It’s possible!
All the talk about getting along better with all its associated benefits sounds great. But it won’t make much difference if it turns out that getting along with others — especially when it is most important — is either not possible or extremely unlikely.
My goal for this article is to begin to convince you that not only is it possible to learn to get along better with others, but that it is possible for you. I am convinced that anyone who is genuinely interested and willing to experiment a little bit can make small but significant improvements in their interactions with others. And small improvements, like compound interest, can accumulate over time and make a big difference.
One of the enduring mythologies of our existence is the idea that we humans are just inherently combative and aggressive. This has long been used as justification by those wanting to control us. According to this narrative, learning to genuinely and consistently get along with each other is just not in the cards for us.
This idea may work well for those who prefer — and benefit from — our conflict-ridden status quo, but I disagree. In fact, of all the damage done by our toxic society, our weakened but improvable ability to get along with each other is one that offers the most opportunity for improvement.
We actually do get along most of the time
An easy proof of my belief that we humans are able to get along with each other is the simple and observable fact that, most of the time, we do exactly that.
Watch people as they make their way down a busy sidewalk or through a crowded store. Everyone just automatically navigates around everyone else, rather than just mindlessly slamming into each other. Does this mean that everyone is preoccupied with everyone else’s well-being? No, it just means they don’t want trouble. Self-interest is probably the strongest argument of all for just getting along with others.
But the exceptions get the attention
You might be thinking, “If we really do get along with each other most of the time, why does it feel like there is so much trouble and conflict?” I frequently ask myself the same question. I believe one clue to the answer is found in an old newspaper editor’s quote:
“If it bleeds, it leads.”
Most of us prefer just living our lives peacefully. But it seems that the troublemakers generally get most of the attention. Here are a few examples.
On a plane
Air travel used to be a lot of fun. Those past a “certain age” will remember going to the airport as almost a holiday — but no more.
Equally disappointing, air travel itself is no longer the gracious and somewhat elegant experience enjoyed by travelers of years past.
A disturbing trend in recent years has been the increasing numbers of disturbances on aircraft in flight. Some of these have resulted in injuries to passengers or crew members, with some resulting in arrests.
Of course, with thousands of flights every day, the actual percentage of incidents is quite small, if not minuscule. Even on a specific flight, there may be hundreds of passengers who not only don’t cause trouble, but who will enthusiastically cheer when the troublemaker is subdued.
In traffic
Avoiding vehicular trauma
One of the reasons remote work has become so popular in recent years is the avoidance of the death-defying daily commute it enables. Those without this “perk” will need to take their chances with the occasional encounter with seemingly suicidal drivers.
It only takes one genuinely awful driver to wreck your day, and possibly your life. Given the genuine dangers that these maniacs pose, it is perfectly understandable that they would seem to be everywhere. Yet the thousands of perfectly normal drivers encountered on a busy freeway vastly outnumber the maniacs.
Once again, the genuinely bad behavior of those who refuse to get along gives them the appearance of being the rule rather than the exception.
Even in a war
If there is one event that illustrates the ultimate tragedy of our inability to get along, it has to be war. Realizing that our species can be destroyed by the same stupidity that motivates a barroom brawl is material for a major depression.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of humanity is vehemently opposed to the mindless destruction of war. It is only the massive distortion and concentration of power and wealth represented by governments that repeatedly visits this travesty on the rest of us.
Far from “proving” our inability to get along, the opposition of all but an infinitesimally small but ridiculously powerful number of maniacs to the monstrosity that is war proves my point: Learning to consistently get along represents our best chance for survival.
There is a wonderful — and true — story that perfectly illustrates mankind’s desire to get along, to simply interact peacefully with others, even in the midst of the nightmare of World War I. It is known as The Christmas Truce of 1914. The saddest part of the story occurs when the killing is required to resume by orders from those representing the power structure.
I cannot remember hearing of an event that simultaneously triggered so much hope along with so much disgust at the ultimate outcome as the story of the Christmas Truce.
We get along when we have to
The awful attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, provided a superb example of something sociologists have known all along: When things are really bad, when sheer survival is at stake, we humans are smart enough to at least temporarily drop our nonsensical differences and conflicts and help each other to survive.
The inevitable conclusion is that we clearly have the capacity to deal with each other rationally. Now all we need to do is figure out how to utilize this capacity on a regular basis.
Disasters and emergencies
Something from another article about “getting along” is pertinent here:
“And speaking of survival, this leads to another stark reminder of just how important we are to each other. Think of a desperate survival situation, perhaps following a natural disaster or simply due to an error in judgment.
A family on a road trip gets stuck in a snowdrift. A hiker in the Grand Canyon sprains an ankle and can’t go on. Or a shipwreck leaves desperate souls lost at sea.
