When I was in high school, a friend of mine introduced me to the statement, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” My three-minute Google search for the origin of the phrase didn’t give a conclusive source, but someone typed that they saw it on a bumper sticker in the 70s.
The problem with that statement is that it constrains the believer to a specific emotion - outrage - based on some outside stimulus - the source of outrage. It says that the only valid response to inequality, injustice, and any other wrongness is strong negative emotions. I disagree. I believe that we should feel free to respond to injustice any way we’d like, and that one emotional response is not necessarily more right than another. In other words, I may not always express my reaction to systemic racism or sexism as frustration, but it doesn’t mean I’m not committed to a safe, equitable world for all. (Feel free to argue that this is a privilege as a result of my male whiteness.)
I’ve committed myself to the well being of all life. I’m nearly 39 years old, but I’ve just come to see that, for myself, my commitment needn’t require despondency, anger, or inner torment. I’ve finally come to understand that I can enjoy in wonder and satisfaction, ease and appreciation the subtle and the deep of this life, and still have space for compassion, empathy, and action. Experiencing existential satisfaction in being alive, and giving a shit about others and the world, are not mutually exclusive.
I fully stand for a safe, enjoyable, and fulfilling world for all of us, and I’m standing with all the enjoyment, wonder, and appreciation with which I am committed to experiencing my life. And I want my students and colleagues to know that we are never actually constrained to feel any specific way no matter how the world and its people and things are showing up to us. We don’t need to be outraged to prove that we're paying attention.
The problem with that statement is that it constrains the believer to a specific emotion - outrage - based on some outside stimulus - the source of outrage. It says that the only valid response to inequality, injustice, and any other wrongness is strong negative emotions. I disagree. I believe that we should feel free to respond to injustice any way we’d like, and that one emotional response is not necessarily more right than another. In other words, I may not always express my reaction to systemic racism or sexism as frustration, but it doesn’t mean I’m not committed to a safe, equitable world for all. (Feel free to argue that this is a privilege as a result of my male whiteness.)
I’ve committed myself to the well being of all life. I’m nearly 39 years old, but I’ve just come to see that, for myself, my commitment needn’t require despondency, anger, or inner torment. I’ve finally come to understand that I can enjoy in wonder and satisfaction, ease and appreciation the subtle and the deep of this life, and still have space for compassion, empathy, and action. Experiencing existential satisfaction in being alive, and giving a shit about others and the world, are not mutually exclusive.
I fully stand for a safe, enjoyable, and fulfilling world for all of us, and I’m standing with all the enjoyment, wonder, and appreciation with which I am committed to experiencing my life. And I want my students and colleagues to know that we are never actually constrained to feel any specific way no matter how the world and its people and things are showing up to us. We don’t need to be outraged to prove that we're paying attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment