Judgment

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about judgment and communication. At the beginning of Burning Man, my friend Owen did a reading for me with an interesting Oracle deck that he created himself. When the reading happened, it was difficult to interpret, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot since then, and it has lead to some interesting reflections. On one hand, he said that the guiding force for me during the week would be entropy – a willingness to let go of negativity (allowing good phoenix-style deaths and rebirths) and an instinctual awareness of synchronicity and magical coincidence. This was definitely the case! On the other hand, he said that my challenge would be dealing with righteous judgment in both myself and others. In hindsight, this has proven to be a powerful omen.

It seems to me like it is possible to distinguish between ethical judgment and righteous judgment. Judging something or someone is always a tricky business, because you’re ultimately making a decision about something’s ontological status. It seems to me that all judgments and perceptions are fundamentally limited; we can know or form an opinion about a person or phenomena based on a limited understanding that we often misrecognize as an absolute ‘truth,’ but the image we have in our mind of the phenomena is never as complex as the phenomena in its absolute wholeness.

In short, we ‘know’ things, but our knowledge is always less whole than our feelings may suggest to us. I mean, really, something as simple as a paper clip is extremely complicated to describe in absolute wholeness. (I’ve done an exercise with technical writing students where I’ve asked them to spend a page rigorously writing about a paper clip – they usually don’t believe they can write a full page, until they stop taking for granted what they think they know about paper clips and start actually trying to pin their knowledge down in concrete terms. Without even taking into account things like molecular structures and subatomic properties, paper clips can be extraordinarily complicated [I’d say impossible] to describe in their ontological wholeness. The map of the paper clip is a representation that can only capture glimpses of the fullness of the territory itself).

To ‘judge’ is to move beyond ‘simple’ comprehension into taking a meaningful stance in relationship to a phenomenon. Simple judgments include labelling a phenomenon as ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ but there are infinitely more complex stances that one can take. As I see it, judgment requires both knowledge (which is always limited) and an ethical or moral perspective which orders things in relation to their meaningfulness.

As I see it (this is my opinion based on recent thoughts and conversations), it can be useful to distinguish between ethical judgment, which is based on the acknowledgement that one’s perspective is limited, and righteous judgment, which takes a stance of perfect knowledge and ultimate moral authority.

Let’s take, for example, the case of negative judgments about other people.

As a student of postmodernism, I often hear arguments against the weak cultural relativism. Weak cultural relativists take the stance that everyone’s perspective is valid, and everyone is therefore ‘right’ within their own subjective frame, so you should never tell anyone that they’re ‘wrong’ about anything. This is pretty flimsy. A stronger form of cultural relativism might argue that because ALL perspectives are fundamentally limited (because no one has perfect knowledge), everyone is on some level ‘wrong’ in how they view the world, and because everyone’s view is at least a little bit wrong (no one has the whole picture), everyone should be willing to acknowledge his or her own limitations and be open to pieces of the picture that they might not be able to see at first.

Put more simply, a strong cultural relativist can be confident in his or her own perspective (not a wishy-washy spineless weasel), while at the same time admitting that no one has all the answers, and that it is vital to assume that other people’s perspectives of the world have at least potential insights that one should remain open to learning about.

A strong position of cultural relativism does not mean that one cannot make judgments about people, events, and phenomena. It just necessitates that one develop a stance of ethical judgment. Ethical judgment must be based on a certain degree of what my friend regohemia calls ‘healthy self-doubt’ (this implies admitting to oneself that your judgment can be based on incomplete knowledge, and that you might be at least partially wrong in your judgment). It seems to me that the goal of ethical judgment is dialogue. If I am making a negative judgment about someone, my goal would be to create a space for discussion where I can share my insight about them with them in order to help them change in a positive way. That's because I'm not judging them to be 'right' or to prove that I'm 'better' than them, but instead offering a criticism grounded in love and concern for the other person. At the same time that I am hoping to change that person’s behavior, I am also open to their perspective, and willing to see things from their point of view, and hopefully to achieve a compromise that is based on the sum of our perspectives.

