Opening Eyes, Not Directing Them

 

            Amidst the frequently anti-intelligent backdrop of today’s hip-hop world, rapper and social commentator Lupe Fiasco, in his song American Terrorist, notes, “The ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of a martyr.”  While displays of physical strength or individual courage may be the most powerful tools of motivation that humans are capable of wielding when face-to-face with those they intend to motivate, these actions would be virtually meaningless (especially in times before the invention of television) were they not able to be properly rationalized and amplified throughout the world—and over the course of human history, there has been no more effective way of spreading ideas and effecting change than through the written word.  Whether this change was religious or political, the leaders of successful historical movements found that imposing their will through a rational explanation was infinitely more effective and lasting than doing so through sheer force; works such as the Christian Bible, which gave countless people guidelines on how to live life to a set of new moral standards, or The Communist Manifesto, which spurred countless more into conflict with their systems of government, are just a few examples of how convincing and durable the written word can be.

 

            With those pieces of literature in mind, it is easy to see why Joan Didion proclaims “In many ways writing is the act of saying I, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying listen to me, see it my way, change your mind." In many cases, this is completely true; a majority of the most famous pieces of literature in the history of the world were written with a specific purpose in the mind of the author—he or she wrote this piece in an attempt to force people to think about a specific subject in the same way that they did.  And while this method can undoubtedly be effective (The Bible remains the most widely distributed piece of literature of all time, The Qur’an not far behind it), it is not the one that ultimately leads to a smarter, more well informed global society.  All of these important historical authors who wrote to convince people to think in a certain way believed fiercely that, if the general public were to follow their instructions perfectly, the world would be a much better place.  Without a doubt, some of these authors may have been completely correct in their beliefs; their crusade for a utopian society ultimately fell short, however, due to the manner in which they presented their ideas.  While a rational, well-supported argument can coerce people to do extraordinary things, this type of aggressive, “my way or the highway” writing style can only hold up for so long until another rational, well-supported argument comes from the other side of the issue.  At that point, those who felt strongly about the first argument will either realize the strength of the second opinion and switch over or become even more firmly entrenched in their initial ideology.  This style of “debate” may be very useful in forcing people to think in a certain way but is antithetical to the development of society.

 

          It is due to this pattern of “aggressive” and “hostile” writing that we find ourselves in such a polarized, close-minded world; from the Israeli-Palestinian border, where both sides are ingrained in their different beliefs over how to properly worship the same God, to the halls of the U.S. Capitol, where two ideologically opposite parties fight unrelentingly over their interpretations of the same document, to the airwaves of television, where shows such as ESPN’s First Take perpetuate to the American public the fetishization of polarized debate, true, mind-enriching conversation is nowhere to be found (Didion).  This is where I hope to be able to intervene as a writer; with every piece I write, I try not just to articulate my opinion on a specific subject but also to present the reader with an opportunity to ask himself how he feels about the material presented.  As professor Frank Cioffi puts it, “Philosophical and, more generally, argumentative discourse presents no irrefutable proofs, no indelible answers. In fact, the best writing of this kind tends not to answer but to raise questions, ones that perhaps the audience hadn’t previously considered” (Cioffi).   Much like lawyers or doctors, talented writers have an obligation to society.  As history has shown, they are capable of catalyzing momentous reactions—from religious crusades to socialist revolutions to brainwashing citizens—all as a result of touching pen to paper and allowing others access to their most deep-seeded beliefs.  While examples such as these are plentiful, so too are ones in which writers choose to use their talent to contribute to the growth of society by asking questions and challenging norms without attempting to advance their own self-interest in the process.

 

          I have not had much experience as a writer, but based on my works up to this point, I would say that is my purpose; I seek to open the eyes of my readers without forcing them to look in any one direction.  Answering questions and forming opinions is of course the ultimate goal of almost every academic profession, but without having astute, open-minded observers to ask the questions in the first place, there is little for problem solvers to strive for.  The world needs questions to be asked—not so that they will be answered immediately, but so that there will always be something to work towards tomorrow.  Cioffi writes later in his essay, “Writing argument is all about longing ­‐ a longing for the truth. And this longing is inherently unsatisfiable” (Cioffi).  Much like mankind’s epic, unending “pursuit of happiness,” academic discourse will never be able to answer enough questions to satisfy the world’s appetite for infinite knowledge.  Because of this fact, writers cannot spend all of their time trying to rationalize and explain and instead should focus at least some of their efforts on questioning and exploring—making their readers think instead of making them listen.  Talented writers have the incredible ability of being able to put ideas in their reader’s heads, and ideas, as Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in the 2010 film Inception asserts, are the most “resilient parasite…highly contagious” and “once an idea has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate.”  This is an enormous amount of power capable of being wielded by a single person and, while I certainly am nowhere near having that type of power at this point in my academic career, I hope one day to be able to plant ideas conducive to curiosity and open-mindedness in the minds of my readers and watch them, and society around them, grow towards that brighter future.

 

          In more practical, tangible terms, my short-term goals as a writer are to develop these skills in the context of environmental endeavors and learn to use them to report about issues and potential solutions in the environmental world.  As an ecology and evolutionary biology major, I will be learning to present these topics primarily through a scientific reference frame, but I also hope to explore the world of environmental journalism to learn how to express environmental concerns in a more commercially accessible way.  The biosphere is in grave, indisputable danger and it is too ubiquitous, too essential, too exploitable, and too silent to not have a fleet of capable spokespeople ready to stand up for it and effect the necessary change to ensure that the damage being done to it on a daily basis doesn’t become more permanent than it already is.