This (a little hyperbolised, but not by much) was a frothing-at-the-mouth letter in my regional paper this morning, to which I wrote the following response (name of original correspondent omitted.)
In response to (correspondent's) letter bemoaning the discussions around the potential legalisation of cannabis, and the "soft" approach of prisons, I will assume that (correspondent) also thinks it was "soft and liberal" to decriminalise homosexuality, abortion, and suicide? Or to amend the statutes that considered women "chattels", first of their fathers, then, if they married, of their husbands - and of their closest male relative, should a woman's father die before she married? Perhaps it was "soft and liberal" to abolish slavery as well - after all, it's certainly made things more difficult for the poor hard working employers, hasn't it, since they can barely make a profit, having to actually pay their labour as they now do.
Times change, attitudes, knowledge, awareness, and understanding change with them - sometimes, those changes bring about changes to the law of the land.
Many people - perfectly respectable, hard-working, law-abiding people - would benefit from a legalisation of cannabis, as it has been proved to be an effective pain relief for people with severe, chronic conditions, including cancer patients. People who, currently, are often reliant on morphine - which is an opium-based painkiller, from the same family as the street drug heroin. I myself have been prescribed morphine for pain relief in the past - I can happily confirm I never felt the desire to become a heroin addict as a result.
Many people talk about how we should "make prison somewhere to be feared" - and yet, in a developed, functional society, imprisonment shouldn't be about sadistically breaking someone's spirit because "they deserve to be punished" - it should be about working with them to reduce, or, ideally, eliminate, the chances of them re-offending, to enable them to complete their period of separation from friends, family, and the on-demand enjoyments of life available to those at liberty - going for a long walk when the weather's good, going out for a meal, enjoying a pint down the pub with friends, having a functional romantic relationship - and emerge as individuals who are able and willing to become functional, contributing members of the economic and social spheres of life.
We shouldn't be breaking those undertaking military service, either - we should be training our armed forces to make their own decisions under pressure, to be able to quickly identify different ways of getting a desired result, to understand and empathise with other human beings, even if they don't necessarily agree with those peoples' motivations and views - training to blind, broken obedience isn't going to solve any of the problems facing the world: we need intelligent, innovative, and, yes, compassionate, leaders - not followers who are lashing out at others because they themselves have been hurt, humiliated, and broken.
That's not "liberal leftist nonsense" - that's basic humanity.
It is easy, when seeing attitudes we disagree with, particularly ones that vehemently support the status quo, however dysfunctional and punitive that status quo may be, to become angry, to dismiss those who hold such views as "bigoted dinosaurs", and to console ourselves with talk about how they will "go extinct soon enough".
The problem is, these attitudes aren't dying off. There are young people with these attitudes - I've encountered several of them.
There are intelligent people with these attitudes - I've encountered them, too.
These attitudes can't be dismissed as simple bigotry and intolerance that will soon go the way of the dodo - the UK Brexit result in June, and the recent US election result, have proved that such attitudes are more prevalent and powerful than the dedicated left have ever admitted, and than they are comfortable acknowledging. There is something more than simple hatred powering these views, because hatred is too intense an emotion to be effective over a long period. Genetically, we would have evolved to not hold on to hatred, because, in unstable, uncertain settings, such as those homo sapiens emerged within, and from, it made no sense to refuse to cooperate with certain individuals or groups - bridges were a vital necessity, and burning them was something to be avoided at all costs.
What underlies these hostile attitudes is fear - not a fear of certain people, or a fear of particular things and situations, but a fear of the world changing so much that these individuals no longer have a place within it.
It is this fear that powers the hostility to women in the workplace, and frontline military service - if women can be business people, factory hands, soldiers, and there are slightly more women than men, and women aren't affected in the same way as men by the age-related decline of testosterone, and are also less prone to the spectacular failures of high-risk decisions driven, in part, by heightened levels of testosterone in their younger working years, might men not, eventually, be come to be seen as a risky business investment, and passed over in favour of the statistically more efficient, enduring, and reliable women?
It is this fear that powers the refusal to accept the reality of gay and lesbian individuals being able to marry - if marriage is no longer the preserve of the nice, normal heterosexual element of society, than how can those people continue to believe that they are the norm? If society accords the privilege (and the tax breaks and rights) of marriage on "anybody", doesn't that make us all "nobody"?
It is this fear that powers the denial of the validity of transgender individuals and their genuine, lived experience - if a female-bodied person can become a physically, socially, and legally recognised man, or a male-bodied person can become a physically, socially, and legally recognised woman, if such individuals can marry, hold jobs, buy property, and, indeed, participate fully in the life of the State, than how can anyone be certain of their gender, or claim a privilege associated with it?
It is this fear that powers the constant braying of Christians that their rights and "traditional values" are being eroded - if the establishment isn't validating your particular viewpoint and belief system, you have to validate it yourself, with evidence, or, at the very least, attractive, viable, lived example of how it improves things for society as a whole - and that's difficult and frightening for many people. Much easier if you can simply say "The government of this country agrees with my viewpoint, and thus my viewpoint must be correct."
Fear is a powerful, attractive emotion, because, for a long time, fear kept us alive long enough to continue our genetic line, and increase the population density of our species. It is fear that allowed us to become a powerful, successful apex predator, and fear that allowed us to survive the extremes of previous ice ages, episodes of global warming, continental drifts, earthquakes, and other natural disasters - fear saw us leave, if we were able, before the rumblings of discontent in our corner of the natural world gathered sufficient force to destroy us utterly. Those who weren't afraid, or who were unable to act on their fear because of poverty or infirmity, died. As they still do.
And yet, in the end, fear will be the death of us - because, if we never defy fear, we never learn what is possible. Innovation and improvement is impossible without a defiance of fear. The greatest rewards, socially and personally, often carry the greatest risk, and thus cause us to experience the greatest fear. It must be terrifying for an infant, walking for the first time, to raise itself to what must seem like a great height above the stability of ground level, to take on a position in which its field of vision is drastically altered, and to trust in only two limbs instead of four - and yet no one would argue that it is desirable for humans to perpetually crawl. There is great risk, still, attached to pregnancy and childbirth - and yet we would die if no one ever faced the fear of that risk, and said "I understand this - and I defy it."
If no one had ever defied the fear of extreme heights and depths, we'd have no knowledge of outer space, or the ocean floor. If no one had ever defied fear, we wouldn't have air travel, nuclear power, gunpowder, or half the strange and wonderful foodstuffs we do. (Hats off to the first person to pull a monkfish or an octopus out of the ocean and think "I could eat that.")
If we never defied fear, we would never know the limits or potential of our capabilities.
We can't just mock fear, can't just dismiss those who are still bound by it - because that, in itself, is a kind of fear, the fear that says, if we help others who don't think the way we do, they may turn on us.
We are all fear's captive, in one way or another, and thus we should all be building bridges across our fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment