All Categories - Mary Anna Dunn Poet And

Mary Anna Dunn Poet And

Tunes and Poems I Turn to In Difficult times

1/14/2021

When times are very hard, and for most of us these times are, my first go to is music. I would like to share this highly eclectic list of just some of the tunes that see me through. Songs I Turn (and Return) To.

Some poems just come to me. Others I seek out.

The lines that keep coming to my head are from Wordsworth: "The world is too much with us, late and soon..." The lines I remind myself of are TS Eliot: "I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope/For hope would be hope for the wrong thing..."

I've put a link to the complete Wordsworth sonnet. The Eliot lines, which have come to mind many times before now, are from Four Quartet's. I have linked a resource for the book below, along with a link to the passage these lines are from.

Other poems in the list below are poems from my notebook of favorites that particularly speak to me now.

After great pain, a formal feeling comes, Emily Dickenson
The Day Lady Died, Frank O’Hara
Four Quartets, TS Eliot. I could not find this book length poem online. These lines were available and are the one that come to me during challenging times.
Glass-Bottom Boat, Elizabeth Spires
The Lilacs, Richard Wilbur
A Summer Garden, Louise Glück
Thank You Lord for the Dark Ablaze, Steve Scafidi
The Wild Swans at Coole, William Butler Yeats
The World is Too Much With Us, William Wordsworth
Wishing Well, Gregory Pardlo

Exiting the Echo Chamber Resolution #7

1/8/2021

We all know that resolutions are very hard to keep. Gym membership peaks in January and drops significantly by mid-February. I know that I will find these resolutions hard to keep.

Resolution #6 is scary, and I will have to take this one on in small steps.

Resolution #5 is hard, because my immediate response when a post hits me emotionally is to react without reflection.

Resolution #4 is emotionally challenging.

Resolution #3 requires patience, a virtue I've had a lifelong struggle with.

Resolution #2 takes conscious self-monitoring.

Resolution #1 is probably the easiest one for me, but the part about openness -- that's going to take some self-monitoring, too.

So, if we are friends on Facebook, you're going to see me slip up, but not give up. These resolutions are not about fitness, or keeping a cleaner house, resolutions that can be forgotten in 6 weeks with no consequence to anyone but me and my family.

I started thinking about these resolutions in December. I had an very good idea what of was ahead of us this January. Nothing though could have prepared me for the real life horror of spending half of a day watching American insurgents storm our Capitol and try to prevent Congress from carrying out a Constitutional process.

Because it is a highly significant (though by no means only) source of division and extremism, I am resolved to step out of the echo chamber, and I invite you to come with me. The readings that have influenced my thinking are listed below.

"10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts", by Paul Glader.
Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers, by John W. Dean and Bob Altemeyer.
"How to Break Out of Your Social Media Echo Chamber", by Christopher Seneca.
I Think You’re Wrong (But I’m Listening). by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers.
Talking Across the Divide: How to Communicate With People You Disagree With, by Justin Lee.
The Three Languages of Politics, by Arnold Kling.
Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman.
Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy, by David Frum.

Exiting the Echo Chamber #6

1/8/2021

And that has to be the hardest resolution of all. I also think it may be the most important.

Social media is an approval machine. That's what makes it so compelling. That's also what makes it an echo chamber. We seek approval, we get approval, and the algorithms behind the scenes promote the loudest voices. The real winners are the platforms and advertisers. I heard it put this way by Johan Goldberg on an NPR interview this morning, platforms "monitize dopamine clicks."

When we disagree with our peers, we don't get liked, and we may get flamed -- if not by our friends, by our friends' friends. I know from my readings on division that I am by no means alone in echoing and amplifying the voices of my community. I also know I am not alone when I avoid expressing views that could alienate me from my friends or invite harsh criticism.

I am a liberal with progressive leanings who doesn't agree with every progressive position. The truth is it is much easier for me to post and comment on issues I know the right will disagree with than on issues many of my friends on the left will disagree with. This is every bit as true for right leaning people. And it's understandable. We're herd animals.

But the echo chamber not only perpetuates and intensifies a "I'm right; you're wrong" culture that is quite literally killing us, it blinds us to complexity and stifles our creativity. So I make the most difficult of these resolutions today. Tomorrow, one last resolution, that I know I am going to need.

Today this is all I can say

1/7/2021

I have throughout the Trump Era assured my Republican friends and relatives that I love you and am deeply committed to your right to disagree with me. Respectful dialogue across party lines makes us stronger.

I have also throughout the Trump Era emphasized that Trump and the ultra right do not stand for Republican values. Not the values of the Bushes, Reagan, Eisenhower, or actually even Nixon.

Yesterday brought this home in just the way I long feared it would. This morning, all I want to say is this:

I continue to respect true Republicans, even as we differ.

I ask for your respect in return.

I have no respect for violence and hatred.

I will not call an insurrection a protest.

I will always stand up for Democracy.

For all our differences, I respect the Republicans who placed integrity, The Constitution, and the rule of law first by condemning the insurgents and following the rules to certify the election.

That's Democracy.

Yesterday, I would have posted my penultimate Exiting the Echo Chamber Resolution and today I would have posted the final one with a list of the readings that inspired them. I will get back to them this week-end. They matter.

But for the rest of today, I will just sit with this in prayer and reflection.

Exiting the Echo Chamber Resolution #5

1/5/2021

Everything I've read about division points to social media as one of the primary sources of polarization and misinformation. That's not news to me, yet I catch myself in the kinds of knee jerk reactions that contribute to the mess we're in. I like and share before I fact check. I comment before I process and reflect.

It requires a concentrated effort on my part not to immediately react in some way, thereby echoing people I agree with and pushing away people I don't agree with. I find that when I do wait at least 2 hours (sometimes I've waited longer than a day) to respond, my responses are calmer and better thought out. .

When I agree: Sometimes I find out through research what I was about to share is not really true. Sometimes on reflection I realize that, true or not, a post nearly shared, was expressed with a shrillness I really don't want to echo.

When I disagree: Sometimes, if I just mull it over, I begin to recognize the other person has a valid point. Sometimes, I still disagree but the time I have spent away from the screen has helped me form a deeper, and probably more persuasive response.

When I comment or create a new post: My responses show more maturity, reflection, and grace when I wait, and even write them out in long hand first.

And sometimes, imagine, I realize my own opinion is not so godawful important that everyone has to know about it, so I say nothing at all.

Exiting the Echo Chamber Resolutions #4

1/4/2021

Here's the thing: understanding another person's point of view does not mean I have to agree with them. I emphasize this because sometimes it feels like it does.
I want to listen with curiosity, trying to understand what this other person means, and why they feel that way. I want to listen respectfully, which does not mean I will respect hate. It means I will not interrupt, I will not denigrate, and I will leave a conversation if my ability to maintain respect is being eroded.

I will listen with sincerity, meaning I will not listen just to figure out how to prove my own point. And I will listen with an open mind, realizing that understanding another point view is how I grow--when I find I agree, sure, but also when I don't agree , but now have a deeper understanding of how they got there. I can learn a lot from that.

Exiting the Echo Chamber Resolutions #3

1/3/2021

Oh but it's hard. It's so hard. One day, at a time of blatantly ugly rhetoric against immigration, I was in the grocery store. The man ahead of me in line said to the checker, a woman with darker skin and an accent, "ICE is looking for you." I said, "She's welcome here. You're not."

The man exploded at me so loudly and threateningly I had to call for the manager, who asked him to leave.

I would have been right to "call in" his behavior. I was wrong to attack him personally. All I did was escalate the animosity between "his side" and "my side."

I've begun to work on this. I try to pause before I speak. I rehearse scenarios in my head: if such and such happened, how would I respond? I review my mistakes and try to write a better script for next time. I evaluate encounters I witness, to learn from others' positive and negative examples. I spend a little time daily in quiet meditation. I read all I can find about talking across the divide. I make mistakes, forgive myself, and begin again.

I am looking forward to Loretta Ross's forthcoming book, Calling in the Call Out Culture. Earlier in this blog I discussed several books that have helped me with dialogue. I made notes on the books to review often, because it's hard to remember recommendations when I feel on the spot.

Two other books have been generally helpful for me when I am angry at others' actions.

The Book of Forgiving, by Desmond and Mpho Tutu
Creating True Peace, by Thich Nhat Hahn

The books linked in this post take you to smile.amazon.com. Purchasing through this link supports the work of the non-profit Enrichment Alliance of Virginia, which I manage. All of these books can be purchased through other vendors, including your local bookstore, which also needs your support.

Exiting the Echo Chamber Resolutions #2

1/2/2021

Not to say that will be easy. Research demonstrates that we are led by our unconscious biases far more than we realize. In Talking Across the Divide, Justin Lee describes a series of Yale studies in which participants were asked to evaluate two welfare proposals. Sometimes Democrats were told highly conservative stringent proposals had been proposed by Democrats, and likewise, Republicans were told that highly generous policies had been proposed by Republics.

"People claimed their party's supposed position as their own, no matter what that position was." If a Democrat was told that a very conservative policy was a Democrat position, they supported it, and if a Republican was told that a very liberal policy was Republican, they supported it.

There are numerous other studies that support this finding. Enter terms such as "party loyalty" or "partisan loyalty" and "studies" or"experiments" and see what you get.

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman cites numerous experiments that demonstrate how strong, and how well hidden, unconscious bias actually is. It will require deliberate effort to focus my attention on the facts, and as needs be, expand my views to include information that I would often prefer to ignore. This by no means suggests I have to let go of my core values. Far from it. Focusing on keeping an open mind lets in more information that could actually support my values.

Concrete example: I am deeply distressed by police violence against people of color. Some of my friends are calling for defunding the police. How would I process information that suggested increasing funding for the police reduces police violence? Would I read it at all? Would I read it with an eye towards punching holes in the research? Would I read it with an open mind and do my best to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

January 01st, 2021

1/1/2021

Forbes Magazine list the following as the most unbiased news sources. Some readers may have their own biases against these news sources, however. Forbes also mentions several wire sources, such as Reuters. Following wire sources can be a great way to get to the heart of an information stream.

This article includes several runners up, so if your favorite news source is not in this top ten, don't assume it is not a reliable source; Check for your source in the article. And even if it isn't listed, don't give up on it. Just balance your preferred sources of information with other services. This is only one resource, and I recognize that it may reflect Forbes' own biases.

I have read that it is also important to get different perspective, so I do include some
right and left leaning sources in my newsfeed. At the same time, if the extreme bias of an article is going to infuriate me, I put it down. I don't feel prepared to participate in a more rational, compassionate discourse if I am fuming.

3 Books on Dialogue Across Division

10/11/2020

THREE BOOKS OFFERING PRAGMATIC ADVICE ON PRODUCTIVE, STRATEGIC DIALOGUE.

We need people who won’t give into our culture’s penchant for polarization. Because that polarization is killing us and the only way out …. is sitting down to talk your opponents, to listen to them, to try to understand how they see the world and why they do what they do, and to become a voice they will listen to... Justin Lee, Talking Across the Divide: How to Communicate With People You Disagree With.”

I would like to see political discussion conducted with less tribal animosity and instead with more mutual respect and reasoned deliberation. Arnold Kling, The Three Languages of Politics

….[T]here is a big problem with behaving as though politics is a sport when we are focused on winning as a political imperative. Our civic participation should be about finding the best solutions possible under the circumstances, about trying to serve everyone who shares this country. Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers, I Think You’re Wrong (But I’m Listening).

The books linked in this post take you to smile.amazon.com. Purchasing through this link supports the work of the non-profit Enrichment Alliance of Virginia, which I manage. All of these books can be purchased through other vendors, including your local bookstore, which also needs your support.

All three of these books go beyond simply lamenting the divisions in our society. Each offers pragmatic advice on taking part in productive, strategic dialogue. While there is overlap in these books, they offer different tools for constructive conversation. All of the tools are critical, so just as I would not approach a construction project with only one type of tool, I would not try to have constructive conversations without the tools provided in all of these books.

When you talk with someone who disagrees with you on issues you care about deeply, it probably isn’t your goal to have an unproductive conversation. And yet, that may be the best outcome you can expect. Perhaps even more likely, your efforts at advocacy may be counterproductive.

The very language you use to support your points is likely to confirm your listeners’ beliefs that you espouse a wrongheaded world-view. I found The Three Languages of Politics eye-opening. Arnold Kling describes the different languages liberals, conservatives, and libertarians use, and how, because the same phrases can mean radically different things, our efforts to engage in dialogue may actually intensify polarizations. You cannot have a productive dialogue if you cannot even communicate. Expressions such as "individual rights," "oppression" and "law and order" have drastically different emotional impact depending on political affiliation. If you understand how your words resonates with your listeners, you have a chance at genuine communication.

Understanding the views of someone from a different party does not mean you need to change your own party loyalty. Kling emphasizes this in his book, as do Holland and Silvers in I Think You’re Wrong (But I’m Listening). Hosts of the podcast, Pantsuit Politics, the authors model "grace filled conversations" in which a Democrat and a Republican "take off their team jerseys" to gain a deep understanding of often divisive topics such as welfare and the environment. The authors invite us to recognize that most issues are nuanced, and that looking at these issues only through the lens of political affiliation can blind us to solutions that address complex problems.

Holland and Silvers are two open-minded woman committed to breaking down the binary, either/or way we typically look at things. Rather than arguing, they bring their different perspectives into their discussions in order to view issues from different angles. They are much more interested in understanding each other than persuading each other. I was invigorated by their approach and am trying to stop looking at the world first as a Democrat and only second as a rational woman, eager to learn. Still, I know there will be times when my primary goal will be to change minds. And I know there will be times when I'll want to talk to people whose minds seem closed to what I have to say. For that, I need additional tools in my toolbox.

Knowing where you stand on an issue and wanting to persuade others people does not mean you don’t need to listen. Listening is every bit as central to Justin Lee’s approach as it is to Holland and Silvers. While the latter are as focused on changing their own minds as on changing one another’s minds, Lee's book is more directly about persuasion.

Lee is a gay Christian from an evangelic background. Most of his work is about bridging the gap between LGBTQ people and people who view non-heterosexual relationships as sinful. In Talking Across the Divide, he shows us how to apply the strategies he uses in his own work when we enter into conversations about other divisive topics. With ample research and fascinating studies backing him up, Lee systematically lays out barriers to changing minds, and effective strategies for addressing these barriers. I found these strategies so compelling that I took notes for regular review.

Polarization is killing us, Lee says. This is not figurative language. People are actually killing each other over political differences that are. not. insurmountable. If you are as fed up as I am with the linear, binary, us vs. them mindset that consumes our country, read all three books and apply them as you begin to engage in dialogue that is not destructive, but constructive.