The impossible (yet necessary) imperative to make peace

On not being naive about loving our enemies

"Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law." -James Baldwin

The onslaught of commentary on the internet regarding recent world events has me feeling bewildered and somewhat scandalized. The slew of hot takes devoid of nuance and the apparent eagerness to exacerbate already tense polarization are disheartening, to say the least. I’ve prayed for voices of reason to show up as I scroll through my feed, but even posts championing the loftier ideals of peace and reconciliation–what I thought were answers to my prayer–leave me feel like there’s still something lacking.

Charity demands that we concede that each “faction” in the game possesses some grain of truth. Each respective “position”–expressed with raging fervency—is rooted in convictions, albeit incompletely formed ones, about the complicated matters at hand.

Yet thus is the behemoth of internet discourse: it hinders us from developing mature and nuanced judgements, and enables us to substitute them with reductive sound bites and memes–the din of infantile identitarian griping futilely attempts to fill in a deeply entrenched existential void, as we signal out into the ether our imagined “tribal” belonging.

Those taking up an intransigent position in defense of one side or the other–in the name of brute justice and a fanatical thirst for righteousness, often by any means necessary–rightly recognize the naivety of the cause for peace, an alleged middle ground. The imperative to pursue reconciliation is to them an impossibility, an idealistic fantasy beyond our reach.