Scrutinize Premises)

Over the last two posts we discussed two social movements which made their gains under slogans that were untrue. For feminism, its “what a man can do, a woman can do as well,” was explicitly false, describing an equivalency that never has and never will exist between the sexes. For the LGB movement, its “love is love,” was implicitly false, as the subtext of that statement was that “any romantic or sexual union was good and equal to any other,” which we easily disproved yesterday.

The fact that each movement was founded on a lie means that either the changes being championed were either motivated by the wrong reasons or were fundamentally wrong no matter the motivation. Since each movement prevailed by getting society to accept its false premises, society was then set on a track that could only lead to harm the further it was pursued.

As mentioned at the start of this study, every movement is trying to convince society of some premise, which, if accepted, naturally leads to the changes that the movement desires. We should highly scrutinize any such premise, as if it is accepted its effects will go far beyond its initial campaign. We need premises that are good and true. Even if our cause is just, but the premise is faulty, then the long-term damage will be worse than any short-term positive outcome. And if our cause is not just, then the premise will always be faulty, no matter how we try to work it.

Hate and Love)

To finish this series, I wanted to present an example of another campaign slogan, one that has at its core a truer premise. When I think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s branch of the Civil Rights, one of the key phrases that defined that movement was, “hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” This was a premise which, if accepted, would lead his followers to treat their foes with kindness, would encourage onlookers to join the cause of brotherly love, and would make his foes question their motivations. Thus, it was a premise which, if accepted, would likely lead to the changes that the movement sought for.

But we dare not only consider its short-term effectiveness, we also have to consider the truth of the statement itself. It wouldn’t matter how noble King’s motivations were, or how good his short-term objectives were, if the banner by which he got there was twisted against reality.

As with the “love is love” slogan, let us consider the subtext of these words. The “hate” that Martin Luther King Jr. is referring to is that of one group of people seeking to harm another, and the “love” that he is referring to is one group of people showing kindness and grace to another. King is presenting love and hate as opposites, and just as only light can illuminate the darkness, and only filling can remedy emptiness, and only good can overcome evil, so, too, only love can drive out hate.

Notice that hate is both a state and an action. If there is a state of hate in the world, and we attempt to erase it through more acts of hate, we leave those acts behind to be the new state of hate. Hate used as a cure produces more of itself—and invites another cycle. It is trying to wipe away filth with mud; thus, no matter how much we scrape away, we keep adding more grime. Hate therefore requires a different active force to extinguish it, an anti-hate. Something that can dispel hate, without regenerating it. Anti-hate means the opposite of hate, and as mentioned before, the opposite of hate is love.

To me, the underlying logic of King’s slogan was sound, and therefore worthy of being adopted. Not only for the changes that it would cause in the Civil Rights, but because any further changes downstream would likely be sound and positive as well.