Echo Chambers

That idealism.

It took a while for me to warm up to it at first. I certainly haven't adopted it myself - not even close. But it it was long before I was even be able to entertain her sort of complete disregard for the persistance of the status quo without getting a little pissed off myself. I nearly consider it law, that persistance. To her, it's just a problem that needs fixing. To challenge it so readily seemed ignorant of unquestionable truths and a waste of time and a whole lot of other shit to me, none of which I thought was worth anyone's time. Well, at least not worth mine.

If you've read Eunice's blog (and I hesitate to refer to it as my "sister blog", for fear of drawing incest-related remarks, and also because of the massive gulf that lies between my philosophies and hers) or talked to her, then you know about her idealism. I don't know when it became her M.O. to care so much or to believe in the possibility of, well, anything, but at this point it's just about permeated every fiber of her being. She wants to change things for the better - leave a positive imprint. She is not deterred by issues of extreme magnitude - the bigger the problems are, the more drawn she seems to be.

In complete honesty, I had been a very self-centered person until my long-distance relationship with Eunice became a close-distance one, so I'm guessing her activist streak began some time sophomore year (2009)... come to think of it, I've never known for certain what got it rolling. I mean, I'm sure every college student's political consciousness coming-of-age story is pretty similar - you know, the one where they realize there's a world outside themselves and they start to feel more important themselves because they can finally comprehend that and talking about them more makes them feel more important still- so I won't go into the details of my own. When Eunice talked about issues of poverty and injustice and so on, I could only agree insofar as they were bad, bad things and really a shame that they existed. But, I would say, what can we do? The system has failed some people, worked for others. I took this stance and gave myself the self-important-sounding role of "realist" in all of these conversations, and I made her don the appropriate though patronizing-sounding role of "idealist."

Anyways, Eunice's idealism always seemed like a hopeless venture: a great way to get worked up and emotional about issues, but what would our discourse do to actually help solve the problems (having no actual experience "solving" such problems, solving - in the context of our conversations - meant coming up with hypothetical institutional or programmatic solutions painted in such broad strokes that they would be sound in theory but probably immensely complicated in practice. This, though, was satisfying enough, if such solutions were ever reached at all.). It got me angry and kind of confused that she could be so passionate about so many issues, and I basically saw it as a waste of emotional energy for the most part. Who wanted to get worked up about coming up with hypothetical solutions to the entrenched culture of factory farming in America? Why not just give in and ignore the ugly truths like the rest of us? It is unquestionably much easier to take that route. As such, it was much easier for me to hold my "realist" stance. She chipped away at it, though, and after a while it didn't seem totally nuts to me.

I still have issues with the amount of emotion she invests in the world's problems sometimes. However I don't find her idealism foolish or misguided or inferior in any way, something I'm ashamed to admit I once thought of it as. Instead, I think about what the opposite would have done for me: I picture myself talking about issues similar to the ones I've discussed with Eunice, but instead of Eunice I'm talking to another "realist." Well, if I'm going to be real, then let's call this person what he really is: a cynic. In this situation, I'd basically be sitting in an echo chamber, talking about the futility of some situation, while my cynic buddy agrees about the futility of said situation, until we confirm for each other that the situation is hopeless and our energy would be better spent caring less about it. Now this situation, to me, is clearly far worse than being exposed to (perhaps) radical and (maybe) unorthodox brainstorms on how to fix society's myriad issues. In fact, it makes clear as day the benefits to such un-like philosophies collaborating: if all we ever got were people confirming one another's ideas and points of view, then everybody's philosophies would only grow in one direction. In my case, I would only believe in the futility of an effort to change well-cemented institutions, and I'd probably be much more self-interested than I am today. I can't speak for Eunice as to what my dose of cynicism has done to change her philosophy. I know she ain't giving up on the world anytime soon.

The truth is, it's easier to swallow ideas similar to your own. It's easier to adhere to a philosophy that already resonates with parts of you. To entertain other and different ideas is to challenge oneself. People don't make an effort to understand their opposites, and will resist them pretty violently and dogmatically. I experienced it in my conversations with Eunice, defending things I didn't necessarily believe in, but that I had come to think of as constants. I ended up surprising myself a lot in these conversations, mainly because my ideas had rarely been challenged before; indeed, I hardly every vocalized them to begin with. Actually being challenged exposed some of my "beliefs" as mere propaganda or hear-say swallowed whole and then repeated without a second thought. It sort of constituted a spring cleaning of bullshit. Either way, it was a wake-up call of sorts.

It isn't easy, though, to find someone to challenge you. First of all, like I said earlier, no one goes and looks for that refutation of their beliefs. People want their ideas reaffirmed. Second of all, from high school on, we all undergo a homogenization process of sorts. I'm not calling us robots or anything, but it's undeniable that we gradually lose some of our idiosyncrasies, instead shedding them in order to sport a more acceptable and agreeable suit of likability or level-headedness, simultaneously heading for a like-minded social group in which to feel most at-home. Be this choice or natural phenomena? I cannot say. Blame it on pop culture, social values, the school system, trying to get a stable job, stable girl/boyfriend - who knows why it happens. Many of those aforementioned things/pursuits make being a challenger more of a liability than an asset. Either way, it seems the likelihood that you'll find someone to challenge you lessens with time.

People say "opposites attract"but I don't think it's that simple. To a degree, we want to have our beliefs confirmed in the form of other people also believing in them. Actually defending your beliefs is a revealing experience: you may get defensive, upset, or indignant. If you give your "opposite" enough time, though, you might find that your own philosophy is changing a little bit.