|
 Peg's
Polemic
Every
month, philosopher Peg Tittle casts off the calm, measured and qualified
style of her profession to deliver her opinionated and impassioned
column, exclusively for the TPM philosophy café...
Number
22. Demonstrations
Though
I consider myself to be rather socially conscious, and while I have
written many letters and cheques, I've never been part of a demonstration.
For a number of reasons.
Let's
consider first to whom the demonstration is directed. Perhaps primarily,
it's meant for the people in power. It's meant to send them a message.
But what possible message could be sent by a mass of people, some
carrying placards, many shouting their contents. What's in a phrase,
or even a complete sentence? If the goal is change, presenting claims
without evidence, without argument, is surely insufficient. Do we
really expect others to change their minds, their policies and practices,
without evidence or argument? Do we really want them to be so stupid?
Perhaps
the message is not in the placards but in the masses, in the show
of numbers. Why are numbers important? Are we thus insisting the
majority should rule? First, a demonstration, consisting of self-selected
people, is hardly representative enough to justify claims of being
any majority. Second, why should the majority rule? I know that
our system of democracy is based on this principle, but consider
it for a moment. 'Majority rule' is really an appeal to popularity,
a bandwagon appeal. Should the opinion of the majority rule, no
matter how ridiculous, immoral, or simply unsupported it is?
The
only message masses can send is one of intimidation, of threat:
'Listen to us or we'll beat down your door!' And the answer is Kent
State or Tiananmen Square. (Or pepper spray.)
Perhaps
the intended purpose of the demonstration is not to convert the
people in power but to convert others in the general populace to
the cause. By merely proclaiming a position? I want people to agree
with me for good reason. But the tool of persuasion here is not
reason, it's peer pressure. (Or the promise of party time.)
In
any case, demonstrations tend not to increase social responsibility
among their participants but to decrease it. When three or more
human beings are gathered together, something called 'the diffusion
of responsibility' kicks in and the chance of people/property damage
increases. Unfortunately, many riots start as demonstrations. But
then what can you expect, given that mass gathering facilitates
emotional expression rather than, as argued above, rational expression--and
given that the motivating emotion in the first place is anger and
frustration.
To
consider a third possibility, perhaps the intended audience of the
demonstration is the media. Thus, we encourage their bad habit of
responding to and reporting about (only) spectacle. Aren't we tired
of such sensationalist coverage? And while a picture may be worth
a thousand words, most of those words will have to be fairly superficial.
After all, to demonstrate is to show. It is not to tell.
.
Peg's
Polemic will next be updated early-November 2002
Previous
polemics
21.
20.
19.
18.
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
|
