We Need to Be More Protective of One Another and Less Defensive of Ourselves
We are being invited to step out of our small selves, and toward one another, and we are struggling with these birthing pains.
“(Thou) dost protest too much, methinks”— Shakespeare, Hamlet
We have to stop putting lipstick on this pig. There is a huge and growing problem of signaling virtue in the form of “defending” this or that principle, idea, or person, as a means to quash any genuine challenge to our preferred beliefs, desires, and thoughts. We are under strain, being asked to step out of our constrained worlds. This has only amplified divisiveness and disabled constructive engagement. In the name of an alleged self-preservation, we are guarding our separate realities against “threats” which are really invitations to relationship and expansion of our world.
We are each contending with and defending against a growing battery of tangible offenses and differences bursting forth into our besieged mental spaces. This singular, defensive focus crowds out collaboration and empathy amid complex, substantial problems and our own deeper development. Whether by conceit or overwhelm, we are neglecting the important opportunity in us to step out of individual shells of meaning in favor of a new kind of evolution toward togetherness and care, toward a real protection and nurturance, not of our roles, but of our creative spirits that can no longer be contained in these shells.
There is so much in a word. The U.S. President takes the oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” and it is fitting that the founders of American democracy took the time to distinguish these three words. “Preserve” means to save. “Protect” means to shelter and nurture. “Defend” means to successfully turn back an attack. We have concentrated far too much on alleged personal attacks and not so much on the protection and respect, the sheltering and nurturance of one another. Under the guise of “defending” ourselves, our Constitutions, and our positions, we have given ourselves over to attacking one another.
The notion of defense has become inflamed into a passive-aggressive form of offense: “If you don’t do what I say, you are attacking me, and I have to defend myself (or my family, or my “team”, etc.) against you”. This absurd mentality was demonstrated recently when Hollywood bigwig Will Smith marched on to the stage and slapped comedian Chris Rock to allegedly defend the honor of his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith.
The offending remark involved Chris joking about Jada starring in “G.I. Jane 2” because she had a shaved head. What Chris Rock apparently did not know (I certainly did not), was that Ms. Smith has a condition, alopecia areata, or spot baldness that necessitated the shave. Unsurprisingly she was triggered. And even though Will Smith initially laughed, he changed his tune pretty quickly when he picked up on his wife’s feelings.
You see this same “presumed defense = justified offense” in so many other areas, and it is a regressive trend. Some perceived offense, or even simple misunderstanding, now has become a rationale for violence or retribution. Some of you may remember the Cheney Doctrine (also known as the One Percent Doctrine) as a justification for attacking Iraq. The doctrine states that even if there is only a one-percent chance of something happening in a potential “low probability, high impact” event, you have to “treat it as a certainty.”
This philosophy was used as a false pretext for attacking Iraq and costing hundreds of thousands of lives and 2-4 trillion dollars (and counting). The defensive/offensive “cure” was clearly much worse than the disease. Short term you feel like you are acting decisively. Long term you are destroying lives and credibility. Will Smith will likely be saddled similarly with the repercussions of his overreach.
The same Cheney mentality applied to “defending the national interest”, not yours or mine, mind you, but that of oligarchs and billionaires in preemptively controlling Iraq’s oil and attempting to install “democracy” (i.e. corporate crony capitalism) at the point of a gun. Do you see the warped line of reasoning? Once you claim “defense” as a pretext for pre-emptive attack, even when the other party has done nothing (except offend you, set off your fears, or get in the way of your ambitions), then there is no longer any rational constraint. You can attack, claiming defense, against anything you disagree with, feel uncomfortable with, or desire to exploit. This kind of false defense begets opportunism: Maybe you can grab some things for yourself while you are busy “defending” yourself.
We need to stop going down this road. The first step is recognizing the above distortion. The second step is discernment between legitimate “protection” (sheltering and nurturing sovereignty and well-being) and illegitimate “defense” (imposing your will on others for something you feel rather than what they have done). The third step is creating a healthy, pro-active alternative to striking out against those who differ.
You see this dynamic playing out in the Ukraine. Whatever that theoretical arguments are at this point, neither Ukrainian nor Russian citizens wanted the attack. The politicians and leaders who experience NO actual consequences, except to their power balance and egos, apparently have other ideas. They offer plenty of “defensive” reasons for either attacking (Vladimir Putin’s notion the NATO encirclement was aggression) or supplying Ukraine with weapons and aid (the more obvious form of defense against Russian incursion). The only people sane at this point are the Ukrainian and Russian citizens. The so-called leaders are using this war as a strategic game.
Surprisingly, even though Ukraine is the steep underdog, they are holding their own, inflicting heavy losses on Russia. Why is this?
