eye

"Anger is illogical." -- The Dalai Lama

Today was marked by a heated debate. I was proud of my classmates, many of whom have strong convictions and choose to express them. Arguments were put forth with eloquence and passion; I appreciated the fervor. It's like seasoning.
That being said, it is my belief that righteous indigation is counterproductive. If one really cares about something-- in this case, if one sees a wrong and wants to right it-- the best approach he can take to the situation is one of logic, not sentiment. It is only through deliberate, unimpassioned actions that one is able to best influence situations and people. In order to change someone's mind, one must first gain their trust and respect. To do this, one must trust and respect in turn. It is important to treat 'the enemy' as an equal, even to attempt to see things from his point of view. Only a hypocrite preaches self-control without modeling its practice.

To argue with a person you must understand him, and that means climbing down from the peak of moral outrage and looking at him at eye level. Simply imposing moral values on others, including a sense of social justice, is both arrogant and presumptuous. What makes an outsider better qualified to run a society or even a school? As a guest or newcomer to a culture, one should not be disrespectful of established customs and practices, no matter how 'evil' these customs or practices seem to be.

This brings us to the point of moral subjectivity. The topic is fully addressed in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, but the concept is simple enough for a child to understand. Basically, ideas of good and evil are culturally imposed, although most prefer to believe that they are completely original and self-taught. A person can't credit himself for his own beliefs. Each man is a product of his environment. There is no good or evil at all, there is only perspective. What we call morality is simply the instinct of a social animal. Our relative moralities ensure cultural survival, not to mention docility and homoginization. This goes for Us as well as Them. We consider certain acts moral or amoral based on their practical value to, not us as individuals, but our respective societies. The point is, each person has a certain set of convictions for a reason unrelated to introspection or intelligence, which are factors, not in the convictions he develops, but how capable he is of justifying and expressing them.

I'm not against the idea of effecting change. It's the idea of a crusade-- making them like us or destroying them-- that I'm against. Man is a product of his environment. Who are we to claim cultural superiority?

I was once shocked and outraged by what I perceived as the subjugation of women in the fundamentalist Islamic culture surrounding me in Northern Cameroon. My vocalization of those views was an act of profound insensitivity. (Consider Westernization, specifically the imposition of Democracy on countries like Iraq.) I only realized this once I had developed an appreciation for the culture there, which has some "evil" elements and some elements which are "better" than our own. For example, women there are treasured. This is why they are not sexualized and their space is respected. This is even why they are not supposed to work and they are kept inside the home. If you don't buy that (and I don't expect you to) consider the fact that they honor and respect the elderly to a profound extent, and they consider our treatment of the elderly (not to mention our sexualization of women and the extent to which we spoil children and animals) deplorable. They are offended by our love of money, our uncleanliness, our television, and our consumption of alcohol. It's not difficult to see their point. Accept differences and recognize that you are not morally unassailable.

Within a couple of years, many of us will gain experiences that develop our understanding (which at the moment is extremely limited) of the culture and the issue at hand. I would be shocked if a few people didn't change their minds.

My issue here is not with the belief that violence is wrong, but with the attitude with which the issue is approached. We all have beliefs, and they are all equally sacred. Also, what is "violence"? It could be that the corporal punishment that some envision is not consistent with the reality. Are the students hurt? Are they physically damaged? Are they psychologically damaged? I imagine that, in all cases, the answer is yes. But to what degree? Is there a difference between being beaten to a bloody pulp and getting a slap on the wrist? Is there a spectrum to right and wrong? There are plenty of discipline practices that are cruel and unjust, even far more psychologically damaging, yet these are perfectly acceptable to overlook because they are not embodied by a physical act. Being half-Jewish, I would list the Guilt Trip as a good example of this. Others examples include Favoritism, Ridicule, and the Silent Treatment.

I admire convictions, I admire integrity. But if one is truly committed to changing the system, then he will want to be as effective as possible at affecting change. Chill out and think of this as a math problem. Logic is effective. Condescension due to perceived moral (and therefore cultural) superiority is not. One must take the time to understand that which one despises. Insulting a man (or even talking circles around him) will never change his mind. If, after gaining cultural and contextual understanding, one is still committed to effecting change, it is necessary that he make the opposition his bedfellow. He must be an example: this is a thousand times more compelling than any argument ever made. Become respected by the community, then be a teacher: at the right moment, plant the seed. Trick the enemy on to believing that they came upon this new opinion themselves. This is a good application of the Inductive Strategy.



*note: please don't be offended by masculine pronouns. It's silly.

ps. Today I had my students write love poems, and they did beautifully. They enjoyed reading them aloud. The best one was by one of my brightest students, whose name is spelled Shere's. It was to her baby. I had to tell them I had something in my eye.