Have you ever been in a position where you hear or see something someone close to you says or does and you think, “But … I don’t … agree?” Chances are if the person is someone you love, who had a hand in raising you for example, you’ll merely brush it off as not worth mentioning. Doesn’t that nagging feeling of residual guilt remain though? Wouldn’t it be easier if you could just openly disagree with this ideological microcosm surrounding you?
The truth is, it is just as easy as speaking out but only if you can put aside years of affection, closeness, that feeling that you owe them potentially your entire being, and hints of adolescent shame we never grow out of. Ok, so perhaps it’s not just that easy. The real truth is that while in an ideal world we are all able to be open about our beliefs and disagreements without fear of judgement or shunning, in reality this is very rarely ever the case. Isn’t it a beautiful irony that the people we are most afraid of disappointing with our ideas are generally the people who should theoretically be there for us the most?
Looking at the local context for a brief minute, it seems almost impossible to break away from our Rousseauian chains because you can’t get away with anything you do anywhere without potentially literally everyone you know finding out. And when this island’s baseline is mainly Catholic upbringing, bipartisan tribal politics, and general nosy interference, one can never be blamed for giving up authentic ideas to live a life of tacit passivity rather than active passion. It’s just too easy to remember that our lives are there for us to live, not for everyone else to.
Now this obviously doesn’t mean this idea of relativism where anyone can get away with anything because it’s just how they do. It’s not ordinarily “all relative”. However, the line should be drawn only when our ideas clearly infringe on others around us being able to live their ideological truth, whether or not it fits within the realms of societal norms. As far as we should be concerned, I don’t care if my neighbour is in love with his tree or thinks that the colour orange is the only suitable colour for clothing. Sure, I wouldn’t follow suit, but what’s the point of making them ashamed of who they would rather be?
Let’s talk politics. Why is it impossible, especially nearing election times and particularly in countries with a two-party system like Malta and the US, for someone to express political ideas without being lambasted for disagreement? Isn’t the entire point of democracy to pick and choose the people and policies that you genuinely believe are for the better of your country? Sexuality. Why do we still have people saying shit like, “they can be [enter assumed sexual preference here] as long as they don’t do it around me or my children don’t see it”? Since when do people in general have sex on park benches in front of your children, praytell? And don’t even get me started on race and gender, especially since being a white male I am the epitome of privilege in these divisive discussions.
Obviously when I speak of living one’s truth, I can’t stress enough that this is in terms of their direct affect on the others’ capacity to live their own. If I personally feel that blue cars need to be removed from the face of the Earth, it doesn’t give me any right to destroy any blue car I come across. This is why, going to the extreme end of the spectrum, (TW) homicide and rape can never be considered liveable ideological truths because the mere act directly impinges on someone’s body and mind.
The end goal is to be able to think freely and act accordingly without the intense anxiety that comes with wondering what the other is going to think. This Sartrean “Look” needs to be laid to rest once and for all, otherwise we are going to be living a life looking over our shoulder hoping to not cause and feel shame. It will remove our freedom of thought, and I’d much rather consider Orwell’s 1984 a work of dystopian genius than a slightly hyperbolic analogy for attempting to live a life authentically.
#MaltaDaily