The first part of this blog's new self-description is the phrase "Writing about computers, life,
and society". I want to say something about the "society" part.
"Writing about society" can be purely descriptive, but most of it isn't. Most folk -- in the blogosphere and elsewhere -- who write "social commentary" have something to say, not just about how society is, but about how they think it should be. Very often, specifically, about some difference between how it is and how they think it should be: something that they think, in some sense, "should" be different.
Furthermore, I take it that usually, you're doing that because you're hoping that the act of writing about it will help make it different. Thus, you are engaging in activity broadly called "political", even if it's not aimed [directly] at electing candidates to public office, nor at influencing those in office.
If things are different from the way you think they should be, and you want to bring about change, then I should think that a question that's always worth asking is: how did things get to be the way that they are? More often than not, I would think, the answer will be, at least in part: because someone else disagrees with you. Someone else thinks that the way things are is the way they should be. Not always, to be sure; there certainly are such things as unintended consequences. And sometimes, I suppose -- say, in the case of an antiquated law -- it became law because at one time, people did think it should be; though perhaps no one, or next to no one, thinks that now. But more usually -- and, especially, if the subject is currently considered to be a "political issue" -- some people don't believe as you do, don't believe that the change that you want would be a good thing. And "thus", in order to change things, you're going to have to get some of those people to change their minds. I put "thus" in quotation marks, because I readily admit that this needn't always follow; you could be planning on changing things by force, which, [you might think,] would not require that anyone changes his or her mind. But again I'll just make a sweeping generalization: usually, if it's considered to be a political matter, and in one of the [somewhat] democratic countries, then changing the minds of some of the people who currently disagree with you will be necessary, and indeed, will be the heart of what it takes to get the change done.
Now we're getting close to my central point, which is to express a perplexity. If people writing about politics are trying to bring about change, and if that requires changing minds, then why do they so often go about it in a way that seems [to me, of course] utterly doomed to fail? For example, why do they tend to make broad, insulting generalizations about those who disagree with them, like suggesting, or saying outright, that those people must be [a] insane, [b] evil, or [c] of subnormal intelligence (if not more than one of the foregoing)? Do they really think that anyone in the [presumed] target audience, namely those who currently disagree, will be likely to give an open mind to any attempt at persuasion, after reading statements like that about themselves? This is especially true of people writing online, in blogs, forums, and the like, but it seems to me often true in other media as well. Op-ed pieces in newspapers, for example, often appear to be trying to change minds, yet to be guilty, also, of insulting the very people that they are trying to reach. Or that one thinks they "should" be trying to reach, because if you only preach to the converted, how will you ever achieve your [presumed] goal? This is not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know what folks think about why this happens so much.
Categorie(s) for this post:
Politics and Social Change.
4:08:33 PM 
|
|
