By Alicia Crank / Herald columnist
It’s a conundrum that shouldn’t be: A thing we want and frankly demand for ourselves without question. but will question or place conditions on for others.
I’m talking about choice. Personal choice.
Hear me out, because I’m not going quite where you might think I am with this topic.
This conundrum has weighed heavily on my mind the past few weeks, coming out of Black History Month and entering Women’s History Month. I’ve had the fortune to participate in a number of panel discussions on each of these subjects. There is a common theme of a person or a group being the “first” of something, and that previously that choice had been denied to them by someone who freely had it. For example: the right to vote. Women in general and minorities of various communities had to fight and sacrifice to get to the point of choosing to participate in the voting process. Still today, it’s harder for some to exercise that choice.
“The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.” — Carl Jung
Many of us will agree with that quote, but will find it harder to do so in practical application. Why is it difficult to extend the same level of choice we demand for ourselves to other people? Moreso for those we do not know and have no connection to. Is it our religious beliefs? Our cultural upbringing? The value system we subscribe to? I submit that while all of these are secondary reasons, the primary reason on both sides of the equation is: discomfort.
I don’t think most people like being purposely or regularly uncomfortable. Physically, mentally or emotionally, discomfort is not something we naturally gravitate to. Thus, we individually make choices to avoid or minimize discomfort for ourselves, despite what others may think. Conversely, we can press upon others our thoughts on what they should or should not do, to avoid or minimize uncomfortable conversations around their choices, even when it has nothing to do with our own lives. In essence, not allowing the same level of personal choice for others.
Uncomfortable conversations require that we look beyond our own life conditions and consider that others have a set of experiences and challenges contrary to what we directly know. It also challenges any idealisms we have that may lead us to second guess what we have been taught to believe. It’s much easier to hold fast to our blinders than it would be to remove them see what’s happening around us and beyond.
The first time I ran for political office, in my early 20s, I filled out an endorsement survey that asked if I supported nonparental consent for teenage girl to seek birth control. I replied “no.” In my mind, I felt that if I had a child, I’d want them to talk to me about it and I’d be supportive, as that was the type of parent I envisioned myself to be. I was challenged on this answer by both Democrats and Republicans in different ways, but the common foundation was if I was applying my answer to “myself.” The reality was that I didn’t. It was my ideal answer, as I described.
However, when looking at my own situation growing up, I didn’t have the idealized parenting I answered the question with. The uncomfortable fact was that I did not have the family support system that others I knew had. I also knew that I had friends who had it worse than I did, verbally and sometimes physically abusive parental relationships that would have gotten them in worse trouble if they broached this subject with them. Sadly, others had parents who were completely detached and uninvolved.
As uncomfortable and disheartening as it is to have to sit and process this for myself, I started to understand there are life situations and circumstances that I couldn’t begin to fathom. How could I limit the choices of others on my own idealism? How could others already have done that to me, historically? Discomfort.
This choice conundrum manifests in numerous places: housing, policing, schools, curriculums, health care/end of life, politics, the list goes on.
Another part of the conundrum equation is what happens when we are publicly and firmly against something for others, but find an “out” for ourselves if or when that situation happens in our immediate circle. That’s a discussion for another time.
I don’t believe the conundrum around choice will go away anytime soon, if ever. I do believe we can chip away at it by freeing ourselves from the fear of discomfort. Uncomfortable conversations create listening and learning opportunities. Even if you don’t like or agree with someone’s choice, consider the flip side when it’s coming your way. What you see on the surface isn’t always the full picture.
“Instead of looking at things, look between things.” — John Baldessari
Alicia Crank lives in Edmonds. Email her at alicia@aliciainedmonds.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
