... One of the various slogans which became famous during the famous spring of '68...A pretty blatant contradiction, especially in the context of freedom of expression, movement, action... Indeed if the state is false then things may or may not be forbidden but if the statement is true then the act of forbidding becomes a fait accompli and I'd say it that the words that make the statement thereby lose most of their meaning!
Funny how a slogan that came out of the desire to 'break free' of the status quo suddenly becomes an agent for it...
Just another irony of life? Perhaps one of the idiosyncrasies of revolutionary movements?
Who knows... what I know is that whether true or false the statement seeks to censor... Every where we look we are censored: "Don't walk on the grass", "Don't run", "Wear a bathing suit"... I can see how the statements fit within a context and how they contribute to the creation of order, which I admit is necessary for societies to function somewhat appropriately...
But on what moral grounds does the censorship required to function socially sacrifice some of the funner aspects of life to some higher authority?
I recently found myself censored by one of my younger brothers...
Apparently one of my Facebook status updates was not 'appropriate'! Now I avoided making an issue out of it by deleting the update and the comments that came below it!
But then I got thinking and truth be told, I didn't really find neither the update or the comments inappropriate... A bit wanton perhaps but for starters HOW is 'appropriate' being defined? WHAT is the moral framework in which this definition in is comprised? WHO was offended by the comments? and WHY?
As someone who had a VERY tame youth (which continued all the way through to my mid 20s) I feel I have the right to have fun as long as nobody gets hurt on the way. There are things that I feel now that I may have felt back then too but I was just to inhibited to admit it -even to myself! In this sense I have broken free -from myself...
In this sense, my definition is true to the etymological origin of the word... It is something I chose to make MINE and not simply the adoption of social norm for the sake of it!
As for the statement I don't really see why my brother got all flustered! So I said I liked "Fresh meat!", it is wrong to objectify anyone and for that I do apologise but not for any of my "appetites"...
Back when my brother was in Uni, he once told me about a competition he had with one of his flatmates. They were keeping track to see who slept with the most girls over an x-period of time... Correct me if I am wrong but was he not then objectifying women and expressing his "needs/wants"?
Just because he is married and has a kid, it does not mean he can disapprove of something which he was happy to enjoy in the past... That is just hypocritical?!
So is my brother's censorship of my Facebook status part of what we become when we are "brought" to 'settle down' and 'grow up'? Is the flame that burns within us tamed -almost extinguished- as part of this process?
Do we lose our spark and when we see it in others do we seek in turn to extinguish it out of fear or just because we have lost touch with that part of ourselves? Is it unavoidable to become co-opted by societal norm? Is it just another phase in life that gets burnt out after a while? Or can we 'grow up' and still keep that flame burning bright?
I don't know but I sure hope that years down the line I won't become that which I am criticising today...
There is no such thing as an absolute truth... ;o)
No comments:
Post a Comment