Change; Relationships, Empathy and Understanding

There was once a professor who held up a book for his class to see. “What color is this book?” he asked, and all responded “red!”. “No,” said the professor, “this book is black”. The class proceeded to argue with the professor about the book; it was obviously red! Was he colourblind? He was probably just an old idiot! As the class looked on, the professor then turned the book around; the side towards him was in fact black. This example is a good explanation of how lack of understanding can split and divide. Through the lens of “change”, people who do not understand will not be willing to fight for what they deem an opposing view. The best way to bring about change is through human relation and mutual understandings and goals. This can, however, be very difficult or can come across as controversial rather than beneficial. 

Although it may seem stupid, sharing and bringing understanding to people of why this change is needed is the best way forward. Take this example: a white man may look at a black man as someone of less worth. If he stays in the “us and them” mindset, he is prone to staying with these beliefs. If these men get to know each other, say they are both married, are fathers, enjoy movies, both grew up in California, etc. there is a connection point and relation. The story often goes “I didn’t know we were this similar!”. The white man is so much more likely to stand by this relation than be convinced by a shouting group outside his apartment complex. It may seem unfair, but humanity is the way forward. A great example of this in action is Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. In this letter, MLK strives for understanding between himself and his opposition, using logos and pathos to create scenarios both groups could relate to. His proper language and explanations goes to show that he is respectful in arguing. He stands for what he believes while still treating his opposition as equals in value. Through these conversations, he is more likely to gain respect and therefore power to speak and change minds to see what he is trying to achieve. With a shared goal, change is easier to accomplish.

People are often told what to think and say, which may make their barriers even harder to break down. Through media like photos, paintings and art, ethos is more likely to speak directly to a person; “one picture says more than a thousand words”.  Harsh words may fall on deaf ears, but any person can look at the hunched man in Black Belt by Archibald Motley and think “hey, I know that feeling. I wouldn’t wish that on someone”. Photos, paintings, songs; these all connect with the human experience and connect people across race, gender, etc.

When taking all this into account, it’s important to note that it is not an easy task for the challenged group in this equation. It’s an uphill battle when everything you stand for is labeled as lies and controversy, and when someone oppresses you, your first reaction is probably not to sit down and hear them about their grandchildren or their last vacation. It also seems immensely unfair to be the “bigger person”, aka. treat someone in a way they don’t necessarily deserve. In this case, the Bible speaks of mercy.  Luke 6:27-28 says “ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you”. The same way God’s love can change our hearts, so can mercy change other people which in turn bring about a greater change.

If change goes deeper into relations and is expressed through media as human experiences, again shattering the mindset of “us and them”, goals and values will be collective and there will be efforts to bring them about. This may be difficult as one fights to be the bigger person and seek connection with the people who oppress you, yet the way people react to relation vs. confrontation says a lot about how to bring about change. People are more likely to change through love, empathy and relations rather than blatant words and arguments that mean nothing in the “us and them” debate.