Lately, the word ‘right’ seems to be cropping up everywhere. I’m not sure if it’s because it actually is being used more or if it’s because I’m just realizing how pervasive it is in our everyday language. Maybe it’s like the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, better known as the frequency illusion. Since I’m more aware of its use, it appears to be occurring more frequently. Regardless, as I sit here knitting a sweater, I notice the instructions refer to the right and wrong side of the garment. How can one side of a sweater be wrong? Both sides are worn at the same time. Why not refer to them as the inside and outside, or simply the front and back? The weave on one side actually creates the weave on the other, all from the same thread. Consequently, one side cannot exist without the other. Use of the word right seems patently wrong in this instance.
According to the dictionary, the word right is defined as that which is correct. Historically, by association, that which was deemed right was considered desirable, moral, virtuous, in essence godly. Meanwhile, anything considered not right must be the opposite, making it wrong, and therefore undesirable, immoral, sinful, even evil. Over time, the word left, with origins in the Latin word “sinister” meaning left leaning, also acquired wicked connotations. This misconstrued application of the word left extended to the human body. For example, individuals demonstrating a preference for the left hand were considered evil, sometimes forced by violent means to use their right hand. Less dramatically, one who cannot dance is described as having two left feet. Never two right feet which would be equally awkward. And let’s not forget the whole right brain versus left brain dominance debate, which by the way has since been debunked as a myth, an oversimplification of the brain’s functioning. While the two sides have specialized roles, they work together, in tandem, constantly communicating and coordinating their functions. Ironically, this was the one time that the left was actually believed to be superior to the right. Perhaps not surprisingly, males were assumed to be left brain dominant while females were right brain dominant, but I digress. I always thought the reason the left side of the body was referred to as such was because that’s what was left after the other side of the body was labelled right. Silly me.
Then there’s the use of the word ‘right’ to delineate those liberties with which individuals are presumed to be favored merely because of their existence in a particular place, with a particular anatomy, and a particular skin color. While these rights are purportedly divinely endowed, which would imply they are unquestionable, humans have been arguing for centuries, nay millenia, about who these rights apply to, usually assuming they apply to the group they belong to, but not to those who don’t belong to their group.
I’m not sure what my parents were thinking, but they instilled in me a greater concern about my responsibilities than my rights. In fact, I was curious why it was not called the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. When contemplating my rights, I can’t help but wonder where my rights end and those of others begin. Sometimes it seems that what people refer to as their rights are actually just their choices. But just because one person has the right to choose to do or not do something does not mean they have the right to impose that choice on others. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about this distinction.
Likewise, there seems to be confusion about the difference between righteous, a derivative of the word right, and self-righteous. While the former refers to conducting oneself in a manner that is moral, ethical, honest, and uncorrupted in one’s behavior toward others, the latter is characterized by an unfounded assumption that one is totally correct and morally superior in one’s beliefs justifying whatever actions one takes without regard for the implications those actions may have for others. In other words, while the righteous person is concerned with everyone having a fair share, the self-righteous person is satisfied with getting more than their fair share.
Finally, the polarizing use of the words left and right to describe our two major political parties and their ideologies has become increasingly inflammatory. We take these two little four- and five-letter words and hurl them at one another like accusations. We treat them as though they are complete opposites, one being the antithesis of the other. But right and left are not opposite in the sense that light and dark are opposites. While dark is the absence of light, right does not possess qualities that are absent in left. Right and left have much more in common than opposites. Externally, the right side of the human body has all the same parts as the left side. They are different sides of the same organism. Likewise, right and left ideologies are different ways of thinking about the same things. No two of us think exactly alike or think the same thing for the same reasons.
Like so many other labels we conveniently adopt to categorize people – sex, skin color, religion, geographical location, or whatever characteristic we choose to focus on – these simple words are utterly insufficient to define any single person. Yet we use them to rationalize casting aspersions on anyone who belongs to the group being targeted. One of the dangers of labels is that they relieve us of a sense of personal responsibility for our actions. If someone is ______, they must be _______, so they deserve ________. In the absence of any information other than a label, we feel justified in our treatment of them.
Generally speaking, labels allow us to dehumanize those who make us feel uncomfortable, who challenge our beliefs, who lead us to question that which gives us a sense of security. But just because we choose to believe something doesn’t make it true, or real, or fact. Just because we say something doesn’t make it so and saying it more doesn’t make it more so.
Understandably, what we grow up with is what we come to believe is right. The less exposure we have to other ways of thinking, other ways of doing things, other ways of being, the more resistant we become to modifying our definition of what is right. But what is deemed right is highly subjective, easily misconstrued and corrupted to attain self-serving goals.
Frequently, of late, I’ve observed countless examples of what feels frightfully wrong being declared right…dispicable, destructive, indefensible behavior being lauded as admirable, celebrated as evidence of strength. When we rigidly adhere to our beliefs while ignoring the plight of others…when we desperately cling to our way of thinking while those around us are suffering…when our beliefs become more important to us than our compassion, we are in grave danger of abandoning our humanity.
Events of recent months have reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from the Harry Potter series. When the return of Voldemort becomes undeniable in The Goblet of Fire, Professor Dumbledore warns, “Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy.” I used to think I knew what the word right meant. I grew up being instructed to “do the right thing.” “If you’re going to do something, do it right.” “If you can’t do something right, don’t do it at all.” What was meant by right seemed so clear to me then. Doing what was right meant doing my best..doing right by others…treating others the right way. Now I find myself questioning whether I ever really understood.
In my current quandary, I recall another quote from a favorite novel, Blessings by Anna Quindlen. When the matriarch, a stickler for doing what was proper, is preparing to send her daughter away to boarding school because it is, “the right thing for a girl in her situation,” her closest friend reproaches her saying, “For God’s sake, Lydia, can’t you for once in your life stop thinking about what’s right and start considering what’s good?” Is it possible, as this exchange suggests, that things proclaimed to be right are not always good? Is it reasonable to infer that that which is good is therefore right, but that which is right is not necessarily good? Rather than be hindered by what we think is right, perhaps we can be liberated to do what we know is good.
When contemplating what good is, my mind immediately turns to the Golden Rule, which by the way is not exclusive to Christianity but is actually fundamental to many world religions, and implores us to treat others the way we would like to be treated. It doesn’t tell us to treat others the way we have been treated, or treat others the way we think they deserve to be treated, or treat others however we want. It instructs us to treat others the way we would want to be treated. To my way of thinking, this means that I should not do anything to others that I would not want done to me. Such a simple directive, but simple is not necessarily easy.
We have reached a critical time in our history when we must choose between what is good and what is easy. This is not the time to retreat into darkness. Now’s the time to stand up for those unable to stand up for themselves. Speak out for those whose voices are being ignored or silenced. Stay alert and beware of false narratives designed to cause division and hostility. Take action that promotes understanding and peace. Strive to create the conditions essential for the preservation of a healthy future for our children and our planet.
A synonym for good is humane. In choosing to be humane, while living locally, I can think globally. While living in the present, I can be informed by the past while staying mindful of the future. Although I cannot change mistakes from the past, I can certainly choose not to repeat them. I won’t live forever, but I will live for good.
