Reactivity vs. Engagement
Reactivity, in Chemistry, is defined as: “a measure of how much a substance reacts when it is mixed with another substance.”
Reactivity is a choice; often made with impulsivity. When we choose to react, we often do so in the heat of the moment, without consideration for the bigger picture. Choosing to react to something also opens us up to its energy. It often tethers us to the vibration of the person or situation we are reacting against. It draws us into all that is associated with it and the energy of all whom are also reacting to the same thing. In this way, reactivity magnetizes groups of people together. It is attractive because it confirms our righteousness.
Reactivity feels good in the moment because it triggers the ego. It stokes our arrogance. There is an adrenaline that courses through the body; one’s heart literally races and we feel “mobilized” into action. Reactivity can be perceived as intellectual because it can be shrouded in the belief that one is “thinking critically”. When we react, we falsely connect the concepts of thinking and labelling. Identifying something as good or bad; right or wrong; just or unjust is simply an unleashing of judgement, it requires an “othering” to validate our perspective. There is nothing critical about it, except the criticism. To react to something, we must place ourselves in the egoic position of being more “right” than someone or something else. Reactivity upholds polarity: a black and white perspective.
Reactivity is the language of our current world. It is often clothed in: activism, involvement, championing, effecting change. The ego is also well supported in this. It is easy to react when everyone else is reacting. It feels good to be in cohesion with a group of people. It feels like the reaction is doing “something”. There can be good intentions behind reactivity: a sense of wanting to “make things right”. But in this sentiment is also a need to control and force a viewpoint or perspective. It requires taking a side; doubling down; SEPARATION.
Is reactivity the same as engagement?
According to the Oxford Dictionary, “engagement is being involved with someone or something with the attempt to understand them/it.” It requires nuance and skill.
It requires the mind flex of allowing for two things to be true; simultaneously. It does not dance in polarity. It lives in the grey.
It requires the skill set of; objectivity, balance, a willingness to listen, contemplate, revise and revisit. It requires the ability to validate the multiplicity of perspectives and experiences that are true for those experiencing the reality in which they find themselves. True engagement with something means choosing to see the situation as a whole; from a larger perspective.
Engagement is not about categorizing, it is about solution-finding. Engagement operates from the understanding that change is possible and that human beings have the capacity to affect change together. The underlying sentiment is one of UNITY.
Engagement is not as sexy as reaction. It’s not as entertaining or riveting. It’s calmer. It can be perceived as slow, and ineffective; Patience is often perceived this way. Engagement can be relegated to the realm of idealism. It can easily be dismissed as being “not enough” in a world addicted to instant feedback and quick fixes. Engagement is difficult for us to trust because it operates on a higher frequency. It must be accessed with intentionality. It requires conscious awareness to remain there. We question engagement because we have not been wired for equanimity.
But if one thing is certain, it is that this world requires more humans willing to be engaged than reactive. At a time when reactivity is at an all time high, may we be willing to do the work to access the capacity to engage for the purposes of our highest good.
“Reactivity.” Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2023, dictionary.cambridge.org/.
“Engagement.” Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, Oxford University Press, 2023, http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/.
