A daydream, perhaps, and a not very kind one. There is a history in human relations that teaches us how we might handle misbehaving colleagues. We don’t hear much about it today. The phrase, sent to Coventry, was taken literally in England’s 17th century. Today if someone is ‘sent to Coventry,’ it implies they have been ostracized in some way. When I was in grammar school, a misbehaving student was made to sit in the corner of the classroom and ignored by classmates. One hopes today’s early grades are more civilized and enlightened. Some current religions still practice shunning to correct departures from their “true” path. I don’t know but I doubt that such punishment results in lasting repentance.
To employ such “corrective measures” to bring our misguided friends and colleagues to their senses would be a Last Resort indeed. It can seem to be the only remaining mechanism that stands a ghost of a chance to wake them up. Unfortunately, I have the notion a bit reversed. Ostracism or banishment is the standard reaction within a cult to deviation from its ethos. The miscreant is denied the comfort and pleasure of interacting with other adherents to the cult’s tenets. The threatened loss of interaction with non-cult members, with outsiders at large, in order to somehow convince current loyalists to decamp is a quite opposite use of shunning and not likely to succeed. If anything, it would reinforce adherence to the in-group.
However, there may be a good number of cult adherents who also enjoy normal relations with the rest of us. Not just with family, friends, and colleagues but with their hairdresser, their bank teller, their pizza delivery service. I can’t in good conscience suggest that those service providers pursue such a mean and vindictive solution. There must be another kinder way. My barber, shears in hand, is happy to discuss sports, cinema, the weather, accomplishments of family members, and the infirmities of old age, but never politics, or religion, or alternative lifestyles. How would I react if he were to remain silent, or worse, refuse to trim my mane, if I had a mane, just because of how I vote and who I idolize? I would not be happy and my views, such as they are, would likely harden. But maybe, just maybe, a tinge of doubt would be introduced. He is my barber after all.
These days, the retreat to ostracism has acquired a generic generalized term. It’s called “Cancel Culture.” It supposedly works against any group or individual who strays from some predefined or spontaneously invented rectitude. That ill-defined umbrella does admittedly cover my Last Resort proposals and more.
Quid Pro Quo – Fairness under fire
If the contention is correct that our social compact is now threatened, we must first ask with whom has that compact been consummated. I grant that the compact has been between and among our leaders in government and other institutions and the people, all the people. Does that even include those who would now tear it down? Yes, it does. A fair renegotiation over time of the terms of the compact that considers the perspectives of all who might be affected seems to have happened with fits and starts over decades. But to be torn down by a minority is not renegotiation.
We expect that fairness implies giving in on some points in return for agreement on others. Is it fair to expect free access to the privileges of today’s compact while simultaneously advocating and working to implement a one-sided drastic revision that favors only the few? I think not. A reverse boycott wherein services and products are withheld as a way to show the seriousness with which divisive issues are taken is probably a violation of the law. That’s the law that ensures access by all to public accommodations and prevents discriminatory practices, especially against minority groups. Oh, the irony! When the compact is broken, it is those very groups who will suffer the most.
The mighty dollar (or euro, forint, bolívar, shekel, etc.)
Then the Last Resort may be “knock-on” shunning. Withholding patronage from businesses that advertise on information channels frequented by those whom we want to rescue would likely moderate the single-minded content shoveled to an audience for whom force-feeding of a few contrary ideas is needed. Advertisers that want their brands’ integrity to align with that of their customers will withdraw ads on their own. Rather than lose advertising revenue, steps would be taken. Despite the inevitable whining and accusations of unfair this or that, when the bottom line is at risk, things change.
The First Resort
All of that Last Resort stuff reflects traditional thinking about how to fight the wrongheadedness of people who espouse ideas and policies that are presumably destructive and eventually self-defeating. The presumed enemy is not a monolith. Of course, there are true believers. There are also agnostics who care little about policy but want to ride an exciting and possibly successful train. And then there are the prevaricators. They privately believe that all of the propositions are pure bunk, but the possibility of their success compels them to support or at least refrain from criticizing publicly.