What is, without a doubt, the one thing that all these would-be survivors are hoping to encounter?
We know the answer. Other people! In a life-threatening situation, civilization in the form of other humans can literally make the difference between life and death.”
Civilization is essential — and not just in emergencies
The stark reality of a life-threatening situation, like the old saying about “being hanged at dawn,” has an extremely clarifying effect on our consciousness. What is important becomes crystal clear; everything else becomes irrelevant.
However, since survival is a full-time job for all living creatures, at some level we are all aware that we depend on our civilization for our very existence. Civilization, with it vast numbers of interlocking parts — that’s us! — and functionalities, is the powerful machine that provides the endless stream of goods and services that our lives require.
Dealing with each other fairly, rationally, and respectfully — getting along — serves as the lubricant that keeps friction in our powerful “civilization machine” to manageable levels. Anyone who has seen a high-powered engine run out of oil knows that the result is not pretty.
Whether we verbalize it or not, we all know this. Getting along is not only possible, it is mandatory for our survival.
Why getting along is sometimes difficult
As I discussed in the previous section, much of the time we humans manage to get along reasonably well. And we demonstrate exceptional ability when “the going gets tough,” in disasters and other emergencies.
So why do we have so much conflict? This section will explore some of the reasons that our ability to get along is evidently absent some of the time.
Lack of choices
If there is one thing that makes getting along more likely, it is choice. Having choices gives you the opportunity to avoid interactions that you find objectionable in favor of those which you prefer.
When choices are available, we improve our lot almost instinctively. If your favorite restaurant, under “new management,” goes downhill in food quality or service, you will find another favorite. Maybe your mechanic starts overcharging you. You will do your best to find another mechanic.
Even better, the restaurant owner, your mechanic, and anyone else who values your trade all have the option of working hard to continue being your first choice. The smart ones will do exactly that.
No choice equals no incentive to get along
But what about those situations in which your choices are limited or even nonexistent? All too often, the mutual awareness of each other’s needs, the “getting along,” gradually gives way to the “Our way or the highway” attitude.
This mindset was perfectly expressed by comedienne Lily Tomlin, who, posing as a telephone operator, delivered the classic line: “We don’t have to care — we’re the phone company!”
(For context, note that this took place when “the phone company” meant AT&T, the long-standing communication monopoly for decades. The far greater number of choices today results in greater flexibility and ever-changing offerings in an attempt to gain market share by pleasing customers.)
Why those with power over others are frequently hard to get along with
Here is something that can distort the perception of how well we get along: Much of the time, people with some kind of power over others can be difficult to get along with.
This can be especially noticeable when an individual’s relationship to their peers changes as a result of some kind of additional authority acquired by them. For example, a member of a community obtains a spot in the Homeowners Association and begins making all kinds of unreasonable demands on their neighbors. Or an office worker, who previously got along well with others in the office becomes a petty tyrant when given a promotion.
I don’t think this is a coincidence. My layman’s opinion is that there is a common cause for both the difficulty in dealing with others and the desire to have some kind of power over others.
The Stanford prison experiment
A famous psychological experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, demonstrated how people who are put into positions of power over others can quickly begin to abuse that power.
The experiment seemed to indicate that many people in our society have some kind of suppressed anger in their personality that shows itself when they are given power over others.
It might also indicate that structuring a society in such a way that some individuals are given power over others might simply be a bad idea. A better idea, if we really do want to reduce conflict and get along with each other more consistently, might be to find alternatives to giving individuals this kind of power.
Damaged people, damaged society
I am convinced that a primary reason for much of the conflict and inability to simply get along with each other results from damage done to the individual by the dysfunctional society. If this is the case, how and why does this continue, generation after generation? Why don’t we just fix it?
What do I mean by “damage”? I consider an individual damaged if their willingness and ability to simply “live and let live” with others is replaced by desire — even a passion — to control others. In extreme cases, this will include the willingness to use violence to achieve dominance and control.
I just realized that I answered a question with another question. So, back to the original question: Why does our society keep damaging individuals, thereby reducing their ability to get along with others and to create satisfying lives for themselves?
Yes, our society damages people. Much to our detriment, however, some of those people go on to further damage our society. The result is perhaps one of the most vicious of “vicious circles” ever.
Two brothers who changed history — and not for the better
I recently read a terrific book that illustrates the point I am making here. It is called The Brothers, by Stephen Kinzer. The subtitle does a great job of describing the book: “John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and their secret world war”.
Due to their unique family background, these two men, unlike the vast majority of brothers everywhere, wound up massively influencing the direction America took in the world in the last half of the 20th century. I believe most would agree that their activities were a major factor leading to the Cold War.
