Joi Ito has a fascinating, heart-felt post about the way he — and almost all of us — accommodate our positions to the context in which we're speaking. He was at the Doors of Perception conference in India conference:
Later, an elderly man stood up and said that all knowledge should be available to everyone and that he didn't think we should compromise on the copyright issues. He then said that the people are ready to fight and march in the streets and turn over the monopolies and we didn't need to sit around and wait for government. It turns out he used to live with Mahatma Gandhi's at his Ashram.
I felt a sudden pain. I realized that I was compromising and in fact evening softening my words assuming that the video of my presentation might end up on the Internet...
It sent a shiver down my spine. And then it stiffened my spine. I heartily recommend the post... [Technorati tag: joi]
Posted
by D. Weinberger at March 24, 2005 02:18 PM
Comments
Just because somebody says something about The People, doesn't make it so. You never see all the cases which *don't* end up in secular sainthood.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | March 24, 2005 04:23 PM
The power of the people isn't what affected me, Seth. Rather, it was the reminder that sometimes it's important not to moderate one's expression ... keeping in mind that the role model here is Gandhi, not some ranting, flaming a-hole.
Posted by: David Weinberger | March 24, 2005 05:18 PM
The problem is that sentiment still leaves unsolved the issue of *when*. How do you tell in advance?
Remember, one man's Gandhi is another man's ranting, flaming a-hole.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | March 24, 2005 06:44 PM
Seth,
To whom was Ghandi a ranting, flaming a-hole? I don't think to any reasonable person. I think Joi is right: too often the reflex is to accomodate one's position to the context to which one is speaking. What it essentially amounts to is disengenuous, passive agressive behavior which I personally find nauseating. The upshot is that it is unseemly in polite, bourgeois company (rife as it is with smug, self-satisfaction) to express views passionately. The preference in these entrenched circles is for pale, platitudinous, bloodless, equivocating, understatement instead. Anyway, I suppose since things are going so well for everyone, it is best not to speak in a manner which might possibly indicate sympathies with those who are a threat to the given order.
Posted by: daniel luke | March 24, 2005 10:08 PM