Today’s post, sigh, again is about the issue of coping with trying to be a non-conformist in what is all too often becoming a more and more conformist society.
Some years ago I made a pilgrimage of sorts to Rome– not the religious type so much as the cinematic type. I had fallen in love with the movie "Roman Holiday," and I decided I just needed to go and see Rome, period. The goal of the trip was to discover the locations where they made the movie. Of course, I read the guidebooks, but to be honest I really didn’t plan the trip very well . . . people talk about "flying off to Rome at a moment’s notice," and I actually did it, and when you don’t plan, there are consequences.
Well, I of course saw some great stuff. I also experienced some not so great stuff. And when I got back I did one of my "travelogue" web pages to share my experience with friends and anyone else who cared to come and visit.
Much to my surprise, within a week or two, there was a chat room in AOL devoted to cursing Justin Locke. Apparently, one is not allowed to criticize the city of Rome. I had no idea that city was so insecure about itself. You would not believe the character assassination posts that were made about me. I would have been really hurt and put off by it if the whole thing wasn’t so unbelievably ridiculous.
Well, to be honest, some of my language in the original version of the page was somewhat colorful and possibly inflammatory, but it was never dishonest, nor was it meant to manipulate anybody. I just talked about what I saw and what I personally felt and experienced. So anyway, in the interests of world peace, I deleted all the potentially inflammatory phraseology (that was meant to be humorous) and then pretty much forgot about it. And interestingly enough, "My Trip to Rome" is by far the most popular page on my entire web site.
Well anyway, this was all ancient history (no pun intended) until I opened up my e-mail today and found yet another e-mail from a "Rome-ophile" commenting on the page. Now in all fairness, this person was, I think, trying to say that they hoped that I had a better experience next time I went to Rome. But what bothered me, and it was not this one e-mail but the collective experience of all the e-mails that this one represents, was the implication that "if you don’t enjoy Rome, there must be something wrong with you." The word "shame" was specifically used: "It's a shame you could not appreciate the beautiful and priceless things that you saw in Rome." I was then advised to go back in a better state of mind. This note, btw, was unsigned.
I don’t mind that this person disagrees with me. What bothers me is the implication that I am a lesser mortal for not agreeing with them. What bothers me is that so many people, who are dyed in the wool conformists, believe that since they believe what most people believe, it is their righteous duty to try and shame me into agreeing with them. There is this veiled wrapped-in-pity statement of "if you disagree with those of us who all agree on something, there must be something wrong with you." They don't offer a logical argument, they just tell me that they personally disapprove of me in toto because I don't conform to their way of thinking. (If one can call it that. Oops I did it again.) It is of course more pronounced in religious proselytizing, but it comes in many other forms, including opinions of travel experiences. The word, folks, is intolerance.
What’s really odd about all this, is that 80% of the page in question raves about how fabulous the city of Rome is. I was agog at the pantheon, the Sistine Chapel was unbelievable, and via Margutta 51 was a religious experience for me. But the trip was not 100% fabulous. And I said so. Public transportation in Rome is just awful. Traffic is monstrous, tourists are everywhere, and crossing a busy street is a unique adventure all in itself.
What is also interesting, is that when the original flurry of the AOL chat room occurred, I received several side e-mails from people who wholeheartedly agreed with my assessment of the experience of going to Rome, but they didn’t want to post their comments openly on the chat room for fear of reprisals from the Rome-ophiles.
I can see their point in that . . . I certainly didn’t want to hear bunch of people talking about me like I was mentally ill or I should be taken out and shot for disagreeing with them. But to them and everyone else, I do wish to point out that if you don’t "exercise" your right to free speech, like the people who were afraid to openly agree with me on the chat room, you risk losing it all together. You have to build up your ability to cope with disagreement, otherwise when you encounter it in an area where you can’t simply avoid it and you need to push back, you will have no skills in managing it.
More and more I see how people are being trained to think that it’s okay to be actively condescending and intolerant of other people, as long as you meet the simple litmus test of believing that you are right and they are wrong. It amazes me when I see controversial speakers shouted down by students when they appear on college campuses. Who is allowing the kids to do this? If I was a professor on a college campus and I found out that one of my students actively suppressed open expression of an idea just because they disagreed with it, I would endeavor to have them expelled. Their indulged intolerance is worse than any idea being expressed. A single idea has to stand up and be judged. Intolerance poisons the whole process, for it does its repressive work under a guise of presumed total unquestionable righteousness.
I don’t mind polite disagreement. In fact, I invite it, as it is how I learn. But that is a far cry from disapproval of me for disagreeing with you. A lot of thought is suppressed, not by force of arms, but on a subtle emotional level. And someone needs to speak out about it. And here I is, folks.
So again, I stand by my report– Rome is a fabulous city that everyone should see, but it is also an urban pit, and some of the works of art were better than others. I do plan to visit the city again someday. But I won’t do what so many travel writers do and simply focus on what’s good and fun. (I would have enjoyed my trip there so much more had I been forewarned about the down sides of the city, but, sadly, as my experience illustrates, no one can openly write about that without some nasty consequences.) Also, just so you don’t think I am always a travel curmudgeon and am negative about big cities, see my "trip to Rio" page for a trip that was much more fun. And my trip to the Bahamas was even more fun than that.
If people disagree with me, that’s their right and their business. For example, I am a big fan of black beans and rice. But for some people, it’s not a thrill. I find other people not enjoying my favorite food does not lessen my enjoyment of it one bit. I don’t need other people to agree with everything I do. If I did, then I would have to agree with everything they do in return. How dull.
There is a dangerous level of well-intended intolerance out there that needs to be nipped in the bud whenever possible. One must practice dealing with it, otherwise by always avoiding it, like sheep thinking they are only "avoiding conflict" by running from the sheepdog, you invite letting that conflict avoidance run your life.
(c) Justin Locke
