The Unworshipped Side of Bravery
Reacting vs. responding to crises.
Unfortunately, current events are not short of crises. Though perceived cultural or geographical proximities affect our outlook, (social) media, friendly discussions, or heightened debates provide us with valuable data to question how we react or respond to dramatic situations.
It seems that we employ six archetypes – with various degrees of intensity – to describe, and indeed “make sense” of, critical events: we pit the “culprit” against the “innocent”, the “victim” against the “hero”, and the “fool” against the “ally”.
Yet, archetypes like these are also effective in describing complex situations or disentangling intertwined interests. Hence, in some ways, they contribute to dissipating the “fog of war” … only to replace it with what we could - perhaps unfairly - describe as ‘background noise’; in other words, the abundance of comments urging us to take a stance may affect one’s ability to see critical events with objectivity, which is essential for effective crisis management.
“Why are we so adamant to take a stance in times of crisis?”, asked the Mouse.
It is a question to which there are only individual answers. In those answers, one may encounter varying but distinct layers:
Taking a firm position may be a coping mechanism, especially for those who have limited levers at their disposal.
Rationalising the situation may be a way to articulate our interests, and can therefore help respond to the crisis, and rally support.
Drawing upon our values may be a way to reclaim the need for right-minded approaches when unethical behaviors seem to have taken hold.
Even if there is a certain degree of sanity in doing so, judging others’ reactions to a crisis is not pragmatic. If only, because the moral grounds on which we judge them is bound to evolve as the crisis develops.
Hence, one’s priority is not so much to take a position based on what we think we believe, care for, or value. Rather, it is to refine our reading of a blurry situation regularly, while holding on to our principles.
For a Western ‘mouse’, and perhaps for others, this equilibrist stance is made even more challenging by the confusion between action and responsibility. The moral ground from which Western cultures tend to read critical situations puts a lot of pressure on bystanders. Indeed, our history, as it is told, leads us to question the role we played in the dramatic crises of the past. In addition, it has become increasingly difficult for Western ‘mice’, and possibly others, to balance moral judgements with humanistic actions, partly because this used to be a role bestowed upon religion.
In other words, we may be so adamant as to take stances in times of crises (whether geopolitical, organizational, or personal), because critical events amplify the deeper political and spiritual crises that threaten the fabric of our societies. This is by no mean a political or religious stance, but the reflection of a ‘mouse’ whose internal candle has wavered in the past.
In the meantime, as we live through our own and others’ crises, we may accept invitations from spiritual people who found ways to hold their principles without giving in to moral judgements or self-righteousness, or from subtle commentators who manage to navigate the straight between Manichaeism and euphemism. It may be the unworshipped side of bravery. The one that holds the space for the crisis to unfold and allow for listening and eye-level conversations to manage it effectively.
Balancing our reactions may exclude us from vocal or visible groups, but it may re-connect us with a community of people whose humility toward a task is by no means an acceptance of a dramatic fate. The fact that the title of this piece was whispered to me by such person is comforting.
We are all men at sea. Wind in our sails.
Baptiste Raymond - 25 February 2022.