What's the difference between being socially engaged and projecting your own delusions onto an already confused, difficult situation and making it worse? I've been thinking about this lately. I should, too, as someone who has spent three decades now bellyaching about injustice in private journals, blogs, and (on the odd occasion somebody had the patience to listen to me) in conversation.
Everyone thinks they're right after all. David Cameron isn't a wicked man bent on sucking everything decent out of the world. Margaret Thatcher believed she was right and that what she was doing was beneficial to the nation and the world. I do think she was blind to something privately vengeful in herself, but that's just my opinion, even if I recognise the same thing in myself and I'm not, therefore, accusing her of anything that doesn't taint myself as well.
The Israelis think they're right blockading Gaza. The terrorists operating inside Gaza, firing rockets into Israel, think they're right to do that. Mystifyingly, even the people who hijacked the planes on 9/11 thought there was a redeeming purpose to their act, however much of a violation of every standard of decency and respect for life it might have seemed to the rest of us.
I don't really want to be just another angry voice snarling in cyberspace at everybody who doesn't agree with me. It just roots others in their opinions anyway, and limits the possibility of constructive dialogue. And without dialogue between opposing factions all you get is mistrust, violence and war. And what the hell do I know about anything? I can't even get my tv to work.
A socially engaged person, if he or she really wants to do some good in the world, speaks less and acts more, I think. If I have any ability with words (and you'll hear differing opinions on that one), I can use it to bring attention to people and animals and places that need your help, but perhaps I should stop poisoning your good will in advance by ranting about the enemy (again, a matter of perspective) as if I had rabies.