Small Rooms, Closed Doors, Big Plans

It can be so intriguing and convenient to assume that they're behind it all.

Big Business and Men™and The Upper Class are behind sexism.

East Coast Comedy and College™and the Illuminati are scheming up The Liberal Agenda.

Some group of people somewhere closed a door, sat at a board room table, and designed all social media platforms to make sure we regulate each other and uphold societal norms.

Progressives might say kindness is being schemed away.
Conservatives might say values are being schemed away.
Young 'uns say the older generations are making us look bad while older generations might seem to think that millennials, collectively, are set to destroy them.

I'm un-informed, relatively speaking. Goodness knows I certainly don't know who/what/why our society acts the way it does, oppresses those it oppresses and exults those it exults (I'm only a few weeks into Sociology 101) but I feel like it's a group effort. One that we might not even be aware of.

We like to think the opposition's scheming because we can't wrap our head around the fact that they believe their ideas with the same conviction and simplicity as we do ours. It's so simple but so impossible to swallow.

I'm no expert, but I'm sure there's no weekly, Wednesday night meeting with all the patriarchal men of America where they think of new ways to sneakily uphold the patriarchy. No, more likely, patriarchal values are still around, not because of some club's vision board, but because of one guy's comment here, one subconscious action there, a million little by-stander moments and a million little uninformed opinions (not too different from the ones I post here, other than by content) adding up to create something big, evil, and seemingly intentional.

I don't say this to dismiss injustice, actually whatever is the polar opposite of that.

In his book The Gift of Fear, Gavin Debecker discusses the ironic danger of calling perpetrators of violent crimes "monsters". Inhuman. Unlike us. We like to think that by separating ourselves so dramatically from the harm-er, we emphasize how not ok this behavior is, while really we couldn't be doing anything less productive in preventing it.

While calling serial killers "monsters" feels good and assures us that we're nothing like them, DeBecker emphasizes that it's in seeing ourselves in the perpetrators of violence that we're actually able to predict and prevent.

I like to parallel it to a hypothetical, radical hippie. Let's say you're a member of a small, niche, hippie cult. We'll say that your whole manifesto is that you don't believe in washing machines. It's that rickity board and a bucket or dirty clothes, for you and your 10 fellow cult members.

Now let's say you want to make more of a difference. You and your fellow wash-by-handians have caused the world to have eleven fewer washing-machine users by converting to hand-washing (actually ten, considering Beth and Ron are a couple and would probably be living together if not in the commune). But you believe in hand-washing clothes so strongly that you propose to go out into the washing-machine society and live with and among people who use washing machines.

Your fellow wash-by-handians are shocked and disgusted. "How could you stoop to their level, living among, interacting with, and, I can hardly say it, befriending people of such beliefs?!" Ron spits at you.

"No, no!" you say "You don't understand! How can I help people see why hand-washing is better and feasible if I don't know why they prefer washing-machines, and learn about their beliefs surrounding washing clothes in general? And need I remind you that I will most certainly not be using washing-machines, only listening to why they do, good granola get a grip Ron!"

Understanding isn't compromising. For me, it's been more challenging than I might have thought understanding that kind people I care for, respect, and love, shoot and kill wildlife for sport. I don't think it's at all more acceptable to do it just because there are people who do it who I know and love, it only makes me a more productive, understanding advocate for not hunting.

The better I understand why they think it's ok, the better I can explain why I think it's not. It's like that old adage someone said at some point: if you shout people will lean away but if you talk at normal volume, they'll lean in or at least not leave the table.

I don't think there's a board room of evil gremlins who devise methods of convincing citizens that hunting is acceptable. Not at all. I think it's people I know well and love more, who simply believe it's acceptable, perhaps as, actually almost certainly as, organically, simply, and powerfully as I believe it's not.

I won't solve anything by saying they must be otherworldly monsters, firstly because they're not.
We can't cure the world of injustice by crashing a Friends of World Injustice meeting and exposing some sneaky sneaky schemes. But we can communicate. We can relate and retort all in one breath.
It's simple, impossible, and invaluable.




ps: if you're reading this trying to figure out a political affiliation, you're doing it wrong ;)