I was talking with a coworker today about the Iraq war. She is furious about Bush's invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation, and much more so over what she sees as the murders of the civilians involved.
With the same set of facts available to both of us, I found our dissimilar reactions to it interesting. I am amused by it, and she's outraged.
We discussed why that might be the case. In the end (and it ended because we both had work to do!) we were bumping against the idea that it is based on the roles we perceive ourselves in. She sees herself as a participant in humanity, and an implicit and unwilling participant in the war. I see myself as an observer, not a participant.
From her perspective, she ought to be doing something. She ought to be protesting (and at times, she does); she ought to be fighting to stop it.
From my perspective, it's amusing to see humans -- equipped with brains and bodies designed for simple tool manipulation and hunting/gathering -- attempting to form and maintain enormous societies as if they were "all that".
On the whole, I see her position as a more responsible -- if futile -- one. She pointed out that if everyone felt as I do, no reform would ever occur. She's entirely right, of course. I'm not sure I can predict what would happen if everyone felt as she does.
I'm guessing most people view themselves as participants, though they will admit to feeling paralyzed from helplessness and wind up not actually doing anything. So in the end, most people act like observers, even if they claim not to be. (In my opinion)
What are your thoughts? Where do you fall in the spectrum between observer and participant? And does your role change depending on what's available to participate in/observe?
And does it matter?
Dave