According to Charleston, acceptance of diversity is central to community, and embracing individuality is central to the acceptance of diversity. “Entering spiritual community,” writes Charleston, “does not require us to give up anything we believe. It does not mean that we have to lose our own identity. We can still be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim. We can still be politically liberal or conservative. We can still practice our own traditions and values. It only means we have to accord that same right to others and we have to defend that right to ensure justice for all.” This because “[w]e are not different; we are the same. The light exposes these false divisions and helps us to recognize one another for what we are: brothers and sisters in the great tribe of human beings.” By creating such a community, we allow “[d]ifferent visions [to] be unified for the common good,” and enable a “variety of visions [to] reveal a single goal.”
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE all of that, and I think it's right, but I'm still a little confused, and I want to get clear about my confusion not because I'm opposed to Charleston's vision, but because I find that vision so attractive.
I think I have three big questions:
1) How can we simultaneously assert that we are not different and that we value diversity? Would this involve distinguishing between our true essence (which we share) and superficial differences (which can generate “false divisions”)? And, if we do that, do we risk understanding other people in a way that does violence to their self-understanding – by saying (for instance) “I know you’re conservative, but that isn’t who you really are?” or “I know you’re transgender, but that only a superficial part of you?”
2) Can everyone practice their own traditions and values while according that right to everyone else? What if Group A’s values are so incompatible with Group B’s values that allowing Group B to practice Group B’s values would force Group A to not practice Group A’s values? We see this dynamic playing out every day, I suspect. Charleston’s use of the concepts “oppression” and “bigotry” might point to this. Charleston sees community as a “unified reaction to oppression or bigotry.” But this unification can’t include everyone because it presumably can’t include the groups that that endorse practices that we consider oppressive or hold values that we consider bigoted – even though those groups probably don’t see themselves as oppressive or bigoted, and might, instead, see us that way.
3) A variety of visions can reveal a single goal, but can all visions reveal a single goal? If so, what is the goal that all visions reveal and is it sufficiently concrete to motivate collective action? (Is it something more concrete than, say, “Everyone should have a good life?” which is consistent with incompatible views of what a “good life” is?) If it’s not the case that all visions reveal a single goal, does this put limitations on the sort of diversity we can accept?
Perhaps it’s questions like these that lead Charleston write, “Community is how we hold diversity in equilibrium. … Doing this is not easy. It requires our commitment and our willingness to learn. A diverse community is a constant learning experience. It is a school of awareness, a center of intellectual exchange.” And that, I think, is PROFOUNDLY right.
To be honest, I usually find it impossible to raise questions like those I asked above, because I know that they can sound critical, or "too intellectual," or "too academic," or a hundred and one other bad things. But when Charleston says that intellectual exchange is needed, I feel like he wouldn't mind them.
These are deep questions. I appreciate your honesty and candor. It was Charleston's comment on page 76 that stood out to me.
"A spiritual community is more like a labor union." Together our community is working together for a common hope from a variety of backgrounds. But I agree with you Dona- how do we come to a common hope? How does one group background impact the hope of others? I am often baffled by how people can see homelessness or hunger and not feel called to help. It will be wonderful to discuss these questions in person. Would anyone be interested in a midpoint meeting? I would be happy to meet for coffee next weekend.
Wow, Dona, many deep thouhgts there for us all to ponder. I wish I had answers, but I suspect answers are not easy to come by. Maybe that's what makes this book so interesting and challenging. We can all read the same 14 pages about community and have different take aways. I think that's diversity in action.
I do want to highlight his quote on page 82 - "practice undisciplined smiling." I did try that for a couple days and not only did it improve my outlook, I think it did the same for those I gave huge smiles to!