Rhetoric Versus Caring

Words have consequences. Some are hurled about to make consequence happen. Intentional stirrings of emotion in others. That’s the objective. Trouble is unintended consequences are also stirred. The ripple effect can easily take over and magnify the unintended results rapidly and exponentially.  

Riots start this way. A mere protest is staged. Emotions flare and observers catch the spirit, get involved and the protest swells. Things get out of hand quickly and civil disobedience leads to a little violence, then window breaking, some arson, then large roving mobs of destruction move through a neighborhood at first, then more blocks until the energy burns out. People injured. Property destroyed. Even maybe a fatality or two. All starting from a well intentioned protest soon gone awry. 

In this Internet Age words have additional consequence. They start arguments. Heated exchanges among friends and neighbors. And yes families. Usually these center on public issues with differing views. Soon the public nature of the exchange attracts attention of bystanders watching the internet discussion unfold. They join in. The comments get heated. People stop listening to each other and rhetoric grows out of proportion to the discussion. Soon a full fledged fight is underway, one that settles nothing but reinforces negative feelings and hurt. 

That one paragraph pretty much sums up the dynamics of the Internet for me. A tool of inestimable value used wrongly, even destructively.  Human nature is goaded and accelerated. 

Not that some of the comments are not correct. Or even persuasive. Take this one: 

“The ‘trickle-down’ theory: The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.”

–        William Blum  

Now the example and wording are correct, but they goad people into defensive posture. Let’s parse the quote:

            -designed for reaction: poor; table scraps; rich

            -trickle-down: a real theory at work, at least in politics, but not in academic

             circles

            -giving rich bigger meals: clearly hyperbole designed to incite; feeding from the

             public trough by those not in need 

Defensiveness shuts down ears. They don’t hear the argument being made. The reaction continues the debate with no connection of the participants to the salient facts. Just the emotions. Nothing is accomplished. 

Another quote, this one from Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.” 

Good quote. Logical content. Also factual from the academic perspective. But because it was spoken by a sitting President of the US, the comment comes to the public loaded with rhetorical meaning and sub-meaning. Taken this way the statement, although purposeful, is ineffective viewed in the Internet Age. The context speaks volumes. Someone is trying to make a point to counter someone else’s argument. And thus the fight continues. Inflamed! 

Now. Stop. And read. And listen; both with heart and mind. 

America is involved in a delicate phase of becoming itself. Actually we are always becoming something more, something different. Life provides the inputs, and we people churn them out as understanding, gag, rumor, postulate and fad. But we are becoming aware of something, inside and outside of our self. We are processing. 

But we need to really add the component of caring.  

When we care, we attend to our interactions with focus. We try to hear. We try to learn. We try to discern. We also try to speak in a way that we are more certain will be heard and understood.  

This is important. Communication is best when it is intentional. Something we think needs to be stated for someone else to receive. They state a reaction to give us an acknowledgement of receipt of the message. We determine from their response that they did in fact receive our message and capture the meaning as we intended it to be. 

The loop is completed. Message sent, received and acknowledged. 

Public discourse is not that simple. Too many motivations are present: to warp the message intentionally; to mislead; to stir up opposition; to sell a product or service; to earn money from the message; and the list goes on. 

Are we caring enough in our communications? Especially on Facebook, Twitter and Internet? Are we helping people understand or are we part of the emotional backlash? 

I started writing this blog so I could accomplish these objectives:

  a. Explore issues of importance for greater meaning and understanding

            b. Observe current events from my perspective and see if I understood them

            c. Grow my own understanding and world view as I age and coalesce my life’s

                experience

            d. Share all of the above for others to observe and participate in; it was hoped

                the public nature of the discourse would keep me on my toes and honest 

Now I see I am as guilty as others about reacting and emotional commentary. I apologize for that. I can’t promise I’ll be perfectly calm and cool in the future, but I promise to declaim my own nuttiness when it happens, or avoid it altogether! 

Meanwhile, I’ll purpose on to probe understanding this big and complicated world as it continues to unfold. I appreciate you being a part of this journey. Thanks for serving as my jury of peers! 

Thanks for keeping me honest. Now back to less rhetoric and more caring!

May 31, 2012