By Jeff Bandel and Wen Yu Ho, Social Science Faculty

Taking stock of nearly a quarter of the 21st century, recent deeply impactful developments, from the global COVID-19 pandemic to the outbreak of armed conflict in different regions of the world, and from a cost-of-living economic crisis to the increased regularity of destructive severe weather events, all serve to give the unmistakable feeling that we are living through a particularly turbulent and tumultuous period in human history. As members of the Social Science discipline at Eastside Prep, we have regularly found ourselves tasked with guiding members of the school community to make sense of these earth-shaking developments, both through the content of classes such as International Relations, US History, or Modern Middle Eastern History, and through special workshops, such as the ones that have been organized in the past few school years in response to the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Our approach to engaging with the conflicts we see in the world today is rooted in the school’s mission, particularly the emphasis on compassionate leadership. We are keenly aware of the sensitivities involved in addressing these conflicts, and how members of our community have deep personal connections to one or more sides involved, be it through family, identity, ethnicity, or religion, just to name a few possible lines of connection. We steadfastly do not prescribe one narrative about the conflict over another; instead, we attempt to provide context for understanding why multiple narratives exist and how and where they differ. In particular, we are cognizant of the vital importance as an institution to avoid describing or analyzing issues in terms of “right” and “wrong.” Such an overly simplistic framing only serves to reinforce already widespread polarization that makes our attempts at empathetic dialogue extremely challenging.

One strategy we often employ right from the start is to establish a clear definition of key words that we will likely employ in our discourse. For example, what does it mean to label an individual as a “terrorist?” At the same time, we ask for participants to be especially conscious of the language choices they make, and to really avoid blanket statements in favor of more precise terms when expressing their opinion. This commonly comes up when critiquing the actions of a nationstate. Instead of saying that “America” has done something, we would prefer the use of “the Biden administration” or “the Trump White House” for the extra clarity.

Another thing we do our best to make clear to participants is not to trivialize the numbers and statistics about these conflicts. Oftentimes when discussing more distant history that we are further removed from period-wise, it is easy, in an academic setting, to lapse into a rather matter-offact analysis of developments, even for topics that arguably deserve more emotional weight, such as the treatment of enslaved Africans in the Atlantic slave trade. The contemporary conflicts we are attempting to make sense of have real, often unbearable human tolls that are deeply felt by members of our school community due to the deep personal connections mentioned above, and it is vital that we do not forget the weight of feelings and emotions that other members of our community may be experiencing.

What makes discussing the current conflicts especially challenging is the propensity to want to establish the “truth” behind what has happened, and which narrative or side is more “correct,” and therefore, how hard we have to push back against such inclinations. This propensity for “truth” or “correctness” generally leads to binary “good/ evil” comparisons, which as suggested before, are overly simplistic representations of the conflicts. To paraphrase some amazingly insightful work by Liam (Class of 2025) in his Spring 2024 Independent Study (Israel-Palestine: Past, Present, Future), it is vital to realize that for many of the parties involved in these conflicts, the narratives presented are not merely differing interpretations of “facts,” they are the indisputable facts themselves.

Ultimately, the members of the Social Science discipline at EPS approach our work here with a great sense of humility. We would be the first to acknowledge that we definitely do not have all the answers, that there is definitely much, much more that we need to learn, and that our perspectives on developments can and will change the more we do learn. To that end, we would especially challenge the notion that anyone fully knows and understands what is going on with regards to these conflicts.

Going forward, we hope to engage with an even larger part of the school community on this complex but necessary endeavor, particularly those who have previously expressed reservations because they feel that they will have to defend their views. Once again, what we do in our classes and workshops is not to enforce one point of view, but rather to allow members of our community to begin to absorb the complexity present. Doing so may involve deeply contemplating and reflecting on previously held perspectives and views, but we steadfastly believe that this is an invaluable and unavoidable step forward toward achieving the school’s vision “to inspire students to create a better world.”