In everything we do, plan and even conceive of achieving with others, we are supposed to have unity. That is the common consensus. My questions though, are what is unity and how is it achieved? Is there such a thing as 'True/Real Unity'? If so, what is 'True/Real Unity'? Those are the questions I will attempt to address. To begin, here is how Mariam-Websters Online Dictionary defines "unity":
unity
One entry found.
Main Entry:
uni·ty Listen to the pronunciation of unity
Pronunciation:
\ˈyü-nə-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural uni·ties
Etymology:
Middle English unite, from Anglo-French unité, from Latin unitat-, unitas, from unus one — more at one
Date:
14th century
1 a: the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness b (1): a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation
2 a: a condition of harmony : accord b: continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)
3 a: the quality or state of being made one : unification b: a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect ; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character
4: a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole
5: any of three principles of dramatic structure derived by French classicists from Aristotle's Poetics and requiring a play to have a single action represented as occurring in one place and within one day
6 capitalized : a 20th century American religious movement that emphasizes spiritual sources of health and prosperity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unity
There is one common denominator that I notice within all these definitions, the idea of oneness. So it could simply be that unity can be plainly described as "oneness". The issue now is that whenever we put this idea of oneness to work, it almost always [1] seems as though it is specific to a task. My people have a saying that goes, "a gbakọta, gbakọta nyuọ mmammiri, ya agbaa ụfụfụ" [2]. The literal meaning is that when people come together and urinate, foam is produced. It is a saying that is often used when it comes to discussing unity, saying that oneness on a particular task, will allow for the job to get done. Even though the saying makes perfect sense to me and is agreeable to me, I see it as problematic in the sense that it does not connect with the concept of 'True/Real Unity' as I see individuals often use. This idea of True Unity has become increasingly popular, and questionable. See, whenever the concept of True/Real Unity is brought up, people tend to associate it with a kind of everlasting oneness. For example, in a discussion I had with someone some time ago, I discussed how warfare unites a people against a common enemy. I stated that their coming together during war is unity. The individual disagreed, stating that it was not unity, or even true/real unity, because after war, there is no guarantee that the people will stay united as a people. This really got me thinking as to what True/Real Unity is, and if it even exists in our world.
Now, seeing as to how unity is almost always applied to specific tasks, I cannot conceive of how such a thing as "True/Real Unity" [everlasting unity] exists, because one cannot expect the task to last forever. The task will be completed sooner or later. So why should there be an expectation to have that unity stand after the task is completed? In reality, there ought not be any expectation to have that unity stand, but for some reason, people feel the need to have their unity extend past the completion of the task [3]. I pondered this for a while, and I came to a realization (not sure if the realization itself can thoroughly answer my questions though). The realization that I came to was that maybe, True/Real Unity is supposed to be synonymous with what I would term as 'General Unity'. When I say 'general unity' I mean a mutual understanding of belonging to a single unit. Explained further, it would be that different small units recognize themselves as being members of a single, cohesive unit, devoid of specific tasks. This general unity could very well be what people mean when they say True/Real Unity. If that is the case, then there is a problem. If True/Real Unity is meant to be General Unity, then any other kind of oneness, in regards to specific tasks, is not unity, or at least not 'True/Real Unity'. This also means that General Unity is also not True/Real Unity, because there is also no guarantee that the parts will forever see themselves as all part of a single cohesive unit.
This realization then led me to conclude that there is no such thing as True/Real Unity. It does not exist in our world. Reason being that if it existed, then things such as war, disagreements, disputes, debates, cultural/life-style clashes, and anything else that divides people would not exist. Under that premise, True/Real Unity (everlasting unity) does not exist. It now means that unity is unity, regardless of the context. Whether it be people united in war, united in a business agreement, united through blood, or anything else, unity is unity. This has now cleared up the question of the existence of True/Real Unity.
Now the only question left is, how do we achieve unity? This is something that someone else and I could not agree on in the same discussion I had about war uniting people. The individual and I were both discussing general unity [4]. In the course of our discussion, the individual stated that [general] unity is only achieved by focusing on similarities and ignoring differences. The individual's claim was that if people want to achieve real unity, then they would have to ignore the aspects of them that make them different and only focus on the aspects of them that make them similar. I take this to mean that they ought to focus on the aspects of themselves that establish and maintain their cohesiveness as a single unit. The individual's claim of how unity is achieved is very problematic, because the same individual said that people united in war is not real unity. Yet, those united in war are ignoring their differences and focusing on what makes them one cohesive unit, their dislike, or hatred, or desire to fight against a common enemy. An excellent example of this is gang warfare, and gangs working together against a bigger gang in order to defend their turfs. For that reason, the individual's claim of achieving unity, and the statement of unity in war contradict one another.
