|
Lumus -> RE: The end of the sub vs. slave debate (2/25/2008 6:35:01 PM)
|
The same hydra keeps leaping out at me whenever I ponder the point you're attempting to drive this thread towards, Noah - the idea that while you could state a generalization, explain it, and conclude the thought on a positive point as to how the insight may improve things in general...
...generalizations are precisely that, general. They don't reflect the experience of an individual if said individual does not fall into the generalization. This can cause the slight that might be responsible for the very negativity you were hoping to avoid. Moreover, one example that does not reflect the experience of the majority may not translate as well to the broader understanding of the masses. Explaining one aspect or degree of difference may be an open invitation for nitpicking. The troubles of generalization pop up, inverted. Improvement is also, unfortunately, subjective by its nature, as it invokes the spirit of 'better'. Individuals cannot improve the whole through inflection; 'the whole' is 'improved' by those who are given to represent the whole, despite individual predilection.
Example:
"Slaves serve without alternative; submissives serve knowing that they have choice with consequence." is a generalization. Some who view themselves as slaves may take affront to this because of the argument that there is always an alternative - "terrible, horrible freedom". Some who view themselves as submissive may have no desire to flex the option of choice because it runs counter to their perceived nature to wish only to please their owner. To explain the thing by saying, "One can cite the historical life of the slave of Roman times to quickly see that choice was not an option; whereas submissives are those who choose to serve and must then, by their nature, possess choice." will draw the historical buffs and submissves kept in strict line by the dozen. "If we strive to understand how choice impacts our outlook, we can discern what we are in relation to each other for greater understanding, and communication." sums the initial concept in such a way that if it is not accepted, the summation itself becomes a negative, as a whole. The entirety sounds pretty:
"Slaves serve without alternative; submissives serve knowing that they have choice with consequence. One can cite the historical life of the slave of Roman times to quickly see that choice was not an option; whereas submissives are those who choose to serve and must then, by their nature, possess choice. If we strive to understand how choice impacts our outlook, we can discern what we are in relation to each other for greater understanding, and communication."
yet it is not representative. It is a gloss that smothers the very individuals you wish to encourage towards unity by suppressing the individuality inherent therein.
This is not meant merely as a criticism or contemplation. Much earlier in this thread, I leapt from my own thread with a concept that could offer a viable alternative. The presentation of the concept may have been what caused it to be overlooked; I will try to encapsulate it here in a bolder form:
The only truths of submission and slavery can be measured at an individualistic level. To try and embrace a unifying definition, factual as it may be, will still draw derision from those to whom the unification does not embrace in return.
Following from this premise: rather than create one vision from smaller images, it may very well be more final, in terms of settling any debate of slavery and submission, to take both concepts as they come from the perception of those whom we interact with, as the interaction occurs. You and I will always have our own views on both concepts, and they may never match. Rather, then, take the concept from the view of the person who has taken the label for themselves because they wished it, rather than because it was yoked upon them. See from the eyes of the one you interact with, and you will take a much larger step towards clear communication. The solution is not all-encompassing...it ends, instead, where it began, rather than where the masses might tread. There is no 'friendly' definition to encompass either concept - submissive or slave - for all that does is mean we try to make the boxes of definition bigger. Regardless of the size of the box, humans will not fit in neatly. They are not cubical.
|
|
|
|
