truck to make him a sandwich.
Whatever it may have been is not to be dismissed.
On the contrary, it's a serious offense that must be addressed.
However, 2 billion Muslims who believe in gender principles have nothing to do with that. Writing off — or, quite frankly, canceling — such a tradition because it retriggers the memories and experiences of pain is conflating between two categorically different realities. It shows just how distorted our visions have become. This is seeing with shattered lenses. This is being controlled by the past. And this is actually being stuck in the past — what nowadays "progressives" accuse religions and traditions of.
We hear their common messages like:
- "Religion is so old."
- "It's not relevant anymore."
- "It's so archaic and stuck in the past."
- "You have to let the past go to live in the present."
- "If you're honestly still on that gender binary crap, then you're holding everyone back."
Ironically, these messages appear more relevant for those who speak them. Why?
Because these same individuals are unable to confront their unhealed wounds in such a way that clears their vision enough to allow for the seeing, respecting, and embracing of the world's differences. By being stuck in the past, their perception of the present is distorted. And their attempt to associate their own wounds with anyone who adheres to the principles of religion is grossly inaccurate.
Such a reality directly contradicts their own mission of holistic empathy and the acceptance of any and all differences.
Traumatic Impositioning Towards Entropy (TITE)
The distortion of reality via unhealed wounds pervades nearly all disciplines and academic institutions. Social Work and mental health are no exception.
When looking upon another, through the shattered lens of the injustices of one’s country — and even oneself — an inaccurate “reading” is almost guaranteed, which serves as the precursor to an inaccurate judgment, and thus an inaccurate “attempt to correct” said “injustice” of the other.
Basically, a tite a*s.
What would this look like in a therapeutic setting with someone from a different cultural background? Or when working with a community of refugees that struggle to hold onto their principles? Or when evaluating a program that is dedicated to protecting a fundamentally hierarchical tradition from hate speech and threats?
Some Westerners and Western mental health practitioners are covertly allergic to terms like; “different”, “principles”, and especially “hierarchy”.
Why?
Likely because these terms were used a couple of times by their oppressor in the past. Now, whenever any of these words are used, one can not help but look through the shattered lenses of their past.
The concepts become permanently associated with something “ultimately bad.” Here, the trauma is inherited, as a tool through which one sees the vast diversities of the world as needing to be adjusted, corrected, and even removed.
No matter how virtuous a difference, heritage, or hierarchy may be in a given tradition, it's as though such terms need to be left at the door if it's going to be accepted as a diversity that can be celebrated.
Enter: The Great Melting Pot of America.
This, however, is a contradiction. The Ayanic ideology is supposed to have a strong affinity towards empathy and understanding differences. Yet the near-extinct traditions that retain principles and whose followers are labeled as “minorities” are dismissed.
A logical conclusion may just be, that such an ideology can only tolerate itself, despite its pompous claims of mass-inclusion.
Such individuals who operate through shattered lenses as a result of their past unhealed traumas are themselves, perhaps, the modern inheritors of colonization.
Through their imperialistic efforts, they dismantle what is different from what they think should remain. But the excruciating efforts to run from what we hate may very well result in, unfortunately, becoming what we hate.
This, of course, does not exonerate colonizers in more prominent roles of power; as corruption can surely exist on a broad spectrum of social statuses. And just because this piece of writing brings to light a subconscious or conscious kind of colonizing effort, doesn’t mean that leaders of whatever countries are not also themselves colonizers.
Instead, these two realities are, empathetically, mutually inclusive.
To outwardly declare acceptance and belonging for all, while inwardly harboring tendencies and biases to excommunicate certain beliefs is an inconsistency. It is a demonstration of cognitive dissonance at best; where two or more conflicting beliefs exist simultaneously in a body, person, movement, or action.
After all, we seem to work from the inside out.
Because inconsistencies at the intrapsychic level produce inconsistent human experiences, actions, and perceptions at the external level. Freuidians and neo-Freudians call this ego-dystonic; when one’s beliefs and inner moral compass — if there even is any morality after the mass cleansing of hard truths and hierarchies — do not conform with their outward behaviors.
That is: the idea of destroying, excommunicating, and canceling the diversities of others and their ways (which include their traditions, cultures, and hard religions) to maintain the ideas of the self.
Wherever this ideology came from, it seems strangely congruent with the new-age movements of “I need to put me first”, self-care, and “cut off toxicity”. Note that toxicity is frequently incorrectly used for all of that which gives one a headache, even if it were to be one’s own family, spouse, child, job, dream, etc.
It seems like a nice motto to live by. But, to “put me first” can and often does imply putting others last.
This ideology or motto is a precursor to a kind of egocentric way of living and facilitates a narrow-minded mode of thinking that first separates, then looks down on “the other”. It also seems to have a clear — and maybe even identical—connection to the fundamental ideologies of nationalism, capitalism, consumerism, the monopolization of things and people, imperialism, and, yes, colonialism. The big C word we all hate. And ironically what Ayana and those who would respond in a similar fashion work their hardest to run from.
But. It would seem inaccurate to label these zealously fierce changemakers and, often, change-initiators as part in parcel of the aforementioned isms.
Splitting; is a defense mechanism where one only sees an entity, person, tradition, country, or thing as either all good or all bad. There is no room to hold both. Everything is just mutually exclusive.
So let’s not do that.
These people have the drive to want to make others belong, which this world needs, arguably now more than ever. But a subtle force seems to be influencing the trajectory of this rocket of an effort — slowly but surely veering it off course. We've passed the moon and are now headed towards a black hole.
That is, a force influenced by a change-hungry crowd. What exactly is being changed if the stream of logic up until now seems to have arrived at colonialism?
Instead of what, maybe the question should be who is changing?
"The Ayanic portrayal is not just one of cultural incompetence, but it marks the beginning of the weaponization of one’s own experiences as the oppressed against any and all who seem to assertively hold different beliefs."
The breath of hatred is contingent upon a living target, one who repeatedly evokes memories that just can’t be left in the past. A target that can not and should not be forgiven. One that will be remembered and recalled if forgotten. One that needs to survive so that it kindles the very will that is used to stop it.
This is a juxtaposing, burdening, self-made mission that rises from the ashes of what such hatred itself had initially destroyed.
The English poet, only renowned after his death, William Blake, wrote “The Grey Monk”, a commentary on the French Revolution. The poem walks us through the injustices of a Purple Tyrant oppressing a people by putting himself first, which leaves the oppressed common folk hopelessly weary, and — after their children starve to death — angirly full of hatred. Together, the common folk rise, and unite to pledge to take up arms against the injustices of the Purple Tyrant! The outcome is Blake’s final verse:
33. The hand of Vengeance found the bed
34. To which the Purple Tyrant fled;
35. The iron hand crush’d the Tyrant’s head
36. And became a Tyrant in his stead.’
The moral of the poem, as Blake attempts to portray, is a universal principle that can be applied and reapplied throughout existence;
The oppressed can become the oppressor.
The Ayanic portrayal is not just one of cultural incompetence, but it marks the beginning of the weaponization of one’s own experiences as the oppressed against any and all who seem to assertively hold different beliefs.
Consider the following tendencies that cause Groupthink; “a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives”:
- Self-appointed “mindguards”: Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, views, and/or decisions.
- Belief in inherent morality : Members believe in the rightness of their cause and ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
- Stereotyped views of those “on the out” : Negative views of the “enemy” make conflict seem unnecessary.
- Direct pressure on dissenters : Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
The Ayanic mission may pretend to advocate for diversity and inclusion. Yet those who follow this mission — while carrying unhealed wounds — end up seeing others through the distortion of their shattered lenses. What inevitably follows is harboring a need to incessantly change that person and/or tradition because they are truly different from the rest of the group.
Such an ideology may very well be nothing more than a massive ball of group thinkers — resulting in a closed system. Resulting in entropy; the end of diversity and the beginning of a homogenizing cult that can not tolerate anything or anyone other than itself and those like itself.
This is exemplified by Salik’s response to Ayana’s comment about Separate But Equal; suppression of one’s diversity.
Those who feel like it’s not safe to share their cultural, traditional, and/or religious views will likely never mention them. This is due to the fear of being outcasted — more than they probably already have been.
Any diversity that differs from the homogenous mass then becomes stifled under the subjugation of the dominant powers that be.
Diversity as a whole then becomes suffocated. It remains stuck inside those who are now overly cautious and fearful. The human spirit, body, and expression, are the nexus through which a culture, tradition, and diversity are expressed and brought to life. Without the safety to express diversity, it remains inside — with no extension towards extramental life. One finds themselves hiding. The pride they once had for their diverse identity wilts. All that is felt now is the shame and embarrassment of having come from their respective legacies.
Such is the result of eradicating differences and anything that coincides with the “past”.
The Ayanic movement assimilates the diversities of the world. It kindles the firing of the Western melting pot . People like Salik are being told: “Leave your differences at the door, and help us meet our status quo by showcasing your outward diversities; that of skin complexion, language, and hair texture”.
This kind of inclusion only permits and accepts outward differences, not any inward ones, especially those related to hard truths and principles. One’s connection to the past must be severed if their diversity is to be truly accepted.
Much like the seemingly beautiful brick edifice the Social Work Building was on the outside, what lies within is truly incongruent, hypocritical, and requires a complete makeover. Maybe a realignment.
group thinkers
A coming back to who we were.
The return of diversity and true empathy. Otherwise, the inward ugliness is perhaps a reflection of what human beings are without their inner beauties, traditions, cultures, religions, morals, heritages, principles, hierarchies, and differences.
QUESTION: Have you ever imposed upon someone’s differences from the place of your unhealed wounds? If this was done to you, how are you now?
AND I WANT YOUR CRITIQUES.