This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
As a white man, I realize I don't have the same experiences as a black man. When I am pulled over by the police for speeding, for instance, I do not experience fear. I may feel ashamed or embarrassed, but I am not fearful. I do not experience fear as I reach for the license in my wallet or the car registration in my glove-compartment. My physical appearance as a middle-aged, Caucasian male gives me the benefit of doubt … but I doubt this is the experience of most persons of color.
Given the recent tragedies in Dallas, Louisiana and Minnesota, we are at a moment of either polarization or integration. In other words, we are at a moment where we, as a country, will engage in either "or-thinking" or "and-thinking." In or-thinking, a false dichotomy is created: One is pressured into believing "black lives matter" or the police need our support. One is pressured into believing racism is real or the police need to utilize every tool available to prevent crime. One is pressured into believing that gun control is the answer or the Second Amendment is absolutely untouchable. But such or-thinking and rhetoric only reinforces a deadly status quo, which, in this case, is more innocent deaths — both black and white, both uniformed and civilian.
In contrast, I believe what is needed is integrative and-thinking. Surely black lives matter and the police need our support. Surely there is racial bias and the vast majority of our police officers are brave and well-intended. Surely some sensible limits on guns should be considered and there is a limit to how much such limits will help.
Simply put, empathy and integration are needed — not social fragmentation or silence. Throughout American history, empathy for others and integration of opinion (i.e. and-thinking) has produced progress, while simplistic, black-or-white solutions (i.e., or-thinking) has produced only more of the same. Soon our debates seem tired and our options limited.
As a clinical psychologist, I can tell you that or-thinking is easy, which is part of its appeal. Meanwhile, integrative thinking is hard, which is part of its challenge. Integrative thinking has had, does have, and will have its challenges and challengers. Skeptics, for instance, will always doubt integrative thinking. But skepticism isn't necessarily unhealthy. Skepticism, by definition, requires us to listen outside the narrow constraints of our own preconceptions. In contrast, cynicism is usually costly. Cynicism claims to be wise, when it is actually narrow; it claims to be experienced, when it is actually detached; it claims to be the path forward, when it is actually the path back. Healthy skepticism, however, remains humble and open; options are opportunities that, unlike cynicism, are not negated out-of-hand. Healthy skepticism requires mental flexibility; it doesn't retreat into comfortable, yet tired, recesses of the mind were people "double-down" on what they already believe and neglect everything else.
My prayer is that we do not retreat into silence. Ideally, persons on both sides of complex issues will trust each other with their healthy skepticism and leave their polarizing cynicism at the door. Although difficult, such and-conversations appeal to the better angles of our natures because — in the long run — bridges are easier (and less costly) to build than walls are to maintain.
Bryan Bushman, Ph.D., is a licensed clinical psychologist who works at McKay-Dee Hospital.