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
This article was published in Friends Journal in Dec. 2013
