We’ll call this more of a rambling string of only partially-coherent
thought. But it’s been on my mind more and more.
It seems like everybody’s out to fight against somebody
somewhere. We’ve all got our own enemies in some form or another from the less-than-serious
“I hate that girl who always comments in class” to the more dramatic “everyone
in [insert political party or organization] is so immoral and going to ruin the
world.” I’ve spoken about dichotomies before as well as stereotypes. We all
hate being defined unless it’s an “us” v “them” situation where we suddenly see
our friend group as the brothers on the battlefield courageously fighting against
the fray of people different than us that we sometimes just don’t like and
generally think are either “too cool for us” or maybe a little too awkward. I’m
guilty of this.
Memes don’t help with this, either. I guess that’s where
this rant begins.
I've recently noticed that every time someone posts something slightly antagonistic or
even self-aggrandizing, it only makes sense in a world
where they are the “outsider” or the “underdog” or the “martyr” for some cause
of varying significance. And in order to do that, they have to imagine for
themselves that there are actually only two sides of each story. So, they put words in everyone’s mouth and give them specially defined characteristics that fit their preconceived narrative. I will give two meme examples.
Example A (I will use both sides of the political spectrum, so bear with me).
Example A (I will use both sides of the political spectrum, so bear with me).
With a picture of Dwight Schrute in the background, the meme stated:
"You think being anti-abortion makes you pro-life? False. You are simply pro-birth with no regard for the quality of life" (source below).
"You think being anti-abortion makes you pro-life? False. You are simply pro-birth with no regard for the quality of life" (source below).
I don’t want to comment on the actual politics of this, but
I do think it’s odd that it confidently separates pro-life and pro-abortion into
people who have “no regard” for life’s quality v people who care (i.e. unvirtuous
v virtuous, or in old-fashion terms, good v evil). As if people who don’t
believe in abortion have never given any thought to anything else because they clearly
have “no regard for quality of life.” What do these meme-creators imagine motivates
pro-life people, then? Clearly it’s not a concern for others. Forgive me for
doubting that.. What
if they just had a different idea on how to deal with life's challenges? Did I go too far with that unearthly suggestion?
More to the point, it’s a lot easier to feel like a noble
hero fighting for an unpopular cause when you can paint your opponent as
someone with zero virtues. Gone are the days, it seems, when you could disagree
because that’s life, diversity, and opinion. Today, it’s as if everyone who
disagrees must be painted as some sort of psychotic demon bent on ruining the
world. Yes, I realize that sounds extreme (case in point?), but it’s starting to
make me realize that noble cultural warriors might need anti-cultural villains
in order to feel purposeful. If you can’t find them on your own – well, why not
create them? Let’s call it the #megamindcomplex, albeit in reverse (Villains
can be made?).
Example B:
A meme of the "caveman" with the caption "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so easy a caveman can understand it."
A meme of the "caveman" with the caption "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so easy a caveman can understand it."
Yeah, because apparently this issue is so obvious that a
large portion of Americans are dumber than cavemen. The creator of this meme
probably believes that – but can we see why that’s a bit of an unhealthy
approach to life? If your enemy is a dumb caveman who will lead you to inevitable
ruin by taking all your guns, then you have to fight them to survive!
Finding an enemy justifies the hero’s dramatics.
It’s like something out of dystopian novel. My sister would
tell you that it’s the message of Tomorrowland. The idea that we’re all so obsessed
with an “inevitable” apocalyptic fate that we end up creating the drama all on
our own. I’ll take it step further by saying that maybe sometimes - and this
more as a thought experiment – we’re less convinced about a coming apocalypse than
we are determined to be the heroes and heroines of our own stories with our own
personally-configured morals, obstacles, sacrifices, and rewards. To turn what
was once externally-experienced into something internally-constructed. Are we
defending the world, then, or our own ego? It’s like we think that to be a hero, we
need to forcibly turn someone into a villain. And we desperately want to feel
like heroes.
I have no idea if this is accurate, but I keep thinking that
maybe we’d learn to get along a little easier if we stopped villainizing
everyone. This is beyond politics, and I’ve
said that before. Extrovert v. Introvert. Jocks v Nerds. Feelings v Reason. Who will
rule the world one day? Who is the hero of the story?
Now, I’m not one to run away from absolute truths. I’m still
a good v. evil type of person. I love stories where the noble character like
Harry Potter or Katniss Everdeen end up saving
the world through their moral convictions and
determined self-sacrifice. I think there are lot of messages to be found. After all, I studied domestic terrorism in college. There are definitely evil
dudes out there.
But that doesn’t mean that every neighbor, colleague, and social
media personality that disagrees with you is one of them. If we turn everyone
with an opposing viewpoint into a villain, we’ll soon be stuck in a metaphorical
cave watching shadows on the walls, or fighting windmills in the name of chivalry
and then wondering why history calls us crazy. Self-proclaimed heroes.
And what becomes of the people we intended to save? Are they
sacrificed on the altar of ego or placed in the category of our enemy? Or
maybe, the tough reality is that heroes and villains aren’t actually made in
the mind-palaces of the self-obsessed. That maybe, in the real world, the line
between what is good and what is evil isn’t as simple as what one person merely
believes or wants. As if truth weren’t actually about you, and neither was
heroism.
In a world of moral relativism, I’m starting to wonder if
such an archaic formula is acceptable anymore. Like maybe Voldemort
was the good guy and your annoying next-door-neighbor is not.
But who decides? And therein lies the problem. When we villainize
to heroize, soon no one will be left to fight or save. And the story ends in
ashes.
Comments
Post a Comment