Using Discernment

By Ty Bell

Every ideology requesting allegiance or attention is inviting us into relationship. When we enter into relationship, we consent to its influence in shaping our world.

With people, we don’t just look at what they say they are about and what they claim to stand for. We look at how they are standing. One of the things we discern is whether or not they acknowledge their own darkness. How aware are they of their own shadows and shortcomings and how honest and good-humored are they about them? How well do they receive and respond to criticism?

If they lack awareness but still show respect and openness they are probably just still growing up. Their darkness is still hidden from their own view, as they are still on the journey of discovery. It’s still wise to apply a grain of salt to their stated intentions. They aren’t yet aware of the unconscious forces driving them; so what they say they’re up to can’t be trusted completely yet because they don’t know themselves completely yet. You probably don’t want to let them lead you anywhere or use their compass as your guide.

The ones we sense to watch out for are the people who flex their distorted self-image so extremely that it’s obvious they are hiding some demons. The alert level goes up to ‘danger’ when these people are asserting dominance based on this inauthentic assertion of superiority. The sure sign that the relationship is a toxic is when their deflection strategies are so reactive that you end up silenced by fear of how they’ll react. You know it’s toxic when every criticism you bring up is met by attempts to silence or discredit you, or gaslight you into believing you are the only one with the problem. Often times these people have sharp-witted insights into the flaws of others. They focus their attention on other people’s weaknesses to prevent self-reflection and to gather as currency that helps them assert dominance. Conceding to their valid points and revealing your own shadows in a relationship like this just spins a cycle of madness because when they are unwilling to do the same, your own exposed vulnerabilities are just used against you to reinforce the toxic power dynamic.

The conventional wisdom is to avoid relationships like this, and if we find ourselves in one, to reclaim our power by ending it. Because no matter how well-intentioned they are, their character is beyond their control. They are possessed by the shadows they won’t acknowledge, so healthy relationship isn’t possible. We can understand that their inability to reckon with their own darkness is a response to pain, and still love and appreciate their beautiful qualities but it doesn’t mean should keep playing into the cycle. We deserve better.

When you encounter an ideological narrative, listen to its tone, and how it postures itself. It’s often subtle and implicit, especially when it’s ‘just reporting facts’ – you have to listen closely not only to what’s said, but what’s not said. Does it frame its opposition honestly, or does it assert itself as dominant over a straw man? Does it respond to criticism with deflection or with self-examination? Is it aware of its shadows, and does it have a sense of humor about them? Or does it react with moral outrage when they are illuminated? Does it prop itself up on the ignorance and/or immorality of its dissenters? Or does it stand on its own and engage in honest dialogue? There’s nothing wrong with righteous anger, fiery criticism, or passionate display of emotion. Apply the same standards we would for a healthy relationship. It’s when they use these as deflection strategies to keep their own darkness from being revealed that it becomes problematic. And when they demoralize criticism and use force to assert dominance, that’s when it becomes toxic.

All ideas, like all people, contain inherent light and darkness. A unique and inherent spectrum of possibility that spans both positive and negative. It doesn’t matter what the ideology says it stands for, or how much it believes in its own sincerity. If it doesn’t take ownership of its shadows, it’s operating at a level of incoherence or pathology. This is what Jordan Peterson means when he says ideas can become pathological. They aren’t pathological fundamentally because of their stated goals and values- these may very well be good, or at least well-intended. All ideologies, after all, claim to be based on something that’s fundamentally good: love, equality, freedom, justice, etc. His critique of the modern Left was not so much its particular values, but it’s pathological posturing. Most of his critics seem to miss that deeper point, which is that ideologies can be toxic at a level that’s more fundamental than their stated values and goals. This happens when they remain unaware of their dark side and unwilling to acknowledge it. Especially when they assert dominance and exhibit traits of the abusive narcissist. Microcosm, macrocosm.

An ideology that doesn’t integrate its polarities and respond honestly and sufficiently to valid criticism is standing on fallacies and contradictions, and being propped up by some form of manipulation. And when it can’t acknowledge its own shadow, it’s possessed to one degree or another by unconscious forces it doesn’t even understand. It may have conscious values and aims that are good, but do we trust people on this basis alone? How about when they become aggressive and try to bully or ridicule us into trusting them, how about then?

There is an instinct awakening in the collective that says, in response to the current ideologies on offer, particularly those being pushed by the media: It doesn’t matter what you say stand for. If how you’re standing is untrustworthy and abusive to the critical free thinker we do not consent to allowing you to shape our world or to enabling your power. If you try to gaslight us into the notion that all of our critical questions are motivated by support for the opposition or a weakness of moral character, we will call your tactics out for what they are: narcissistic, abusive power plays that reveal why you are not worthy of allegiance.

Many don’t seem to understand that this reaction is not fundamentally to the values themselves, but the way they are being postured. Passionate adherents of ideologies, especially those who are working to influence public opinion, would be wise to consider where they fall on the posturing spectrum. If they are embodying narcissistic traits we can’t reasonably expect them to take responsibility for the opposition and counter-narratives they inspire. Just like we can’t expect a narcissistic person to take responsibility for the rebellious behavior of the people they are abusing. In this frame of mind, the finger only knows how to point outward. But those of us who are not possessed by this frame of mind can call attention to it and know how to protect our own sacred sovereignty as free thinking people.