I’m supposed to be packing because moving vans come tomorrow, but I had to remark on this story in the Washington Post: Most Calif. blacks backed proposition 8: 53% of Latinos Also Supported Proposition 8
In it, Vick and Surdin write:
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 — Any notion that Tuesday’s election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.
This makes me extraordinarily curious about the rationale these voters had on this issue. Is it religious? Or is it that we all need to “other” somebody? A huge body of research talks about intergroup conflict, group affiliation, and the need to establish clear boundaries of others to affirm our own groupness. This is the same tribalism I talked about in the last post.
I question if it is ever possible to overcome this because biologically we’re driven to form groups. It is important for safety, food gathering, and the survival of our genes (our kids.) Even though we don’t have to worry about tigers behind every tree, humans also need the psychological connection to flourish. We know there is cognitive comfort in similarity —and this is not racial but shared perspectives, which can of course be racial, but lots and lots of other things also bring people together into “tribes”: art, music, sports, geography, clubs, status, etc.
If, therefore, we need groups, we probably need to get over this idea that everyone should like each other and just focus on a more basic approach, like right to exist. I wonder if we took the argument to a more basic level of humanity, if we could get past some of the emotional baggage that accompanies these issues which are predominantly about acknowledging any human’s right to be who they are*. (*With the caveat of not doing others harm of course.)
We talk all the time about framing in the media. But framing is just the context of any communication. If gay marriage had not been framed as “marriage,” i.e. challenging a long-standing cultural and religious issues, would it have passed? Do gays need to call it “marriage” or could a new word be used with equal meaning and legitimacy if it would allow the earlier achievement of being essentially married? Once you’re legally united, of course, you can call it whatever you want. I realize that those same cultural values are what embue “marriage” with meaning for everyone, straight or gay and this may not be acceptable to many. I just wonder if sometimes we need to decide the highest priority and compromise on some of the others.
My mother is old and crazy. She isn’t ever going to change. This is really unfortunate. I know her hot buttons and if I need to get something done, I frame it in language that fits her world model. I don’t care what we call it; I want to get it done. My sister, on the other hand, still wants our mother to get her point of view. Not going to happen. And they have the battle scares to prove it and little progress between them as a result.
For better or worse, there are a lot of old, crazy, or just inflexible folks in the world. Would we be better able to make some human rights and social progress if we weren’t so determined to get other people to accept a cultural re-definition, or our cultural definition? I don’t know. I guess it depends on how flexible we are. Your thoughts?
Dr. Pamela Rutledge is available to reporters for comments on the psychological and social impact of media and technology on individuals, society, organizations and brands.
I read this article and I understand your point of view and just compromise on some things, but as many view Civil Unions, they are like a slap in the face and an insult. They are just like the separate but equal. It’s saying that here are your rights but you cannot have the same as ours.
Tim – thanks so much for your comment. I can absolutely understand that to many, Civil Unions are not a solution, but an insult. I hope it’s clear that I don’t think this is an equitable solution. I was just wondering how to make social progress when you are trying to change intractable cultural beliefs of a voting majority. Unfortunately, the biological need for cognitive stability makes changing long held beliefs very difficult, particularly as people age. And there are some people whose opinions will never change–that is true at both ends of every issue. But I was just wondering if the “thin edge of the wedge” approach might normalize the perception of gay marriage so that for those who are opposed, it might become a series of cognitively shorter steps.