Whenever one sees what one thinks is decadence, ignorance or injustice, there is likely to be a conflict within. There is a temptation to become a moral entrepreneur, wear a Socratic hat and subject the ‘guilty’ to an interrogation, a public or private questioning/challenge of the acts and their repercussions. This presumes a certain contextual superiority, which is a discomforting assumption because we are also flawed individuals, and we have to know that quite, as goes the delphic suggestion (know thyself). The other alternative, which in some ways is an easy one when one is not being personally hurt, is to ignore the problem. This is an important choice because both options have their implications for inner peace. One can allow the choice to be affected by one's ‘power’ in a given situation. So, if I hold some influence over the person or group in question, it seems easier to get Socratic, while if the influence is ambiguous, absent or opposite, it poses difficulties.
Considering the choice in its totality, one has to consider one's role and power in the situation, constructed subjectively but informed by signals from others. If one sees a situation wherein is clear the responsibility to effect change or stem a decline and one has some power, direct influence or even the sheer hope of triggering the process of change, one could decide to intervene. This may be an easy choice, but most real life situations are not that clear; there is significant ambiguity about power and responsibility. So, how do we proceed? I think the only clear thing is that as such there can be no clear and final ‘rules of conduct’, because situations are unique and we need to keep updating our ‘actuality’ in a situation, in terms of our understanding of: the truth in the situation, our accepted and acknowledged obligation to the improvement being imagined, and our power in the situation. We may not actually ‘know’ if something is truly decadent or wrong, we may be exaggerating our obligations under the circumstances, or we may be utterly powerless in the situation. Since an attempt to subject others to a Socratic interrogation or to put a fight for change can have significant implications for us, in both personal and professional contexts, it makes sense to try to be somewhat clear about the truth of the need for change, to be convinced about our self-imposed and acknowledged obligation towards change, and to have a realistic sense of the possibilities of our power in the situation.
It is also important for us to do a bit of a self-interrogation to understand and face the ‘real’ motivations behind the discomfort with a situation and the resulting will to change things. Sometimes, what I see wrong with the world is but a reflection of my own flaws. All the perspectives of the world aside, it is the ‘I’ that may turn out to be actually quite mysterious and perhaps mischievous. I may not be seeing things as they are; I may be seeing them as I am. Self-knowledge is crucial for a ‘real’ understanding of the world; otherwise the mind plays its games, and of course there is language which in the garb of providing one with thoughts and means for communication, carries countless biases and intentions. Thus, a renewed attempt for self-knowledge should accompany, preferably precede, an effort to understand the situation with an intention of choosing between action and inaction. Better to make change wait, than take an action that makes things worse. But, it is also important to act before it is too late. The balance has to be maintained.
No comments:
Post a Comment