Beyond the Boundaries: A Look at Ists and Isms - By Sharon Flood Kasenberg

ISTS:

The pessimist sees every flaw
and therefore always doubts;
the anarchist's disdain for law
will keep him on the outs.
The optimist is so upbeat
that he tends to annoy
for he will not admit defeat
and greets each day with joy.
The realists are pragmatic
and see things as they are,
but extremists are fanatic
and take things way too far.
The elitist thinks he's better
than just the average guy,
he's an A-list jet-setter
who hopes to heaven buy.
Revisionists, those editors,
delete what lacks appeal -
and terrorists are predators
with missionary zeal.
A narcissist is self-obsessed
with love enough for one,
and a defeatist is distressed
before the day's half done.
Hedonists think that pleasure
is all we should pursue;
perfectionists are never pleased
with anything they do.
The pacifist believes that peace
should come at any cost -
the pugilist will never cease
to fight, though rounds he's lost.
Theologists keep seeking God,
believing He is there;
while atheists are under-awed
and haven't got a prayer.
I can't be an apologist
for all humanity.
I think perhaps we'd co-exist
a bit more peacefully
if we spent time emphasizing
the common traits we share -
and we practiced empathizing
and demonstrating care.
But we tout our ists and isms
and let them us define -
although they induce schisms,
you have "yours" and I "mine".
I'm aiming to be humanist
in my philosophy -
to be more strict economist
with own theosophy.
In striving for indemnity
we're learning to transcend
our ist and ism enmity;
we're learning how to bend.
And though opinions I may air 
through criticisms here,
I'm hoping you'll my viewpoint share  -
one truth, to me, seems clear.
In spite of our diversity
we really ought to find
a little equanimity
with all of humankind.

By Sharon Flood Kasenberg, August 30, 2014

Human beings are a mass of contradictions. We pay lip service to political correctness while our behaviors too often indicate that we are anything but tolerant. We wave our political and religious views like red flags before us, inciting the irritation and wrath of those who hold other beliefs and opinions. We actively push our philosophies in public venues in hopes of winning over those around us. We are all ridiculously wrong headed about being right.

There was a time, and not so very long ago, when it was considered bad form to discuss religion or politics in social settings. The rationale for this was that social settings provided opportunities to be sociable - to pass the time pleasantly interacting with one another. That can be difficult to do when people become aggressive about imposing their "ists and isms" on a captive audience.

I blog about a wide variety of topics. I like to share my opinions and observations with anyone who wants to read them. However, two subjects I refuse to tackle are religion and politics. My views on those subjects are my own, and not about to become part of the public domain and thus subject to the scrutiny and criticism of the masses. I don't want to be defined by theological beliefs or political leanings. In truth, I hold to a personal set of religious beliefs that are mine alone, and I've voted across the board. Age has granted me experience and opportunities to see that we are all unique individuals. We do not necessarily believe everything the person in the next pew does, even if we do sit in a common congregation. We may not join the political party of the candidate we voted for. We may not wish to define ourselves with an ist or an ism. We may not want to limit others' impressions of ourselves through broadcasting particular religious or political affiliations. Perhaps there are many others who, like myself, just want others to get to know us as individuals before first impressions are muddied by sharing more divisive opinions.

I've come to believe that the world is full of hot buttons just waiting to be pushed. A lot of those buttons can be found on Facebook. Status updates have changed a lot over the past half dozen years. What started with people sharing tidbits about their daily routines has morphed into a somewhat nasty, free-for-all forum where many rather forcefully impose their ideologies, while implying that those whose ideas do not mesh with theirs are simply too stupid to understand "the facts". And lets face it, those "facts" are in a constant state of flux. Google has become adept at tracking our online exchanges and searches, and will now offer each of us the tailor-made "evidence" of our superior intellect and discernment (just Google "filter bubble" for an education). While I can handle people sharing information about a cause that matters to them, I grow increasingly irritated by those who expect me to "like", "share", "re-post" or (worst of all) sign a petition to forward their cause. I don't like the assumption implied that I feel the same way they do - or that I would share their passion for the cause if I was as smart as they are. Furthermore, I feel that I'm being put on the spot - I'm being measured, and may ultimately be found wanting. 

You see, I'm only too well aware that (for many people) sharing opinions isn't enough - they want to know others feel the same way. And sometimes they don't. These people want to convince those around them to embrace the "truth" as they see it. And most times they won't. To those people I offer three little words - get over it. I've been learning this lesson the hard way most of my life - it is a fact that nobody really needs to agree with me. Those who refuse to see things the way I do are every bit as entitled to their opinions as I am to mine They are still (mostly) good people, and we don't need to see eye to eye to care about each other.

I have grown tired of seeing people hide behind their ists and isms - tired of witnessing, and experiencing, the insularity that results when we expect to spend our days surrounded by those who echo back our own dogma. In fact, I'm pretty tired of dogma - period. I think a lot, I believe some things, but I've come to the conclusion that I really don't know much at all - and I'm fine with that. It is oddly liberating to admit to ignorance. I don't want to waste my days arguing with those of you who think you've worked out the answers to everything. I'd rather spend my time on social media being sociable. (I know that sounds like a tall order, but I believe it's possible.) And when I actually see you face to face I'd prefer to spend those precious hours focusing our conversation on what we have in common, rather than on those things about which we disagree. Whatever divisive views we may hold, we can, and should, still be able to find commonalities - we should at least be able to disagree agreeably and get along.

We really don't need to believe alike, or think alike, to love alike.

So if I'm going to be defined as an ist, let me be a pragmatist who believes it just makes more sense to accept, and even try to love, those who view the world differently. Let me be a humanist who has faith in others and their ability to find common ground, for the common good. If I must be defined by an ism - if I need to enroll in a school of thought - I'll choose optimism. Some of you would choose differently, and that's okay.

Feel free to disagree, but I think it just makes sense to maintain hope that we can move beyond the self-imposed boundaries of ist and ism.