Self-Illumination: An Opportunity to Observe Ourselves in Action
Why Socrates’ voice is so important right now
Sawubona.
Shortly before his death, the great Greek philosopher Socrates, who was executed for “impiety,” had this to say about our human existence:
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Socrates, who did not leave written works, is largely known to Western philosophy through the works of Plato. What is generally understood by this famous statement, which he is said to have uttered in accepting death instead of isolation, is that isolation would have prevented him from his great passion of seeking wisdom. By questioning everything, especially what he thought or believed.
Socrates believed that philosophy — the love of wisdom — was the most important pursuit above all else. For some, he exemplifies more than anyone else in history the pursuit of wisdom through questioning and logical argument, by examining and by thinking.
Where this comes into play in our present day, and for the purposes of this article, is how we choose to use our words.
Before I begin, my credentials. I wrote a triple-prize winning book on how we wield our words: WordFood: How We Feed or Starve Our Relationships. While this doesn’t in any way make me the be-all, end-all on word use, it does at least establish a baseline for why I write about how we behave online, how we use words to express ourselves on Medium, and in this case in particular, on Illumination. I have used that book to train leadership skills to top executives at some of the world’s largest corporations including ADT and BNSF Railways. I also have a strong and deep background-decades- in human behavior and psychology, most at the top corporate levels.
It’s fair to argue that I might have a little knowledge and experience in this realm as I am also a prize-winning journalist. A little. So here goes.
It might be fair to suggest that somewhere along the way, if we have had an online presence, we’ve been subjected to unpleasantness. Name your poison: personal attacks, threats, trolling, extreme disagreement to the point of abuse. Stay on long enough, have a strong-enough opinion, and you can end up feeling like one of those cheap targets at the local carnival that people love to shoot at. For some, it’s painful enough to shut them down. For others, it’s meaningless, part of the price we pay to be online. And everything in-between. As someone who has been outspoken about my history of being raped, I am a prime target for such loutish behavior.
I am not the editor, nor a thought leader, nor the publisher of Illumination. Just a writer. But I’m also a keen observer of what I see and read. That said, my observations are just that: observations. By the same token I hope to point out that there is a really interesting opportunity here. Not everyone will care. Nor should they. Not everyone will even understand what I’m trying to get at. Nor should they. This piece is aimed at a higher target. You’ll hear this precisely as intended if this is for you. You and I are only able to hear at the level where we are right now, and that’s as it should be.
When I first joined Illumination, not long afterward, I received a pretty toxic comment on one of my stories. My heartfelt attempts to communicate in a sane, sober tone of voice were not only discarded but used as further insult, to the point where the only choice I had was to block this person. As it turns out, I was hardly alone. There have been measures to control that behavior, but damage was done to people who may not have either the patience nor the sense of humor I do. We received a report on it. I was in some ways both saddened and relieved that I hadn’t been singled out. Truth, I’d rather take the hit because most of the time, behavior like that, while unfortunate, doesn’t leave a mark. I get it that often, such behavior is born of pain. It still doesn’t belong in a polite and respectful community, which not only is what Medium seeks to be, but in particular, that is the atmosphere of safety and regard that I understand Dr. Y seeks to create. In such environments, creativity can thrive.
In a nascent publication, a person who is given the right to edit and curate material on a publication dedicated to diversity, by definition, has the greater responsibility, to my mind, to be far more committed to the larger good than to police material they themselves may not like, agree with, or feel is appropriate for publication. By definition, that is censorship. In effect, the taste police, on a publication that by its very mission statement clearly states that all comers are welcome, save abusive or unlawful content.
Since then I’ve seen examples of questions or challenges shared with all of us by our founder that have troubled me deeply. Private emails that have the sound and feel of personal attack. You and I have no idea what someone’s intentions are, we only receive the words. Those words can land on very delicate sensibilities. I left a comment once on an Illumination article that landed badly, which was not at all my intention. To the writer’s great credit, I got a thoughtful response which allowed both of us to move through the misunderstanding. We now follow each other’s work with a greater appreciation not only of what we share, but also what makes us different.
That is part of what Socrates means, to my mind, when he admonishes us to examine ourselves. Feedback — however it is given — is an opportunity to ask ourselves some hard questions. If, in fact, we have courage. If, in fact, we give the sender the grace to not mean ill will. Sometimes they appear to. The toxic messages I got were clearly intended to do damage. They did, but not to this writer.
Dr. Y handles less-than-kindly-worded inquires with grace to the nth degree. He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to bypass what can feel like distinctly unpleasant, judgmental and accusing tones to do his best to respond kindly to a potential challenge. Today, here are three that he posted in an article:
Question 1. “You give too much focus on entrepreneurship for writers, is it because you want to make money from the publication?”
Question 2: “Why so much poetry???!. What has it got to do with diversity and variety that you keep telling us? We much prefer reading the articles on real life issues.”
Question 3. “Some of your writers seem to to have a handful of followers. The majority of the writers that I follow have 10K or more followers. Why do you consider them as good writers?”
I’m going to tease out a few potential ways to hear these questions:
- Possible underlying message: You only care about making money because you’re focusing too much on entrepreneurship.
- Possible underlying message: I HATE POETRY. I consider it beneath me. And since I’ve got the best taste, I am dictating to you that poetry is worthless, and should be banned from your publication. The use of “we” implies that the speaker speaks for EVERYONE. And, that poetry cannot possibly speak to “real-life issues.”
