Toward the end of this school year I was talking with Mr. Webb (I believe that I included a student or two at one point) about a tendency that some people have to be critical of most everything - to look upon all options with distaste. He hypothesized that this is due, at least in part, to the safety of this position: it is easy to dissect virtually any idea to the point where flaws are readily apparent. In other words, it is very easy to find something wrong with pretty much anything if that is what you're looking for, since all things are ultimately highly complex. On the other side, the pro- to this bitter con-, there is great risk. If you openly decide that you like something, you are identifying with it, in essence advertising that "I am the sort of person who likes this thing." For those nay-sayers, eager to dislike, it is now easy to conclude that you are as distasteful as your naive preferences. Lack of identification--criticism--, therefore, is the safe position, involving no risk-taking.
Last night, I was discussing this idea with one of my college friends when he proposed a link between this and the 'mob' mentality. He suggested that people feel much more comfortable getting behind something (approving) when there is a large group in agreement since that same critic who claims that you are a fool for your preferences is now denouncing the entire group. Safety in numbers.
Thus, once again, the lone wolf faces exceptional challenges. But what about when the lone wolf is onto something? (s)he is now in a perfect position to engage in a form heroism, since heroism, after all, requires that one face fears and challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment