| |
|
quote:
Well, one of the first things to recognise is that we have to come to a new understanding of how we use these generalisations. The word 'marriage' can be, as you've suggested, synonymous with a deep and meaningful union. Or, it can be synonymous with abuse, patriarchy, straight hegemony. So which is which? And, in the context of this board, how do I know which I'm referring to when I type it? And how do I know which version you're gonna read? Clearly, I don't know the answer to that second question and might be deluding myself if I think I know the answer to the first.
All great points. I think there's a few things we've got accept. First of all, at this time, you simply cannot seperate the topic of 'marriage' from it's negative connotations. That's a process, and a UBB code won't change the embedded meanings these terms hold. Only we can change them, by deliberation and action.
quote:
I can't help but think that we're so close to discovering new levels of freedom and understanding if we can just crack this one.
You know, to me, this whole thing is a meta-issue. That's what I'm trying to hint at. Marriage and children are examples and applications for an overarcing idea about human communication styles. The problem isn't just the ideas and what they're steeped in. Really, when you get down to it, we have no pure ideas -- But we can ask that these ideas evolve.
But seriously, it might not seem revolutionary, but I'm telling you -- communication of this level is revolutionary, wherever you find it. I think we all probably know this. Sometimes you find someone who understands which parts of a term you're trying to highlight, and addresses them -- and when there's a disparity, it's very quickly sorted out. This is potent. But, alas, on Barbelith we have a bit of a special case. You're putting your precious pearls out before potentially thousands of individuals who you've developed no relationship with. That can be rough and scary.
And as, I think, Rosa said, there is no safe place. This is not a safe place. We can still hurt one another. It'll always be this way. There's a certain measure of care and responsibility one must take when enjoying human company -- and that's acknowledging that you have the ability to hurt one another, and working to avoid it.
However, I think it's clear that we can certainly learn from these experiences. We've also seen the overriding tendancy we all have to look away when another cries out in pain at our actions/words/behaviours. To marginilize. To let yourself off the hook. But in fact, tempting though this is, we need to take responsibility for these things. Part of that is acknowledging what you may have done. Part of that is working to avoid doing that in the future.
quote:
We have to acknowledge that when these words, that we assume are innocuous, carry loaded and doubled meanings, we need to look for a way to express that doubleness: when you have a way to do that then whoever's reading you gets the chance to see both points of view and the double nature of the concept.
This is easy. We don't need a special tag. We need to think before we type, and think while we read. When you ask a question about 'marriage' and 'children', you should simply be aware of the connotations it might have. This may lead you to rephrase your questions, or include alternate questions for individuals who do not have these options open to them. But by using the terms in the best context possible, as often as possible, we actually improve them. So we don't want to stop saying things like 'marriage' or 'children'. We just want to be more sensitive about it. We don't even need a special device to help us signal these complex meanings -- we just need to agree to consider as many of the meanings as your brain can grasp. Then, if you miss something, someone'll point it out to you .. And better, if they know you tried your best, and you know they're only trying to help us all grow .. How can it become defensive?
Very easily, I know -- but not as easily as if we're flying blind.
quote:
Purely for Barbelithing purposes, is there an easy way to do that? Can we invent a new UBBCODE tag that expresses complexity, paradox, loaded memeplexes? Or should we just use a new kind of curly bracket?
It's this business of different 'universal' signifiers meaning different things to different people based on the context of their own inevitably limited lives. 'God.' 'Love.' 'Justice.' 'Terrorist.' The list goes on.
So frighteningly true, this last paragraph. Evil comes from love combined with willful ignorance, it seems. You love one thing, you ignore everything else (so you can leave it in that convenient 'other' catagory), and then you turn your flame and vitriol over the rest of the world when this one thing you've chosen to love isn't working out quite right.
I swear, I'm going to start a thread called "Music Can Save The World". Maybe it can't, but I like this idea Grant was bringing up earlier on -- going back to the basics. Can we go back to the basics? Enjoy simple things together, so we can get a more tangible grasp of our similarities? This may help us to celebrate our differences.
BK -- I largely agree with you, but I don't think it can stop there. Once you've acknowledged that you meant to communicate no such thing, and you've apologized for causing damage -- and once the other individual understands you held no such intent and that you respect where they're coming from ... Then we can work on redefining and rehumanizing these terms, one instance at a time.
So, I'm not trying to oversimplify these terms -- I recognize the loads and loads of baggage they carry. However, here's an exercise in the whole 'back-to-basics' idea. Let's start with the most basic, universally applicable definition of these terms.
Marriage: A contract by which two individuals chose to spend the rest of their lives together in commitment.
Children: Small people that come from the whole process involving the sperm and egg thing whereby a little tiny person comes out of (usually) a woman and begins to grow into an ordinary sized person.
Taken like this, these are things we can relate to. Now, let's break out the negative connotations and see if any of them can be wholly discarded before we get to the more complicated/intertwined stuff. For instance, marriage can also have negative racial connotations -- and societally, people may look at an interracial marriage oddly. However, this option is open to couples of the opposite sex and in many parts of the world does not result in funny looks. We can therefore say that negative connotations involving implied racism have to a great extent been removed from the institution of marriage, though of course some clingy debris remains. |
|
|
