My Conflicts of Interest — Imagining Our Futures
What do you do when someone you hold close has differing political and social beliefs? This isn’t a rhetorical question, please let me know if you have a good answer.
In situations like this where tensions and emotions can run high, my tendency is to avoid the subject. I know it’s important to stand up for what you believe in and debates are healthy, but honestly I truly hate confrontation. Particularly when it comes to politics and social views because they are so personal. I’ve always struggled with this at home with my family. But I look at my experience in college and I think of it as a place where broadly, many share similar beliefs. It’s not a secret that most of my classmates and professors share these opinions and we assume that we do. I realize this and revel in the comfort it gives me to not have my beliefs questioned and tested every day. However recently this comfort has been tested and has caused me to look at my own personal biases and those of the people around me that I ignore because they generally align with my beliefs.
When a professor cracks a joke about Republicans or Donald Trump, I giggle and don’t think anything of it because I have probably made a similar joke or had thought along those lines. But I did not realize until recently how isolating that is to students who have different beliefs. While I cannot morally understand why people belief certain things, it is not necessarily my right to judge whether they are right or wrong. As a friend said to me recently, every belief is just an opinion. We cannot force the people we care about to change their views, no matter how much simpler it would make our lives. Further, I wouldn’t want to change them because a person’s beliefs are so much of who they are as a person. So if I care about that person, their reasoning must be somewhat comprehensible.
This conflict I am feeling reminds me of what Engelke’s describes to be the issue of “immaterial materiality” in The Problem of Presence. The Saturday Apostolics that Engelke lives among and interacts with are adamantly opposed to using material objects like the Bible in the practice of their religion. The church wants to remain without these influences to preserve the “live and direct message.” However, things such as a church constitution and a manner in which to organize money is crucial to the survival of the church. Thus, they have reached an impasse. Engelke concludes, “However momentary these objectifications ought to be, the problem is that ‘human nature’ can take prophets off track by compelling them to try to extend these moments into lasting states.” (Engelke 247) The prophets of the Saturday Apostolics need to find the balance between this “immaterial materiality” where they do not revere the object as it opposes their beliefs, but the objects are necessary to their successful existence. The conflict the prophets experience could be likened to what a college professor might feel. They may feel a material conflict with expressing their opinions to their students but the immaterial conflict of standing true to their beliefs.
In conducting this research, I know I need to find a way to recognize my bias and rectify it with the intent of my project. This project will be inherently biased because I am choosing the subject and who I will be interviewing, however I want to keep myself centered. The issue is that I don’t exactly know how to do that while keeping my project focused. I am questioning whether I should interview students with different political opinions but I know that this could cause a strange discourse in my research. Trial and error may be the best way to find the path for my project that will create a clear and full picture.
