Speaking for the Speechless
by Peter Cresswell
Too many people spend too much of their time speaking either on someone else's behalf, or as a spokesman for people or causes that can't speak for themselves—and they spend too much of our time telling us what we should be doing on behalf of those for whom they claim to speak. And in the name of those "without a voice," they often seek to silence those who do have a voice.
There is a special status in law and in our culture given to advocates who claim to speak for the voiceless. They get extra kudos, legal aid, sympathy, headlines, moral stature ... and sometimes (and just coincidentally) they also get themselves a job for life.
Look, for example, at politicians who like to claim that they speak for the disadvantaged, even as they disadvantage all of us by putting their hands in our pockets—and, naturally, make sure to advantage themselves by doing so. Or consider politicians who say they 'speak for their people,' even as their actions serve to further impoverish the people they claim to speak for. Why don't these claims and the consequent theft and impoverishment receive any decent scrutiny?
Or look at high-profile activists like Cindy Sheehan, who claims (or allows others to claim on her behalf) to speak for "an invigorated anti-war movement." As Rick Moran asks, where, exactly, are all the protesters she is supposed to have inspired? Claims like this get traction only because the views of activists like Mother Sheehan nicely reflect those of the journalists who so breathlessly report her activities and opinions.
And what about those busybodies who claim to speak for "future generations," as if they somehow have a direct line to what future human beings are going to want at some unspecified time in the future. Why do they get taken so gosh-darned seriously? Who's to say that 'future generations' won't think they're all bloody idiots with an anti-human agenda who should have been silenced with a gag and a bucket of paraquat?
And how about those who claim to speak for other species, or for wild and beautiful landscapes, or for the inherited values, spiritual values, cultural values, or moral values of the community? Why do these people get headlines and hegemony when the communities, species, trees, rocks and mud puddles they claim to speak for haven't ever given them any mandate to speak on their behalf?
How do they all get away with it, and why do we let them?
When you are speaking for the speechless, the best thing about it is that the speechless can't speak up for themselves to tell you when you're talking nonsense—which is precisely why so many idiots are attracted to this kind of advocacy. Your idiocy is trumped by the fact that a.) you have a mandate (or claim to have one), and b.) you care (or claim to care). When the causes and people you claim to be speaking for can't contradict you, you can, in short, have it any way you want—since what you say goes. It's your opinion that matters, and your opinion carries all the moral force of those you claim to be speaking for, without the need to convince them that you're making any sense.
So if you're speaking for the speechless, speaking for the unspeakable, speaking for those who wouldn't let you if they knew, or speaking for those who know you're an idiot but just don't give a shit, then don't pretend you're speaking for anybody who has specifically endorsed you. Tell people instead who you are really speaking for. Yourself.
This column originally appeared at PC's blog.
Discuss this Article (18 messages)
|
