Small government is good and big government is evil. Social services are good and corporations are evil. Invisible Children is good and Kony is evil. Nationalism is good and Western interventionism is evil. Ralph Nader is good and Republicans are evil. Democrats are good and Ralph Nader is evil. I could play this game all day with a million issues. We are living in a hyper bipartisan world these days, where issues are boiled down to black and white for convenient and bite-size consumption. You're either on one side of the issue or the other, with no room in the middle. How serendipitous it was that as I was preparing to write this post the past few days and thinking about these issues I happened to finally watch the documentary "An Unreasonable Man". It must have seemed an odd inclusion to bring Ralph Nader into the discussion, but he so expertly highlights the tricky nature of this subject as he has been on both sides of the fence when all he wants to do is tear the fence down.
I also brought Kony 2012 and Invisible Children into the examination of where we are as a society and how we dialogue for the same reason. First, Invisible Children is admired by all and looked at as a revolutionary force in viral video and creating awareness of social issues. Then, within days they are being torn down for everything from their salaries and expenditures to oversimplification of the issue, all the way to dangerous exploitation. I am not going to comment on the video, its content, its creator, or the situation in Uganda. For one, I am nowhere near qualified to speak to such things, and many have explored those issues better than I ever could. But more importantly, it is the aftermath of Kony 2012 and the ensuing debate that I find more interesting. Is Kony evil? Is the LRA evil? Is the Ugandan Government good? Is Invisible Children good? Can anything ever be that simple? How many have headed out into the world with nothing but the best intentions and gone off track? How many people have drifted along a dangerous road only to stumble onto an unexpectedly noble path?
I had a recent workshop where we discussed the art of persuasion. It is widely known that if you skip logic and effectively appeal directly to emotion, you will win the masses every time. It can be seen again and again throughout history. Historical figures who are generally accepted as evil were usually masters of this art. So it seems quite dangerous to use this emotional form of persuasion to bring the general public around to one's way of thinking. But doesn't it make sense if you are on the side of good to also use this form of emotional persuasion to stand a fighting chance? Here is the problem: what happens when a person is so convinced of their own righteousness that any means of persuasion are acceptable to bring the general public around to their view? This is both how the general public can be left tragically misinformed and how those with good intentions can end up monsters.
What does is say about our society and freedom of speech when a man who has something vital to say and who has an audience eager to hear it is shut out of the public forum by the system? Such was the situation Ralph Nader found himself in during the 2000 presidential campaign. If you have two opposing voices being heard, one is good and one is evil, and it doesn't even matter which is which. The point is there is no room for the third voice, for what is there left for it to be? If you're not good, and you're not evil, then you must be inconsequential. How can that be when so many of us live in the middle? Because the reality is that there is no good and evil, only people trying to live the best they can in the circumstances life presents to them. The more we open up the global dialogue to include voices from every perspective without rushing to react, but instead listen and try to understand, the more we will begin the see all the shades in between these false ideas we hold of good and evil. And when we see the full spectrum, we will see there are no ends of the spectrum, but that it is more like a circle. And when you take that old model of a spectrum with two diametrically opposed ends, such as good and evil, and bend it to turn it into a circle, suddenly good and evil can be one and the same. It's just a matter of how you look at it. Just ask Ralph Nader or Jason Russell.
No comments:
Post a Comment