It is when you seem to claim that people like me have /no/ option that is not evil, nothing we can do that is not hurtful. This line of thinking describes a problem with no solution. It is probably arrogant of me to think that /I/ can be part of the solution, but is it really evil of me to try?Ah, it reminds me of my early days in the kyriarchy-fighting business. As in pre-blogging days.
You see, one of the first things that happens when you start to learn that things are phenomenally messed up is that you want to make them better. That's human nature. You want to fix it, make the problems go away, make the world a nice place again. I touched on this in a different post.
Yet when you actually start reading, you keep hearing the same kind of things from people: Don't try. Don't be pro-active. There's nothing you can do that will fix this.
That's a pretty confusing message when you're new.
The person on the receiving end of this message then generally has the same question this person did: Okay, maybe I'm going to screw up, but you guys keep saying that I'm being complacent in this by NOT doing anything. So why are you now telling me that it would be a bad thing for me to make the attempt?
"Are you telling me that it's evil to want to do something good?"
At first glance, this seems like a reasonable philosophical question. Since, after all, good and evil are opposites, and by that logic you can't be evil if you're trying to do good.
However, in reality, this question is both disingenuous and loaded.
It's disingenuous because there is no right answer, absolutely no possibility to both resolve this "problem" and proceed to actually explaining what you mean. If you answer "yes," then you may as well just tell everyone "Hey, I'm a hostile jackass who would rather whine about my problems than get them fixed!" (It doesn't matter if it's true or not, that's the impression that people will get.) On the other hand, if you answer "no," then what are you complaining about?
It's loaded because it begs a lot of questions. Firstly, it assumes that there is only good or bad, right or wrong. We're talking Saturday Morning Cartoon morality. Secondly, it begs the question that someone who wants to do something that they think will have good results must have pure motives for doing so. Thirdly, having declared the "urge to do good" an unquestioningly laudable position, it places that desire to do good in the position of utmost importance, above things like "actual results."
As for the first problem - Saturday Morning Cartoon reality - sorry, but I find it so freakin' unbelievable that there are still people who think like this. IRL, there are only a handful of actions (rape, genocide, etc.) that, for all practical purposes, can be considered inherently "evil." I.E., there is no possible way that you could ever have a good motive or even a good reason to commit these acts. However, there are many other acts, a number of which are frowned upon in modern society, which aren't so cut-and-dried. Theft? Oh, it's regrettable, but so is a system which denies humans the basic rights of food, clothes, and living space. Attacking and/or killing someone? Prove that it was self-defense and you won't even be prosecuted. Lying? Lies can harm and even kill, but they can also save a person's life. Maybe Ray Comfort thinks that all of these things are unquestionably evil, but when did it get to be a good idea to learn morality from a guy who thinks that bananas prove the existence of an all-powerful father deity?
The second problem is motives. Yes, there are many people who want to start "fighting the good fight" out of pure altruism. But there are many others who have more selfish reasons for doing it. Maybe they're feeling guilty for the system that they have unknowingly helped to perpetuate, and they want to soothe their wounded conscience. Maybe they just want to stop feeling like everyone on Tumblr is telling them off all the time (a very privileged perspective). Maybe they want to reassure themselves or the world that they are a good person so that they don't have to deal with the ugly reality that no, no one is truly good, and everything your first-grade teachers taught you is a load of lies.
I'm not saying that motive IS everything. You can have a bad motive and still end up doing something good, just as you can have a good motive and end up doing something bad. Which leads me to the third problem: prioritizing the abstract concept of "doing good" against its ability to actually make a difference. You simply can't do that, because not only do motives differ, but they play a huge role in the success level of a person's act. If xe's in it to soothe xir conscience or impress someone, xe's not going to waste any of xir time learning the minutae or bothering to find out if xir actions are actually helping anybody. But if xe's really in it because of altruism - because of a genuine desire to do good in the world - then xe is much more likely to come around. It might take xem a while, because xe's still got a lot of privilege and insecurities and instincts that make "sit down and shut up" seem like the least practical thing xe could possibly do, but if someone really, genuinely cares then xe will make that effort. We should know. Cameron would love nothing more than to go stomping all over everywhere doing whatever he thinks is the right thing to do, but he recognizes that if it's not done right - or at the very least, if he isn't making a genuine, good-faith attempt to get it right - then it isn't worth doing at all.
That's why the first step in fighting oppression is "sit down and shut up." That's why you should spend a good six months focusing on learning and understanding the things that people are saying, and why they are saying them, before you let your good intentions wreak havoc all over the place. Because you don't get an "A" for effort in activism. Do the best you can do, not the best you want to do. Or else keep your butthurt to yourself when your Good Intentions aren't given the due you think they deserve.
No comments:
Post a Comment