Social Responsibility as Worms

Oh! Look, a can of worms…

And by worms does he mean bait, despicable entities or those little wiggly things that keep our soils rich?

Well, whatever the case, social responsibility can be all of the above; worms.

bait: Social responsibility as agenda often baits a stance, draws someone or something toward or away from something/one else. I can write a book about my experience as a Latino (or whatever we call ourselves these days) for Latinos or for a non-Latino audience. Either way can be justified as a kind of SR but will only be considered responsible according to a rubric established by an unwieldly cultural consensus, big or small. But if controversy or sympathy has been garnered then I have successfully been socially responsible in some way even if it was only for money (after all, personal gain is not a part of social responsibility no matter what rhetoric you use since personal gain is not a relationship with others but with oneself). As bait, SR does not foster communication but instead relies on hooking an individual or group into a situation. While this may useful under some circumstances, it ignores the complexity of communication among citizens. A ripe example is the unfortunate & inaccurate passion of Nicholson Baker’s calculated diatribe Double Fold and the ensuing controversy.

despicability: Social responsibility can and has reared its ugly head in many guises and often for the wrong reasons. One such instance is political correctness. In being socially responsible, sometimes we become hyper-aware of the things that need attention or, worse, we focus on things that seem easy to address and only end making things worse or looking stupid. More often than not this approach takes on the character of victimization. For every angle of approach there is a corresponding angle of reproach until there is a splintering of perspective; cries for tolerance & upheaval lend themselves to self-repression, intolerance of other viewpoints &/or self-parody. Negativity disguised as positive energy remains one of the most dangerous enterprises in academic, sociopolitical & intellectual culture today. SR itself becomes a problem to which it would have addressed had it not been dressed up as a cure-all. SR fundamentally thrives on a balance and an understanding that a diversity of opinion is necessary in the marketplace of ideas. That some methods purport that SR is leveling device for the means of administering conformity is both irresponsible & misguided. Snakes in the grass, snakes in the trees.

wigglies: Social responsibility as guidelines or hard set rules allow a writer to open discussions, to question tradition & the status quo, dismantle rival systems, cull. And herein lies the oft-forgotten & true nature of worms: whether we use them as bait or consider them slimy yucky things best left underground, worms are an essential element of preservation & enrichment taken for granted. Just as subtext informs our writings & other communicative devices, so too does SR run the gambit in the great conversation. Despite the chance that SR may wriggle out of our hands as shown above, bear in mind SR works upon people within contexts. To lose sight of one’s current position in the milieu of the times is to forget what SR represents & how it comes about. SR exists for want to construct meaning & flexibility in a world fitted into the iron box of power & its struggles. The will to power in this case begs the question of when should we be socially responsible and how. As categorical imperative, SR cannot be taken more than a means & ends by which we establish a tentative plan for conducting our affairs. To make such a list of suggestions into sacrosanct commandments will only return us to a state of inflexibility. SR as a liberal & humanist endeavor must avoid this development; SR as a means of control becomes doctrine, laws which no longer allow the nature of social relations ample room to breathe & grow.

I personally do not believe writers need to be socially responsible. It is ultimately a personal choice though I would agree people ought to be socially responsible as citizens. Without actually discussing anymore what SR is, it is clear to me that the political & social dimensions often imposed upon creative efforts are artificial and loaded. One could argue that the Harry Potter books are socially responsible because they get kids (and adults) to read though this does not take into account that recently Ms. Rowling wished aloud in an interview she wanted to write anonymously in a coffee shop again with these stories to support herself and her child, a personal activity meant to alleviate the creative & personal pressures of being a single mother and a human being. In a nation that is fond of politicizing (even if mostly in the abstract) there is little understanding, even acceptance, of ambiguity & neutrality despite our inclinations toward a peculiar kind of indifference we enjoy. After all, the United States of America is one of the few countries that do not utilize poetry as a means to teach children language & memorization skills, where poets & other writers are not the first suppressed for disseminating their dissent. If anything, perhaps all writers have an obligation, a social responsibility if you will, to restore the greatness of speech & letters to a country claiming to be the haven of free will, free people, to knock down the poles & flags that seek to compartmentalize the human experience. A revival of a tradition set upon us by Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Twain, many other men & women, some gone, some forgotten, but all still an unpolished foundation stone within the great pyramid of history & culture we participate in.