by Laura Ellen Shulman
How to strike the balance between community and individuality?
Think in terms of how people live...
The "Sphere of Existence":
Each of us is as a sphere whose center is the smallest immediate point of our consciousness and the circumference is infinitely far away. Our awareness can expand infinitely outward to encompass more and more of what is, broadening our horizons, enlarging our understanding. Being infinite, this sphere of our existence includes everything that is. Beyond the very center, where we reside alone, our existence merges with that of family and friends, of that part of the world which we encounter, which enters the sphere of our awareness. Expanding outward ever further we become aware of our unity with all humanity, with all life, with the universe, with a reality beyond even that - to the place where everything is one in the single sphere of all existence, of all that is.
And we call this sphere "God" and we and everything are it!
At the very core of our own consciousness where each of us exists unaware of anyone or anything else and no one else is aware of us, we each exist in our own world (the womb and the newborn's limit of awareness). As our awareness expands our world expands to include others and others include us in their world (I am in you and you are in me). And our worlds, at that point, are one.
One sphere, many centers - go figure.
One sphere, many centers?
We each stand alone but
in becoming aware of others, of other things in the world, we include them
within the scope of our perception/world and, in being aware of us, they
include us in their world and so our worlds overlap and intermingle, becoming
one world/sphere (world community). But each world started from a different
point, a different perspective (a different person). And in between the
world community and the individual person are countless more or less limited
communities of various sizes, the larger ones encompassing the smaller
ones (as family "communities" live in a neighborhood community and neighborhood
communities exist within in a larger city).
This entire theory can
be imaged by drawing a series of concentric circles. The center of all
the circles is the same center and that center is the individual. The various
circumferences represent the smaller and larger communities that individual
is a part of. If the individual can expand his/her sights to the circumference
of the greatest circle, s/he knows his/her existence as an individual within
the largest community which includes all other individuals.
Identity:
It seems that most people
get their sense of identity from the community they are a part of. We talk
about "cultural pride." I will agree, it is good to have pride in oneself
but not to the detriment of others. Often "cultural pride" manifests itself
by placing one's own group above other groups.
I think the best way to
have self pride is to get your identify from within yourself. If
we can do this then we do not need to identify with a particular
group, we do not need the uplift that community identity gives us if we
know who we are independent from anyone else. "Know thyself" said Socrates.
This is a high ideal but once achieved, we can then know that self in a
larger context that is not fenced in, not limited. Ordinary people
who get their identity from their group would lose their identity
if they left the group and went off on their own. One who has "found him/herself"
can feel free to broaden one's horizons, to mix and mingle with people
from various groups and never forget who they are.
Perhaps it is ironic that
to know oneself as a unique individual actually enables one to know
oneself in relation to any others. To know oneself as a part of
a particular group means that one only understands one's identity in light
of that group.
I think personal (spiritual)
growth would mean that we understand who we are from within rather
than from without (from our community, from society). Once this is achieved
we can love anyone, not just those in the "in" group.
Similarities and Differences (a dialogue):
Perhaps the first step in communities getting along is acknowledging the difference.
First to tolerate,
then to accept and, ultimately, to overlook the differences.
But too often when people acknowledge (are aware of) the differences, this
is actually what causes them to build "walls" between groups rather than
bridges. I think a more productive way to build bridges between groups
would be to acknowledge similarities first and then appreciate
the differences as of secondary significance to similarities.
I think the secret to
building good intergroup relations is to identify ourselves with the largest
common denominator, with what we have in common (similarities). I think
that is of primary importance. Acknowledging differences is secondary to
this and can only be beneficial when the similarities have been acknowledged
first. Without recognition of our similarities, acknowledging differences
tends to be more a hindrance than a help.
Whenever I meet a new person I always find it easier to "connect" once the similarities are identified.
And wouldn't it be wonderful
if we could make that same connection with people who did not share
such mundane similarities with us? If we were to look beyond the superficial
similarities of our external experiences and recognize the more basic similarities
that we all share by virtue of being human, or of being living beings,
or simply by virtue of existing in the one universe... Well then, we'd
be able to connect with any human being, with any creature of the earth,
even with an extraterrestrial. Without this recognition of the highest
common denominator, we allow room for fear of the unknown to enter. We
can either say "I know you" because we share such and such in common or
we can say "I don't know you" because we do not see to the deepest level
of what we all share in common - our origin in God, our continued connection
with God and, by extension, with everyone and everything else.
And the similarities
also become more significant because it is the similarities which continually
reinforce one's sense that we are all one - that we all have a common origin
and common goal.
Similarities and differences...
Both are real but what matters is which we emphasize. It is a matter of perception. To focus on the differences is to separate yourself out from others. To focus on the similarities amongst the differences is to connect with others. The more basic the connection, the larger the group with which you connect (see yourself a part of). The more basic similarities are the most universal. It is a matter of not confusing the relative and the particular for the universal.
How could people who have totally different beliefs live together in community? Because of the diversity of the world, we can build communities with folks who we share common beliefs. That doesn’t mean everyone who lives in my town has to agree with my beliefs, it means I’m free to build a community within a community.
I think the notion of "community within community" is the key to understanding how people with diverse beliefs and approaches to life can live peacefully in community: I don't think there are any two human beings who have "totally different beliefs" or lifeviews. After all, by simple virtue of both being human beings we already have something in common. It is the most basic common denominator which gives us the framework of our largest community. Within that community, we can and do make smaller communities with people we have more in common with. But these smaller communities should not, in my opinion, cut us off from people in other smaller communities. Nor should we be at odds with those other communities because all those communities are part of the one, largest community which, despite all our differences, unites us on that most basic level. It is by focusing on the basics that we can learn to live in peace and cooperation even as we continue to live in separate, smaller communities.
As the Native American Sioux, Black Elk has put it:
"And I saw that it was holy."