We see things not
as they are, but as we are. -- John Milton
 |
| Do you see the old woman or the young woman? |
In
2011, I learned a difficult but essential life lesson in perspective. Someone
shared with me the following quote, which I now try to keep at the forefront of
my thought processes in interpersonal relationships: “We see things not as they
are, but as we are.[i]”
In this essay, I will draw from a literary strategy to convey the drastically
disparate conclusions drawn from two or more perspectives, a biblical mandate to
treat others as one desires to be treated, a social contract theory of
authority and government, and also posit the dangers of judgment when operating
in the schema of one’s own perspective. Ultimately, we must extend the benefit
of the doubt to those who hurt us, offer grace, mercy, and forgiveness
unconditionally where wrong has occurred, and most of all seek to understand
before looking to be understood[ii].
This is the only loving and Christ-like response to offenses, great and small.
Weaving
a story through the lens of differing characters or images is a powerful means
to communicate that the same event in the same space and time can be
interpreted radically differently by different people. Where one may see a
scene, conversation, or image and impute one meaning, someone else will see
something differently. This is most simply portrayed by the dualistic images
that simultaneously show both an old woman and a young woman, for example, and
different individuals will naturally see different elements and design in the
image. It can be difficult for the individual to find the alternate image after
the first is already impressed in his or her mind.
In Atonement,[iii]
author Ian McEwen effectively spins a scene that occurs between an adult man
and woman struggling insignificantly over a vase that then breaks and falls
into a fountain. The woman sheds her outer garments and climbs into the
fountain to fetch the broken glass pieces. The man stands in observation,
shocked and taken aback by her unexpected and indecorous behavior. The reader
receives the story first, “objectively,” receiving the scope and the facts of
the situation.
At
the same time, a young, naïve and impressionable girl is watching, unbeknownst
to the actors. She constructs a fantasy about the interaction involving her
older sister (the woman) and the family’s gardener’s son (the man). While not
inherently harmful at this time, the fantasy hardens into a reality for the
young girl, who does not grasp the nature of romance and attraction between the
sexes. This basis for her ongoing observation of the man and woman does spiral
into dangerous and fallacious accusations that will later cause grave harm to
the innocent man. The girl observes a later physical romantic encounter between
her sister and the man, attributes violence and brutality to him, and when an
unrelated murder or rape occurs, accuses him of committing the violent act, and
he is found guilty based on her testimony.[iv]
In this case, the girl’s erroneous misperception causes lasting and irreversible
harm and injustice to an innocent person. Her following unachievable quest for
“Atonement” is the namesake of the book; one can never atone for such an error,
no matter how innocently made, in this life.
While
drawing conclusions based on one’s perceptions seldom have extreme consequences
such as are found in this masterful story, the lesson to be learned is that, by
no fault of one’s own, one’s perceptions are necessarily colored by age,
experience, intuitiveness, culture, and innumerable other factors. One must be
judicious in maintaining awareness that their sensory and experiential
observations are filtered through self; the most effective way to overcome
barriers of personal perception is to be self-critical of our subconscious and
aware of our limitations.
We
are given the following Biblical mandate in the Golden Rule: “In
everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up
the Law and the Prophets.[v]” This is the rule and the benchmark for our interpersonal relationships:
how we speak to others, share sensitive information, praise or criticize, and
how we treat other people’s property. Each person should behave in every
possible situation toward others in a manner that would please and bless
himself or herself: love your neighbor as yourself.
Inevitably,
though, this will lead to conflict, as every person will have particularities
and differences in how they wish to be treated. One individual may want to be
always “drawn out” into conversation, where another may desire to be left to
his or her thoughts. Individuals may have different standards of reasonableness
for household chores and duties. When each individual treats others and their
objects as that individual would want his or herself and objects to be treated,
one will encounter conflicts, bruised sensibilities, and problems. This is not
a matter of disrespect, laziness, or acrimony, but is a true and honest result
of someone trying merely to follow the sensitivities and standards one imposes
on and desires for one’s own self.
The
Golden Rule as applied to human beings as social creatures also necessitates
authority, hierarchy, and rule enforcement on a large scale. Man in its natural
state of nature, absent hierarchy and authority and governance, will encounter
incontrovertible conflict. John Locke has one of the most positive views of
human nature, and his social contract theory is based on the notion that man,
pursing his own good interests in a generous and benevolent manner will still
encounter deep conflicts. One man pursuing his interests, respectful of others,
will at some point conflict with another man pursuing his interests, respectful
of his neighbors. This is why an arbiter is needed, and a centralized authority
and system of rules arise to govern the conflict when two well-intentioned
neighbors reach an intractable conflict. This is where government becomes
necessary, and can be limited to instances in which cooperation must be
brokered and enforced between two “good” interests that have reached a
standoff.
Even
with the best intentions, and following the Golden Rule according to one’s best
understanding of how others want to be treated (based on how one wants to be
treated), conflicts still arise. Everyone will be on both ends of this dilemma
at one point or another, whether it is
the person feels “picked on” by another’s well-intentioned attempt to “solve
their problems,” or the person who is accused of a motive he or she is truly
innocent of or oblivious to. It is
therefore harmful to relationships and limiting to oneself to draw judgments
and conclusions as to another’s behavior without seeking to understand their
perspective and motive. The truism goes: seek to understand rather than be
understood. Sometimes people are motivated by selfish desires or the intention
to hurt another, but often times they are not. It is the duty of one person to
another to understand his or her perspective before casting judgment.
There
are few things more damaging to relationships between lovers and friends,
parents and siblings, than the offended party projecting motives upon the other
person(s) and being unwilling to entertain alternative perspectives, reasons,
and motives behind the offense. Many times the offense may have been
unintentional, or the motives were far removed from the intent to hurt the
injured party. An unwillingness on the part of the offended to engage and
extend the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator of the offense is unloving
and unkind, the gravest transgression in any relationship. Reserving judgment and
maintaining openness to alternative explanations and the other person’s
perspective is absolutely fundamental in a healthy interpersonal relationship
of any kind.
Most
relational issues can be greatly resolved and reconciliation achieved when
individuals approach a situation where an offense has occurred with a
willingness to examine the perspective of another person. When an individual engaged
in a conflict holds the mindset that “we see things not as they are, but as we
are,” one maintains a comportment and orientation toward grace, mercy, and
understanding—the building blocks of personal healing and wholeness. These are the elements of the gift that Jesus
Christ extended to us when we stood before him blackened by our sinful nature.
Without
Christ’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness, we don’t have the capacity to offer the
same to our brothers and sisters. If we claim his grace, mercy, and
forgiveness, however, we must without exception unconditionally offer the same
to our brothers and sisters. As brothers and sisters, though we may tiff and
squabble with one another, it is beholden on us to seek out the perspectives of
others to enhance and fortify our own understanding and achieve reconciliation.
Failure to do so violates the Golden Rule and keeps one trapped in the limits
of one’s own perception and perspective. This is a barrier and cage of
ignorance preventing personal growth and development in wisdom, insight, and
understanding. Dear God, please explode
the myopic little boxes of our minds and let us enter into communion, empathy,
compassion, and understanding of the perspectives of others.
[i]
(John Milton, Paradise Lost).
[ii]
(Proverbs 18:13: He who answers before listening--that is his folly and his
shame; Also, St. Francis of Assisi: Prayer)
[iii]
Ian McEwen: NOTE- I have only begun reading this book, so any analysis is based
on a small portion of the text and what I assume will come.
[iv]
Again, I have not read this far into the book, but based on what I know of it,
this is not too far from the plot. Regardless of how true it is to the book, it
is a fascinating story and endpoint for the misperception.
[v]
Matthew 7:12, NIV
