As I was reading yet another article on the single vs. married life style of young adults, I was reminded that a non-insignificant portion of the drive to evangelize stems from insecurity. Indeed, one reason why proselytizers are so fanatical in their chosen course is because they doubt the choices they have made in their own lives. The more people they can convince/browbeat/persuade to follow the same course and to make the same choices, the more acceptable their own choice becomes. There are few faiths more fervent, more evangelical, and more fragile than the faith of a new convert.
Religion is the most obvious example, but it is certainly not the only. The reason I linked the above article is that it highlights so much of the tension between the singles vs. the marrieds, and how each side keeps looking across the fence to see the color of the grass. The gazer will inevitably sniff at the inferior quality on the other side of the grass, inevitably enough they lose the authority to sniff persuasively. The central mentality is that the more people you can convince to follow the same path, likely for the same reasons you did, the safer your choice. Just because you create the bandwagon for everyone to hop on to doesn't make it any less of a bandwagon; the fallacy is the same whether you help others on as when you hop on yourself.
Mea culpa. I've noticed that as I approached my choice to enlist, I become much more vocal about the merits of patriotism and service. I think I've made the right choice, and I stand by it, but I am all too away of the risks, both physically and emotionally, my choice entails. My choices are my own, but when other people make the same choice for the same reasons, it's easier to feel it is a safer decision.
To be sure, some bandwagons, like electricity or showering, are good to be on. But just because someone makes a logical, cogent argument for doing something doesn't mean they are secure in their choices. So my caution is simply thus: the harder someone tries to convince you of something, their show is probably more for their own sake than for yours. If the truth really will set you free, sussurration will be just as moving as shouts from the rooftops. So evaluate the argument, but don't forget to evaluate the arguer.
1 comment:
interesting blogs. There always seems to be a rhetorical tension in your writing, to me, an agenda beneath the agenda, an emotion not stated but clearly felt. "Consider the source" has long been a caveat in assessing someone's attempts to convince.
"Susuration" has two s's, not three, and one "r," not two. And I've not seen that word before. It is a good example of onomatopoeia.
I hadn't thought of the idea that the path to sustainability is to reduce the "haves" of the haves, while increasing the "haves" of the have-nots, until everyone is sitting at the kiddie's table. I don't see that happening , but I do think it is a good way to describe the situation.
Good stuff. mom
Post a Comment