That last group will go whichever way the proverbial wind blows. The agnostics will follow the rehabilitated prevaricators when their numbers look impressive. The first group, the true believers, most deserve our attention. The Last Resort snubbing approach would not only be mean and result in resentment but would have little likelihood of success. Therefore, before deciding to fight, we could consider that group’s humanity, their circumstances, the aspects of their preferences that arise from their life experiences and initiate a dialogue from which we might better appreciate from where they come. At first, it may be hard to believe, but my guess is that we would find well-meaning rational folks who espouse notions we can understand and respect, especially given the context that formed them. A non-confrontive conversation asking about thoughts concerning factors not yet discussed is the only path I envision to open a perspective on and appreciation for a broader frame of reference. An excellent point to remember has been enunciated by author Brian Resnick, formerly science editor at Vox.com, who wrote “…a good way to make facts matter is to remind people that who they are and what they believe are two separate things.”[2[
Falling chips
Then we have little choice but to let the chips fall where they may.[1] Destiny is fickle. But I think we can quote here from a previous post (Grace under pressure, 11 March 2024). The long view would be that the pendulum will swing one way until the gravity of the situation applies the corrective force to return it to and past its equilibrium until experience at the other extreme corrects again. This applies to our social compact. It can’t help but eventually align with the wishes of the majority despite the long frustrating walk that incremental changes may entail. To be avoided are abrupt twists and turns causing a loss of footing with centrifugal flinging of moderates over reasonable curbs, be there guard rails or not.
The Last Resort options would no doubt exacerbate the centrifugal forces that keep us apart. Spinning objects like the merry-go-round at the local fairground or planet Earth don’t fly apart because there is a countervailing restoring force holding them together. We can hope that the First Resort is that force.
Credit: Windblown flag image (modified) generated by OpenAI.com’s DALL-E image generator.
[1] An idiom that nowadays means let things play out without attempting to change them, but its origin dates to the 1800s when it referred to scattered wood chips to be ignored while focusing on the woodcutting job at hand. Any approach to chipping away at the barriers that divide us would be welcome.
[2] Brian Resnick, https://uca.edu/honors/files/2020/09/A-new-brain-study-sheds-light-on-why-it-can-be-so-hard-to-change-someones-political-beliefs-Vox.pdf
Nota Bene: Others may ruminate differently. But be warned: In my case, seeing or hearing something quite trivial -- a saying, a store clerk’s mannerisms, or bad grammar on a food product’s label – triggers a stream-of-consciousness extrapolation toward grander notions and generalizations. That is what often happens in these posts. ADDENDUM: Those subscribers who have been here for a while will have noticed that at times ruminations have veered into diatribes. I make no apology. I just want my readers to know that it’s quite intentional. When events come close to making the ‘blood boil,’ that discontent bubbles up here.
Disclaimer: Any and all opinions expressed here are my own at the time of writing with no expectation that they will hold beyond my next review of this article. Opinions are like a river, winding hither and yon, encountering obstacles and rapids, and suffering turbulent mixing of silts from its depths and detritus from its banks. But just as a river has its clear headwaters and a fertile delta, so do opinions, notwithstanding any intervening missteps and uncertainties.
Reminder: You can visit the Cycloid Fathom Technical Publishing website at cycloid-fathom.com and the gallery at cycloid-fathom.com/gallery.
Forthcoming posts (unless life intervenes)
Let me count the ways*
……Once, it was only love
Sched 5/27/2024
No more mass XXXs, No más XXXs masivos
…In my day it was duck and cover, now it’s run, hide, fight
Sched 6/3/2024
Celebrity
…Bonum et malum et medium (The good and the bad and the in-between)
Sched 6/10/2024
Derivatives
…Integral to our progress, or not?
Sched 6/17/2024
The Inclined Plane
…The geometry of life
Sched 6/24/2024
My big toe, My blind eye
…Seeing is only believing with eyes wide open
Sched 7/1/2024
Attacked from all sides
…We’ve been here before
Sched 7/8/2024