A question that has occupied a large amount of my thinkum time, and was recently brought up again by Stacey, and I feel it warrants some lengthy discussion. The question that Stacey posed to me was "what would you do about it". An inauspicious question on the surface, but it has no simple answer in many cases. There are of course some instances where the answer doesn't take much thought. For example, were I to say I was hungry, the answer to what I am going to do about it likely would be 'I'm going to eat some food. Durrr'.
With serious topics I see no obvious answer. For example, in the case of my earlier blog discussing the continued erosion of our basic rights and freedoms in exchange for the promise of security, what can a person do? There are a wide array of reactions and responses, and I should like to examine some of them in detail.
First and foremost a person can do nothing. This is by far the easiest reaction. There are things that are simply not worth the exertion of thinking about, let alone actually acting on. For example, I find that I am unable to care about Pluto's reclassification from planet to dwarf planet. I know some people who feel as though it is some great travesty of our generation, but I don't understand getting worked up over a hunk of rock 39 AU from Earth, and I therefore put forth no thoughts or actions in that regard.
Another reaction is to devote mental processes to a problem, but avoid any other investment. This of course cannot provide much in the way of real world results, but can do a lot to provide relief (or stress) to the individual. This is tantamount to simply wishing for things to change, and you know what they say, if wishes were horses then there'd be horses all over the goddamn place and SOMEBODY has to clean up after them.
Clearly the only way to actually accomplish anything significant is to take some kind of action. Of course this is where the real crux of the matter lies, what kind of action can a single person take, and will it actually change anything? I think there are plenty of things that a person can do that will actually have a negative impact on the cause. The anti-abortion campaigners I see every semester on CU's campus come to mind. Being an asshole and calling the people whose minds you are trying to change 'murderers' and 'infanticidal maniacs' is not a very good way to sway opinion. Sure, you're campaigning for something you believe in, but all you're accomplishing this way is pissing people off and increasing the probability of your face being punched.
Some people just stand next to a busy street holding a sign. This is more effective than the asshole route, but I think it loses some efficacy due to the limited volume of information that can be relayed by a sign you expect someone to read while they drive by at 30-50 mph. Even if you manage to pique interest in the subject, I know that there is a very low probability that I will remember what it was I saw on the sign by the time I arrive at my destination. Additionally, you're doing something that can be done by a stick, perhaps you should just hang the sign and go do something else with your time?
I think for an individual to actually effect any change requires that person be an exceptional individual. There are enough examples of people throughout history who have been the beacon of change to show that it is entirely possible, but not everyone can be a Bad Horse (I meant Ghandi).
I am personally a very strong believer in the power of the written word. I am not the kind of individual who has the personality, charisma, or drive to make a notable difference, but I also don't feel content quietly accepting things that I see as wrong. So I write about it. I know that I occupy a tiny insignificant portion of the blogosphere inside the vastness of the interwebs, and my readership is not vast. (I imagine it may, in fact, be quite small). But if I can reach even just one person, then perhaps they will relate the information they have gained to other people, and maybe eventually help influence the opinion of someone who IS the kind of person who can effect real change. I know it's a somewhat romanticized notion, but I also know that my life, ideas, and opinions are constantly informed and changed by the things I read from others, so I don't find it utterly unreasonable to think that I might be able to have a (somewhat) similar effect on others.
I am very much interested in knowing how others feel about this subject, feel free to chime in with some comments =)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
aww man, I wanted you to answer the question!
very insightful and quote-tastic analysis, but what is your final conclusion?
do you think a man can change the stars?
-Ty
"I don't know if Momma was right or if, if it's Lieutenant Dan. I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time." -Forest Gump
I think if Ty reads a little more in depth, he might find the answer... :) So what you're saying with your little bitty influence in the blogosphere (3 comments proof that you have at least a small readership) that one [person] may not be able to single-handedly change the course of the universe, but can, indeed, improve her own little patch of green. Ty, what's your answer?
I have another question: Is it enough?
my answer quite frankly would be no.
that doesn't mean I'm a cynic or anything. I just think that 1 person in the scope of all things is insignificant. What IS significant however is the human race as a whole, as a force, we will most certainly influence things on a cosmic scale. We're not there yet, but there are only a few billion of us. We are rapidly beginning to influence our surroundings on a larger and larger (one might say global *wink wink) scale. I don't see that ever ending. It is our nature to be an influence and eventually, we will get to the point where we influence the very cosmos its self.
I'm talking stars in the literal sense of course. Philosophically, it is quite similar. An idea by its self is nothing. It takes a group (sometimes a very large group) to make that idea have any influence. Everyone plays a part, yes, but to think that 1 persons actions/ideas alone influence things on a scale larger than himself is a little presumptuous. One needs to gather people to their cause before it can become a movement. For some reason I'm reminded of 1 snowflake compared to many. Perhaps its a poem, or perhaps I just need to ski.
I don't know if any of that makes sense or not, but thats what fell out of my fingers when I thought about your question.
Even though you believe one person can't make much difference, wouldn't you still advocate making an effort toward that change? I'm suffering from mild guilt for not doing more than I am. I know there's a quote somewhere about the most dangerous people not being the ones against progress (or whatever the belief is) but those who do nothing out of apathy.
"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." - Boondock Saints
Longer, more elaborate response to eventually follow. Takes me some time to organize thoughts into words =)
I think I quite disagree with your assessment of the situation Ty. I agree that individually, I am completely insignificant on the cosmic stage. I will exist for a mere moment, and my physical imprint will be forever forgotten. However, ideas have the ability to last as long as there are people or things to retain them. A single idea can forever change the course of human history. "I have a dream" has and will continue to live on past the person Martin Luther King Jr.
I don't believe that a man can change the stars, but I believe he can change his stars. And these stars are seen by some, possibly seen by many. Those who see them may decide to change their stars, and in this way that one man can bring about an avalanche of change (to use your snow analogy) when he was but a single snowflake.
As to Stacey's question, that is quite the subjective matter, of which you may never find a satisfactory answer from anyone but yourself. It begins with the difficulty in defining what 'enough' is. For some people 'enough' means ignoring the problem, and pretending it doesn't exist. For others enough means fixing all of the problem. In the end, I would say it comes down to what makes you happy.
For me, writing about things provides an outlet for frustrations, or even just a way for me to organize my thoughts, with the additional benefit of occasionally providing others with something to spend some time thinking about. If any of my writing ever actually influences somebody then fantastic, but even if not I find it therapeutic.
I think it's all about finding things to do that at least have the potential to be of benefit that aren't going to compromise your happiness or desires.
AJ, as far as I can tell you and I are saying the same thing. Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from the fact that I write with a very stream of thought style, no pre-composure. Anyway, It sounds like you are saying that an idea, spurred by 1 person has the power to change things. Which I agree with, but the point I was making is that if it is 1 man, with an idea, and nothing else, nothing will happen. It needs to be an "avalanche" of snowflakes or men or whatever (that sentence sounded slightly gay). A group, unified behind an idea is most definitely influential, but I still say that the individual who first creates the idea can not take credit for the movement. He can not do it alone.
to Stacey, I would say that just because you can't do it alone, isn't a reason not to try. Bold faced defiance in the path of insurmountable odds is part of human nature. And while it may not get anything accomplished, it will certainly be therapeutic, and may be a method to bring other snowflakes into your avalanche. Perhaps instead of starting your own avalanche, you can join one already in progress (wind power, solar panels, electric cars in 2010, ect. ect.).
I don't think we're quite in agreement. And I'm not even sure if you'll fully agree with your position once you think about it a little more. Imagine this: is a man who lights a match in the wilderness fully responsible for the ensuing forest fire?
hm....interesting. I would say yes to your analogy, but I think that ideas aren't like fire. They don't propagate themselves. It requires active influence, like if the trees saw the fire, and reached out to it.
But if you present an idea that is powerful enough to change opinion then there is no real difference. New opinions and ideas can spread through people on the basis of people's innate desire to shape the world around them much in the same way that it is fire's innate tendency to spread to all available fuel sources.
You should read the article on The Greener Chronicles, under "Why Bother?"
I didn't take the time to read all the comments to this post, forgive me if I repeat any observations or opinions. This is an interesting post and I thought that I would chime in.
I agree that people can solicit an adverse reaction by inappropriately acting on their beliefs. Not just anti-abortionists, but in just about every system of thought. It has been happening for thousands of years with religion. People beat others over the head with their beliefs and cannot seem to understand why the recipient will not willingly accept and conform. Ironically, those that act in this way really do influence those around them - it is just usually not the influence they intend. I believe this is one of the reasons that people on either side of the "two" American political schools of thought despise the other side so much. I think we, as Americans, need to have more respectful conversations about politics and be more respectful of disagreeing views.
As for those holding signs on the street; while their actions are simplistic, I do not necessarily disagree with or look down on their efforts. If they are witty and crafty with words, they might get people to think on their cause. These "sign holders" remind me of people that I see exercising in public. Some of these people really get into their exercise. A while back, some of my friends and I used to make fun of these people, especially if they were overweight. Now, after appreciating health and exercise, and after observing how few people in the world are disciplined enough to spend energy doing things they know to be good for them, I applaud anyone who will spend the effort. I apply this thinking to the sign-holders as well. Some people may never read an internet blog. These sign holders are at least doing something and I applaud them for that (as long as they don't interfere with traffic).
Finally, I must respectfully disagree that a person must be an exceptional individual to affect change. However, one may have to be an exceptional individual to affect change on the scale of Bad Horse (or that other guy you mentioned). I think we all affect change on some level, with some one. Whether good or bad, whether intentional or purely accidental, we influence others. I think that genuine people people influence those around them the most and genuine people who act - affect change. And I believe that we are all obligated, on some level, to respectfully act on our beliefs by the means we have available to us. Kudos to you for blogging.
Hurrah! I agree. Everyone should do what they can for 'the common good' (if there's another term that fits better...). And I believe that everything we do as individuals influences others, even if it's only our significant others, a coworker, friends or a neighbor. For example. If one grows tomatoes at home, and brings a few into work, a coworker may decide to grow some of their own fruits or vegetables. Or if one lives with roommates, and puts a paper bag in the kitchen, somewhere, for recycling, my bet is that it won't be too long before most roommates would start putting their cardboard into the 'recycle' bag instead of the trash. And hey, someone might actually check out the websites I put on my blog.
Post a Comment