Values and other things

[avevale_intelligencer]

thnidu used a phrase that made me think. He has an icon listing some of his values, and he described them as "my values, not 'values that I have and that you should have too [italics his].'"

This cuts to the centre of so many things, including the whole debate about "writing the Other" which is still ongoing and away from which I am keeping well. I think what we're looking at here is that old standard, "two (or three) kinds of people," although I think any given person may fall into any category on different issues or at different times.

Some people, on some issues and at some times, are capable of holding a belief or a value, believing it to be right and true and worthwhile, while feeling no urge to convince others of that belief or value. Such an one is thnidu. He is, according to his icon and among other things, poly-friendly, but (according to the quote) does not feel that anyone else should be or that it is his job to try to make that value more prevalent. There are many Christians, for example, whose Christianity is of this kind: they live as Christians and believe in Christ themselves, and let the rest of the world live and believe what it will.

Others, on some issues and at some times, feel that the beliefs and values they have found are universally true and that it is doing a disservice to others not to communicate them and make them more prevalent. There are, indeed, many Christians of this kind also, though I persist in my belief that the ones making the most noise and causing the most trouble are no more Christian, in the sense of personal belief, than I am, and have as their religion merely their own gratification. (That's a belief which comforts me, but I don't expect anyone else to hold it.)

(There may also be a third kind, who genuinely have no opinion on a given issue despite being aware of it, either because they do not feel qualified to make a judgment or simply because they don't feel the issue is relevant to them. I can't think of any examples for myself on which a bit of thought and possibly research wouldn't bring me to an opinion, but then I'm an opinionated sod.)

Logically, on most issues, I would be with the second kind. If you are convinced that a proposition is right, don't you owe it to the world to make people see it? If you are, say, gay-friendly, then you could save someone's life by spreading the word and convincing the teen gangs in our cities to abandon their queer-bashing ways. Any difference you make could be part of a huge change for the better. And if you don't think it would be right to convince everyone else that what you believe is true, how can you really say you believe it?

BUT...logic isn't everything. In fact, it isn't really much of anything. It's a tool, and can be used to justify any postulate you care to start from. That previous paragraph should have begun "Emotionally...", because it's far more about what I feel than anything else, and yet the logic justified it perfectly. In fact, argument, as a quick trawl through these war-torn pages will reveal, hardly ever changes anyone's mind, and in the long run getting along, not alienating people, is also important. So, we either learn to behave as if we were of the first kind for the sake of a quiet life, or we get into a lot of arguments. Neither option is particularly comfortable, especially under the accusing gaze of those of the second kind who agree with us. We compromise with truisms like "there's room for all shades of opinion" and "no-one has a monopoly on being right" and envy those who can really believe that.

There are some issues, though, on which it's not permissible to be of the first kind. Racism is one. No-one will look kindly on the suggestion that racists should be allowed to live by their own values. (Except racists, of course, and they don't count.) The debate on writing the Other is not really a debate at all, because there is only one acceptable view, and sometimes this is taken to worrying extremes. In the latest stretch of it that I've seen, someone raised a separate issue in a comment. (I think chi was wrong in what chi said, but that's not the point.) This was immediately characterised by other commenters as trying to stop discussion of racism, and therefore clearly racist. Talking about anything else other than racism became censorship.

I am absolutely opposed to racism. I agree that the cultural domination of the world by white Europeans and Americans is monstrously unfair, and it would be a better world if it had not happened, and I would love to see a true levelling of the playing field and a flood of books and art and music from non-Caucasian people in which the true culture of the Other is expressed. I would reserve the right to exercise my own preferences and not to read or listen to or look at any of them if I do not want to, but I believe absolutely that they should exist and that everyone should have the choice. And to that end, I want it talked about as much as possible, and I believe that people of colour should have the dominant voice in that discussion. (I do still think, as I've said before, that there are more important battles still to be fought in this war, but I've come to see that this one is also important and needs to be won. So sometimes argument can change someone's mind.)

But, as I have said many times before, I get uncomfortable if I feel that a cause with which I identify is being furthered by means that seem dubious to me. Yes, the commenter's point was irrelevant, but saying something is not the same as stopping someone else saying something else. Other issues exist, and it must be acceptable to talk about them as well.

Going back to thnidu, and the two kinds of people; it may seem I've been a bit hard on the first kind, the ones who are content to live their values and let the rest of the world go its own way. I may have seemed to be painting them as wishy-washy, ineffectual, untrue to their beliefs. This is not what I believe. There is a strong argument for getting one's own house in order before trying to set the world to rights, and anyone who owns a house will know that getting it in order, and keeping it that way, is a lifetime's job. I admire anyone who can truly live their beliefs, in a world which often seems to have no respect for them, and not try to bend that world to their will. And the clincher, the one conclusive argument in their favour:

There are no extremists of the first kind.

Thanks for reading. Please comment if you wish, but only on what I have actually said.

EDIT: apologies for stupid misattribution to both thnidu and filkerdave.

Comments

[bardling.livejournal.com]

There is also the opinion that the best way to "make someone see" is simply to live a given value.

Many of the people who are content to (try to) live their values have as one of those the value that everyone is entitled to form their own opinions and make up their own minds about values.

I personally will happily try to explain why I hold any of mine, if asked, but I have no interest in proselytizing. I will sometimes support "make them see" actions by others that are aimed at informing, are non-violent etc. I admire those with a vision of being able to influence many - I don't believe I personally can. I am a small picture person, not a world picture person, I guess.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Er, it was thnidu, not filkerdave, at least I don't see it on any of Dave's userpics and do see it in thnidu's latest post).

I think your "two types" comes back to the difference between belief and knowledge (or at least conviction). If I believe something then I accept that I do not have absolute proof which would convince anyone else (the existence of deity for instance) even though it may convince me. I therefore will not attempt to force other people to agree with me on those subjects, because I know that my evidence is not conclusive for them. If, however, I know that something is true (gravity makes dropped things fall down and hurt my foot) then I will do my best to persuade others of it (otherwise they may drop heavy things on my foot or theirs). I think there is a vast grey area in between as well, where I may try to persuade people but not to the point of forcing them to agree (I may, for instance, try to persuade someone that reading is good, but if they really don't want to read I will give up and leave them to whatever they want to do instead).

And then in the grey area are things which may be believed but which aren't talked about unless someone asks. A lot of the people I know with religious beliefs are like that, if someone asks them they will happily respond, but they don't volunteer the beliefs outside a conversation on the subject.

Definitely there is the third type. There are a lot of subjects on which I have no opinion, or no valid opinion because I am not qualified. (OK, yes, if I researched them then I might have more of a valid opinion, but that is irrelevant because at the moment I do not have one, no matter whether I may have an opinion in the future.) Of course, you are unlikely to hear me talk about them because I have no opinion to express...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Oh my gods, you're right. I shall edit.