I don’t believe in the power of elephants.
Too many of my acquaintances (whom I will generally call society) stiffen at the thought of them. Fear bound and still, with lips pursed and forearms crossed, they whisper over frigid shoulders, “There’s an elephant in that room.” Fingers pointed, they tell their circles, “Don’t look now, but there’s an elephant in there. Hideous thing!” They find it impossible to move, to breathe, to be oneself, to converse and carry on while under the looming presence of an elephant. Entering the room, to them, would necessarily result in being pressed between a wall and dirty rough hide. Horribly uncomfortable, horribly unsanctified. “I can’t go in there,” they say, “that elephant needs to be dealt with before I will ever go in.” So, they turn tail and scurry away.
Of course, this kind of elephant always has a companion (whom I will call the associate). A person, or group of people, to whom it is inextricably connected. The associate, because of his connection, becomes the primary object of society’s scorn, their disgust wrapped in glances and passed furtively behind perfectly postured backs. They hate the elephant, so they take it out on the associate.
Yet, the associate is often not in control of the connection he has with the elephant. Their relationship is frequently the result of life-altering decisions (whether poor or good), inspired by powerful forces of nature—the heart, the will, some might even offer fate, or providence as instigators. Whatever the force that led him there, he found himself at a fork in the road, and he made a decision. As it pertains to the elephant, it doesn’t matter why he made the decision, or even what the decision was. The only thing that matters is that a decision was made.
The elephant arises, then, not at the associate’s decisive moment, but rather after the fact, when society finds out about it and resolves to disapprove. An elephant is, in other words, generated by society’s static prejudice and intense opposition to change. Its substance is a cloud of emotion that derives from these two sources. Indeed, an elephant is society’s own creation, chained and linked to its involuntary associate due to one primary cause: a clash of convictions.
Society maintains a conviction that opposes that of the associate. Inversely, the associate maintains one that opposes that of society, evidenced by the decision the associate made that was contrary to the wishes, hopes, expectations, even moral obligations of the interested society. The elephant, therefore, exists in the liminal space between this disconnect. Because it surfaces the moment society discovers the divide, rarely is the elephant a two-way association. It is, rather, created and assigned to the associate by the interested society, a force of ideological judgement pulsing from the core of society’s belief structures and projected upon the associate.
In response to this action, the associate often tries to carry on as before, to live with the decision he made (whether he perceives it to be a good or poor one), accepting and often embracing the change it has wrought in his life, with no ill-will toward society, simply an innate desire to be accepted and treated with respect.
But such a desire dies at the feet of a society bent on dealing with an elephant, for they perceive it as a personal affront to carry on with so grievous an opposition, so vast a chasm between opinions. Pretense, as they see it, is an offense to them.
What, then, is society’s panacea for elephants?
Interventions and conditional affection. They require discourse, space and liberty to voice their judgements without polite restraint. Moreover, they demand an attentive, malleable audience from the associate. Their remedy is a relentless effort to restore the associate to his former self, to recreate his relationship with society so it becomes exactly what it had been before he stepped across the threshold of change. So powerful is their need for intervention that any relationship with the associate at all is contingent upon his willingness to listen and conform. From a safe distance outside the room, they shout, “You there! Your elephant is a burden on our society! We need to talk about it, to analyze it and pull it apart, prove to you it’s wrong, and dispose of it before we can come in and have tea.”
Sincerity, to them, is the key to a restored relationship. But their concept of sincerity requires conformity. Because there is no room in their interventions for disagreement. The associate cannot simply reply to their efforts, “Thank you for your concern, but I believe I’m on the right path.” Nor can he respond, “I do not wish to discuss the matter further,” because an unwillingness to discuss enlarges the elephant and moves the relationship toward an irredeemable stalemate that, in society’s opinion, cannot be overlooked. Nor can it be forgiven. Repentance and reform by the associate are society’s only solution.
But what of the associate?
If repentance and reform are necessary, that is, if the divide was caused by a decision rooted in malice or intentional harm, then indeed the associate will likely find his way toward that end when the time is right. However, if they are not necessary, if the divide was caused by the associate making a personal decision which he perceived was vital for the sake of his own life, liberty, and happiness, having nothing directly to do with society, then there necessarily exists a more altruistic way of dealing with elephants.
To the associate, society’s insistence on intervention and conditional affection is unkindness verging on cruelty. Likely, the decision that brought about such a drastic split was not an easy one to make. The associate probably envisioned the elephant before it existed, knowing full-well that when he stepped foot on his choice path, society would respond with vehement opposition. It is most probable that he lived out their rejection and disdain in his mind’s eye before it ever manifested in his physical world. He may have even discussed the matter extensively with society prior to making his decision, discovering and experiencing the weight of their disapproval before it became concrete. The impact of their ultimate reaction, the realization of his being suddenly chained to an ethereal beast that society deems hideous, unacceptable, and corrupt, unavoidably causes the fault lines within his being, his sense of self and worth, to crack and shift inalterably, leaving disjointed parts and scars across his emotional make up. Trauma is the technical term.
