“And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.”
-Luke 6:29 (KJV)
There’s a common phenomena, where people do not like you, your ideas or whatever, and you come into conflict. Perhaps you say something that they disagree with. If you are online, if you hold any opinion, there is someone, somewhere who will disagree with you. Or, even if they do agree, they might misinterpret what you have said. They will turn what you say into a strawman, and then they will attack it, and by proxy, they are attacking you.
Normally, when I think of “turning the other cheek”, I think of physical violence. But, it occurs to me today that it is more interesting to think about it in terms of disagreement. Paul Graham, in his essay “How to Disagree,” outlines levels of disagreement:
- DH0: Name calling
- DH1: Ad Hominem
- DH2: Responding to Tone
- DH3: Contradiction
- DH4: Counterargument
- DH5: Refutation
- DH6: Refuting the Central Point
Name calling, ad hominem, responding to tone and contradiction are the most common types of disagreement. People often look to attack another person’s insecurities. Responding to a statement like, “You’re stupid!” is in a way confirming that you are worried about being, or looking to an audience, smart. “No, you’re stupid!” validates the claim as worth responding to and scores a point, in the status games people play. Since you’ve responding in kind, you’ve also validated that this response is an appropriate one.
There are many ways to turn the other cheek. You might respond by referring to the cultural norms of communication: “That’s not a nice thing to say.” You could choose to ignore the statement entirely. There are some actions that may look like turning the other cheek, but aren’t, such as saying: “I hope saying these bad things about me makes you feel better.” And so on.
There are underlying status games in these kinds of conversations. They are aimed at an audience. But, who is the audience? In many cases, we are the audience. We are judging ourselves.
The great thing about online discussions are that the stakes are so low. It’s a great training ground, because most of the conversations are with people we do not know in social environments that will either cease to exist or completely change in a few years. Very little is of any real consequence. So, it is an opportunity to practice, to refine our technique.
But, we should always remember that there is a person on the other side. It is not merely a question of “turning the other cheek”, it is a question of how can I respond more skillfully. Offering the other cheek or our coat is also more than simply absorbing violence without reciprocating. It is responding to the need of the other person in that moment, to the degree that we can. It is getting to the point where we can bypass our instinctive response to reciprocate, absorbing the conflict and using it as fuel for our practice that transcends our brittle egos. Done well, we might be able to return something positive.
I’ve not reached that point. My tendency is to ignore stupid comments and leave bad environments. But, transforming these situations into positives is the real challenge. How can we respond, not only by offering the other cheek, but emphasizing with the suffering of our attacker, feeling loving-kindness toward them and the circumstances that gave rise to the attack, and taking the opportunity to cut at the root of suffering in ourselves and others?
This is hard work. You need to learn to concentrate, develop insight and your capacity for loving people. It’s a training of a lifetime. Over half my life is gone, and I’ve yet to even make a start.
cafebedouin.org 