KH's topic on Hope and Prejudice calls for the dichotomy of the several operative words. Oppposite hope is fear; opposite prejudice is understanding, to paraphrase the original posting of this topic.
The third setting which KH call "open mind', stated simply being conscious and unprejudice, to my understanding, may have at least two constructions. First, it maybe constructed as an approach not having to take one side or the other. Another construction is being receptive whilst taking side but is not dismissive of the opposing vievs.
My question is - is there really the third setting as proposed? Seemingly, open mindedness is semantically inconsistent with the state of prejudice. To the opponent, each particular view held is itself a view held with prejudice. That leaves really only 2 settings: either prejudice (whether with my side or the other side) or open mindedness.
It follows that the possibility of agreeing to disagree requires everyone or at least the majority concerned to be open minded. Otherwise, being open minded in a society is a form of opposition to individual or societal prejudice conditioned by experience, perception or simply imagination or even ignorance. All these, as KH correctly observed, are attributed to ethnicism, nationalism, political ideology and I must stress, religion.
Prejudice is inevitable is undisputable. Peoples are brought up in a different setting, live a different life experience. Globaliszation and internet have so far unable and unlikely to be able to lead all of us to a life through a common life experience and the eventual adoption of a common value and creed (presumably this reduces prejudice but not able to exterminate it - seen from the American history and human history at large.)
It is perhaps not inappropriate to state that prejudice is a natural condition of human being. Therefore, any attempt to conquer it or overcome it, as you pointed out, is courageous and is to be applauded.
I question the existence of the third setting but I definitely agree with the proposition that against fear and prejudice, we must take side in favor of hope and in favor of being open minded (as much as possibe) and that we must start with ourself.
(My concession for the third setting is the setting of indifference, in addition to the dichotomical setting of prejudice against the setting open mindedness.)
Turning to Suadad's article. Her experience at the airports, at the UN HQ's entrance are not too different from many others who passed through the US's immigration check point. It is more of a difference in degree rather than in kind. It is therefore not difficult to empathize with her.
Suadad, through her examination of her own prejudice, she yields a sentiment of hope for understanding and acceptance of diversity. She spoke admiringly of New York, yet she dislike washington. The irony of America is really, it is itself a contradiction, a large country with pockets of open-mindedness as well as many pockets of prejudice. This is the same as in life, in every hope there are seeds of fear and in every fear there are seeds of hope. Hope and fear are intertwined.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dear KY,
I read your posting with great admiration!
Hope and prejudice is easy to understand, but I really enjoy your dissection and questioning of whether there is a third setting of "open-mind". And actually you had suggested the answer which is the state of non-indifference.
One may not view any person or any issue with the setting of "myside" or "other side" - but simply as a non-thinking-being!
Frankly, non-thinking-beings are common place; where life becomes a series of reactions to any external stimulus strong enough to breakthrough the chatter in the person's mind. I would even say that is how most predjudices escapes from. Few people show their prejudices as a pre-meditated act; I think that would be called hatred!
Hence if we ask ourselves how do we deal with prejudices, getting to "open mind" would be the natural first step.
You got me thinking whether every view necessarily a prejudice? I concluded otherwise. The distinction lies not with the 'opponent' or the existence of an opposing view but rather with the basis for the view within the person himself. First question is, was the view conscious and from an open mind? or a sub-consious non-thinking reaction? Second question is to ask whether the view was based on a positive nature of respect, understanding and compassion? or simply from fear and anger?
On that basis, while I agree that hope and fear are intertwined, I would respectfully disagree if it is contended that they are two side of the same thing. By analogy white light can be broken into a rainbow of many colours, but yellow is not the same as blue!
I chuckled when I noticed your mention of "religion". My own view is there should be anti-trust investigations aginst organized religion for monopolizing ideas such as faith and compassion. I find it ironic that these anti-thesis of fear are used in a limiting and divisive manner. More about that later!
KH
Anti-trust against freedom of faith, this will be a controversial topic, awaiting earnestly.
Hahaha! More like anti-trust on the unfair control of universal concepts like 'faith' by organized religious groups.
Post a Comment