INSPIRATIONAL, 31 Jan 2011
“You want it to be one way…” as the character Marlo Stanfield once put it. When we look out at the world or when we look to our various sources of information about what is happening to ourselves and to others, we seek explanations. Explanations into how and why, into who wronged who, and to what is a solution if there is a solution. Some like the long detailed explanations, while more seem to want summaries, short versions, and just the latest info. Often times, the more complex an issue is, the harder it is for us to grasp, and the lower the desire to take the time and energy to understand it.
From there come the simple labels, the us versus them, the quest to find who to blame, and the practice visualizing what side we want to be on. Liberals and conservatives; pro-life and anti-abortion; pro-war and anti-war; socialist and capitalist; hippy and yuppy; the list is far longer and spans the globe. Rare is the individual who can resist finding themselves in such a group, even more rare is one who can avoid being placed in such a group by others.
Why does this happen? The quest to simplify it all perhaps. The need to take a complicated issue and break it into basic parts in order to decide what we believe is to be done about it. This simplification is sometimes done after extensive or ongoing research, and sometimes it is done based on un-empirical influences. Whatever side you take, whatever facts you choose to use, in the end you can look at a conflict and say “this is where I am on this.” From there you can either sleep soundly, or spend your waking hours fighting like hell to communicate and bring to fruition the resolution you wish to see.
I thought of this phenomenon alot while I was in Afghanistan. But I think of it anytime I visit the US or even right here in the Netherlands as I watch socio-political debates on TV. Some Afghans will tell you they don’t want any foreign military in their country, but if you keep talking to them they will tell you they do want foreign military assistance. Some Americans who have read through the proposed new healthcare plan will tell you they don’t want this plan but they do want a universal healthcare plan. An experienced Dutch journalist working in Afghanistan can tell you she is in favor of the Dutch sending people to help with keeping and improving peace in Afghanistan but she will also tell you she’s not in favor of just any kind of Dutch involvement.
Yet it is more common, or perhaps just more visible in today’s massive public sphere, for people to tell you it is one way or the other in any of the situations listed above. Take most any conflict in any country these days, you’ll find a loud group of people saying it is one way, and a loud group of people saying it is the other. Anyone who points out the complexity and tries to explain it is somehow considered not as legitimate, perhaps because they’re often not waving a banner in front of governments or standing in front of a camera on prime time television.
One of the great dangers of our time, as I have seen in my short life and extensive travels, is this push to simplify everything so that it all fits in a box or a category and we don’t have to learn and appreciate the complexity of what is happening around us.
Mark Fonseca Rendeiro: Portuguese-American, Amsterdam-based, alternative-activist-journalist, independent podcaster, public speaker, rogue media theorist specializing in online journalism, social movements, and a healthy disrespect for journalistic conventions.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article: