Adopted belief systems can be pernicious, because while we may justifiably assume the value-defining elements in our lives are our own—constructed from homemade blueprints and self-mortared bricks—many of them are inherited (from family or culture), transmitted (from marketing messages or social groups), or copied wholesale from purveyors of such systems (political, faith-based, or philosophical).

Adopting pre-packaged ideologies in their entirety is simple and passive and normal, which is why many of us do so without even thinking about it.

Why not let someone else do the complex, often convoluted work of coming up with assessments and tenets, and strategies for applying them to everyday life?

It’s easier to just wear the logos, shout the slogans, and adopt the labels of whichever party or faith or fandom appeals to us; why futz with so many specifics, so much philosophical or governmental or cultural arcana if the work’s already been done for us? Especially if we can find a group that approximates our beliefs and priorities and values?

I would argue it’s worth questioning our self-adhered labels and self-adopted tribal affiliations because such categorizations can cause us to flatten ourselves and others.

We tend to whittle away our personal distinctions to better fit within groups we join, and we tend to unflatteringly two-dimensionalize people in groups that differ from ours.

This is normal: we’re psychologically and socially incentivized to take care of “our own,” fear and diminish “the Other,” and color within the overt or implied lines delineated by the groups with which we’re affiliated.

There’s value, though, in identifying the minor distinctions, giving them a long, earnest look, and working what we discover into our understanding of self, society, and other people.

It’s okay, for instance, to agree with pretty much everything someone says or does, but to disagree with them on several points, small or substantial.

It’s also okay to stand in general opposition to someone’s actions and beliefs, but to also look for and acknowledge positive overlaps in values and experiences where you can find them.

It’s okay to be part of a group—any kind of group—and question the tenets, the direction, the stratagems and messages they utilize.

And it’s okay to generally disagree with what another group does and says while also looking for points of similarity and agreement.

Some of my favorite writers, activists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, and other thinkers are people with whom I agree about many things, but not everything.

And that’s okay! I don’t think I’ve ever met or encountered the work of someone with whom I agree about absolutely every specific, and the distinctions between myself and other people are part of what make my relationships with them (and/or their work) valuable.

It can be frustrating, anger- or anxiety-inducing, and emotionally riling to engage with people or groups or ideas that are discordant with our own.

Identifying areas of intersection, even small ones, can help alleviate that jarring sensation and can allow for collaboration (or bare-minimum, peaceful coexistence) between otherwise oppositional groups.

It can also allow people with different perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, values, and ideologies to operate within the same spaces and systems, their respective strengths amplified and respective weaknesses diluted by the other.

Pre-packaged belief systems are appealing because they allow us to feel like we’re part of something bigger than ourselves and prescribe a ready-to-use collection of rules, milestones, and goals we might otherwise have to come up with ourselves.

There’s value in that, and there’s nothing wrong with belonging to such groups.

I would argue it’s even better to consciously keep our unique, personal portfolios of perspectives intact, however, so we’re more likely to retain our distinctiveness (even when part of a cherished group), are more capable of productively working alongside, learning from, and sharing with folks who we might otherwise dismiss as being inferior to us in some way, and are less likely to demonize those who for whatever reason come to different conclusions than we do.

If you found some value in this essay, consider supporting my work by buying me a coffee :)