Internalized Quakerism

Those familiar with oppression theory know that it assumes that all people, even from privileged groups, internalize both beliefs that are held about their group and patterns of behavior that are common to their group.  I’m writing this as someone raised Quaker grappling with what I see to be my “internalized Quakerism”―both the good and the bad―of that.  My ex-partner met me when he was 33 and he said I turned his head because he’d never met anyone who’d been raised as a pacifist and with the values of equality, simplicity, and integrity – everyone else he knew in the peace movement had made their way to finding  these things.  He said “It was just sort of knit into you.”  It is, and I’m glad of that; my joke to people is “I chose Quaker parents to save myself the time and trouble of finding Quakerism.”

However, over the years I’ve come to realize there are ways of looking at the world through a solely Quaker lens that, well, at minimum are “different”―some might say have a “downside.” One thing is that being raised with the idea that there is “that of God in everyone” and urged to look for it; nothing was said about being aware of that “not of God” in others.  I have learned, partly the hard way, to recognize that people can make choices in ego, vanity, pride, greed, rage, jealousy and hatred―and those choice are not of God and represent a turning away from God.  I absolutely believe in redemption, that no one is beyond returning to God’s love and God’s healing and direction, forgiveness, if you will. 

However, that belief in redemption does not really provide guidance for anticipating that others will, sometimes predictably, choose or otherwise be impelled to act out of “that which is not God.”  I sort of wish my Quaker parents had provided such guidance before adulthood (and thus I write this partially for all readers who are parenting Quaker children).  I wish I’d been told, “look for that of God in others, also notice whether they stay close to God or stray.  Invite forth that of God in them always, but don’t deny the truth, or sugar coat it in yourself.  Ask the Provider’s guidance and protection when you face that which is unfaithful in others.”  I think I would have less wear and tear marks on me if I’d been told that.

On another happier note of internalized Quakerism, I’ve realized that a sense of political potential or empowerment is something I get from Quakerism. Being an activist I see how few of my fellow citizens have this sense of efficacy. Going in and out of Quaker business meeting all of my life has taught me, 1) we can make decisions―even important ones, 2) it is your duty to have a voice and speak the truth and, 3) you can make things change even as only one person!  These are powerful profound messages!  Think about what it is like to function in other areas of your life: your work place, your neighborhood, your relationships and to believe that it is possible to change things.  That sense of possibility is, I think, one of the gifts of decades inside Quakerism.

Because the Quaker values of peace, justice, equality, etc., are congruent with American liberalism, another internalized trait of Quakers is a fairly unexamined liberal bent. I mean by this that there is a permeable membrane where perhaps there should not be one.  Ideas, campaigns, and norms from American Liberalism enter into our thinking and our awareness somewhat under analyzed – and with little consideration of whether they come from, or belong with, the life of the spirit.  An example would be the assumption that we will have (are entitled to?) a typical American life style: a college education, a job, a home, etc.  Such a belief in modern Quakerism may actually stand in the way of perceiving or being faithful to calls for Holy Obedience that would bring us into conflict with the authorities and threaten such a life style.

American liberalism, substituted uncritically for Quaker values, would also argue for a form of tolerance and permissiveness that would make no demand of our fellow member.  It adopts an almost co-dependent posture where literally anything goes, where we must accept any mentally ill behavior, any religious behavior brought in regardless of its non-Quaker nature, or any violation of our actual value-set―all in deference to the liberal norm of acceptance of all.  Lost is the sense that we are a gathered and faithful people, called by God and asked by God to stand for certain values, to wrestle in love with those outside that which God asks. 

Perhaps the most important aspect of internalized Quakerism for me has been my internalized expectations in the encounter with others for process and the disappointing results of this.  It has taken me years to recognize that when a decision needs to be made involving another (partner, friends, co-worker, groups of any kind.)  I straightforwardly state my opinion or idea and then sit back waiting to hear other ideas, opinions or at least reactions.  I have been fooled many a time by their apparent agreement and willingness to adopt my thoughts without discussion.  Imagine my surprise when later I’m informed that I had been “opinionated” or perceived to be arbitrary, taking charge, etc.  In self-defense, I have taken to trying to warn my non-Quaker peers ahead of time that my statements of opinions should not be seen as coups d’état, but this warning has not been particularly useful.  My surprise has also run the other direction when I have entered a group assuming that all our opinions were welcome or desired, only to have it be made known that decisions would be made elsewhere and not inclusively!

I also see that this internalized Quaker expectation for process has permanently and deeply impacted my leadership style.  I never assume that I will make the decisions or say what will happen.  I have no solo leader model, only a facilitator model―a facilitator so bound to group, that without group nothing happens.  In any group, I naturally (whether leader or not) seek to elicit others’ opinions, look for what I can hold up and affirm in what others say, and look for ways to bring the group into unity.  How great, you say!  Well, yes and no; it is great for the feelings of the group members.  But for the groups unfamiliar with this process, unaccustomed to having their opinions sought, or untrained in how to bring differing opinions into unity, this cans seem bewildering, scary or at worst a huge waste of time.  The democracy model with which they are all familiar demands a vote and on to the next thing.  Thus, those who look to me (or to other Quakers) for leadership in the wide world may actually be frustrated by our ponderous process―or in some of my more frustrating situations Quakers may simply be pushed aside for more traditional top-down leadership.

It has taken me more than 50 years to consider that perhaps if I want to be effective in the world outside of Quakers I may need to be more individually decisive, I may need to learn to lead by example, to claim my ideas, to persuade when necessary, yet still I ask how can I empower those who’ve never been empowered to make decisions to be part of the process themselves?

Recently I was looking with a F/friend who has been Quaker for about four decades at her astrological chart.  We giggled together about how Quakerism has softened or blunted her inborn tendency to blurt things out, to grab the ball and run down the court with it, to ignore others opinions.  So certainly internalized Quakerism looks very good on many of us.  What about you?  How have you internalized Quakerism?

This article was published in Friends Journal in Dec. 2013