Forcing Someone to Make a Statement is Fundamentalism

Coercive group think is more than peer pressure or even ethics

One aspect of fundamentalist thinking that I often encounter outside of religion is polarization. Taking sides offers the ones who agree a feeling of safety, and if you’re dependent on an external locus of control, you’ll find comfort in firm positions and polar ends. Knowing who stands for what offers reassurance.

But at my core, from my earliest childhood memories, I’ve been a “well it depends” kind of girl. A big picture girl. Stark argument befuddled me. I was the kid decrying, “But that’s not fair,” when an adult ignored relevant context and shut down the explanation. I naturally bend towards curiosity and wonder.

I learned to suppress this about myself in high-control religion because internal control was shamed and external control was so loud, rigid, and high-stakes.

Better do what they say or you’ll end up in hell.

Lean not on your own understanding.

Gotta avoid that slippery slope.

Whose side are you on, anyway?

In recovery from high control, abuse, and trauma, I fiercely guard my muddy middle. Fluidity. Taking my time. Shades of gray. Context. Individual nuance. Curiosity, wonder, and questions. Allowance. Flex. These are the hallmarks of my unfundamentalist life. They are necessities and antidotes for trauma responses. They heal.

Does disagreement threaten you?