They are serious, and don't call me Shirley!
Reflecting on Wisdom a Templar friend shared once and the just world.
I have been thinking about one of the wisdoms a Templar friend of mine once shared with me.
He said
"The way I understand it, once you get right down to it, there are really only two types of people in this world. It doesn't matter if you are Christian, Pagan, Atheist, Hindi, what colour your skin is or what language you speak;
either you are someone who says
I went through this thing that sucked to get to where I am so you should have to as well
Or you are someone who says
I went through this thing that sucked and you shouldn't have to, no one should have to.”
Thinking about this and the "just world theory".
The just world theory, in simplistic terms, is that the world is fundamentally fair. If put like that most people say they don't believe that to be true, but deep down most people actually do.
One of the most common ways that shows up is the "Shirley exception". When there is a rule or law that can (and probably will) be used to persecute or target someone but is "not really meant for those circumstances". This is the Shirley exception, so called because the argument against changing the rule or law usually runs along the lines of "surely they don't mean you" or "surely that is not something they care about". These lines are in particular trotted out by people who are not included under the law who are pushing back on the concerns (read: “telling them that they are being ridiculous and overreacting”) raised by people who could be.
Most such laws tend to create a division between "good" and "bad" people within a minority, and people who have, consciously or unconsciously embraced the just world theory believe that surely this law only applies to the bad people.
Here is a simple real world example; hair and dress codes. Many schools and work places have a rule about "Hair must be natural colours, clean and well groomed in a normal hair style"
For a lot of folks that means "don't have dyed your hair blue or pink etc" and many folk would say 'yeah fair call I guess ' (why, in my view, that is incorrect and societally harmful is beyond the scope of this post).
If you are a person of colour however this often means that your hair, in its natural and unaltered state, is noncompliant. That is before we talk about hairstyles that do work for Black hair, which are almost universally not considered to be "a well groomed and normal hairstyle" by these codes.
When this gets brought up people who, even unconsciously subscribe to the just world theory, will say "but surely that is not the intent of the rule. Surely it won't be used in those circumstances. People aren't stupid".
No they aren't stupid, but they are also not all nice. Some people may take the rule or law too literally. Some people will be as ignorant as the defenders of Shirley's exception and simply "not see the problem"; and more harmfully not listen when someone tells you what the problem is and address that in a meaningful way instead of just ignoring it.
Then there is the group of people who well and truly knew that this rule or law could, and would, be weaponised against people; that was the whole point and everything else was a justification, a rationale, to obscure that.
A very clear example from history that has spread across generation and nations:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Media source:
The same approach combining maliciousness, bigotry and ignorance continues to happen, on a daily basis around the world anyplace people gather to make rules and laws that apply to people outside that room, and worst of all in the hearts and minds of people.
So thinking on the Templar wisdom I would suggest there is a step further to go.
There are three types of people;
Those who say that there is a just world so if they suffered you should too. This can take so many the forms
"Everything happens for a reason"
"God works in mysterious ways"
“Your vibe attracts your tribe”
“All men are created equal and have the same chance to be successful”
“You can do anything you put your mind to”
Those who say that there is not a just world; shit happens get over it and play the hand you are dealt without complaining because we all have our burdens. You carry yours and I will carry mine.
Those who say that yes the world is not fair, and so we have a duty to make up the difference. Not to remake the world in our own image (those tend to be the second sort of people, the ones who have decided the best way is the one they know and so all people should have their experience or, more accurately, their idealised experience) but instead to listen to people when they say something is unfair, that something has harmed them and then do something about it. Not be trying to undo what happened, not by taking guilt for things beyond your control but by committing to make it different for the next person. Or to revise the original wisdom
"Someone, anyone, went through this thing that sucked and no one should have to. Tell me everything so I can try, in whatever ways are in my power, to make it different in the future"
**To be clear I am in no way saying I think the Templar wisdom falls short or what have you. In my experience of the Templar's that leap to making a change goes without saying and is informed by Templar morals and wisdom.