According to commentator, Beau of the Fifth Column (one of my favorite analysts) it has to do with the fact that Ukrainians are “fighting for” their families and their country, rather than “fighting against” an enemy. This is a powerful discernment tool to be used in any situation from war to interpersonal conflict. Are you fighting for a belief, to give it room to breathe grow, or are you fighting against the self-confessed beliefs of others, believing somehow that they are dangerous and need to be extinguished? You saw this same dynamic in the Virginia governor’s race. Democratic favorite Terry McAuliffe lost in an upset to the Republican candidate because he used the “fighting against” Trump as his campaign, instead of “fighting for” Virginia parents and families.
Another discernment tool is the “you choose” vs. “you must” test. Are we trying to protect the genuine choices and expressions of others, or are we trying to “defend” ourselves against their choices by controlling them? You saw this in the mask debate and vaccine debate. First you had “Karens” losing it and destroying racks of masks in department stores. Did they feel “attacked” by the idea of other people having that option? Then you had pro-maskers trying to force everyone to wear masks even when the science shows no real protective effect. Then you had vaccine mandates being perpetrated at the very time the CDC acknowledged that vaccines did not prevent contraction or transmission of Covid-19. Obviously if vaccines only (ostensibly) protect the person taking them, then there is no justification forcing them. “You choose” either way, mask or no mask, vaccine or no vaccine. That is what everyone should be fighting for. That is REAL protection, of civil liberties, personal sovereignty, as well as life and limb.
Yet another discernment tool is the answer to the question, “What is this protective vs. defensive impulse motivated by?” If it is motivated by care, it is bound to be not only positively generated (and constrained) but genuinely protective. If it is motivated by fear, it is bound to be not only negatively generated (in a survival instinct way that justifies anything) but disingenuously “defensive.” Notice also the words themselves. If someone says you are “being defensive", it almost always has a negative connotation. It does not mean that you are virtuously defending something important from an attack. It usually means you are oversensitive, insecure, and blowing some petty offense out of proportion. Now contrast this with if someone says you are being “protective.” This has a universally positive connotation, and only turns negative when used with the modifier, “overly protective.”
Is your concern long-term or short-term. Long-term leans toward “protective” and short-term leans toward “defensive”. When the defensive “urgent” always overwhelms the protective “important” you can be assured you will get a spike of self-righteous clarity followed by buyer’s remorse. Many people, driven by fear or over-credulity bought the Big Pharma “miracle vaccine” narrative (“completely safe and effective”), failing to question its profit motive and exercise patience and vigilance as the science and data came in. They joined “team vaccine” and that was that. Now the data is largely in and cover-ups are being revealed. Real protection requires real results and data. Defense, on the other hand, tends to be driven by sentiment and investment in a particular position. This same discernment tool applies in “hopeful” arenas as well. One of my biggest past weaknesses is over-optimism around politicians who claim to be progressive. Barack Obama passed himself off as a populist, community organizer, but once he got elected, he shut the door and toed the corporatist line. Now, for me, if results don’t happen, I don’t give money and I don’t vote for the candidate.
Protection is developmentally oriented. When people are vulnerable, we want them to be able to go through their growing pains and awkwardness and failure in ways that can allow them to learn without catastrophic injury or trauma. If that person is a child being bullied, for instance, we step in for just this reason. Now compare this to the growing class of schoolchildren who are encouraged to become entitled brats as a result of parental conceit that their kids can do no wrong. These kids’ culpable behavior is justified no matter how destructive or dishonest under the rubric of “defending them and their rights.” You begin to see the problem. These kids and parents ARE NOT being attacked. They are being called out. False (defensive) righteousness is foreclosing an opportunity for learning, humility, responsibility, and better relationship.
It is this last part, relationship, that really is the litmus distinction between protectiveness and defensiveness. Relationships are meant to be fostered, grown, and protected pro-actively and co-creatively. Relationships require work, risk, vulnerability, stretching ourselves, and perseverance. Personal defensiveness requires none of these. We can be as self-righteous as we please without any effort— simply by sitting back in our easy chairs with our symbolism and Netflix.
In short, it is time we grew the hell up, and embrace the tough but gratifying work of relationship, where we are willing to stand by each other whether we agree or disagree, because we recognize the right of each of us to learn and make mistakes, to try on certain beliefs and work through them, to experience what we believe to be “the good,” and to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The only thing we are defending ourselves against if we don’t choose this high road is our own maturity. Dynamic growth and full embrace of the “good” ought to gain precedent over being statically “right.” Yes, as individuals and as a striving humanity we will take plenty of risks and make plenty of mistakes along the way.
Let’s have each others’ backs.
Thank you Zeus, great message! It is a strange time right now that people are finding it easier to verbally attack than be kind, we all have to remember that kindness is easier on our heart and soul than hatred. Thank you for another great article!
Great points. All of this reminds me of the idea of being self-righteous which is especially strange in times when it is more and more difficult to discern what is true and what is not. Yet so many people insist they are the only ones who know the 'truth'.