Friendship in Disagreement

There’s a lot of division in our world. Political, moral, religious, historical and cultural division. How should we approach these divisions in everyday life? What attitude should we bring to our interactions with people we fundamentally disagree with? I truly think that something like a universally acceptable “pedagogy” is possible to articulate. It would go something like this:

The first step would be to find common ground with the other person and capitalize on it. By the mere fact of being a living human being among other fellow living human beings, there is always a fundamental commonality that can be discovered. Differences can run deep, but an honest and hard search is bound to yield a space of common accord. A space where “being of one mind” is possible.

The second step is recognizing that the putting into practice of the first step points to the goodness of unity, the goodness of the concord and peace it brings, and, therefore, the worthwhileness of seeking it out. In fact, the second step itself can be the subject of the first: we can agree that it is a good thing to strive toward unity, toward a fundamental and principled agreement.

The third step is to be honest about the second step: a half-hearted—even duplicitous—concession for the sake of “getting along” will not provide genuine unity. It will only provide a temporary and superficial truce that will not last and could even turn into resentment in the long run. In other words, the third step involves being honest about where there is NOT unity and being clear about it. Like a doctor treating an infected wound, it won’t do to simply cover it as if that will make it go away. The infection will develop, and a worse problem will be on our hands. Working through division requires both a common ground and a clear diagnosis of where there are fundamental differences.

The fourth step is accepting the fact of division and not trying to force it away. Imposing unity through force will not provide concord but create fear and suspicion. Imposition would turn things into a totalitarian dynamic which makes unity impossible A PRIORI.

But this in fact leads directly into the fifth step: agreement IN disagreement. Even within the very division itself a unity, a concord, can be established. Of course we all hope for a world of complete unity with no division, and we even strive for that world, but it is not our world. In the meantime, the mere fact of accepting the situation and of accepting the other’s freedom can be an expression of good will which is much more effective in the process of unity.

The sixth step would be to allow the tension of this unity in division to be experienced as a suffering by both interlocutors. If there is genuine unity in the midst of genuine division, then the experience should naturally be one of pain and suffering. Yet the quality of such a suffering is absolutely unique: it is the suffering that results from a desire for unity where there cannot be one. In other words, it is an expression of love—and it leads to the final step.

The seventh and final step is compassion: i.e., suffering in the division WITH the other person. In this way, a profound unity of wills emerges in the midst of the division. This is a unique and beautiful kind of unity that would not have been possible without the division. Living this com-passion can have hidden seismic effects on communities and cultures and can open up a path toward more profound and cathartic instances of unity in the future.

Maybe in this extremely divided world we are called to enter into this movement of com-passion more and more. Maybe this is how we can make a difference that truly matters, a difference from which we can grow exponentially as living human beings among other living human beings.