The Crossroads of Contradictions
I'm a human. I'm a man. I'm a son. I'm a brother. I'm a friend. I'm a citizen. I'm an employee. I'm at times religious, at times an atheist. I'm all that and many more at once. But.
I have no doubt that I can play all these roles well. But can I play them well all at once? Aren’t there times when they come into conflict with each other?
What if I need to fulfil the duties and obligations of multiple roles at the same time? Take for example a scenario whereby I am called to attend to a friend in need at a time when I'm needed at home to support my family, while also required at work to do what I do to make a living and make my contribution to the wider society.
Which role of mine should take precedence in this scenario? You could argue that it depends on my priorities, that if my priority is my family then I should de-prioritise the other roles I play to favour one over the rest. If I do this, it would make me a good son, but it also risks making me a bad friend, a bad employee and a bad citizen. Is that acceptable?
Sometimes you simply cannot fulfill the demands of all the roles you play. There will be some harsh choices to make, ones which scratch the skin of your conscience. It is one of the few masterplots of life; it occurs throughout time in everyone’s life. It never gets old or loses its potency.
Shakespeare’s play "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar", for example, is essentially about Brutus' struggle between the conflicting demands of honour, patriotism, and friendship, ie, should he or should he not act in accordance with his conscience and betray Caesar to do what he feels is right for the society. In the end he chooses to betray and kill Caesar, and we can debate the morality of his choice forever. He will always be a hero to some and a villain to others.
We will find ourselves at such crossroads repeatedly on our journey of life and at times the choices will be stark. On these occasions, I think there are three ways in which we can respond:
a) by choosing to do what we think is right;
b) by choosing to do what is popular; or
c) by choosing to do what is easy, ie, the course of action which is the easiest to execute logistically - this may mean doing what is popular at times, but it could also mean refusing to act, turning a blind eye, keeping quiet, etc., to avoid the situation.
The first option, always doing what is "right", will rob us of the flexibility needed to succeed in the material world. Do we need to speak the truth all the time? Do we need to call others out on their behaviour all the time? Do we need to put on display our moral uprightness all the time? There is a saying which sums up the dangers of this approach neatly: straight trees are the first to get cut in the forest.
The second option, always doing what is "popular", will rob of us of our own peace and contentment. We’d feel weak and incapable of asserting our will in this world. After all, the principles of integrity, honour and duty require us to to speak out against the popular will.
The third option, always doing what is "easy", will make us look like an opportunist who is always on the lookout for the best deal. This is where most of us land. Yet always doing what is practical will neither satisfy our thirst for moral rectitude nor the urge to win the affection of the people.
Therefore, I would argue that the best way to navigate the dilemma posed by the conflicting demands of our roles is by shifting our response on the above paradigm - sometimes doing what is right; sometimes doing what is popular; and sometimes doing what is easy. This is the most practical approach because the consequences of being at the extremes can be too high to bear.
Needless to say, it is a struggle to straddle the chasm between the spiritual and the material life, and an even greater struggle to reconcile our actions with the ideals of each pursuit. The only practical solution, therefore, is to not to ditch the extremes entirely, but to hop between them.
