Before delving into this tangent, let me state: I am right-wing. Though the following may be chock-full of left-wing praise, and there still isn't a governing system I like, if you knew me personally, you'd know me to be entirely RW.
While I've got a head full of steam, I'll express simply, on Thursday's uni class I saw the overwhelming RW flaw: tyranny. When you're in the arts department of university you're fed with so many LW ideals you could go loopy, so that's why getting a powerful dose of the opposite took me by surprise.
Put simply, the lesson I am taught in this class is, you're only right if you agree with the tutor. Any disagreements are dismissed or dismantled, any alternative styles or ideals are dubbed incorrect if they don't suit the tutor's strict, minimalist style, and as for his contradictions? Ignored, or shielded by barely relevant excuses. It's almost painful watching as all material must be generated towards this simple-minded singularity (I suppose then Victor Hugo, with his excessive detail and grand digressions, is one of the worst writers of all time?) Teaching through Nazism; the end-all, be-all, singular right. Obviously, I disagreed (arguing that building in contrast with repetition is a simple yet effective comedic device, telling a story in itself and introducing basic impressions of two ideas), and suddenly my view was 'incredibly subjective'. Tragically, I had failed to realise that the tutor himself was above subjectivity or opinion. He is, after all, God. Bold? Well, last I checked, only God was above opinion. Now then, seeing such flagrant, oppressive RW menace in its element, I could appreciate the ideals of LW people in their utmost beauty. If only it were as simple as that. If only there was a right and wrong. If only being radical was right.
A digression (which shall fill the remainder of this BLOG); as much as you all bitch and moan about it, offended by such generalisation and demanding there be shades of grey for you to slip comfortably into and avoid consequence for your views, there is but one truth. The left-wing folk are the hippies. The free-thinking, right-brained, order-hating, protesting, down with establishment hippies. The right-wing; organised, authoritative, left-brained tightasses. It's cops and robbers, while at the same time it's man and machine. Why do people attest otherwise? Because they can't acknowledge their own flaws? The beatniks aren't beatniks, the narks aren't narks? Too many people are afraid to face the backlash of being either LW or RW. 'Oh I love order, but I'm still open to change.' Damn I hate fence-sitters. Let's face reality people, the two don't co-exist. In order for their to be real or meaningful change, order must be tested. Tested in a definitive LW way, wherein normalcy is tested. Consequently, RW is a necessity for survival. Without the system, without the right, there is no wrong. If wrong becomes an open, interpretive idea, then that which is truly wrong goes unnoticed. If openness is allowed, simple logic cannot be applied and the world is in ruined, because let's face it, everyone's opinion is not equal; there are geniuses and leaders, and there are idiots and rogues. Put simply, quit bitching about how terrible the system is, and how it must be overthrown; the system doesn't work, but it maintains. Instead of trying to destroy it, give us an alternative. Release us from conformity, but protect us from chaos.
To return to a previous point, I hate fence-sitters, but we all must remain liberal-minded. No, that's not a contradiction; essentially keep your opinions reasonable, but don't be afraid to have an opinion, is what I'm saying. It is the radical thinkers who ruin the image of left- and right-wing thinking. Though radical LW can fix the wrong, and radical RW can maintain the right, it's idiotic to be radical at all times. To be LW or RW radical is to destroy or crush, respectively. Is that what we want?
Let's also look back at that shade of grey remark (a tad ambiguous, and debatable in its current phrasing), shall we? One might look at that comment 'there are no shades of grey' and say 'isn't that itself a radical statement?' I don't think so. The way I see it, you can (and must) acknowledge, respect and even at times agree with the other, but in order for there to be any progression, you must have a majority towards the one or the other. That's what teamwork is for, my friends. For those who disagree to coincide, to give and take, to build together. Call it a shade of grey if you must, disregard all else that was said, but, at very least, acknowledge that beautiful solution; those who agree to disagree. Don't tear down the other, but don't back down from it either. Just let there be an other. As I've recently been subject to, to be without the other is to be unfulfilled.
No comments:
Post a Comment