Creative vs Reactive
A good friend of mine, The Beige One (linked to the side here), recently wrote a blog post that stemmed from some conversations that we have had. In essence, he started from a point I had, that the right has a narrative to peddle and the left has mainly reactions, and talked about the need for us, the left, to find and stick to compelling narratives, to have our facts and our stories straight.
I responded to his post, pointing out that what he was talking about was effective framing of and engagement with a debate, which was important, and has been well-written-about by George Lakoff, and that I actually meant something different. The right tells stories, creates a clear narrative of how it views the world, and the left reacts, crafts its narrative space in opposition to the right’s narrative. I was pointing out that the Right has done a much better job at tapping into the power of creation.
I devoted a good six or eight paragraphs of response to his post, and another equal amount to another post he wrote about the disassociative effects of online engagement.
But I haven’t posted here in months. I’m trapped by the same thing I accuse the Left of being trapped in – a reactive, instead of a creative, narrative-creating structure.
So, why? Why me, and why the Left?
I know I’ve been caught lately in a pit of inaction, not so much depressed as terrifically unmotivated. I run into the “why bother” point of any even small writing project incredibly quickly. It isn’t that I have nothing to say, but rather that I can’t see the point in saying it.
And I think this is a condition of audience.
Maybe we stop creating narrative, and fall into the reactive mode, when we lose faith in the possibility that our audience is willing or even able to listen. The Left watched Bush lose three debates, lose an election, then take power anyway, slack his way through 8 months, puff himself up for being the sitting president during our worst terrorist attack, use the generated fear to commit war crimes, run up debt, run down schools, and still friggin’ win again. Does the Left have a vision of America? Sure. Do they really believe anyone will listen if it is articulated. No, seems they’ve lost that.
I think I have, at least for the moment. Even now, I’m thinking more about going back to pick up the loose threads of previous posts instead of creating any new points of departure.
Because, I think, sometimes, right now, who cares? Will it matter if I can combine ideas about the nature of self and not-self, faith, art, and the Fundamental Attribution Theory into a Grand Unified Theory of why people are dicks?
I must find a way to believe it will matter, and the Left must find a way to believe people will listen, because until we do neither will be able to do much to tap into the power of creation. We will remain reactive.
And occasionally overreactive.
I responded to his post, pointing out that what he was talking about was effective framing of and engagement with a debate, which was important, and has been well-written-about by George Lakoff, and that I actually meant something different. The right tells stories, creates a clear narrative of how it views the world, and the left reacts, crafts its narrative space in opposition to the right’s narrative. I was pointing out that the Right has done a much better job at tapping into the power of creation.
I devoted a good six or eight paragraphs of response to his post, and another equal amount to another post he wrote about the disassociative effects of online engagement.
But I haven’t posted here in months. I’m trapped by the same thing I accuse the Left of being trapped in – a reactive, instead of a creative, narrative-creating structure.
So, why? Why me, and why the Left?
I know I’ve been caught lately in a pit of inaction, not so much depressed as terrifically unmotivated. I run into the “why bother” point of any even small writing project incredibly quickly. It isn’t that I have nothing to say, but rather that I can’t see the point in saying it.
And I think this is a condition of audience.
Maybe we stop creating narrative, and fall into the reactive mode, when we lose faith in the possibility that our audience is willing or even able to listen. The Left watched Bush lose three debates, lose an election, then take power anyway, slack his way through 8 months, puff himself up for being the sitting president during our worst terrorist attack, use the generated fear to commit war crimes, run up debt, run down schools, and still friggin’ win again. Does the Left have a vision of America? Sure. Do they really believe anyone will listen if it is articulated. No, seems they’ve lost that.
I think I have, at least for the moment. Even now, I’m thinking more about going back to pick up the loose threads of previous posts instead of creating any new points of departure.
Because, I think, sometimes, right now, who cares? Will it matter if I can combine ideas about the nature of self and not-self, faith, art, and the Fundamental Attribution Theory into a Grand Unified Theory of why people are dicks?
I must find a way to believe it will matter, and the Left must find a way to believe people will listen, because until we do neither will be able to do much to tap into the power of creation. We will remain reactive.
And occasionally overreactive.
<< Home