Many years ago, I sought advice from a priest about how I could become less abrasive towards views and values that didn’t resonate with my own.
Alongside the local Church of Scotland minister, Rev Neil Urquhart, Catholic priest Fr Willie Boyd was a spiritual mentor of mine, and both embodied their faiths in a way that seemed ideal.
As a young journalist in Scotland at the time, I followed their story as they worked to bring communities together to celebrate differences and heal divisions. They released short films and songs under the moniker The Shoes Brothers.
I confided in Fr Boyd that I viewed myself as open-minded and accepting, but I had the sense that this wasn’t always true, and wondered how he developed his calm and accepting manner.
He said, “When I was a school chaplain early in my priesthood, working with young people made me realise I was more concerned with telling them my truth, rather than helping them find their own.
“Isn’t it handy? We all just happen to have the right values and standards and beliefs – it’s just everybody else that needs to change their thinking.”
Recently, I read an essay, 16 Psychoanalytic Concepts For Our Time, by American psychologist Jonathan Shedler, which he introduced online by saying, “... the 2020s are the culture of splitting and projection”.
Splitting is the tendency to see people, situations, or groups in black-and-white terms: good or bad, right or wrong, trustworthy or untrustworthy. It becomes difficult to recognise that someone we disagree with might nevertheless have good intentions, or that someone we admire might behave badly.
For example, we might initially regard a public figure as wonderful, only to discover they’ve said something objectionable. Suddenly, that person becomes entirely bad, and everything they’ve previously done is dismissed.
Projection occurs when we unconsciously attribute feelings, motives, or characteristics that we struggle to recognise in ourselves to other people.
Someone who struggles to acknowledge or accept their own hostility, for instance, might accuse others of being aggressive or hateful. They typically genuinely believe they’re defending themselves against other people’s hostility.
These processes can reinforce one another. We divide the world into good and bad, identify ourselves with the good, and locate the qualities we’d rather not acknowledge in those we’ve labelled bad.
We’re all capable of these qualities, and we’re all equally capable of denying them within ourselves, especially when we feel threatened, ashamed, angry, or insecure.
These psychological concepts have been around since before the time of Julius Caesar, but in the age of social media, they become amplified as it becomes easier to find information that aligns with what we already believe (and therefore easier to dismiss “the other”).
In my conversations with Fr Boyd, he offered some wonderful advice, which I’ve shared below and adapted to include social media. He said that, while I wouldn’t always get it right, I should try to extend the same consideration toward others as I’d hope to receive from them.
Fr. Boyd also mentioned that the advice that follows doesn’t just help our relationships with people, but reduces a lot of our own stress and agitation as we develop more openness and understanding.
Allow space for complexity: When you find yourself making a sweeping judgement about someone, consider whether you’re seeing the whole person or reducing them to a single characteristic. You can disagree strongly with someone’s behaviour while recognising that they might have qualities you respect.
Think about your own reactions: If someone provokes an unusually strong response, ask yourself what you’re experiencing. Why does this particular person irritate you so much? Is there something about their behaviour that you recognise, however reluctantly, in yourself?
Hold off on responding immediately: Social media encourages quick, moralising reactions, especially when something makes us angry. Before commenting or sharing, give yourself some time. Ask whether you’re responding to what was actually said or to what you’ve assumed the person meant. Stepping away from a discussion allows the emotional intensity to settle – and helps us realise we needn’t respond to everything.
Make room for other perspectives: Think about spending time engaging with people who see the world differently, particularly those capable of expressing their views thoughtfully. Try to understand how someone arrived at their position before deciding what you think of it. We don’t have to abandon our own position, but it helps us to accept that ours isn’t the only way of thinking about the world.
As I write these words, I’m reminded of something else Fr Boyd told me during our conversations, which is similar to the excellent advice I received from Fr Paul Cheong in Cheras, here in Kuala Lumpur, in recent years.
Both said that none of us is perfect, and we can’t expect to be, but the point of any kind of reflection is to think about how we can do better and do our best to put it into practice. In an age of splitting and projection, it’s the perfect advice for all of us to consider.
