Conviction or Curiosity

With signs of an ever-increasing fragmentation of the public discourse and a polarised political rhetoric, it seems timely to explore the merits of the phrase “to have the courage of your convictions.”

Don’t get me wrong, standing for something is important, but are there caveats to what and how we stand for that ‘thing’.

If you asked someone who grew up in a secluded village in China that was cut off from the rest of the world what language is spoken in other countries, it is highly likely that they would have great conviction that the world spoke Mandarin. Swap out China for Spain, Somalia, Australia, Uzbekistan or anywhere else in the world for that matter. We all draw on the bubble of our own experiences as a frame of reference.

Ask a person who is a devotee of their childhood faith – what is the ‘correct’ religion? – and the same conviction will be found. Indeed, wars have been waged, won and lost over the conviction that one ‘model’ of life, one culture, religion is better than another. It is a model that has never worked, but if you explore the history books, individuals who challenge the status quo of the day are often vilified, if not actively hunted down. It would seem conviction comes with some very rusted-on armaments.

There was a time, when anyone with the audacity to suggest the Earth was not flat was branded a heretic by positing that the universe did not revolve around the Earth, the doctor who introduced hand hygiene as a way to reduce infections was shunned by the profession, even in organisations and business, those who challenge the prevailing dictates of how ‘we do things around here’, are pilloried in many ways. This was not because what they offer is not needed but because, we allow conviction of how things 'have to be' rule over the humility to name what is not working and the curiosity to try something else.

TRIGGER WARNING: WHAT FOLLOWS ARE NOT POLITICAL STATEMENTS, BUT OBSERVATIONS OF THE ABOVE DYNAMIC IN REAL TIME. As we go through these examples, avoid the temptation to take a side, but rather, observe the dynamic.

The most globally visible case in point of a conviction battle is American politics. Those reading this who are aligned to the MAGA movement will be nodding their heads, saying this is what is happening to ‘us’ right now. They would say that they are challenging the status quo of a model that is not working. Those aligned to the ‘democratic’ ideologies are reading this, in equal conviction that of what the changes signal as the breakdown of the very fabric of society.

• Could there be models of life and/or government that ARE broken and need to be torn down?

• Could there be fundamental values that ARE worth standing for?

Surely the answer is yes on both counts, yet with one-sided media outlets and social algorithms shrouding people in their own bubbles of conviction, people have become so filled with filtered information they are fortified (imprisoned) by the depth of ‘evidence’ they have for their position.

The result is two sides hacking at each other until one becomes dominates the so called ‘moral high ground’, forcing others to keep to themselves.  Verbal wars may look like there are winners and looser, but no one really wins those things, because no one grows from a one-sided discussion. This left and right tug-of-war results in the ‘suppressed’ voice digging into even more extreme positions (be they left or right).

The media are not impartial observers and truth tellers in this ‘dance’, even government broadcasters bring their own ideological bias to reporting. Then there is social media, which is not a friendly, accessible source of truth, instead ensuring we get fed what we want to hear. So where do we turn? Family, religion, culture, education systems, all of these ‘colour’ outside the lines to some degree to ensure their depictions of life are unchallenged.

Unless our approach to enquiry brings equal parts humility and absoluteness, we will never reach the curiosity needed to explore other's possibilities. It's a seemingly binary pairing, but both are required.  

Why humility? – because if you are interested in changing what is broken or improving the quality of life for all people – this has to come with a willingness to completely renounce, walk away from, disavow or relinquish any ideal, model of living that you currently hold dear. It’s easy to point the finger at ‘those people’ who are the problem, but we are all part of the problem and the solution. If you say you want change but don’t bring your own willingness to change ANYTHING, should it be shown not to work, then you are starting with your own blinkers firmly on.

Of course, this is easier said than done. Some won’t even let go of a parking spot, let alone seriously consider walking away from some long-held perspective on life, culture or religion. To be clear, I am not anti-culture and religion, but if we want things to change, how deeply does that commitment run?

One possible way to move past the fervour of one side being right and the other wrong, is to look past their words and to focus on the quality of their life (work, family, relationships, health). Are those espousing ideas living in a way that would be called vibrant and truly caring? Look back to the dawn of time and there is nothing new in human interaction, if a model works, it needs to show that it works, not promote the possibility of it working.

Do we keep building fortresses loaded with evidence that we fire at the other side, or are we able to be humble enough to change something within us – regardless of how radical. 

Bang on about a certain president profiteering all you like, but if you ignore the behaviour of other past presidents, you are missing the actual conversation. It's not an individual that is corrupt but a system that sustains it, yes accountability is critical, but when the call for accountability falls along ideological line, you are being played but something bigger. 

Rage against ‘illegal’ immigration if that is your thing, but you are not looking at what has made immigration work, and also not work, you are missing the nuance. It’s not migration or even certain cultures that are the ‘problem’ – again polarity, conviction, right and wrong, being served up as a convenient distraction.

Like the citizens of ‘Oz’, walking around with emerald coloured glasses, convinced they are living in an emerald city. Polarity happens, not because people are unreasonable, but because we lose the focus on the germs of truth in most positions and end up drained by the never-ending fluctuation between wrong and right.

We need a different marker of truth to get off the see-saw. 

Thus, we come to Humility’s sister, Absoluteness – a willingness to hold a standard for things like care, love, vitality. If we stop measuring ‘ideas’ but how those approaches are lived, we need an agreed standard. This is where it really falls over, because we don’t agree on those standards. 

Care has become conflated with never challenging someone to become their own agent of change. Instead we have models of care that basically confirms incompetence and/or lack of worth. Love has become conflated with being either some knight in shining armour or some kind of wrung out 'giver'. While Love is selfless, it would not leave any party less for the interaction. If what we are doing leaves anyone feeling less, run down, or even feeling special – that’s not love –that’s enabling.

Vitality gets confused with stimulation, drive or an emotion fueled energy level. Look at the energy level of children and you see a body that knows how to have self-sustaining vitality. There is no drive, no stimulants – in fact add stimulants (ie: red cordial) and that self-sustaining vitality crumbles. What leaves adults so depleted that they crave stimulants of all?

How would various policies, programs or opinions stack up, if we had a shared standard for care, love and vitality. What if researchers, policy people, politicians or leaders of any kind, needed to first show us how they live and move those standards? Is that not the very essence of an evidence-based approach?

This is not a call for some socialism utopia where everyone has the same. The practical and material experiences will be different for different people, but qualities of care, love and vitality can be a constant, regardless of age, gender, culture, religion or socioeconomic position.

The reality is there is no ONE way other than together. Different people need different things. There is no equality worth aiming for other than an equality of care, love and vitality. 

Apply that foundation with humility and absoluteness, and we have a breeding ground for real curiosity – without which we will keep beating ourselves across the heads with our conviction.