I on the other hand stated that [general] unity is best achieved through working with similarities, while at the same time, working through differences (in other words, acknowledging and addressing differences). The individual claimed that [general] unity cannot be achieved that way, because acknowledging and addressing differences would only divide the people more, if they aren't already divided. In my head, I figured the individual was wrong, and I still believe so. So I stated that if differences (which will always be there) are not acknowledged and addressed in the course of the union, and all the people do is focus on what makes them one cohesive unity (or better explained as what they have in common), then it would cause unwanted tension, both in the short and long term.
Now, seriously take the time to ask yourself these questions, and answer them for yourself.
1. Can you honestly say that ignoring differences is fail-safe?
2. Can you honestly tell me and tell yourself that ignoring differences in culture, personality, lifestyles, etc. will not result in some kind of tension surfacing sooner or later on down the road?
3. Can you honestly say that calling all differences obsolete will render them incapable of affecting one's relationship with someone else?
4. Can you honestly say that rendering all differences unimportant erases those differences from existence?
Have you thought about it? Well, if even if you haven't, I'll continue anyway. Those differences (which the individual I discussed with, claimed should be ignored) will always be there. Ignoring them is nothing more than an attempt to cover up a potential explosive with a bedspread. That does not get rid of the explosive though. Rather, the explosive will just be left to sit there, until the fuse burns out, thereby causing it to go boom. No one wants that. So, what needs to be done, instead of trying to ignore the explosive, is to disarm it. In other words, the differences need to be acknowledged and addressed [dealt with]. Not covered over with fine cloth [ignored].
[5]
This led me to a thought... Both of our claims as to achieving unity do in fact make sense, but only in different applications. The individual's claim as to achieving unity would work best for task-oriented unity (short-term). Where as mine would be for general unity (long-term). The individual's claim is best suited for short-term unity (task-specific unity of any kind, an example is warfare) in the sense that differences ought to be ignored if the task is to be completed. Applying the individual's claim of achieving unity to general unity would create a very unsecured oneness. My claim is best suited for long-term unity (general unity, an example is building a nation) in the sense that the differences ought to be acknowledged and addressed as soon as possible if the union is to stand, and continue standing. A fine example is marriage. Marriage is supposed to be a long-term commitment. If there is a difference/clash that arises between the two within the union and they do not do acknowledge and address it (in other words, handle the issue, whether it be through compromise, sacrifice or whatever), then it will be left to sit there. Sooner or later, that difference will become more pronounced and problematic for the union, and often time, irreconcilable. When it reaches that stage the union will fall. If the difference though, had been acknowledged and addressed (in other words, handled or sorted out), rather than left there to fester, then the union be able to continue standing, because the issue was not allowed to grow, cause tension and become problematic.
Any attempt to apply my claim to short-term unions would only cause problems, because it would not be task-specific. People, or groups of people, entering a short-term union (task-specific unions) do not intend on being united forever. If someone within them, or outside of them, motions for a lasting union outside of their task, then it is most likely going to be greeted with resistance, and sometimes hostility.
This has now led me to conclude that there are two kinds of unity. Short and Long-term. Short-Term unity is task-specific, getting the job done. Long-Term unity is general unity, a mutual sense/understanding of belong in oneness. True/Real Unity does not exist. There is also no such thing as the best unity, or the best way to unite a people, or the best thing to unite a people under, because each approach to unity will be different by virtue of the situation. So there is not such thing as the best way to be united either. Unity is Unity and can only be divided into two categories (short & long-term). It exists in any and everything we set out to achieve with others. Granted, there are varying levels as to how unity is applied, but nonetheless, it is unity (active level notwithstanding). There is also such a thing as no unity, and we see it everyday.
We would all like for unity to be everywhere, but let us face it, we do not live in a perfect world. We have to make do with what we have. We have to appropriately apply unity as best as we know how, because there is no best way. Unity Is Unity. Everlasting Unity doesn't exist, so we cannot expect a general union to hold itself. We each must make sacrifices, and compromise with each other, for the good of whichever union we are apart of. Otherwise, our different unions won't stand.
For some reason, I don't feel satisfied with my thoughts. Something doesn't feel right... something feels incomplete or out of place. I guess unity is a very complex topic/subject/issue. Any attempt to wrap one's head around it can often time raise more questions than it can give answers... or at least, raise more uncertainty/incompleteness. What do you think?
Footnotes:
1. I say almost always because I have yet to come across anything like general unity, but because of the law of exceptions (being that there are exceptions to any and/or everything).
2. A proverb of the Igbo people dealing with strength in numbers and unity in order to achieve/complete a task.
3. Do not get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with that. I myself, actually have the same sentiments.
4. I'm led to believe so because that's what the individual told me.
5. I got the above paragraph from the discussion I had with the individual, which I saved, but I edited it to fit this note.
Sorry it ended up being so long... I had a lot of time to think about it.
