I saw Geddes recently wrote about how useful his study of literary theory has proven, on occasion. One very important idea to remember, for any serious, decent man, is that communication is not just about what one intends to say, says, or believes one has said, but how those words will be received and interpreted. It is obviously somewhat unfair to require such constant scrutiny of oneself, but I think it is undoubtedly right, and the bigger the megaphone, the more responsibility one has, especially towards people of similar background and who may seemingly share a similar worldview, or believe they do. Knowing what they are like, one knows how they will receive one's words. And once the words are out there, they belong to the reader, not the writer. But that doesn't liberate the writer of all responsibility, quite the opposite, it seems to me. To have a clear conscience, one must be able to say to oneself that one has been as careful as possible, done all due diligence, and expressed oneself as best possible, so as to avoid, as much as possible, all perverse, even hateful, misconstructions. And as stated, the greater one's influence among the general public, the more such responsibility one has, it seems to me.
It would be nice if we could always speak completely freely, on the assumption that all our interlocutors were decent folk, but that is simply not the world, not the case, and to do so can have unwittingly awful effects. I wrote about this in regard to Fowler and his speech in Montreal, and how this is a dilemma for all decent people, including me, but best to side on the side of caution, knowing what people are like:
Fowler got it right. But I can't tell you the number of times I have ended up in the bizarre position of defending Israeli & USA govt actions with which I disagree, as I have found myself in discussions where it was pretty one-sided and decontextualised, and it made me very uncomfortable, although nothing overtly bigoted was said. So I'm a huge critic of Likudniks and USA Mideast policy, generally, and yet I end up seeming like Ariel Sharon's more extreme twin.Lord knows some guys are completely exasperating but even the worst fool is right once in a while, and makes a good point, say about literary theory, and how texts will be received and interpreted by the general reader. And how any half-decent, half-worldly man should know that, and bears responsibility if he has not done what he can to forestall the entirely probable and forseeable worst effects, without, at the same time, overly cramping his style. For example, since I have such a good opinion of Silver, perhaps I give him too much credit, but from what I see, I very much doubt that when he's hanging out before or after synagogue, he expresses himself so lazily so as to accidently give comfort to any anti-muslim, anti-arab listeners. I would expect that given his surroundings, that is precisely when he is most careful with his language, knowing the odds of some unhappy soul overhearing him and quoting him later for his own sour ends. I'm sure that Omar Alghabra is similarly careful before and after mosque, and Kinsella about protestants before and after mass, and Scott Tribe about Catholics before and after church, etc.. In fact, from what little I've observed of these people, and decent people generally, these are the first people to fight and denounce any hint of lazy bigotry from within their group towards what some simple minds within their group conceive of as their traditional adversaries. If not them, then who?
It seems to me that it is incumbent on all of us to keep these things in mind when expressing ourselves, whether simply amongst a small group, ignorant of some of our interlocutors' views, or whether to rather larger audiences. I agree it's tiresome, a bore, etc., but would one rather be the accidental cause of a bout of bigotry, and give comfort to bigots? Reading some of the comments beneath some recent, high profile CBC politics stories, I am sure that all would feel as sickened as I at the company they might have accidently accrued as supposed supporters/friends, however much one disdains such views and such folk in reality. It is easy to start fires, once aflame, they are very hard to stop, and the cost to us, to lives and souls, is always far too high, even if they can be hosed down, cooled off, and stopped. I would think anyone who can trace their origins to lands of bitter sectarian conflict would understand this better than most.
Anyway, here's what I said back in April, and I think it bears repeating. Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers
My reply to Silver applies to all of you:
Why, Mr. Silver, look at all the lovely people leaving lovely, Solonic comments. What a surprise, eh? Who could have imagined your post would appeal most to these kinds of lovely people, with their admirable views of the world. I'm sure, like Seinfeld, that we might well find, upon deeper inquiry, that these veritable Pericletans were also prejudiced against dental care professionals, anti-dentites as it were.
Good luck with your Steyn, Levant and anti-dentite posse. They make your argument much more convincing.
Best, EFL
PS. I thought of predicting this when I saw the post appear, but I thought I'd give it a couple of hours, to see if I would be happily disproven. Sadly, unsurprisingly, no.
No comments:
Post a Comment