Sensitivity

Some issues are extremely close to our hearts; we’re very sensitive about them. We say, ‘Don’t touch that matter.’ And others warn, ‘Don’t touch these issues, or you’ll piss them off.’ So, what happens when someone dares to cross that boundary? Suddenly, an identity neither we nor others knew, and one we’re not proud of, is revealed. Even if neither we nor others like this new, exposed identity, we find ourselves unable to quickly bring it under control.

When the line is crossed on certain issues, we, who are often known for our silence, cannot stop speaking. Although our patience is frequently applauded, on some matters, we become explosive; we don’t even take a second to lash out in anger. While we are compassionate in many areas, on specific issues, we become harsh. We don’t hesitate to label someone who has crossed the line as an enemy, as if they have nothing to do with us. This truth compels us to reflect on “Why are we wired this way?” and “What is the solution?” This article aims to explore just that.

Why?

Why do we suddenly change and assume an identity we don’t want on some issues? Why does our patience quickly deplete? Why can’t we feel pity for those who challenge these matters? Why do we view someone who comes at us on these issues as an enemy who must be eliminated? Let’s look at four reasons.

The first is the magnitude of the issue. It shows how deeply rooted the issue is in our hearts. A matter we haven’t given importance to doesn’t agitate us; we don’t find ourselves getting angry about it. In fact, there is no other indicator in our lives that shows how much we value something as much as our emotions. This makes it appropriate to monitor our emotional life no less than our thoughts. We must wholeheartedly accept that what angers and excites us reveals our true identity more than our emotionless and logically packed analyses. To say, “I don’t care about issues that easily touch our emotions” is to deny ourselves, not benefit us. Therefore, let’s acknowledge that our emotional reaction indicates the place the issue holds in our hearts.

However, our emotions indicating the place an issue holds for us doesn’t mean our emotions shouldn’t be examined. When our emotions are easily touched by certain issues, let’s ask ourselves if the matter truly deserves the weight we’ve given it. Who knows, some things we’ve been agitated about might actually have been undeserving of such a place in our hearts from the outset. Just because something has found a place in our hearts doesn’t mean we must get angry and lash out at everything. We should never forget that our anger in itself is not righteousness. Let’s not mistake a lack of anger for weakness. And let’s not forget that our ability to listen will open the ears of others for ages more than the immediate attention we might gain from our anger.

The second reason relates to our moral perspective. When our emotions are triggered, it doesn’t just show our firm belief that something is wrong; it also reveals our conviction that everyone else should hold the exact same stance. It suggests we’ve reached a conclusion where there’s no “grey” on the issue for us—it’s strictly a black and white matter. Essentially, we believe that what’s clear to us must also be clear to everyone else. If that weren’t true, we wouldn’t become so angry and upset.

Our belief that something is immoral and has crossed the line of what’s right mostly gives us cover to accommodate the emotional accusations within our negative feelings. We justify ourselves by saying, “If we don’t get angry and upset about this, then what will we get angry and upset about?” We feel that tolerating this would be compromising.

However, if we begin to pause and think, we can calm down. Just because something appears clear to us doesn’t mean it’s truly clear to everyone. There’s a chance that what seems clear to us might not be clear to others. Therefore, let’s re-examine our moral stance. Let’s share our perspectives with those we consider transgressors; let’s engage in mutual understanding; and let’s firmly hold onto our positions that have been tested and proven.

Third, our sensitivity indicates our belief that the existence of something we value is in danger. Our response shows our effort to defend what we highly value. And the nature of threat is known; it biases us towards defense and attack rather than making us collaborative with others. Is what we cherish truly facing a risk of extinction? Did we exaggerate the threat? Does our fear signal our own sense of insecurities more than the other’s actual wrongdoing? Being able to ask these questions allows us to properly assess the threat and proportion our response accordingly.

The fourth reason shows that we don’t view the transgression merely as an unintentional fault or a mistake. It means we have viewed the wrongdoing as part of the transgressor’s identity. When a wrongdoing is taken as part of the transgressor’s identity, our likelihood of viewing the transgressor as an enemy increases.

However, if we think carefully, it is never right to define another person solely by their wrongdoing. The transgressor’s worth is always greater than their wrongdoing. Perhaps in limited cases, if it genuinely poses a threat to our safety, we should establish clear and uncrossable boundaries, but we should not see each other as enemies.

What is the solution?

Is it possible to stand firm on fundamental issues without agreeing with others and without compromising one’s stance on the matter? If so, what is the way? The way is to balance our passion and dedication with listening to those who don’t seem to share our fervor.

Many of us lack the virtue of listening on issues we are deeply committed to and passionate about.  But why? Perhaps we fear that listening to something different will extinguish our dedication and emotional fervor. We avoid listening because we think it will change us. However, the dedication and fervor we protect by not listening are useless to us; counting something as gold that hasn’t been tested by fire is nothing but self-deception.

Let’s always be careful how we listen, but let’s never refrain from listening. Let’s not forget for a moment that listening is an excellent way to repeatedly test our positions, to strengthen them, and to change them if necessary. If we truly accept ourselves, we must also view change as part of our identity. Let’s remember that being praised for being “unchanging” is a manifestation of human weakness, not strength.

We would benefit if we remember that something being fundamental and primary to us does not mean it is beyond scrutiny. Nor does it mean that everything fundamental to us must always be fundamental to others. While the scale of what is right is not as rapidly changeable as the weather, our perspective, being imperfect, can grow and change. There is no need to call a witness for this truth.

How many of us still hold onto our old selves on countless issues? None of us have maintained our old beliefs on every matter. To say, “I haven’t changed my stance on anything” is no less than saying, “I am perfect.” Even if we listen and don’t find the opinion appropriate, what’s the point of saying “I won’t listen” when we can still adhere to our stance? It doesn’t benefit us to view everyone who transgresses what we believe is right as a problem.

Without listening deeply, and without putting ourselves in other’s shoes, any conclusion we reach is indistinguishable from the vain wish of “May everyone be like me.” Listening helps us recognize the “otherness” of others, which makes us compassionate. Our opposition, too, helps us approach the other without attacking or judging them. It helps us avoid judging other’s single mistake or different judgment as their sole identity. We also refrain from asserting that our perspective should be the standard for everything.

[1]  Given that the article was originally written in Amharic and then translated into English using AI, it’s important to be mindful of potential nuances that might have been lost in translation.