Universalism and Color Translucency

 I believe in universalism. That is, I believe what connects us as human beings is more important than what divides us.

The inherent worth and dignity of all persons. That all persons are entitled to dignity and respect. It's not a new belief. It's not an easy belief. Conceptually it's quite simple. And yet I don't think it needs revision. I don't think it needs an asterisk. I think universalism is a concept that can endure across time and across space.

The love that I feel is not different than the love you feel. Nor is the pain or the suffering or the yearning. Nor is my flawed nature. My mortal nature. My limited nature. We are different in so many particulars, and yet we share so much in common as human beings.

Put it another way. I think our common humanity is more important than our hyphenated humanity. We are different races, genders, sexualities, ages, and capabilities but none of this should divide us irreconcilably. It is possible to connect across these differences to find ways and paths of mutual understanding and appreciation.

Let me talk briefly about racism as I understand it. At the same time, I don't want to claim any special expertise, just the level of knowledge of a concerned and aware citizen. It's very clear that racism has a long and troubling history in the United States. It's also clear that racism is still present. As is anti-semitism and anti-immigrant bias.

But I don't believe that racism is somehow inherent in American culture. I don't think I would characterize the United States of this day as much more racist than any other place or time on the earth.

I feel like we are under the illusion that there can be some kind of final accounting for all these past wrongs. There's no way to make right all that has gone wrong in the past. There's no way to account for all of the wrongs of the past. There is no final accounting in the moral calculus of the universe. We are flawed creatures. There will continue to be wrong. There will continue to be racism. But I'm not sure that thinking so much about race is the best way to realize our universalism, which is our true equity on this planet.

It seems that I'm a flawed messenger for this message. I am white, male, straight, and cisgendered. I have all the appearances of the dominant culture. How can I possibly understand what it's like to be oppressed?

But I think as moral human creatures we all know this analysis is flawed. It's true, I can't know what it's like to grow up black or gay. I don't claim to. But what I do have is ears and eyes so I can hear and listen to the stories of others. I do know what it's like to be Jewish I do know what it's like to be married to an Asian-American and to have biracial children. I know what it's like to be severely ill and to be nearly incapacitated and unable to work.

Honestly, I don't think it makes any sense for one person to compare their suffering to another. There is no winner in this contest. Compassion doesn't come as a prize to those who suffer the most. Rather, compassion is a spontaneous grace. It's a miracle. When compassion comes at all, it comes because our hearts and minds are ready to be open, not because someone is more deserving or someone is less deserving. We are all deserving of compassion. All human beings suffer.

I don't think we need to dismantle our institutions. Any more than we need to undo specific people. Sometimes people are good and sometimes people are bad. People are never all good or all bad. It's more accurate to say that people have good behaviors and bad behaviors. It is more useful and instructive to be specific about behaviors that are helpful and harmful. We don't pass final judgment on people because they're incapable of reform.

The same goes for institutions. Institutions can be made better. But to dismantle them, to take them completely apart and throw away what we've been given, whether what we've been given in terms of democracy, or in terms of higher education, or in terms of unitarian universalism, I don't want to dismantle any of these things. These institutions are the achievements of generations. They're not abominations. They are blessings. Do they need reform? Absolutely! Could they be better? No doubt. But on the whole, I think the institutions we've inherited are worth a great deal. I'm not ready to scrap hardly anything. I want to be part of the continuous journey of improvement and openness to new truths, but there are few institutions I am looking to dismantle.

Honestly, I don't think we need entirely new technologies or vocabularies. I don’t think we need new modes of thought to reach a higher level of justice. I do think we need to listen more. I do think we need to center those voices that haven't been heard. I want to read more from African-American authors and Asian-American authors and so on. I want to see their stories more. I want to see their art more. I want them to be in our pulpit. I want them to be part of our communities. And by “our” let me be clear. I don't mean “white,” but I do mean “Unitarian universalist”.

I don't think we need entirely new linguistics to achieve equality. I don't think it's about having the right words or using the right acronyms. I don't think there's a series of boxes that we get to check and be safe. I think it's okay to start the journey towards greater equity with the language we have now. I don't necessarily think we need new words. Of course we're always learning and new ideas are always coming up. But this idea that if you don't speak in the right jargon, you're not speaking the language of justice; I just don't buy it. I think the language of justice is a plain language, it is an intuitive language. It's not some kind of arcane scholarship available only to the select few. It's the language we already use to speak to each other when we're speaking with respect.

But the technologies we need for greater justice and for greater understanding are essentially not new technologies. They are the technologies of reading and writing. The technologies of conversation and dialogue. The technologies of contemplation and deep listening. The technologies of art and music. I don't think we have to reinvent ourselves from scratch. The tools we need are the tools we already have. We just need to start drawing the circle wider.

And in my mind it is so essential that we meet on the grounds of universalism. That when we meet whatever it is we can consider to be the other, whatever it is that we haven't yet understood or heard, we have to meet that other as equals. We have to meet it on the firm ground of our own feet: That is, not ashamed or embarrassed or in an attitude of atonement, but in the attitude of ourselves comfortable in our own skins. How can we have a dialogue with someone different than us without starting in the ground in our own skin? That's exactly what dialogue is. It goes two ways. I and thou, we both speak, and we both listen. The ground of equity is a level ground where everyone is able to stand.

So what is it I'm trying to say? Maybe it sounds entirely uncontroversial. Maybe it sounds like common sense.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe we have to reinvent everything from scratch. I think we've actually come a really long way. That the old values and ideas of Unitarian Universalism really are not outdated. I think we should be very careful about discarding pieces of our heritage that have proven useful. Yes, I do mean the seven principles. It's not just something that was written once a long time ago. It's something that we keep referring to almost every week to understand who we are. And it's something that points me in the direction of justice. Not away from it.

And I guess I'm saying I'm concerned about our obsession with identity culture. The assumption that the largest part of our experience is shaped by race or sex or sexual orientation or other visible markers of identity. There's a long tradition in Unitarian Universalism that says exactly the opposite. That an individual cannot be known by these markers. That an individual cannot be judged by these markers. Yes, there is a reality to discrimination and the experience of it; we all need to hear that. But I don't want to reduce any person to the discrimination they've experienced. I want to see them first as a sacred soul, as a center of mystery. I want to see them as a person with all of the unknowns that includes. And I want them to see me that way too. That relationship between two people who see each other's equals, that is universalism, and that I want to hold on to and not discard. I think that is the path that's going to lead us to healing rather than trying to account for all the wrongs that have been done and all the injustice that resounds throughout the ages.

I've spent a lot of time trying to understand the inequities in our culture. Reading books. Reading articles, reviewing surveys. I've been on the diversity, equity, and inclusion committee of my academic department for about five years now. I've attended annual diversity, equity, and inclusion summits for five years. I'm concerned that with all this effort we're not headed in the direction of healing. I’m concerned that we as a culture are becoming too concerned with certain kinds of suffering and not concerned enough with other kinds. I'm concerned that we're chasing after a level of equity that might only be possible in the next life. We need forgiveness as much as we need correctness. I'm concerned that some of us are trying so hard to act in the right ways and use the right language that we've lost ourselves in the process.

I think our universalist philosophy is a more promising ground for healing than that of identity culture. This is not to say that we can ignore the categories of discrimination but rather that we don't necessarily need to obsess over what category a person is in. We see them as a person first. I don't think we want to achieve color blindness. We want to achieve color translucency. We want to see the color they are and acknowledge it, and to see how that might have affected their experience, but also to see through it to the person within. We are each of us so much more than our list of identities. They are part of us, but they are not us. And what does any person want more than to be seen? This is the great honor that we can do for each other. And it is grounded above all in universalism. This is a heritage we can be proud to carry forward.