Chick-fil-Oh My Goodness This is Getting Ridiculous

Man am I glad that Chick-fil-A doesn't have any franchises on this island. Not that I don't enjoy myself a tender, juicy chicken burger with a side of crispy fries (hold the homemade iced tea). I don't, however, enjoy finding myself caught straddling two sides of a controversy that will never lead to reconciliation. What I learned in adolescence (besides the fact that body piercings cause life-long scarring and that punk is in fact dead) is that public protest usually does little to facilitate communication between two sides of an issue. Instead, it often ratifies groups in their own worldviews and fosters resentment toward "the Other"*. I fully support freedom of expression and applaud activism, but using a fast-food corporation as an effigy of political posturing seems a bit over the top. This whole thing reminds me of the time when anything French was renamed "freedom" in the United States, back in the good ol' Bush days. Don't tell me you didn't feel awkward ordering Freedom Fries at McDonalds, or asking for a Freedom Manicure at the spa.

If you haven't already deduced, I'm an advocate for gay rights in civil society. I don't condone what the president of Chick-fil-A has said regarding gay marriage. I don't agree with donating money to lobby against gay marriage. I also try to respect the freedom of speech, and the liberty to spend money as one sees fit. My somewhat ambivalent stance on the Chick-fil-A topic isn't a reflection of my political beliefs, but more the result of an education in conflict analysis. Without boring you with academic rhetoric, I'll try to explain why I believe that public demonstration of opinion exacerbates intolerance. This might also give some context to my feelings towards the LDS church's stance during the Prop 8 campaign.

When we become members of a cohesive group-whether it's through religion, opinion, politics or even sports-we begin to identify ourselves as we. "We believe in aliens". "We think Tom Hardy is a babe". "We like Skittles". As we come to identify with a particular group, our identities cause us to label those outside our group as them. "They don't believe in aliens". "They don't think Tom Hardy is a babe". "They don't like Skittles". "We are not like Them". Of course I'm choosing silly examples that don't stir deep-seeded emotions (unless you're like me and are irrationally afraid of an alien invasion. Or if you don't think Tom Hardy is a babe. That's just crazy). But when the beliefs, opinions and assertions of a group are linked to our deepest sense of what is right and true, we quickly take sides to defend our identity, which leads to ostracism, exclusivity and even hatred.

This is not to say that group identity is intrinsically bad or wrong. There are some people enlightened enough to maintain a strong identity without excluding or judging others. Unfortunately, most of us are so emotionally linked to our group identity that an assertion contradicting our group beliefs is seen as a personal attack, and we get defensive. And when we get defensive, we retreat to our own groups, gather allies, solidify our group identity, and cut off effective dialogue with the "Other". When dialogue is cut-off, conflict escalates into a he-said she-said game of hearsay, until we have such a distorted view that we lose the ability to see humanity in others. This often causes ignorance, intolerance and hatred. This is where war is born.

Bringing it back to Chick-fil-A, are we really so entrenched in our "us" vs. "them" mentality that we think eating or not eating a chicken burger is going to promote our agenda or engender a more tolerant atmosphere between two groups with differing opinions? Do we truly believe that shouting hurtful slogans and wielding signs is going to change the "other's" minds and soften their hearts? In my opinion, the only way to truly reconcile a seemingly irreconcilable debate is to see the humanity in one another, especially within those holding views that contradict our own. Unfortunately, verbal warfare in front of a chain restaurant is not going to foster extra-group hugs and effective communication. Instead, it will only lead both groups (supporting gay marriage/supporting traditional marriage)to justify their insular view of the Other.

Having said all this, I think it's really funny that people are making a point to eat at Chick-fil-A three times a day to show support for the owner's religious views. Next thing you know, Mormons are going to go bankrupt from sleeping at the Marriott (a hotel chain with a Mormon CEO).

Joking aside, what do you think about the Chick-fil-A debate? Are you starving yourself of crispy nuggets or getting fat on fast food and ideology?

This is Tom Hardy. Case in Point.


This is an alien invasion. Scared yet?





*this doesn't necessarily relate to all types of public protest. The Arab Spring protests as well as demonstrations to change public policy are effective ways to give voice to "the people"...Oh wow. I did it. I really did it. I used footnotes in a blog post. I'm such a nerd.