Musings from the Ozone

Personalize.  This word is a loaded word.  I enjoy analyzing words, and since this word was applied to me, lately, I wondered about it.  I personalize things too much.  I am not going to be defensive to the charge because I find that it is probably true.  I used to think my mother personalized things way too much, and now I do the same thing …at times.  What are the things we tend to personalize the most? Do I mean putting our initials on some piece of clothing, or an article?  No, I am referring to remarks that are made by others, but we take them in a personal way.  Lets say, for instance, we begin a discussion about life over in China. The average American doesn't know much about life in China, so should a discussion begin about China, why would someone flair up and begin talking about themselves? They may turn defensive, saying things like, why they would not want to live there, why they would not want to eat Chinese food, why they would hate the Chinese form of government, etc. The most common retort to such a reaction would probably go like this: "who asked you? " We could learn so much more in school, if we keep some of our opinions to ourselves, rather than take offense to every statement.  

There are countless loose lips around; those who off-handedly say or write something that can be taken in a wrong sense, yet no personal attack is intended.  However, because a message may be so pointed, carry an unmistakable meaning , often of a critical nature, it can frequently wound an unintentional target.  Is it possible to speak in such a way that we will not offend anyone? I  suggest that it is very difficult to accomplish such a feat.  Why do I write that?  First, no one has a total degree of comprehension with which they can pacify all aspects of the reader's thoughts.  Secondly, it is unimaginable that a speaker can always know every person who is even within earshot of their speeches, and a writer, within the context of his blog, can be even less sure of who his readers will be!

The readers have problems too.  There are no readers who can digest all the thoughts from all the sources put before them and not react in some personal way at times.  The most controversial discussions generally revolve around religious and political issues, and any discourse in these areas will most undoubtedly cause misunderstanding in the broad public domain.  Also undoubtedly, a naïve individual, lacking in either experience or education, may try to dissect the message to see how they should benefit from it.  The idea of personalizing a message has to be considered as something that we must do to a certain extent, in order to understand the subject through our own eyes. W hen the message is questioned , discussed, mulled over and debated, a fine-tuning takes place, either causing the messenger to back track, re-word the message more carefully, or just discard the whole thing.  The reader or hearer of the message, likewise must mull over it all, and decide whether the message was meant for them, or just for the general pubic.  In both cases, the personalization of the message was very profitable to all.

Just yesterday, our vice president glibly remarked that we should stay out of close quarters, such as airlines, subways and the like, all to avoid coming in close contact with someone who might have the so called, 'swine flu.'  Within an hour, the white house spokesman came out and tried to readjust the meaning of the vice-president's remarks.  However, the correctional remarks seem to imply the vice-president was foolish, and had needed his speech revised.  The corrected version said "No, he didn't mean all airline flights, just the ones from Mexico, etc. "Somehow, the vice-president's remark about staying off the subways didn't figure into the revised edition of his remarks. Strangely enough, in New York, the subways are important to millions of citizens! The airlines were furious with the vice president, because their economy is dependent on people taking flights every day.  Everyone in the transportation business mus have felt the impact of an chilling advisory message from the vice-president.

We have heard the old saying: " throw a stone into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps loudest, is the one that got hit."  What we are writing about here is when a person receives a message and personalizes it, merely because they felt targeted by the speaker, or writer, we should ask the question, "is that so bad?"  I am of the opinion that it is good for a messenger to be aware of who he is speaking to, and what his motives are for speaking.  Perhaps the motive is the most important factor to take into consideration? Some messages have hidden agendas! There are some bloggers, for instance, who have a bend towards expressing political views. They write their opinions, in hope that their thoughts will be read and influence a reader in some way.  There are other bloggers who are also political, but have a beef towards one party, so most of their writing seems filled with extreme bitterness and hatred.  Perhaps there are bloggers who just want to have some outlet to the relentless voice within; a voice which cries out for expression. There are as many messages as there are audiences.

I have attempted a tiny defense of those who personalize things.  Although much responsibility is placed upon the writer/speaker to be conscious of their agendas and to realize that people do respond to their messages, there is also a responsibility for the readers and hearers to understand that the message in its fullness.  Those who immediately get defensive over everything they hear and dislike, when no hurt was intended, must realize their skin could be mighty thin!  It is a measurment of maturity to be able to weigh out a message before jumping to conclusions.