Motive, means, opportunity
I have never been involved in law enforcement, but I learned the three key elements of many crimes by watching Law & Order. If the initiation of the Cold War could be considered a crime, it could be useful to see how these key elements came into play.
According to the book, John and Allen Dulles were greatly influenced by their father, a clergyman. One reviewer on Amazon stated that their father was “a fervent Presbyterian reverend who believed it was America’s duty to enlighten heathen masses.”
As for means and opportunity, they were born into a family with vast political and business connections. Their grandfather, John W. Foster, a former Secretary of State, was also a major influence on them.
It certainly sounds like these two fellows led very exciting lives. Perhaps, without what I consider the damaging influences of their particular backgrounds, their lives would have been far less interesting and more ordinary. I suspect that they would have been happier, however. And I don’t think there is any doubt that the millions of people killed in the wars that they engineered would have been better off as well.
Our coercive society
The connection between our dysfunctional society and our difficulty getting along has been noted for many years, but this awareness has largely receded in recent years. Here is a likely explanation.
My personal experience with attempts at self-improvement goes back many years. When I first got involved with what at the time was referred to as the “Human Potential” movement, it was understood that many individuals’ problems were at least partially due to our dysfunctional society.
This understanding seems to have largely vanished in recent years, which I have found puzzling. Psychologist Bruce Levine provided me with a big clue to this mystery as he discusses our coercive society and its impact on individuals:
“In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture.
But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money. Their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families and severe emotional and behavioral problems.”
(Unfortunately, the link to the article quoted here no longer works. You might want to explore Dr. Levine’s website, however, as he has written extensively about the relationship between our broken society and the resulting social and individual problems.)
The possible origin of “troubled souls”
It is usually not surprising when someone with power over us turns out to be difficult to get along with. Things like compromise and the casual give-and-take of a friendship have a way of disappearing when someone else is “in charge.” Most of the time we understand and even expect this; generally we just do the best we can under the circumstances.
But what can be quite surprising is a seemingly ordinary encounter that becomes difficult for no apparent reason.
How do we explain the increasing percentage of individuals who have difficulty coping with the demands of modern life? Even allowing for the 24 hour news cycle, we seem to hear stories of some kind of “meltdown” on a disturbingly regular basis. Studies are showing significant increases in the number of people — especially young people — diagnosed with a mental illness, frequently including prescriptions for psychiatric medications.
It is understandable that getting along with “troubled souls” is likely to be at least occasionally difficult. But why are there more of them than ever? Can anything be done to change this, or is it just inevitable?
Once again, psychologist Bruce Levine explains the connection between our increasingly dysfunctional societies and the greater numbers of difficult or troubled individuals.
“The megamachine’s horrors are also indirect. One of the few positive developments in my mental health profession is increasing awareness of the powerful relationship between “adverse childhood experiences” (such as emotional and physical abuse and neglect) with later emotional and physical difficulties.
However, the seldom-asked question in our society is why so many parents are abusing, neglecting, and otherwise traumatizing their children? Abusive and neglectful parents are themselves almost always products of the megamachine’s violence (including its wars, layoffs, and other traumatizations), resulting in powerlessness, resentment, rage, substance abuse, and little frustration tolerance in parenting, which results in adverse childhood experiences.”
Source:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/09/05/the-u-s-disconnecting-numbing-epidemic-the-culprit-and-our-options/
Conclusion
There is plenty of controversy regarding the question of humans being able to consistently get along. Perhaps the most obvious dealbreaker for those of us in favor of a peaceful world is the sadly clichéd lack of world peace.
However, in this article I have explained why I believe getting along is in fact possible, at least among those individuals willing to accept the challenge.
The first part of the article explains that getting along is in fact the “default setting” for most people most of the time. Even in those situations where an exception results in a disturbance, such as on a crowded airplane, most of the people involved are in favor of simply getting along. Much of the time they are relieved when the difficult person or persons are removed.
But everyone knows that serious conflicts, including those far greater than an in-flight disturbance, remain a regular part of our troubled world. We are led to believe that these are inevitable, just part of the “human condition.” In fact, the danger represented by the global conflicts, we are told, is the main reason we need our wise and courageous leaders. We are told.
In the second half of this article, I explain my reasons for rejecting this narrative. I actually pretty much turn it on its head, since I believe that our highly coercive and militaristic societies are themselves the cause of most of our difficulties in getting along with each other. This is in fact my core argument: Since our difficulties in getting along are not inherent and inevitable, we can learn to do a better job of it.
And we can benefit greatly if we do.
Next: How the Freedom Preacher can help
In the final article in the “getting along” series, I discuss some of the ways I can help those who would like to improve their interactions with others by simply learning how to get along better.
If you enjoyed this article, there is a good chance you will enjoy this next one as well, so here it is: