What great questions, Nikita. I hear Glenn examining different facets of the “fight” metaphor in relation to CRT and the CRT-adjacent ideologies and policies, looking at it through different frames. It is always good to question one’s motives, and to question what is most effective, to clarify the goals. Some people really dig a fight, just for the fun of it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this personality bent, and if you are a good fighter who enjoys fighting, you probably should spend some of your life fighting for what you believe in, as that is your nature. Glenn admits this is true for him to some degree, and that is useful self-knowledge to temper his approach: because of course, these societal changes we are concerned about are serious business, not a game. Crusin’ for a bruisin’ for its own sake is not the point, and neither is creating a self-satisfied echo chamber of agreement. How do you persuade people, change hearts and minds? Not by telling them they are stupid, bad, or wrong, for sure. It’s hard not to slip into that kind of ineffective attack mode when we feel passionate about a point of view.
And yeah, there has been some of that in the conversations between John and Glenn, as part of their offering is sharing the frank and unedited interactions between them. But many times, I have seen both John and Glenn share places of agreement with those they oppose. One of the things I love most is when Glenn delivers a pitch perfect woke argument, to show that he really does understand what they are saying, that he really has listened and read deeply. How many times have they both had to explain what they think about systemic racism, and how yes, they certainly know there are legacy harms that play out in communities? I don’t see Ibram Kendi responding in kind, with any acknowledgement of different points of view. He doesn’t think he has to. Because the woke perspective is the orthodoxy, the burden of careful and skillful navigation between persuasion and fight must be on people like John and Glenn.
At the same time, the fact that Glenn enjoys the fight does not invalidate the usefulness of the metaphor. As he points out, there are policy changes in schools and other institutions that do require “fighting” their implantation, opposition as well as constructive suggestions. I think the “fight” metaphor is helpful in this facet because Glenn (and most of us) believe these harmful and illiberal ideologies aren’t going away without strategic opposition, without a battle played out on various stages.
But every soldier wearies of fighting and needs respite from the battle. Even if psychological, injuries are real, and can fester if not attended to. Even if we love a fight, we must sometimes step away from the fight to focus on family, on friends, on beauty, on nature, on what connects us, no matter what we believe. Putting a soft-focus on our judgements of others and letting them go, remaining open to changing our own point of view as we learn more. Fighting as a metaphor has its limits. Building trust and fostering love is even more important.
Ah! Elizabeth Hummel "says" a lot of Truth here. Just two of the many:
"I think the “fight” metaphor is helpful in this facet because Glenn (and most of us) believe these harmful and illiberal ideologies aren’t going away without strategic opposition, without a battle played out on various stages."
"Putting a soft-focus on our judgements of others and letting them go, remaining open to changing our own point of view as we learn more."
What great questions, Nikita. I hear Glenn examining different facets of the “fight” metaphor in relation to CRT and the CRT-adjacent ideologies and policies, looking at it through different frames. It is always good to question one’s motives, and to question what is most effective, to clarify the goals. Some people really dig a fight, just for the fun of it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this personality bent, and if you are a good fighter who enjoys fighting, you probably should spend some of your life fighting for what you believe in, as that is your nature. Glenn admits this is true for him to some degree, and that is useful self-knowledge to temper his approach: because of course, these societal changes we are concerned about are serious business, not a game. Crusin’ for a bruisin’ for its own sake is not the point, and neither is creating a self-satisfied echo chamber of agreement. How do you persuade people, change hearts and minds? Not by telling them they are stupid, bad, or wrong, for sure. It’s hard not to slip into that kind of ineffective attack mode when we feel passionate about a point of view.
And yeah, there has been some of that in the conversations between John and Glenn, as part of their offering is sharing the frank and unedited interactions between them. But many times, I have seen both John and Glenn share places of agreement with those they oppose. One of the things I love most is when Glenn delivers a pitch perfect woke argument, to show that he really does understand what they are saying, that he really has listened and read deeply. How many times have they both had to explain what they think about systemic racism, and how yes, they certainly know there are legacy harms that play out in communities? I don’t see Ibram Kendi responding in kind, with any acknowledgement of different points of view. He doesn’t think he has to. Because the woke perspective is the orthodoxy, the burden of careful and skillful navigation between persuasion and fight must be on people like John and Glenn.
At the same time, the fact that Glenn enjoys the fight does not invalidate the usefulness of the metaphor. As he points out, there are policy changes in schools and other institutions that do require “fighting” their implantation, opposition as well as constructive suggestions. I think the “fight” metaphor is helpful in this facet because Glenn (and most of us) believe these harmful and illiberal ideologies aren’t going away without strategic opposition, without a battle played out on various stages.
But every soldier wearies of fighting and needs respite from the battle. Even if psychological, injuries are real, and can fester if not attended to. Even if we love a fight, we must sometimes step away from the fight to focus on family, on friends, on beauty, on nature, on what connects us, no matter what we believe. Putting a soft-focus on our judgements of others and letting them go, remaining open to changing our own point of view as we learn more. Fighting as a metaphor has its limits. Building trust and fostering love is even more important.
Ah! Elizabeth Hummel "says" a lot of Truth here. Just two of the many:
"I think the “fight” metaphor is helpful in this facet because Glenn (and most of us) believe these harmful and illiberal ideologies aren’t going away without strategic opposition, without a battle played out on various stages."
"Putting a soft-focus on our judgements of others and letting them go, remaining open to changing our own point of view as we learn more."