One woman has shocked the genteel bridge world by asserting her right to a political opinion.
I'm impressed by her actions. And I ask myself where and when do we assert our own views? Where do we keep silence? Why are we silent?
Many of us are taught not to disagree with one another - and the topics of religion and politics are made taboo. So, political discussions are often curtailed, particularly at work. But even among friends we can swallow our words in order not to appear uncouth or disagreeable.
So where is the right place to assert your opinion? Is it only in the voting booth? A secret, silent action that makes you one among many citizens?
I often hear that people are "offended" when they see or hear political or religious speech in public places? What is the nature of this offence? Do we feel attacked when someone holds a view that we disagree with? Or is it all in the context? Is religious speach only appropriate in a place of worship, or at home? Should political views only be expounded within spaces where we will not impinge on those who disagree?
Does this have anything to do with our uniquely idea of privacy?
More questions here than statements.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Where and when do we assert our own views? This has to be one of the hardest questions to answer during our daily navigation of life. It is especially hard when we live in a land that ensures us of free speech. There is this expectation that we not only have the right to express our views, but the responsibility to do so as part of our civic and political duty. Why then is any one venue different than another? Perhaps it is not so much the venue as it is the perception of our motivation in a given venue. I heard a speech by a guy recently, and at the beginning of his speech he said to his audience (paraphrased): "There are a lot of things that I want to tell you, but I am not sure that they are the things you came to this place to hear."
There is in my mind a very thin line between free speech and evangelism. Evangelism, regardless of the topic being evangelized, is meant not only to inform those that don't know, but to convince those who do know that they are responding inappropriately. Usually, evangelism is aimed at those who just are not interested or in some cases, antagonistic towards the idea being sold. To state it simply, If I walk into a bar full of conservatives having an evening cocktail, buy myself a beer, and start talking to them about how their beliefs are ruining our country, degrading our values, and increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots, I am exercising free speech. I have the right to do so assuming the bar is a public one. On the other hand, what am I likely to accomplish? Is my audience open to what I have to say at that time and place? Not likely.
Likewise, if I go to a competition where hundreds or thousands of people are excited about and focused on the skill and luck of the players competing, and one of the competitors while being honored for their skill and luck makes a political statement, I am going to be upset. This is not what I came to hear. I may agree with them 100%, but it is not what we all agreed (tacitly perhaps, but agreed none the less) to focus on. Perhaps bridge is what I do to forget about all that shit!?
It seems to me that in this case, the whole think got blown out of proportion. One of the ladies stated that it was a light-hearted attempt to let others know that some of us just don't agree with what is going on. One of them stated that it was in response to a lot of talk by non-Americans regarding issues of a political nature. Honestly, I get the feeling and believe that this was not intended so much as a political statement as it was a plea to "just let us play bridge!". That sign implies the message "don't blame me, I understand your complaints".
I don't think that there is a 'right' place or a 'right' time. There is a place and a time to assert our positions which is productive, and I doubt that many of us are very good at picking those places or times. It is too easy to be misunderstood.
As far as asserting our views with our friends goes; True friends are the source of our motivation for having views. We care about them, and we respect them because they have different views which they share, and which help us to think about things differently. Friends are the people to whom we say "this is what my concern is, and here is how I think about it". Those words are implied in concept of friendship I think. And the agreement or disagreement is inconsequential because underneath it all, as friends, we know that we care for each other. It brings a whole different dynamic to asserting views.
Wow! That question about our unique idea of privacy is a good one! I thought when I first read it that it was totally tangential, but now that I think about it.... hmmm... food for lots of thought.
I wonder if our world has gotten so big and so connected that our views really don't matter. In the case of these ladies, I think that the wrong issue is being addressed by the populist media.
When is a good time? What is a good place? In the time and the place where there are people who will listen and think without being offended.
I am not sure when and where we should assert our opinions without some resemblance of responsibility, good manners and common decency. Coffee houses, college campuses and home living rooms are they part of a time gone by? Are blogs the new location where an opinion can be given freely that can not threaten ones job or physical being? I think there have always been places one can give opinions without risk of retribution. I am not sure public places were EVER that place where a confrontational opinion could always be avoided. I do however believe that in all fairness to others that when you are representing a company or organization you take on a “fiduciary” role where one should keep political and religious opinions and other prejudices to oneself. I think certain conversations do have appropriate places to take place. Thinking first before one speaks is not a lost art.
I disagree, and am not impressed with her actions. This incident could turn into a perfect democratic example if allowed to play out without too much pressure from groups outside the bridge group (media). The women gave their opinion publicly about political issues and based on that, the bridge organization they represented get to give their collective opinion of their actions abroad. Act as you wish, but pay the bill when you need to and please don't whine about individual freedoms would be my comment to them. Groups are actually made up of individuals who arrive at collective opinion. I personally would not go abroad risk my lilvihood on a flash in the pan political statement, but they did. Now backing away and making excuses... hmmm Now who in your example was offending who?? The group was offending the women or the women the group... or is it a tie? They are not imprisoning these women they are merely saying we might not want you representing us in the future... Hmm elections.... Our societies now feel a need to legislate political correctness as well as large organization shunning might have gone a little far in modern society but has served a purpose in pointing out that anyone can have an opinion but voicing that opinion is not always in line with where free speech was intended. Was there anyone there at the stage allowed to give a rebuttal opinion? Cheap shots are just that.
JOM
Post a Comment