July/August 1998
Articles on the theme "Pride & Prejudice"
Prejudice Can Kill
by Patrick Plaskett
Why is some pride good and some not
so good. What is the connection between pride and prejudice.
Loving Authority
by Barbara Bedingfield
Teaching children to become selfless individuals, having a sense of gratitude,
and able to show care and consideration for others.
The Same Only Different
by Bob Gonzalez
Of astral travel, contact with the
departed and the interpretation of dream symbols.
Random Acts of Kindness
by Rev. Pat Cross
Discarding human attitudes and recovering
our oneness with God and each other.
The Magic of Differences
by Judith Sherven PhD and James Sniechowski PhD
Maybe it is not what we have in common
but the differences that really make a relationship.
A Threat To Survival
by Cydné Su Battreall
A battle with cancer. How pride and
prejudice can get in the way of making rational decisions.
Forgiveness and Compassion
by David Simon
A discussion of the origins of pride
and prejudice, and the nurturing of their opposite attitudes: forgiveness
and compassion.
No Room for Pride or Prejudice
by Dr. Audrey Craft Davis
On the importance of being able to
stand alone as an individual, so that one can enjoy a relationship free
of pride or prejudice.
Unlimited Vision
by JoAnne Gregory
Freeing ourselves from the limitations
of restricted points of view to create a reality of our choice.
Personal Pride and Legal Prejudice
by Constance Felos
Dreams of the good life, earthly dreams,
bad dreams, possible dreams and the ultimate dream.
Too Much!
by David Findlay
How going to extremes leads to the
negative aspects pride and prejudice. Underlying roles and identities.
Other Feature Articles
Natural Health Q&A
by Elizabeth Fenton and Renee Gillombardo
The psychological and physical benefits
of walking, plus other factors that affect our mental health.
What is . . . Hypnosis
by Alvin Bartz PhD
What hypnosis is and what it isn't.
The benefits of hypnosis. Some common misconceptions.
Too Much!
by David Findlay
Pride can be good or bad. Prejudice, which literally means "pre-judgment", should also be good or bad. In modern English, however, the word "prejudice" has taken on negative connotations: "adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand"; "unreasonable preconceived judgments" (American Heritage).
What is it that makes Pride and Prejudice good or bad?
This raises an even more profound question. What makes anything good or bad?
Now, we're in really deep water! The subject of philosophical debate that has gone on and on for centuries. Not something we are likely to be able to resolve here!
So, let's be practical and attempt to come up with a workable answer.
The Chinese believed in the Golden Mean: "the course between two extremes" (American Heritage). In other words, the ideal is the middle path between the extremes. Going too far in any direction would be bad; keeping to the middle would be good. Take, for example, a dichotomy such as "creation" and "destruction". Imagine a city. Too much creation, without any destruction, would lead to chaos. Too much destruction, without any creation, would lead to no-city. What is needed is a balance: a certain amount of creation balanced by a certain amount of destruction.
This may not give us a nice black and white answer, but then most of life is not black and white -- rather, shades of gray.
So, let's have a shot at Pride and Prejudice.
Both require a sense of identity or ego. (Isn't it interesting how words color things? "Identity" is usually good or at least OK, whereas "ego" is usually bad -- though actually we are talking about the same thing.) If you are proud, or proud of something, you have to have a sense of YOU. And, if you have formed a pre-judgment of something, again there has to be a sense of the YOU who is doing the pre-judging.
Now, this may be an illusion! If we are all part of one Supreme Consciousness or one God, then a sense of identity or ego is an illusion that we pretend to take seriously.
An illusion maybe, but a necessary one if we are to play the game of the physical universe. So, let's assume -- unless you wish to destroy the whole physical universe -- that some sense of identity is "good".
We all have and play roles -- not just one, but many. For example, I have the roles of being a man, of being a husband, of being a father, of being editor of this magazine, of being the writer of this article etc., etc. From the assumed viewpoint of a particular role one makes judgments, and many of these become pre-judgments. When I edit an article many pre-judgments come into play. For example judgments about the type of magazine we are trying to produce. This I would regard as both necessary and good. And, if one produces a good product or does something which is generally regarded as valuable, a certain amount of pride is fine.
However, going back to the Golden Mean, too much of anything is bad. If one takes the "I-am-good" or "I-am-great" to an extreme, it easily becomes "I-am-better-than-you". This would be pride in the bad sense of "an excessively high opinion of oneself" (American Heritage). And pre-judgment, in the sense of prejudice, can easily become "my-view-is-better-than-yours" or "I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong". These extremes lead to extreme actions -- for example, physical violence, crimes and war.
The solution lies in recognizing that we are all intrinsically One -- or drops of the Ocean -- and that the roles (identities) that we assume are only roles that we play for a while and then let go of. If we do this, it becomes impossible to take excessive pride in what are, after all, only roles; or to be stuck in pre-judgments (prejudices) that are only relevant to a particular role.
One useful exercise is to "assume the other person's viewpoint" -- or, at least, try. Difficult to hate someone or hold a negative view of them if you do this.
Take, for example, a criminal. It is easy to assume the proud and prejudiced view that "this man is evil and needs to be punished or locked up" -- in other words separating oneself from him -- without realizing that this is in fact punishing oneself. Now, assuming the criminal's viewpoint does not mean agreeing with him! No, I don't believe that people should be allowed to go around stealing, raping and murdering. However, if one can assume his viewpoint, it becomes possible to understand him. And, then -- and only really then -- can one consider ways and means of helping him play other roles that are socially more acceptable.
One way to practice "assuming the other person's viewpoint" is deliberately to go out of your way to put yourself in situations that "force" you to view things differently -- at least for a while. Go to a different church. Talk to someone you normally would not associate with. Read a book on a subject you normally would not read. Watch Jerry Springer (joke!).
The more viewpoints one can assume the better. After all, isn't God really the Totality-of-All-Viewpoints?
David Findlay M.A. is editor of "Tampa Bay New Times"
and also a certified trauma specialist with a private practice in Clearwater,
Florida. (813) 449-8964. E-mail: david@altnewtimes.com