Interrogating the associate, prying into the experiences, emotions, and reasoning that led to his decision, restating the disappointment and disdain society has already clearly conveyed regarding their opinion on the matter, is to the associate like acid on an open wound. Such an environment, which is frequently the relational dynamic when elephants are present, will almost certainly result in the associate closing himself off from society and perhaps even lashing out at them in his own defense. The associate learns over time that open discourse with a society bent on dealing with the elephant is not only impossible, but extremely painful. As a result, he will likely refuse to enter into dialogue with society at all because to him, agreeing to converse openly is the same as agreeing to verbal assault. He knows society will not change their minds. And neither will he.
Therefore, nothing productive can be accomplished by addressing the elephant in this manner. It will always result a painful stalemate, cold and stiff, only worsening as time passes.
How, then, is one to deal with elephants?
The best way to deal with elephants is to not deal with them at all; to recognize, first and foremost that they do not, in fact, exist. In order to expel them, one must understand that they are comprised of ideological prejudices, mere opinions that insist, against all opposition, that they deserve the highest seat at the table. They are ideas made of assumption, bias, and partiality, which as a whole, casts a shadow so large and intimidating that it has the appearance and shape of a beast, but in reality, no tangible substance whatsoever. Elephants are like the man behind the curtain. Small and simple at their core.
If elephants, then, are shadows, society needs only light to dispel them. Perspective is the necessary light, and it alone has the power to break up elephantine shadows. But perspective requires relinquishing the need for agreement and conformity. Perspective demands empathy from society, an ability to step down from their pedestal, from the judgement seat, and step into another’s mind. It requires society try to see the world, the situation at hand, as the associate sees it. And vice versa (although often the associate has already spent a great deal of time in society’s shoes and readily understands their point of view, albeit one they disagree with).
If, after genuinely obtaining the perspective of another, disagreement remains, then the only way to dissolve the residing shadow is by choosing to let it go; by looking beyond the elephant to the person on the other side, and deciding to offer kindness and affection regardless of the divide. Unconditional love is the sentimental term.
Society must enter the room before dealing with the elephant, and in doing so they will find the shadow will begin to dissolve naturally, on its own accord. They will discover that not dealing with the elephant is the only way to deal with the elephant. Because after everything the associate has been through, everything that has shaped and colored his experiences with society, the only actions he is fully able to receive and embrace from them are kind gestures and genuine smiles. And they will find, remarkably, that the power behind such simple actions is everything a relationship needs to grow, to develop beyond the shallow springs of cordiality.
Kindness alone can crack open the door. Kindness alone can fertilize a barren land, enabling a tiny sprout, the first to break through hard, packed earth. Kindness is the sun and the rain that gives it life and allows it to bud, bloom, and eventually flourish. May society soften their shoulders and their fists, may they dip their chins and eyes and finally direct their gaze to the associate, to the human soul that they have chained to an elusive, beastly shadow.
May they see the person instead of the elephant.
Letters Concerning Elephants between Society and A Disassociated Associate
Dear Society,
I was fortunate enough to spend some time with your brother this weekend. What an incredible person! He told me stories of the two of you growing up, and the secret messages you would pass through stolen glances and codes only siblings could understand. I thought that was really sweet.
I also got to visit the rest of the family in town. How wonderful it was to be back for a spell! Anyway, I hope you are doing well.
Your Associate
~~~*~~~
My Dear Associate,
Yes, I remember those times, those glances and codes fondly. Sadly, we don’t have the kind of relationship where that is possible anymore.
Indeed, I have some unfinished business with my brother. I have tried time and again to discuss it with him, but he refuses to talk about the things that need to be talked about. It is annoying to see him pretend that everything is fine when everyone knows there is something that needs to be dealt with: an elephant.
He has alienated himself from his entire family for reasons that none of us understand or deserve. I am happy that you want to connect with the family, but I don’t think that particular relationship is going to be edifying for you or move you in the direction of any conciliatory place with us.
Society
~~~*~~~
Dear Society,
I believe he’s hurt like the rest of us are in one way or another, and I know what it feels like to have no will to rehash the past. Especially when doing so never changes anything. Sometimes all one can manage is a kind word and a genuine smile. So, I prefer to forget the elephant and offer what kindness I can when I have the opportunity to do so.
I suppose my philosophy is quite different than yours in that regard. I think elephants are best addressed over time through kindness and unconditional love. Sometimes without any words. Addressing them with interventions and critical conversations only seems to breed bitterness and strife. But to look beyond the elephant, with love and kindness, makes it easy to see the beauty and humanity of everyone in the mix. That’s what we all are. Human. Yes, broken, but overcoming and growing and learning and beautiful. Thank goodness for Love who sees us instead of our elephants.
I know no one’s perfect. I’m just saying sometimes elephants aren’t as big and in-the-way as we presume them to be.
Your Associate