Where are the more tolerant others among us? The day seems to be carried by increasingly anti-modern, xenophobic fundamentalists. Those who increase bans reject modern technologies and attempt to hide the realities of abuse as they deny the needs of the abused and support the abuser.
Fundamental Flaws
Michael J. Salamon, Ph.D. • Special to FailedMessiah.com
With all the concern that the revolution and turmoil in the Middle East will lead to fundamentalist takeovers leading to religiously based dictatorships like Iran, it is important to understand what we know about human behavior and what is happening in our own backyards before we cast stones. Most humans suffer some form of chauvinism defined as a prejudiced militant belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or cause. Those raised in strict environments tend to believe chauvinistically that the only correct way to raise someone is to continue to be authoritarian and rigorous. The same applies to religious beliefs. If you are reared in a rigid pattern, your religious beliefs often follow suit. Because all humans carry an inbred bearing known as cognitive dissonance that makes it hard for individuals to handle inconsistencies between their attitudes and behaviors, chauvinistic beliefs may become extremely rigid. Dissonance is exacerbated when individuals are confronted by new ideas, proof or evidence which conflicts with chauvinistic beliefs. Many people reduce their dissonance by reevaluating their beliefs or changing their behaviors, by becoming more open minded or, like Hosni Mubarak, leaving. Others, like Colonel Muamar Qaddafi, find it too hard to change their biases regardless of the weight of the evidence, and become even more intolerant and rigid.
In an article that appeared in Ha’aretz, Anshel Pfeffer (2/11/11) drew interesting parallels between the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the ultra-Orthodox religious right. In addition to his vitriolic statements that the religious parties that are part of the Israeli government perennially vote against any law “that did not involve coercion and curtailment of our freedom of choice” and not making any attempts to “turn back the growing tide of …intolerance” he does make one meaningful observation – the chauvinistic approach supporting fundamentalism is on the ascendancy in Israel. I would add that it is on the rise in the Jewish community everywhere. Pfeffer does not want to silence the fundamentalists, nor does he want to silence any form of fundamentalism; he believes all are entitled to a voice, what he does believe is that it is incumbent on more tolerant others to contain fundamentalists.
If there is a lesson that we can learn from the multiple revolutions in the Middle East it is that rigidity breeds rigidity and ignoring or legislating against social networking is both foolish and dangerous. There is a given in human behavior: the more rigid a rule or ruler the more intense and rigid the response. It may take years but there will be a concomitant response. Revolting Arabs have shown us a socio-psychological principle: attempting to ignore modern technologies that bring people together people will ultimately fail. This was true even in the days of carrier pigeons.
A purely democratic approach allowing dissenting voices is both admirable and accurate; unfortunately, not everyone can see these principles and because of chauvinism are stuck in denial. They wrongly believe that they can legislate against a democratic approach to accepting others’ views. This is increasingly the problem in our community, as Pfeffer points out.But Pfeffer’s voice is not unique. Almost daily we hear the question: Where are the more tolerant others among us? The day seems to be carried by increasingly anti-modern, xenophobic fundamentalists. Those who increase bans reject modern technologies and attempt to hide the realities of abuse as they deny the needs of the abused and support the abuser. Worst of all, they label people as different, thereby removing them from the community and denying that these people have valid issues that must be dealt with appropriately by the community and its leadership. If there is a lesson to be learned from the uprisings in the Muslim world it is that modernity will ultimately trounce this form of chauvinism and fundamentalism, and that democracy of one sort or another will prevail.
There is a Midrash that explains why G-d chose two individuals Bezalel and Ohaliav to build the utensils for the Mishkon when only one of them could have been selected. Bezalel was from the tribe of Yehuda, considered the highest while Ohaliav was from Dan, the lowest. The Midrash tells us that both were chosen to teach us that the highest and the lowest are equal before the creator. The message is clear: Chauvinism is not the correct way.
Dr. Salamon, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is the founder and director of ADC Psychological Services in Hewlett, NY and a Board member of Ptach and The Awareness Center. He is the author of numerous articles and several psychological tests. His recent books include, The Shidduch Crisis: Causes and Cures, published by Urim Publications and Every Pot Has a Cover: A Proven Guide to Finding, Keeping and Enhancing the Ideal Relationship, published by Rowman & Littlefield. His new book on Abuse will be available spring 2011.