I heard a guy speak about a suicide prevention program in a northern community. What really hit me was that the guy stood there and told anecdotes of failure.
That's interesting because we usually criticize people who use anecdotal evidence to justify a program like this. We'd demand not anecdotes but quantifiable proof. The guy speaking didn't even try to offer that because he knows there isn't any. All the actual evidence is grim and depressing.
When I say he told anecdotes of failure, however, I might give you the wrong impression. He did tell anecdotes in which kids kept committing suicide despite the efforts of the people behind the suicide prevention program but that wasn't why he was telling the stories; that wasn't the point of his stories.
The point of his stories was that the people in the program were keeping their hope up even in the face of repeated failures. He told about how they had forged bonds with the elders of the community they were trying to serve and how these bonds were holding up even in the face of failure. And that is telling. It is, in fact, the real point not just of the stories but of the program's existence. These things exist so that caring people can have something to do that will make their lives meaningful and purposeful.
And you can see the concern. If the bonds break down in the face of repeated failure, then the people running the program will be asked to leave. It's not just hope they will have to give up but also a program that gives their lives purpose and meaning.
Don't think I'm sneering here. I'm not and I have gotten involved in programs like this myself. The problem is that the sneering goes the other way.
People do all sorts of things to make their lives seem meaningful and purposeful. They form barbershop quartets, they watch Monday Night Football, they try to maintain the most beautiful lawn in the neighbourhood, and people who devote their lives to charity and doing good sneer at the people who do those things.
They know they aren't actually making a difference but they mean to. The intentionality here is very important. That's why the anecdotes were meant to show that the intention is still alive. "We're not giving up hope."
The local anarchists tell themselves the same sort of story. Anarchism has zero chance of being widely adopted and they know that. And yet they keep going to protests and trying to foment riots. They know none of this stuff will ever make a difference but they keep doing it because believing in this cause is important to them.
Now the trying-to-prevent-suicide-in-a-northern-community people might step up here and say but we're trying to do good and anarchists are trying to cause riot and destruction. I've never heard them actually condemn anarchists but they might. But suppose they did make such an argument? How much do good intentions count for if they never produce results?
The problem, of course, is that the choice isn't between an approach that doesn't work and some alternative that might work. The problem is that the choice is between this program that doesn't work doing nothing at all. We can always say, "at least we are doing something". Mind you, the person pouring gasoline on a raging fire can say that too.
Someone who takes up baton twirling as an adult, on the other hand, not only does something that makes her life meaningful, she can also point to positive, measurable progress.
That's interesting because we usually criticize people who use anecdotal evidence to justify a program like this. We'd demand not anecdotes but quantifiable proof. The guy speaking didn't even try to offer that because he knows there isn't any. All the actual evidence is grim and depressing.
When I say he told anecdotes of failure, however, I might give you the wrong impression. He did tell anecdotes in which kids kept committing suicide despite the efforts of the people behind the suicide prevention program but that wasn't why he was telling the stories; that wasn't the point of his stories.
The point of his stories was that the people in the program were keeping their hope up even in the face of repeated failures. He told about how they had forged bonds with the elders of the community they were trying to serve and how these bonds were holding up even in the face of failure. And that is telling. It is, in fact, the real point not just of the stories but of the program's existence. These things exist so that caring people can have something to do that will make their lives meaningful and purposeful.
And you can see the concern. If the bonds break down in the face of repeated failure, then the people running the program will be asked to leave. It's not just hope they will have to give up but also a program that gives their lives purpose and meaning.
Don't think I'm sneering here. I'm not and I have gotten involved in programs like this myself. The problem is that the sneering goes the other way.
People do all sorts of things to make their lives seem meaningful and purposeful. They form barbershop quartets, they watch Monday Night Football, they try to maintain the most beautiful lawn in the neighbourhood, and people who devote their lives to charity and doing good sneer at the people who do those things.
They know they aren't actually making a difference but they mean to. The intentionality here is very important. That's why the anecdotes were meant to show that the intention is still alive. "We're not giving up hope."
The local anarchists tell themselves the same sort of story. Anarchism has zero chance of being widely adopted and they know that. And yet they keep going to protests and trying to foment riots. They know none of this stuff will ever make a difference but they keep doing it because believing in this cause is important to them.
Now the trying-to-prevent-suicide-in-a-northern-community people might step up here and say but we're trying to do good and anarchists are trying to cause riot and destruction. I've never heard them actually condemn anarchists but they might. But suppose they did make such an argument? How much do good intentions count for if they never produce results?
The problem, of course, is that the choice isn't between an approach that doesn't work and some alternative that might work. The problem is that the choice is between this program that doesn't work doing nothing at all. We can always say, "at least we are doing something". Mind you, the person pouring gasoline on a raging fire can say that too.
Someone who takes up baton twirling as an adult, on the other hand, not only does something that makes her life meaningful, she can also point to positive, measurable progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment