“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Juliet ~ R&J Act 2 Scene 2

The teenager was musing about the nature of a name (Romeo’s) and how the meaning isn’t in the order of the letters but in the understanding attached to the name by our collective experiences and values. The Hatfields and McCoys held their worldview, desires, and hatred in their respective names’ identities. Do we, can we, should we add so much weight to the words we associate with ideas?

In the polarity pandemic and cancel culture of October 2021, it seems that we default to ‘names’ rather than difficult dialogue. This month’s experience has seen me branded and positioned me to brand others with labels that separate rather than bring us together. I have done it with people I disagree with regarding COVID-19, vaccines, equity, politics, economics…

The feud becomes the new norm, and stepping back from our firmly held positions seems impossible. I can disagree and not be disagreeable. I can listen and reflect and learn without being convinced. So can everyone else. Even if there isn’t measurable movement towards each other, entering into dialogue shifts the tenure and tone.

In the past, I have asked questions to fill my quiver with ammunition to construct a winning argument. Asking questions to understand is probably a better approach unless shouting across a chasm is my goal. Can I hold opposites in tension? Am I okay to feel the tension?

I am better at living in tension with people that I don’t know well. I have less to prove and less history to remember and confirm. The dialogue between acquaintances or even strangers embraces the nuance of social convention. I speak, you listen, you speak, I listen. Under most conditions, we acknowledge the position or opinion and either add or respectfully contradict by stating where we are coming from on the subject. In the best case, we part having something to consider and the possibility that we may never see each other again or revisit the discussion again.

I feel tense and awkward with family around essential subjects because it is more important to protect the relationship than to have my views heard and acknowledged. I recognize that whether or not I state my case doesn’t change the big picture with the people I do life with. While I am okay with alienating folks outside my personal circle, I am insecure about pushing too far and creating a chasm with those closest to me.

There is an illogical conclusion that I am deriving from the data. My analysis is corrupted because I care about my partner, my family, and my friends. The people who love me unconditionally and who I will love regardless are the ones that I am fearful of offending. I am unwilling to risk losing them, so I am less frank and forthright. I take the ‘leave well enough alone approach.’

As I write that last sentence, I recognize that I am okay with not dying on every hill. Not everything needs to be a battle. There are probably fewer reasons, fewer hills, and fewer battles. With some learned discernment, I can just let go and only take on one or two differences.

Thanks for riding this wave of exploration by allowing me to process all this outside my head.

B