Each Friday during the World-Changing Writing Workshop, we’ll give you our favorite tidbit from the class; a teeny tiny tasty treat!
Ellie asked “How can we change the world through proud alienation? Don’t we have to reach the unwilling to make the biggest difference?”
Here’s my reply.
“The answer is: No. HELL NO. If you try to reach people who are unwilling to hear your message, it annoys both you and the pig. It is a complete waste of your time and the other people’s time.
“There is a myth in modern civilized society, and it is the myth of rational discourse. It’s complete bullshit! There’s this general expectation that when people have a discussion about something, that people are open-minded and willing to listen to reason. People pay lip service to this, but it’s generally not true, especially about things that are important enough to be considered world-changing.
“Instead, what people do is filter out the things that don’t match with what they believe, and focus on the things that do match what they believe — to support whatever their paradigm is.”
So ignore those who are unwilling to hear your message. Either preach to the choir, to help them accomplish the goals you already agree on, or write for the fence-sitters, to help them see your point of view.
Do you wish you could change the world with your writing? Learn how with the World-Changing Writing Workshop! Pace, Kyeli, and 6 awesome guest speakers will teach you what you need to know about world-changing writing.
Do you wish you could change the world with your writing? Learn how with the World-Changing Writing Workshop! Pace, Kyeli, and 6 awesome guest speakers will teach you what you need to know about world-changing writing.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I still have trouble accepting this, even though I’ve heard it from two (very credible) sources whom I respect. It’s not that I think you’re wrong – you’ve been doing this far long and way deeper than I have; it’s that I can’t accept that changing the world comes from preaching to the choir. They don’t need to hear my message because they already know it and agree, right? I understand talking to fence-sitters since they’re open to change and ready to hear.
But shouldn’t changing the world actually involve change? I find myself frustrated with this answer because I want to send my message to people who are in the dark, those who could benefit from hearing what I have to say. My idea is an important, self-cultivating one. To be told that I’m wasting my time (and theirs) by telling them about it and wanting to bring them into the fold is frustrating.
I know you can’t hear my tone, and I’ve tried my best to edit appropriately, so I wanted to state outright that I’m not angry with you or your answer. I’m very grateful that you addressed my question with such passion and honesty. I get what you mean, I’m just upset that it’s that way. Maybe even upset with myself for being so naive as to think I could reach those who aren’t hearing.
.-= Ellie Di´s last blog ..Eating After You’re Full =-.
Ellie,
Preaching to the choir does involve change. It involves changing someone who agrees with you into someone who is actively helping the cause you believe in. It involves empowerment rather than changing people’s minds.
Sending your message to people who are in the dark is fantastic and not a waste of time — as long as you’re sending it to people who are in the dark and willing to turn on a light. Sending your message to people who are in the dark because they’re intentionally wearing blindfolds — that’s what’s a waste of time.
It’s totally understandable to feel angry and frustrated, Ellie. I don’t take it personally. I know it’s not the answer you wanted to hear, but it’s the only answer I’ve got based on my experiences and my understanding of the world.
Your message is important, and I want to do what I can to help you share it.
<3
.-= Ellie Di´s last blog ..Eating After You’re Full =-.
This totally frustrates me too. I’m constantly chatting to people about being vegan and all the FACTS are there! Eating meat is detrimental to the environment! It’s one of those true facts! Backed up by facts! There’s real evidence! I feel as though once people are educated about these facts and the very real change they can make by taking such a simple action, that they will jump at the chance, and almost every time I’m disappointed and frustrated. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop talking to people who I don’t think will change though, since I honestly believe that most people just don’t even know this stuff and education is the first step to turning them into fence-sitters, at least. I just can’t believe that it’s a complete waste of my time…
I can see both sides of this really strongly and I think both are really valid points.
One thought I’m having right now: sometimes when someone is most resistant to my message, that’s when they’re listening the most clearly. For instance, when I talk about veganism and I’ve struck a nerve for someone who hasn’t been ready to think about the ethical ramifications of their animal product consumption, that person’s immediate reaction is often VERY resistant — in fact, much MORE so than when they weren’t really hearing me.
I do think there is a place for sharing our messages with people who aren’t ready to hear them. It may not accomplish the same thing as sharing with people who are ready, but it’s among the skills we world-changers have (or can choose to have) that we can practice.
.-= Oliver Danni´s last blog ..another one of my absurd dreams =-.
Actually, this is something that’s kind of been bouncing around my own head lately. Some people, essentially, trolls – not necessarily in the malicious intent sense, but in the sense that no matter WHAT you do or say, you will never change their minds. And you can waste a lot of energy engaging those people (the blindfolded ones, as you say!) or you can spend that energy on something that makes your life fulfilling instead.
(I guess when I was thinking about this, it was more in general than with world changing and blogging and stuff, but I think it pretty well equally applies?)
.-= Michelle´s last blog ..Daily Outfit 7-23-10 =-.
I agree, but I want to challenge the image I think most people have of the fence-sitter as a passive and empty vessel who’s unsure or simply waiting for information to drop in their lap. A lot of fence-sitters have passionate opinions now, and defend them strongly, but are still willing to listen to another point of view.
So, how do you tell who’s a fence-sitter and who’s unwilling? For instance, 68% of Americans in 1996 believed gay unions should not be recognized as valid, while only 28% believed that in 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States).
I know at least some of the people who would have said no gay marriage in 1995, and they seemed pretty unwilling to listen, but obviously they weren’t because a heck of a lot of them changed their minds. I don’t believe that 40% of people were passive and obviously recognizable fence-sitters who were outwardly friendly to the discussion of gay marriage. If that were the case, they would have chosen “unsure.” They had to have appeared unwilling, but actually been willing deep down.
When I was a kid, I was inundated with messages from evangelical christianity–particularly focus on the family–about how GLBT folks were all child molesters, and no one is born gay, and all that nonsense. I would have appeared hostile to the idea of gay marriage. It was a combination of the fact that I was dealing with my own queerness, as well as (oddly) the christian ideal of loving everybody that made me open to the idea that maybe gay people are people too. I was a fence-sitter on the inside but a hostile opponent on the outside. I’ve done a complete 180 on the beliefs I held as a child and young teenager. Had people written me off as unwilling and hesitated in sharing their experiences with me I would likely still be kind of a douchebag.
I know myself, so I know that in reality I’ve always been a fence-sitter, in as much as I’ve always been open to new ideas, and have always craved new perspectives. However, I give an outward appearance of being very stubborn in my views and unwilling to listen to others, and this appearance was even more exaggerated when I was young.
How can you tell when someone who seems hostile (and therefore unwilling) is really just a passionate fence-sitter?
You can’t tell, it’s true. Where I personally draw the line is at the point where a conversation turns into a statement of values. When it gets to the point where the subtext behind every statement is “These are my values,” I respond with “I acknowledge your values. Mine are different” and end the conversation.
I think a good example of this is the infamous politics post. There was some interesting discussion in the comments, and when it got too close to “Let’s fight about whose values are better,” I bowed out.
And, to be meta, if y’all want to go out and try to convert the unwilling, more power to ya. I acknowledge your values. Mine are different. (: