The Birds, the Beasts, and the Bat
A GREAT conflict was about to come off between the Birds and the Beasts. When the two armies were collected together the Bat hesitated which to join. The Birds that passed his perch said: “Come with us”; but he said: “I am a Beast.”
Later on, some Beasts who were passing underneath him looked up and said: “Come with us”; but he said: “I am a Bird.”
Luckily at the last moment peace was made, and no battle took place, so the Bat came to the Birds and wished to join in the rejoicings, but they all turned against him and he had to fly away. He then went to the Beasts, but soon had to beat a retreat, or else they would have torn him to pieces. “Ah,” said the Bat, “I see now,
He that is neither one thing nor the other has no friends."
If you're like me, you kind of feel for the poor bat in this situation. He's friends with all of the other animals, and he doesn't really want to choose sides. He'd prefer to stay out of the fray. He wants to remain neutral. He feels he belongs in both camps, and the issues causing this conflict have nothing to do with him, in his mind. So, he chose neither side in the impending war, and, when it was all said and done, he lost all of his friends because of it.
You might feel that birds and the beasts were being immature by ostracizing him; and, that's a fair point. You may also feel that he was waiting to see which side was going to win before he made a decision, and that would be a fair point as well. With very few exceptions, most beasts and birds are social creatures, much like human beings. There is an inherent need to belong to a social group, and to fit in somewhere.
When we join up with a group, a social contract is made, whether that is verbal or non-verbal (and more often than not, it's the latter). Most of the time, we don't even consider its terms because we feel we are part of the tribe who thinks like we do. Why would we need to clarify when everyone is so much like we are? The answer doesn't become clear until the tribe begins to fracture.
When it does, there is at least one bat within the tribe- someone for whom the issues causing the fracture mean nothing. This person sees both sides of the issues and this is not a sticking point for him/her. So, why choose a side? It's not important to the bat.
And, therein lies the rub. What the bat failed to see was the fine print of that social contract that meant more to the birds and beasts than the actual issue(s) that caused the conflict- loyalty.
Both sides happily made up with one another because their issue was resolvable. It was easy to respect and forgive the "other side" because they had the fortitude to choose and be loyal to their cause. The bat was seen as disloyal to both sides, perhaps because it looked like he was waiting to choose the "winner". Whether that was his intention or not, it is how he was seen. In this instance, the bat was blatantly ostracized from both groups.
In many cases, it's much more subtle. A group will fracture over what may or may not be very legitimate issues. And, the bat will remain neutral. He/she want to be friends with both sides, because neither side's issues are something about which this person feels strongly, or the bat believes "no one has hurt me in this", so he/she chooses a side by not choosing a side- that being his/her own. The bat may remain friendly with both sides, but neither side really trusts the bat anymore.
Both sides watch what they say in front of the bat, for fear that the bat is going to run to the other side and tell them secrets. The bat begins to feel this, and starts hanging out with the side that seems friendlier, which then causes the other side to feel justified in their distrust. Eventually, a side may be chosen for the bat for this very reason. And, therefore, the bat now has a side, regardless of what he/she really wanted.
It can be difficult to be a bat, a bird or a beast in a situation like this. Online relationships seem much more disposable than those in real life. It's a lot easier to uncheck a "friend" button on a social media site than it is to tell someone in person (where body language can be read) that you no longer wish to have them in your social circle. Trust takes longer to build offline as well.
In online relationships, we tend to jump into social contracts without taking the time to read that fine print and slowly build up trust as we do when we're in an offline group. We also tend to be much more forgiving toward bad behavior online than off. The bat may have seen that the birds behaved very badly toward the beasts, but chose to ignore that the birds were the actual "bad guys" in the situation because the bat wasn't directly affected.
Unfortunately for the bat, those birds aren't really his friends. Deep down, the bat knows that he doesn't fit in with the birds, but he needs a tribe. The beasts don't really care for him because they have pointed out the unforgivable behavior of the birds to the bat, and the bat doesn't care. The beasts see the bat as unscrupulous and the birds see the bat as indecisive. In the end, the bat doesn't really have any true friends in either tribe. He's lost their respect all the way around.
So, what could the bat have done differently?
Sometimes, in our quest to be all things to all people, we lose sight of who we are and want to be. The bat could have chosen a side, but he doesn't like conflict. Conflict seems to be a dirty word in our society right now. Conflict isn't always a bad thing. It helps us to examine our past and present tenets and structures to determine if they are truly beneficial. Conflict can help us grow.
In this instance, the conflict was resolved, peacefully. The bat might have offered to play negotiator, since he could see both sides of the argument. The beasts and the birds would have most likely seen the bat as a hero rather than a traitor.
The bat could have examined the issues more carefully to ensure that he really was neutral in all of this. If the birds really were behaving badly, the bat should have spoken up and said something to the birds or chosen to side with the beasts, instead of purposefully ignoring the truth simply to avoid facing the truth.
The bat should definitely have examined his motives for not choosing. He cannot be both bird and beast. He must decide if either of them truly suits him, and be ready to fly solo if neither side fits.
In our own lives, we should take note of our social contracts, those we label "friend", and what that means for us, personally. Being authentic and true to ourselves is difficult in a world where masks and subterfuge are often the environment wherein we operate. We must also determine what we will and will not tolerate behavior-wise from those within our circles, stand up for what we know to be right and stop avoiding conflict at the cost of our own integrity and reputation.
It is better to be a lone wolf or a solo eagle than a friendless bat, any day.