I mean, any judgment is a thesis, not an ultimate truth, right? Therefore, if the person who I am criticizing disagrees with me, their perspective is the antithesis of my view. From the standpoint of ethical judgment, I do NOT want a deadlocked battle of thesis and antithesis. I want a dialogue or conversation that can lead to a synthesis, some negotiation of our views that allows us to see each other’s perspectives and to create a new mutual perspective based on understanding and compromise.

The ‘ethic’ that this judgment is based on is the fundamental belief that ultimate knowledge is impossible to obtain (we can hardly ‘know’ a paper clip, so how can we ultimately ‘know’ another person?) The impossibility of ultimate knowledge does NOT mean that one should sit passively and just let the world be as it is (the weasel-perspective of weak cultural relativists), but rather that one should take actions to make the world a better place based on your own views as long as you are careful, respectful of other people’s experiences, and willing to admit that your knowledge and stance might be incomplete (which implies a willingness to listen to other people’s views and enter into a dialogue with them in which your own perspective might change, grow, or evolve).

In opposition to ethical judgment, in my view, is judgment based on righteousness. (Righteousness is technically its own ethic, but I believe it can be a deeply flawed ethic, and therefore I am deliberately opposing it to the strong relativist ethical stance I outline above). Righteous judgment occurs when you judge someone in such a way that you are unwilling to admit that you might be wrong in your own perspective. It is judgment that refuses to allow the possibility of its own fallibility, and that seeks to impose its own thesis onto the person who is wrong without regard for his or her views, opinions, or life experiences. Righteous judgment is, as I see it, an imperialist stance. While ethical judgment has the strength and courage to take a stance, but remains open to an exploration of different views that might change the original views of the judge herself, righteous judgment assumes an unchanging correct knowledge and perspective that may be imposed upon the world through force and conquest if necessary.

Ethical judgment is impossible, it seems to me, within a context of inequitable power. To put that more simply, it seems like it is impossible to judge someone in such a way that you are open to dialogue, conversation, and synthesis when you are holding a gun to their head. Power can take many forms; it can be military or physical, or it can be social and cultural (think of the way you may have been ‘judged’ by the popular kids in high school; the popular kids may be open to hearing your opinions [if you’re lucky], but how much does that really matter when there is always the threat that if you don’t agree to their opinions, you could be shunned, humiliated, and cast out of social circles that are meaningful to you?)

I think that for me, this means that any time I criticize someone, if I’m truly being ethical in my judgment, I need to start by putting my weapons down. In order to ethically criticize someone or something, I need to start from the assumption that I’m opening a dialogue or conversation, and that the conversation may NOT go the way that I want it to. The person who I’m criticizing may not accept my criticism, and they may not be willing to work with me to find a synthesis of our opinions and perspectives. Nevertheless, I need to be willing to set aside any ‘threat’ I can imagine posing (such as social consequences like turning other friends against that person, or giving up on the friendship itself), and I need to be willing to accept that my criticism may be wrong and that I may need to change my outlook depending on how the conversation goes. Because the whole point of offering the criticism is to create somnething positive for both of us, not to be 'right' for its own sake or to prove the other person 'wrong.' That does not mean that I can’t be clear, strong, rational, and persuasive in expressing my views and criticisms (I need to be confident in my own perspective), it just means that I also need to be open to the fact that I may not have perfect knowledge of the situation, and I need to be sensitive to the feelings and personality of the person I’m criticizing.

What about a situation where someone is criticizing me?

It seems to me that when someone is criticizing me, I need to distinguish if they are taking an ethical or righteous stance in their judgment of me. If someone is criticizing me, and they are doing so in such a way that they’re open to dialogue (they’re willing to hear my side and my views), I need to be open to their judgment and willing to potentially negotiate a synthesis, because I should be able to tell that the criticism is coming from a place of love and concern for me and others. Perhaps I can come to understand that I’ve inadvertently hurt someone, or that my actions have been reckless, and through accepting outside criticism I can make a change that will benefit both me and others around me. Perhaps I can, through dialogue, show the person what is happening in my life and convince them that their criticism is inaccurate. If someone is criticizing me from a standpoint of righteous judgment, however, I think that no matter how ‘right’ they might be, I should feel no obligation to accept their criticism within myself, because what the person may be trying to accomplish through their criticism of me may not be a positive thing.

This isn’t to say that I can’t listen to what the person may be criticizing about me and choose to make a change in my way of interacting with the world. One may always choose to accept righteous judgment, and in some cases (especially when I know I’ve done something I’m not proud of) it may be best to accept the criticism and do whatever may be best to fix a given situation. I think, however, that it is also completely acceptable to choose not to accept righteous judgment or criticism from another.

This gets really messy. I see righteous judgment happening everywhere right now, from my immediate life to the global scale, where nations and religions get caught in unhealthy feedback loops of judgment that make dialogue and reconciliation difficult or impossible. I mean, a “war on terror” is really just an ugly feedback loop of mutual righteous judgments that spiral into perpetual violence, right?

Is it fair to respond to righteous judgment with reciprocal righteous judgment? No. Does that mean you always need to turn the other cheek and get slapped to death? Absolutely not. What stance can I take when faced with righteous criticism that is neither vengeance, which only creates a grim cycle of negativity, or extreme martyrdom, which ultimately erodes one’s own dignity and self respect?

It seems to me that when someone is righteously criticizing me, they are not respecting me and remaining open to a dialogue in which they might admit that they are wrong. If that is the case, it’s not necessarily emotionally healthy for me to be open to accepting their criticism. They may not have my best interests, or their own best interests, in mind when making their criticism. They may just want to be right, to heal a wound in their ego by inflicting violence upon me. Depending on the situation, it may be vital for me to create a shield that cuts me off from accepting or experiencing their judgment of me. It would be very easy at this point to righteously judge them in return (‘how dare you take such an arrogant stance in your relationship with me!”), but all that ultimately does is create a feedback loop of distrust and amplified negativity. There’s no way for anything to heal for either of us in such a negative feedback loop.

It seems like a better, more loving stance would be to create a shield that cuts me off from accepting judgment, while at the same time remaining open to later taking that shield down if the judge is willing to alter his or her stance and enter into a sincere dialogue. This keeps open the possibility of conversation and reconciliation, while preventing me from suffering a judgment or criticism that may be unfair or unwarranted (how can I know unless communication takes place?)

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it seems possible to NOT accept negativity from other people while at the same time NOT taking a negative stance toward those who direct negativity toward you. Emotionally, this can be very difficult. When someone is being a jerk, or when they’re mad it you, its easy to get your spine up and be mad back at them. In the end, that doesn’t usually make things better. I think it’s possible to not accept negativity (to shield yourself) while at the same time remaining either positive toward others or (at the very least) open to future positivity.

This gets me into a reflection I’ve been having recently about communication. It seems like it’s very rare that people (including myself) stop to think about what they’re trying to actually accomplish through their communications. And it has made me see how beautiful it is when people deliberately try to create joy, positivity, friendship, common ground, or happiness through communication. How often, when we speak or write, are we acting from the desire to create positive connections or happiness? A friend at lunch today pointed out that often when we’re angry we communicate in order to express a limit, to let someone know that they are pushing our boundaries. That makes perfect sense, and it seems very reasonable to me. But how many confrontational conversations ultimately boil down to two people (or more) expressing their limits and boundaries to each other, without ever moving beyond that elementary space-marking to discover common grounds, places where our personal sense of territory can ‘overlap’ and we can share joy or friendship? It is vital to understand and communicate our own limits with each other, but what does it take to move beyond expressing our limits (which is ultimately a gesture of fear and defense) and to make a gesture of love that communicates understanding and respect of another’s limits, along with a desire to find common ground?

Please note that this post represents me taking about ME. If you think that I’m making some hidden reference to you or the way YOU are behaving, I’m probably not. This isn’t about you, it’s about me reflecting on myself and my thoughts on the way I communicate and give or accept criticism. If you’re worried that this is about you, please drop me a line and ask, rather than assuming that I’m making some subtle or passive-aggressive comment about you that probably isn’t there. I’m not trying to make a judgment about anyone here except for myself! And this post represents things I’m in the process of thinking through, not final ultimate judgments. Please feel free to disagree and know that I’m open to other perspectives and opinions on these topics.