Two Types of Community Conversations
When I think about what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist and how that might change, I think about two different ways of having conversations.
If the first way, we start from the principle of universal human equality and human dignity. We start from the approach that the search for truth is grounded in love. This is based upon our current Seven Principles.
Based upon these principles, all voices will be given equal weight and an equal chance to be heard.
And those listening will endeavor to listen charitably, with an ear to acknowledging and empathizing with what each speaker says.
Under such conditions the growth of mutual understanding is possible. While agreement will not always be reached, we can build community through this process of recognizing each other, including recognizing our very real differences.
In the second way, we start from the assumption that all verbal interactions should be seen through the lens of unequal power. People of color, women, and LGBTQ people have not had their voices heard enough; whites, males, and straight people have dominated the conversation too long. We need to hear more of the former voices, and less of the latter voices. Not all voices are equally welcome or are equally legitimate.
In this second way, we filter all speech by examining it from the perspective of potential harm, or "microaggressions," to disadvantaged groups. Every word should be examined to see if it is reminiscent of unwanted stereotypes or a kind of slur against such groups. Words or phrases that might make someone upset would be removed or objected to. The importance of individual words and phrases outweighs the intent of the speaker or what they were trying to say, because what is heard and how it might be harmful matters most.
When people speak, instead of their speech being listened to with charity and empathy, it is listen to with judgement and evaluation, with a focus on whether their speech is perpetuating unequal power dynamics or rectifying them.
Under such conditions, some people who have not gotten a sufficient chance to speak previously may be empowered. But only at the price of silencing or marginalizing many others. Some would argue this marginalization is justified as a way of redressing unequal treatment in the past.
Under which set of conditions would you prefer our fellowship operate? Under which set of conditions do you think we would best be able to find the truth in love?
Comments
How we communicate and listen to each other is vitally important and an area that needs constant, ongoing focused attention so that we may truly hear differing opinions and points of view. In some ways, this is the most important work any group can do with each other. Certainly, I favor the kind of conversation you outline above in which all voices are equal. There is one caveat, however. When I aim to learn about the experience of people who have very different backgrounds from mine, I want to hear directly from them.
I believe this is a very challenging time for free speech in our country, and particularly on University campuses. Free speech has come under attack from the left, as you described in your post when you detailed the "second way" of having community conversations, as well as from the right, in terms of the actual substance of what can and cannot be taught in our schools at all levels. These issues cause me great distress, as I can tell they do for you.
I urge you to stay here in the present with us at our Fellowship, and not spend too much time in fear of a bleak future where these issues are concerned. I have not experienced the "second way" happening at our fellowship to date, but perhaps you have a different experience. As I've shared before, when I read the actual text of the proposed changes to Article II, I find very strong language supporting the principle of universal human equality and human dignity. For me, the text also supports the approach that the search for truth is grounded in love. I know that a criticism of Article II is that it feels more "activist" and some feel there could be "tests" which UUs would have to pass in order to remain UUs. I just don't see that. Our current Principles call us to "affirm and promote" each one, but I've never been quizzed on exactly what I've done to support the interdependent web of all existence, or the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.
We are a faith tradition that values action and we always have been. We have such a proud history of standing up to injustice. However, that does not mean that every UU must be an activist. We do live in a culture where white privilege still exists, and we all - black and white - are affected by it, sometimes internally, in hidden, subconscious ways. I do think our faith calls us to examine our internal selves, working to combat subconscious prejudices we likely hold as a result of living in our current culture. It also calls us to learn about and protect our environment. These efforts will look different for each person. And sometimes, we are just muddling through and have no energy for any of this work. And that's okay. That's when a supportive community is most important.
The UUA has not always supported people of color as well as they could have, in my opinion. There have been hiring controversies, for one, and I value the voices of the UU people of color as they strive to help us achieve beloved community and fight conscious and unconscious prejudice. I see the revision of Article II, in part, as a response to those voices supporting an eighth principle, but also as part of our living tradition which calls us to regularly revise Article II, and as a response to calls for changes, which have nothing to do with race, to three of the existing seven principles.
I believe fear, not hate, is the opposite of love. I sense the fear you have in relation to the Article II revision, and I acknowledge that is very real for you. I've had periods of time in which fear of an uncertain future led to feelings of intense anxiety and it feels awful to live in that state. I hope that your present experience with our congregation is one of love and mutual respect, and that together we can assure a strong free speech future, in which all voices are equally valued. I hope you will find peace with us in the present, as we live in our own imperfect and constantly evolving community, regardless of what happens at General Assembly.
I haven't experienced anything like this at UUFBR, but I have seen multiple specific examples relative to the UUA that the second type of conversation is quite common there.
I also think the covenant of the new UU congregation that split off from Eklof's church says a lot:
Our Covenant
We, the members of INUUC,
acknowledge this Covenant
to be our sacred promise
of good relations.
In this diverse community,
we choose
to be accountable—
to be present & listen—
to embrace imperfection & curiosity—
and to create a shelter of joy & compassion.