- Possible underlying message: The people I follow are much, much better writers than those YOU support. Why would you bother to include such inferior and unpopular people when clearly, my taste in writers is so much better? You should ONLY use writers with at least 10k followers.
Like I said: those are potential underlying messages. Truth? I am clueless. As are we all, because none of us is privy to those people’s inner thoughts.
However. And this is the point.
The specific choice of words, and how they are presented, tend to leave the reader with some pretty distinct impressions. Rightly or wrongly, these words, your words, my words, have impact.
Ask any of the Illumination writers who have been tentative about writing, or clapping, or reading, for fear of censure. The above all read like censure, to this writer’s eye.
Dr. Y responded to each of these inquiries in a kind, robust and clear manner:
For my part, this is an object lesson in how to respond to what can feel like implied criticism with honor, while keeping people whole.
The public thrashing I received early on was a perfect example of someone who decided that what I wrote, and how I wrote it, was worthless. While this person has every right to their opinion, as do we all, what might be a more useful approach is what I have repeatedly stolen without apology from one of my beloved Medium friends Ann Litts:
DON’T LIKE MY SHIT? DON’T READ MY SHIT.
Clarity is power. At my age, which is 67, I am far past the point where I am still trying to develop my voice. I also control the urge to comment on material that I don’t like, don’t agree with or find offensive. What I say isn’t going to change anything, and why should it? It’s not my job to police other’s writing. I’m not always successful. But I own it, and I clean up my messes as best I can.
By the same token under no circumstances would I intentionally do damage. Where I am wrong, I’m wrong. When someone comes after us with a verbal hatchet, it’s immensely powerful to choose not to hear the vitriol, to offer the chance to rethink. Often, but not always, the sender may apologize profusely, having been in a terrible state at the time of writing. We are human, flawed, and deserving of grace. We get back what we put out there, although not always from the person to whom it’s offered.
That, also, is grace.
However, to the larger question here.
Here I’m going to turn to the book I open every single morning ( I won’t tell you where, but suffice it to say it’s where I begin my day) to a passage that I finger-walked into the other day. This speaks directly and succinctly to the conundrum of a rather free-wheeling internet environment, although it wasn’t at the time the way we know social media today. Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, in a beloved and well-worn paperback The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy and Liberation, writes in his chapter on Right Speech:
Letter writing is a form of speech. A letter can sometimes be safer than speaking, because there is time for you to read what you have written before sending it. As you read your words, you can visualize the other person receiving your letter and decide if what you have written is skillful and appropriate. Your letter has to water the seeds of transformation in the other person and stir something in his heart if it is to be called Right Speech. If any phrase can be misunderstood or upsetting, rewrite it…..Once you have mailed your letter you cannot get it back. So read it over carefully several times before sending it. Such a letter will benefit both of you. (author bolded)
This was written in 1998, and in all fairness well before the world as we know it. However, it is as relevant, if not more so right now. For Hanh’s use of the word “letter” is just as easily replaced with email, or comment, or even larger, an article.
What Hanh describes is indeed the process of self-examination. What is my purpose? What is my intent? How could this choice of words be understood or worse, misconstrued? How could these words do harm?
If you and I have the courage to examine our emails, tweets, PMs, if we study our tone of voice, choice of words, we may well see parts of ourselves revealed that are deeply uncomfortable. Perhaps we feel unappreciated, unnoticed. Maybe we feel owed or entitled. Perhaps we feel that what we like should be what everyone else likes. A great many secrets are woven in our word choices and phrasing. Which is why, when I am really feeling brave, I have someone else read something before I sent it.
In 1977, I was working as a Television Producer/Director as an Army First Lieutenant at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. My boss was a very intelligent man, a detail-oriented civilian guy who had powerful feelings about being right (as do we all in one way or another). One day a commanding officer ticked him off. Dan penned a florid, lengthy, infuriated response. In a moment of sobriety, my boss (who later became my lifelong friend) handed me his draft. I scanned it. Gave Dan the stinkeye, smiled, and said, “Waaah Waaah Waaah.” His face got bright red. For a second I thought he might explode.
Then he did: laughing. He tore it up.
Grinned at me. “You’re absolutely right.”
That letter could have cost him his job.
As a wordsmith, a pretty good one, as someone with great passions, and especially someone whose emotional volatility is affected by far too many concussions, I have penned my fair share of deeply embarrassing emails, comments and on occasion, an article. The comments and articles I can erase, often I’ve apologized for them, and relationships were not only saved but deepened. I can only speak for myself, but increasingly I do my best to take those difficult online moments and look at my choice of words, their choice of words, and take full responsibility for my part. I can only offer grace. If it’s slapped away I can offer compassion, but I will also shut the door. I enjoy diverse and differing opinions but I draw the line at abuse. As might we all.
Dr. Y consistently demonstrates a very high level of courtesy, grace and compassion for those who are, putting it kindly, less than supportive or kind in their comments. He teases out what could be their higher and better intentions and addresses those, rather that the tone. That is a high art indeed. It is precisely what Socrates spoke to, and what Hanh describes in practice.
That’s awfully hard to find in an increasingly rude, abusive and unkind environment. Which is why I invite all of us to, the best we can, look at our words, illuminate our intentions, and ask the hard questions before we hit send or publish. That is a fine example to emulate.
To my mind, and I hardly know my own, but I try, that’s part of what living an examined life means in practice.
