I've even generated controversy by using female pronouns in the text of my Communities often benefit from the people who declare their commitment to an unpopular cause and stick to it under fire. (Well, they benefit when the cause is just. Some unpopular causes are also idiotic causes and that is precisely why they are unpopular). But I sometimes wonder, MIGHT THERE BE A LIMIT TO THE USEFULNESS OF CONTROVERSY AS A TOOL FOR SOCIAL CHANGE? Controversies often get people arguing with each other in an overtly passionate, confrontational way. The point of the debate, whether in support or in opposition to some proposition, tends to get lost. And friendships can be strained or even poisoned. Sometimes one interlocutor makes it his purpose to defeat and humiliate the person who asserts the controversial view, not because he believes the contrary view but because he feels a need to demonstrate superiority. This can spoil the matter for everyone.
Some might say, "At least the controversy is getting people talking about the issues". But I think there comes a point when mere talking about an issue is no longer enough. We should also want the talking to be "productive and progressive" too. Also, debate should eventually give way to action: we should want to "do" things, not just talk about them. Even Aristotle affirmed that there comes a moment in public affairs when the emphasis must shift from deliberation to action.
Some might say, "All publicity is good publicity". But this, too, can go wrong for the person who seeks attention by generating controversy. Such a person may do damage to his reputation, for instance by giving others reason to judge him as a grandstanding loudmouth, instead of as an intelligent and progressive trailblazer. Your sense of self worth should come from your own rational judgment of your own life, of course: but your reputation is an enormously valuable asset too. Those who deliberately court controversy risk damaging their reputations, and that doesn't help their cause.
The point of a rational debate is that people who disagree at first eventually find agreement among each other: and that the agreement is reached by everyone's collaborative, clear-minded, and good-hearted pursuit of the good, the real, the true, and the beautiful. In a rational debate, no one wins unless everyone wins. I AM DEEPLY COMMITTED TO THE IDEA THAT OUR MOST IMPORTANT SPIRITUAL IDEAS ARE THE ONES WHICH EMERGE FROM OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH OTHER, AND THAT RATIONAL DEBATE IS ONE OF THE MANY VEHICLES FOR THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. But debates about controversial topics are not always rational or spiritually productive in that sense. People are quick to get angry, and interpret the controversial proposition as an attack on their lives and identities. Or, they ignore the controversy completely, in order to avoid getting involved in anything that may require them to do something. Controversies are often concluded when the debaters give up and concede victory to the loudest braggart.
And so I put the question: to those who wish to initiate social changes, either in their own small communities or in their wider, national-level communities, HOW USEFUL IS CONTROVERSY, REALLY? How much is too much? Is a certain amount of controversy necessary? Under what circumstances should someone deliberately stir the pot?
"Some of Bren's critics:" You're just worried about how your controversies might affect your book sales.
"Bren:" Well, yes, but if you knew how little money there really is in pagan publishing...
Tags: the crusades christians the christian crusade most powerful black magic spells the camelot oracle celebrate christm pseudo mission inclusivism wins a prize ilver plated chalice pentagram
