What is needed is a new approach

There has been a great deal of debate recently — and not only in the pages of this newspaper or even just on this campus. Indeed, talk has spread to virtually every town hall, boardroom and bedroom in the country. Many have come down on one side of the matter or another, but as usual, many more refuse to take a stand or even to think about things at all. Words often get heated, though most are to be commended for remaining calm and addressing the question rationally. Still, there is much room for improvement in the current dialogue.

What is required is a fundamentally new approach, one that transcends the old divides which have grown ossified over the decades. Despite what many believe, things are not simply black and white. If we are to make any progress at all, we have no choice but to think outside the box, to shake up current paradigms and break out of reflexive ways of thinking. The old slogans simply will not do in the information age of the 21st century.

Few, for example, have considered the spiritual dimension of the situation. Nor, for that matter, have they listened to those whose voices have been silenced. What do the silent have to say on the matter? Do they have a spiritual contribution to make? These are the questions that few have been asking, although they certainly could ask them if they tried. Doing so may or may not be easy, but it will certainly broaden our horizons.

Even as the discussion shifts to take into account the inescapable complexity and spirituality of any given situation, however, certain ground rules must still be abided by. Perhaps the most important of these is the principle of respect — a respect not only for others but also for ourselves. It is just practical common sense, and hardly needs repeating, that we cannot respect each other unless we respect ourselves first, unless we have our feet firmly planted on a foundation of healthy self-esteem. Learning to love yourself, remember, is the greatest love of all. I must therefore listen to my own inner voice before I listen to the voices of others, even to the deafening cry of the silenced.

Also of critical importance is the role of activism. Activists must take a stand, of course, but their principles and strategies are bound to be informed by dialogue, not only among themselves but also across the boundaries that are usually thought to divide us. That is why, working from a foundation of self-esteem, we must build bridges between communities — communities of activism and communities of dialogue, spiritual communities and silenced communities. Each community, like each individual, can contribute uniquely not only to the dialogue but to the activism that emerges from and depends on that dialogue. The result is not a melting pot or a tossed salad but a gorgeous mosaic of diversity in discourse.

The goal, of course, must not be discursive diversity for its own sake, but diversity in the service of consensus and consensus in the service of progress. One cannot have a progressive consensus, however, without also achieving consensual progress. Everyone can march to the beat of a different drum, but we have to march together, and in the same direction, if we are ever to reach our common destination. Strong, egalitarian leadership is thus necessary. In choosing these leaders, moreover, we must always remember that every individual is not only a potential leader, but also an actual one.

Ultimately, if we adopt a new approach — one based on community, spirituality, dialogue, activism, discourse and silence — the beneficiaries will be the children. It is the children, and the children alone, who will, one day, be our future. Considering our current predicament, I look forward to that day with a mixture of idealistic realism and hopeful optimism. Michael Frazer is a politics graduate student from Riverdale, N.Y. He can be reached at mfrazer@princeton.edu.