By Peter Christensen

Op-Ed Commentary

Karen Armstrong, one of the finest living writers on religion, is a passionate and persuasive advocate of compassion. She writes, “…we can only truly have compassion for others when we first have compassion for ourselves.”

Most certainly if we punish ourselves for not achieving every goal or desire that drifts into our target-driven consciousness we will have a disappointing existence. That said we should not be too hard on ourselves. It is not wrong to have goals to work toward; however, one of those goals should be to give ourselves a break from the frenzy of desire. 

Armstrong argues that humans are tempted to blame others for their failures and project their short comings onto others by feeling anger and resentment toward them when really it is the frustration with the “self” that is the source of our anger.

If we examine our motivation for these feelings of disrespect for ourselves and for others we discover that our shortcomings are typical human traits. We are not alone in our feelings of disappointment, others have the same struggle. When I reflect on my ‘given’ character traits I get some distance from them. It allows me to feel compassion for my “self.”

Compassion is a much broader idea than feeling sorry. Compassion comes from living in the present and witnessing what is going on around us. It can be awakened by watching characters in a movie with whom we sympathize.  Even though these characters are often bigger than life they have good and bad character traits with which we empathize.  

And really, what is this “self” that can be so hard on us? Neuroscientists can find nothing within the activity of the brain that they can pin down or identify as a “self” or “soul.” Maybe this habitual preoccupation with the “self” is a habit? Are we reacting to something that does not exist? 

Maybe by putting preoccupation with the “self” aside we can reflect on the idea that our attitudes are influenced by various cultures or collectives, that we are geopolitical artifacts shaped by ideology, philosophy, thought, creed, dogmas, belief and ultimately by ideas that call us to action. 

Ideas come to us from a multitude of sources. If we are to retain our fundamental values our ideas need to be evaluated, not an easy thing in a society that is more and more made up of collectives that put their goals and beliefs ahead of agreed upon rights of the individual. 

We are living in a time of mass migration and cries for restitution. People from many geopolitical backgrounds are seeking ownership, freedom and asylum. They have left their native country or have formed domestic collectives to seek protection, reward and refuge from the confines of collective beliefs that limited their opportunities in the past. 

As difficult as it seems, is there a universal context that we as people believe is important? In Canada we have embraced the idea of multiculturalism and multiple nations and from this have reasoned that identities are more important than merit, that collectives are more important than individuals. However, reason can be ambiguous and should be tempered with compassion.

For instance, there are ideas embedded in our Constitution such as ‘Common Law’ that protects the individual from collective prejudice. (‘Common Law’ is the idea that if a law is applied and thought to be fair, then all are subject to that law and it will be applied in the same way to everyone.)  

A larger cosmopolitan framework of ideas that protect the rights of the individual is needed to prevent the breakdown of the greater society. Grievances continue be heard and decisions made to address them but when applied they should also benefit the greater society.

As Gourave Jaswal so eloquently put it in his essay on Canadian self-loathing “we should not sacrifice truth for ideology.” It is far too easy to see things in terms of extremes and opposites.

Opportunists present reasons that polarize and arouse simple action. But things are not simple. To break away from ‘isms’ there is a need to consider that there are good and bad consequences as a result of both good and bad actions. 

Collectives, be they political or corporate understand that distinction and prestige are acquired through cultural recognition; they jockey for power and status while claiming to be altruistic. Collectivism is no less a dangerous road than extreme nationalism; both lead to conflict, disillusionment and the abandonment of our humanity.  

Real solutions depend on truth-telling, acceptance, diligence and compassion. It requires we put our desires and ambitions second to a greater idea called Canada that evolved from tribal conflicts, colonial times and the migration of people seeking a better life for their children.

A lot of people unwittingly or not accept the idea that Canada is a place of peace, order and good government; I hope these ideas are the greater context within which we evaluate our desires. 

Having just witnessed the debacle of the American leadership debate our need to remain reasonable and compassionate is greater than ever.

– Peter Christensen is a Columbia Valley based writer and poet.

Article Share