I was recently told that I was provocative. It was not intended as a compliment. A coworker has (probably correctly) described me as grandstanding. I think I should take umbrage at these slurs, but I don’t. Why should I?
I suppose it depends on your definition of provocative. Years ago I’d hear that word used to describe Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, George Carlin, Dick Gregory, and other comedians of that generation. Sometimes the word was intended to sell their tickets and albums, other times as denigrating how they did their jobs.
Occasionally you’ll hear the term used in the context of North Korea or Iraq trying to stir up trouble. In that sense it’s certainly not complimentary.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Does that line sound familiar? Cool Hand Luke certainly provoked. But in the larger sense, we really do have a failure to communicate. Let me ‘splain.
While I would never claim that I don’t intentionally say things to piss people off, in most cases that isn’t the reason. Sometimes it’s plain fun to say provocative things just to get a rise. For example, a friend has a Chihuahua, which in my humble opinion is a useless animal that should have gone the way of the dodo. Whenever I see Pocho (pronounced “Paco”; don’t ask me why the dog never learned to spell) I put him in the microwave. Just because. For some reason, some overly sensitive folks, like every one I know, take offense to that. Even if I don’t actually hit the ‘Start’ button.
No – mostly I’m trying to get people to think about what they’re saying instead of just parroting it. Provocative in the sense of provoking thought, discussion, debate. Sometimes it takes the approach of playing Devil’s advocate. That's entertaining, because I may actually agree with the person - I just wonder why they think the way they do. But once in awhile I stand there and wonder if the person making a statement is clean and sober, as in ‘I can’t believe you mean that’.
There are a couple of fables you’ve heard of that describe what I do for entertainment. Both apply in equal measure. ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ and ‘Don Quixote’. This is probably something for the psychiatrist couch, but hey, I’ll lay myself bare here.
I love the idea of the common person telling someone in power they don’t have a clue. It probably goes to my thorough disdain for hubris. After all, many in a position of authority suffer from that disease, with no cure except for political defeat. The story is a metaphor for getting even for the high handed behavior wielded by those who should not have authority.
The other story communicates my deep-seated need to be constantly at war with something. I am enamored of tilting at the windmill of injustice. Of course, what may be wrong to my eyes may be right in yours. Injustice takes many forms. Is it right that we have a large percentage of our population on public assistance? Who is the wronged here, the person receiving assistance or the person paying for it? You choose your side, but recognize it’s never a clear cut right versus wrong. There’s right and wrong on both sides.
The downside to being a provocateur is that it sometimes leads to shunning. I recently took an unpopular position on a debate regarding the right for Amazon.com to have for sale a book supporting the notion that sexual abuse of children was a good thing. Clearly, I never thought that was a book that had good ideas. It was reprehensible in any sense. But I was trying to look at the larger issue: banning unpopular things. In this particular case, folks took me to task, and rightly so. It wasn’t that I was wrong or they were wrong, it was a matter of we need to think and talk about these issues. I doubt anyone was persuaded one way or the other, but everyone was civil. And at least we talked and thought.
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that hasn’t quite raised the hue and cry I would have thought. It concerns a judgment for $5 Million given the parent of a soldier killed in action, to have been paid by a Baptist church group out of Kansas. They have made it their mission to attend and protest at military funerals, saying that it’s God’s will this soldier died because the US supports gay rights (at least semi-officially). That church's position may be the topic of another blog, because of the passions it stirs in many of us. But not today.
It disturbs me that anyone would try to make political hay out of the solemn and very personal act of burying a loved one. The grief of a soldier’s parent, while all too common, is still as heart wrenching as you can imagine. How dare someone try to turn that into a media circus? Aren’t there other, more appropriate venues for protest? Of course there are, but that’s not the point.
Just as in the Amazon.com issue, at the end of the day what we’re talking about is censorship. As wrong-headed, as well-intended (the Church matter) or evil-intended (the Amazon.com matter), as insulting, degrading, despicable, repugnant or deplorable the offensiveness is, we cannot go down the road of censorship. As soon as we allow the Government to determine what’s acceptable and what isn’t, there might well be a ban on something you care about. Then what would you say? “I wanted you to ban A, but not B?” What about your neighbor who wanted the opposite?
I've heard persuasive argument from articulate people that we need limitations on free speech. Just tonight I heard about some differences between us and some European countries, specifically France and Germany, who regulate speech in that 'Hate Speech' is a crime. That has its genesis in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. It's hard to argue with that position, because of the sensitivity of what led to the legislation. But as much regard as I have for the victims, regardless of their situation, it's difficult to accept the inevitable result of curtailing free speech.
Does that mean that everything is fair game, regardless of the venue, regardless of who might be offended? No, of course not. We have the duty to protect our children from offensive behavior. We can choose to counter-protest, civilly of course. We can choose to remove ourselves from what we find offensive. Change the channel, as it were. We have the responsibility to act like adults. This is the price we pay for the freedom we expect. There is no free lunch.
No, the issue here is more to the core of the American Experience. We cherish our freedoms, fleeting as they may be. Let’s not willingly give up any more.
As Voltaire is credited with saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He was right.
And this time, anyway, the Supreme Court got it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment