I shall assume that your silence gives consent.
~ Plato
Silence may be golden, but gold makes for an awfully heavy load to carry.
The decision to get involved is rarely easy. Some analyse the relative costs and benefits of involvement. Do I get more out of it than I risk by getting involved? If I get involved, will the world be sufficiently better to compensate for the risk?
The more conservative invoke general principles in a one-size fits all manner. You know the maxims - 'Mind your own business,' or its opposite, 'A friend in need is in a friend indeed.' Simple yes, but simple means both easy and dim doesn't it?
When another in your company is treated poorly, you are as well. You're either made complicit in the act or placed at some measure of risk for interceding. When your neighbour starves, you starve too. Conscience takes its toll. The fear that your time for hunger will come erodes your happiness. The comfort of community is replaced by the illusion and isolation of self-sufficiency.
Yes. Silence may be golden, but it's certainly not passive. To remain quiet when someone doesn't accord you you the respect you deserve is to actively invite the same to happen again. To speak up is not a call to arms. Discussion is not war. In fact it's quite the opposite. Speaking up is a way of respecting your aggressor enough to clear the air and to make your true self known so that a real relationship, if only for a moment, can exist between you.
But, sometimes the problems of others are part of a repetitive pattern that will continue whether you get involved or not. Equally, speaking up may hardly be appreciated by those involved. Remember. Speaking up is a choice. It carries responsibilities that may not be worth it. I'm just trying to point out that staying silent has its downside, as well.
You can't control the behaviour of others, but you can make sure that you're not left carrying their load.
Comments