We're Trying to Figure It All Out

That free-range right of all rights, free expression, has been getting quite a workout lately.

By 'a workout', I mean the proliferation of people wanting and needing to say something unique, profound, or just spewing anger on the internet. I suppose that would include Yours Truly and this blog.

It is not so simple as all that, though, as many have now discovered. Curse me if you wish, but even more relevant than the phrase "Black Lives Matter (which they do, in the sense in which that phrase is generally meant--don't get me wrong)" is this phrase: Words Matter. It's a phrase that's beginning to emerge with regularity. It is a bottom-line statement that is always correct, politically or otherwise.

Words matter because they trigger images in the most, and what can be the best (or worst) part of what makes us human: The mind. Utterances are also acts by people who may or may not intend to have whatever effects their words may have on others, which include other, non-verbal acts of friendliness and compassion, vindictiveness and hate, like and dislike. Words, which are deeds unto themselves, lead to more deeds, and those deeds--which include responses to someone's words--almost never happen in a vacuum.

All of which should be a caution to first, watch what one says; second, be ready for a response; and third, choose words carefully. What people think of you is directly attributable to what you say and do, because what you say is what you do and it is an important part of who you are. And yet, we live and must live in a society in which the decisions of those who do not watch their words must be tolerated to the maximum extent possible--which is being tested now as we interact in a nation divided.

Going off on Facebook or other social media causes surprise by the intensity of the responses that are fair game, once the initial comment is made. It shouldn't. I'm too aware of this, having written a newspaper column for 18 years back in the '80s and '90s, when electronic gab was limited to very few techies. Many of my writings were given well-appreciated compliments within what was then a fairly small universe of readers, but a few others brought me up short because I hadn't considered something.

People read things that are written, even from people who don't think of themselves as public commentators as much as they think of their snarkiness as a quick, throwaway comment. They do, though. They think about it. Then they act.

Like Mickey Mouse in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," too many have bathed themselves to the point of overabsorption upon this medium as carte blanche to get stuff off their minds, believing that first, those reading it completely agree (in their narrowness, they keep saying to themselves, "Of course. Who wouldn't?"); and second, their audience would never be so enormous as to make much difference in the greater scheme of things. Like confronting all those brooms in the basement cellar that they had no idea were there, they find themselves overwhelmed by efforts to remove the damage.

This is true even of those who are intentionally outrageous in what they say and do, just to get a reaction. People don't forget, and they now have far easier access to whatever has been said and done. Just turn on your laptop, google something, have at it and reel in shock and dismay if you don't share the outrage, or delight and appreciation if you do.

Does this mean that we should be more repressive about incendiary comments? There's the rub. Repression of expression backfires. It brings more of it. We can wait for it to die off due to a general lack of application, which normally works--but these are not normal times.

Much of this is being played out on college campuses. On the one hand, they are the few places where the laboratory of expression and its effects can be played out, the solution to which seems to allow it to function despite discomfort (and, being populated with young adults without the benefit of sufficient perspective, are greatly challenged to provide tolerance). On the other, they are self-sustaining bubbles in which the reality of discomfiting exchanges can't possibly be experienced and successfully handled, the solution to which seems to be a closer monitoring of vitriol to prevent unnecessary disruption of the educational process--which is what students want most of all.

We remain stuck. We're still trying to figure it all out. Applying a single standard, especially with the cacophony of viewpoints out there, seems folly. But so is to be inclined to keep fake or genuine information from seeing the light of day, since to suppress the former will, in terms of human error and emotionalism, also result in the suppression of the latter. "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying," wrote Thomas Jefferson, who had no love for the press, to Judge John Tyler in 1804, "and which we trust in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be to leave open to him all the avenues to truth."

Perhaps with deep breath and eyes rolled, we should still remain devoted to that concept. Wading through the onslaught of attention-seekers is work, but so is democracy. Jefferson knew that, too.

Be well. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark