Collectivist
Arrogance
Charlie Earl
Please don’t
speak for me. Please do not assume that your remedies are for my best
interests, and never assume that my silence implies consent. Aside from my wife
of 44 years (who often speaks for me), no one…..repeat that….no one has a right
or a privilege of speaking for me or representing me without my express
permission. It’s true that I am a member of several demographic groups,
organizations and ad hoc clusters. None of my identifiable “memberships” wholly
define me. By accident of birth I am a white male and a resident of the United
States of America. Not all Caucasian males agree with my positions on every
issue, and I certainly do not embrace many of their stances. As a citizen of
the U.S.A, I often find that my positions are in the minority when pollsters
measure, and even when my view coincides with the majority of others’, my
precise position may differ from theirs on matters of nuance or emphasis.
As an
amateur linguist, I have come to believe that the pronouns “we,” “us,” “they,”
and all their plural derivatives are overrated and over used. As Foghorn
Leghorn might cluck, “There’s too much assumin’ goin’ on here.” The mere
utterance of a plural pronoun can never include me with a collective that I
have not assented to join. I fully understand the limitations of polls and
surveys. There is no way any human being (or computer for that matter) can
design a questionnaire that is capable of measuring every aspect of and
intensity for every issue and its variables. They must therefore generalize to
some degree to note a trend or detect “leanings or preferences.” As an aside, I
absolutely loathe political debates with 1 minute answers and 30-second
responses for the same reasons that I do not want anyone to speak for me. I
want to ferret out the true attitudes and positions of candidates, and the
abbreviated format is designed for memorized talking points. A longer response
time may cause the politician to reveal a truer version her or his views as
they struggle to articulate in a broader form. Heaven knows they’ll use the
entire time because we haven’t had a taciturn politician since Silent Cal.
Now let’s
meander back to my elusive main thesis. No one can speak for me in a collective
manner because I am a unique human being. Certainly I share attributes,
characteristics and interests with many others across the planet today and in
times past. While I may share much with many others, I do resent having someone
I do not know assuming certain things about me that may not be true.
Stereotypes of any sort may be true in the general sense but far off base in
the particular. While stereotypical assumptions and assertions may provide
shortcuts for broad analysis, they lack focus and definition. For example, to
state that Blacks support Democrats may be true in the general sense, but it
overlooks or denies those who rally to other party banners. Their (the
minority) beliefs, values and support are just as important as anyone’s in
their demographic cohort.
When we
camouflage individual proclivities by arbitrarily placing them in broad-based
groups, we deny their existence as persons. Their individuality is submerged
into a collective behavioral grouping, and it represents the first blow against
personal freedom. Anyone who has spent time on a farm knows that herding
livestock is much easier to do when they are grouped and crowded together.
Chasing individual cows or hogs is a tiring and often fruitless process, but
when the group is clustered together, it only takes one to go through the gate
or up the chute and the rest will follow. Personally I refuse to be identified
as an indiscriminate member of the herd when my heart and mind can operate
independently. I will not be minimized by those who desire to push my liberty
and my individuality to slaughter. Just like you….”I’ve got to be me.”
Charlie Earl
