Once the issue or
group is now primarily viewed in an innocent and sympathetic light, the public
will now attempt to find ways to support its cause(s). This is due to the fact
that sympathy alone does not make situations better. Most people realize that
action, in the way of support, must be taken. To sit and watch the suffering or
plight of someone and not do anything about it can actually make some feel that
they are a part of the problem and not the solution. In other words, inaction actually contributes
to the detriment of the group or the worsening of the issue(s). Here is also
where certain manipulative language and tactics arrive. For example, in issues
involving criminals, violence, addictions, etc., sympathy will of course make
the victims and the victimizer switch places and excuses, reasons, and
justifications will be sought after in order to explain the ill deeds that were
committed. Some of the more common phrases and words that will be used are,
“they are products of their environment—they really had no choice”, “what would
you expect had you been put in the same circumstances with no opportunities”,
“they grew up poor”, “she/he was abused as a child”, “look at who the parents
were”, “we
can’t judge them until we walk in their shoes”, “this is not an isolated incident—what
events took place to create this type of person”, “we shouldn’t be so fast to
judge”, “how do we know that they are not born that way”, “they can’t help it—it’s
natural I guess”, “you have no idea what it’s like to live like that”, “he grew
up without a father or decent male role model”, “she was just in search of that
father figure”, “what do you expect when
he/she was raised in the streets”, “it’s not a crime, it’s a disease/or mental
disorder”, etc.
Now, I am in no
way denying that we, both individually and as a society, are shaped and
influenced by our backgrounds and environments. That is common knowledge.
However, even these statements can be overused in a far too simplistic style
with regards to shifting focus away from the relevancy/legitimacy of an issue
or group. These words and phrases are tactical tools used to desensitize and
distract people from the gravity and reality of something in order to inject a
much different (but desired) viewpoint with the end aim of changing a society’s
overall psychological paradigm. It is akin to numbing a person’s mouth with
Novocain in order to perform oral surgery. The powers that be fully understand
that the public will not always swallow whole new/different concepts and
ideas—especially when they come into contention with concepts and ideas
that are rooted in aged tradition. Therefore, slick arguments, counterpoints,
justifications, half-truths, one-sided debates, embellishments, and
explanations must be crafted to draw the attention away from the true issue
through sympathy. As a result, while the mind is in a sympathetic (emotional)
state, logic is discarded and a new/different concept, idea, or perspective is
sprung upon the unsuspecting public. When a people are in an emotional state,
they are less prone to use critical analysis to examine something before
accepting it. When one is sympathetic and desperately willing and ready to find
a way to support a cause or group, they are prone to grasp on to just about
anything in order to assuage the newfound guilt within them in order to make amends for their past ignorance, hatred, and/or inaction. At this
point in the process, the unsuspecting public has abandoned its former
viewpoints, dislike, disgust, indifference, or even ambivalence towards the
subject at hand and is just mentally centered on finding a way to lend support.
Hence, the public
has now journeyed from a state of being unaware of, denying, rejecting or hating
something/someone, to the toleration it/them, then arriving at a sympathetic perspective,
and now are ready to lend support the best way it can. Each step of the procedure
is intertwined with the next one and of course, they are all employed to bring
about a major shift in the minds of a society. The next and final step is that
of taking a sympathetic and supportive public and transforming it into one that
becomes highly defensive of a people/issue that was once on the backburner of
importance or high on the list of things/people disliked or rejected.
This is a powerful
step because it takes people that are in no way connected to the group or issue
at hand and involves them by convincing them that it is up to them to defend
this group or issue in order to ensure its safety, survival, and newly respected
place in society. In turn, the group or issue in question becomes sacred in a
sense that the public now views it as endangered—a target of ill will if you
please, and its security and prosperity becomes a priority—while its legitimacy
is never again criticized and/or questioned. As a matter of fact, to criticize
or question it would engender the wrath of the public charged with defending
it. Here is where well meaning inquisitors are quickly labeled with such names/terms
as “narrow-minded”, “bigot”, “fundamentalist”, “Neanderthal”, “full of hate”, “preacher
of hatred”, “intolerant”, “prejudiced”, “old-fashioned”, “unprogressive”, “conservative”,
“nut-job”, “ignorant,” and even “stupid.” In some instances, this may be the
case. However, most of the time this occurs, these labels are used as weapons
or threats within an alleged “civilized”, “progressive”, “liberal”, or “modernized”
society. Accordingly, in such a society, these labels, once attached, can mar
someone for life socially. It has been seen time and again where a public
official and/or celebrity are labeled in such a way, and soon thereafter
public support and job opportunities evaporate. Consequently, this forces
people to hide their true feelings and beliefs on certain matters because the
weaponry of labeling can change someone’s fortune overnight. Therefore, it can
be said, that because of a such a looming threat, a significant portion of
society may be silent on a matter or even feign support of it, but in reality still
despise it inwardly. If the majority of a society has been duped into adhering
to new/different set of norms, customs, perspectives, mores, and/or social standards,
those that fall outside of these new parameters stand the risk of being
ostracized and/or discriminated against once the label has been branded upon
them. To reinforce this societal aspect, certain linguistic changes are then developed and used. As a result, whatever fits the agenda of those changing society is termed
as “progressive”, “open-minded”, “tolerant”, “inclusive”, “humane”, “considerate”,
“culturally sensitive”, “respectful”, “caring”, “peaceful”, “neighborly”, “aware”,
and even “rooted in love.” On the other
hand, (again), those with opposing views are “narrow/closed-minded,” “dimwitted,”
“ignorant,” “backwards”, “archaic in thought and viewpoint”, etc.
In conclusion,
this writing is intended to lay out the basic steps of how societies are
mentally, socially, and psychologically changed by the media and/or government
(the “powers that be”). But sadly, it does not stop here. Everything changes
and develops—whether for better or worse, larger or smaller, into prosperity or
decay—only time tells. Subsequently, even after a society reaches its intended destination,
be sure that a fresh path is laid and the process begins anew. Just be wise and
observant enough to know who and what you really are and where you stand when
or as it happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment