As our culture became increasingly polarized, we began to hear how we gravitate towards sources of information that will confirm what we already believe, how we prefer like-minded people and like-minded news networks and like-minded online commentaries. The result has been the development of our dwelling in echo chambers where we are unlikely to hear dissent, new perspectives—especially perspectives that disagree with what we have already concluded is absolute truth.
I wonder if the same development happens internally over time, if we default to listening to the same inner voices so much that we grow out of touch with aspects of ourselves that might give us very different ideas. The Internal Family Systems model envisions each one of us as harboring a host of different “voices” or aspects of ourselves that can manifest as a particular kind of voice that will invariably give us the same perspective over and over. For instance, we may carry within us a voice we think of as a parent, a voice that speaks to us as though we are ever and always a child needing direction. Or we may have within us a voice that presses us to engage in risky behavior, or consume addictive substances. Or—so we hope—we may have within us a voice that points us towards wisdom, compassion, sending us on the high road. One of my own inner voices that tends to be loudest when I am wavering about taking action can sound to me like a drill sergeant, barking at me to get myself in control and stick with what I know already; a contrary voice that can seem softer, alluring, urges me to simply drift and let circumstances shape where I end up.
In order to allow new voices to speak, both inner voices and outer voices, the first step may be as simple, as difficult, as being willing to be curious. That means I do not invite an alternate opinion from another, or do not listen to a political perspective that I already know I will never adopt, or do not attend to a voice inside me that I long ago decided I should squelch, with a kind of resigned tolerance, simply letting the voice or person have its say with no intention whatsoever of doing anything other than enduring and then going on with my mind and behavior unchanged. Rather, I enter the dialogue, whether an outer or an inner dialogue, in a spirit of curiosity, asking questions, trying on the new perspective to see what it might be like to incorporate it into my life, willing to have my thoroughly made up mind changed.
Because if something other than more polarization is my goal, whether that polarization is in the surrounding culture, in my family, in my own heart and soul, then I will need to actually listen to what is being said, listen without objection or derision, and be open to whatever happens next. Poet Walt Whitman wrote, “I am large, I contain multitudes.” Assuming what he says is true of each one of us, why would we settle for allowing only one voice in those multitudes have its say?
BLESSING
The one I ignore
The one I dislike
The one I never wanted
The one I see as too different:
This blessing comes from those voices
And asks if just this once
You might listen to them
Before you start to argue or walk away.
You might hear what you most need
To save your life.