November 19, 2008
-
Not all birds fly
An honest difference of opinion with Mooncat_Blue has me thinking. Mooncat writes uplifting material, to the point where all her entries appear to be inspiring or uplifting in some way. She’s very good at it, so please don’t take this as a dig at her writing ability.
But a recent post of hers was about birds. “All birds ache to fly,” she said, drawing obvious parallels between our landlocked hearts, mired in day-to-day concerns, and the graceful flight of birds, which echoes our our desire to be free and above these petty worries.
However, not all birds fly.
I know this is going to be taken as mindless literalism, and everybody hates a literalist, but hear me out. There is this sick compulsion in society to make everyone want to “excel.” Everyone needs to achieve “great things” and “soar” and “be the best they can be,” as defined strictly in terms of material consumption and conspicuous status. In the midst of this, reminding people that “all birds long to fly” when they cannot necessarily take any concrete steps to achieve the success this implies is more than a little unhelpful.
Some birds fly, I argued in her comments section, because they don’t know any better. They have no other method of dealing with life. Thus, they fly, and then their hunting instinct or whatever takes over, and they feed. This is how they continue to live. Similarly there are those who succeed in society because they can make no other choice. Whether their parents were overbearing perfectionists, and they never broke free from this, whether they have abnormal competitive streaks, or whether they are just plain greedy, many social climbers at the “top” of society are not shining exemplars of humanity and helpfulness. Instead, they are simply very competent at doing work for which they get paid obscene amounts of money. They are the birds who fly not because they make a conscious decision to do so, or because it is inherently the nobler choice, but because that is how they are built. That is the way they are wired to get through life. That is not the way everyone is wired to get through life.
Making heroes and role models of them is extraordinarily unhelpful.
Similarly, inspiring someone to soar and rise above is a simplification that overlooks the complexities of life. Maybe they can’t rise up. Maybe it wouldn’t be best for them to rise up. Are Cambodians happy that Pol Pot rose up to be in charge of government? Are Chinese who lost their ancestral homes, family records, and relatives happy that Mao rose from his humble roots to be dictator for over a quarter century? Sometimes – let’s face it – we don’t want certain people to rise as high as they possibly can on the social ladder, because power in their hands spells disaster of epic proportions. Even if all birds want to fly, do we want all birds to fly?
I know many of you are throwing up your hands at this point and saying that there’s nothing wrong with the simple sentiment that everyone should rise as high as possible. Encouraging everyone to do their best can’t possibly be bad, can it? But it’s precisely that kind of naive sentiment that I want to challenge. You have to take the good with the bad when you make decisions or when you encourage things. When you advocate something, you should do so with full knowledge of the disasters that you might bring as well as the glories that you might achieve. “I didn’t know this would happen” is an answer that gets you out of trouble, but does nothing to fix problems.
Not all birds are fliers. Some belong on the ground. Some can never get up there. And some can get up there, but we don’t want them up there.
Comments (24)
Yes, you’re taking it too literally and what’s more, you’re being negative in the guise of being a realist. I think she meant rise to be the best you can be within your own abilities and life. Of course that must be different for most people. And I don’t think she was thinking of the kiwi when she made the statement regarding most birds being unable to fly. She was trying to be encourgaging, and sometimes that’s what people need, seems silly to argue with encouragement.
I think the Mori is being far from negative. It’s a difference of opinion, not a subjugation trial.
Agreed. There’s nothing wrong with not flying and rising above all. Some of us like to be on earth. Not all birds are meant to fly. e.g if you tell an ostrich that there is something wrong with him because he isn’t flying like the rest of the birds, and it jumps off a cliff trying to do something he wasn’t even designed to do, then i don’t think it would be thanking you so much for your advice. We have entered a rat-race of madness in which achieving the highest, no matter what aspect, is what everyone is aiming for. But the problem with this rat-race is that even if you win, at the end you are still going to be a rat.
I agree with LucyWrite‘s interpretation of the Mooncat_Blues post.
The “soaring bird” was taken to mean happiness-seeking people, and not success-seeking people. Yeah, depressing malcontents exist; but most of us actually care for happiness.
i caught that too … all birds do not “ache” to fly … for some are not designed to fly … i “got” what she meant …
yet if a flaw in an “argument” (as in philosophical) occurs in the heart of the most salient point … then my skeptical bone shakes at the truth of the argument …
Heh. you sure put a lot of thought into something I just said to be poetic and glib. Seemed like a metaphor, all talking about seagulls and the like. That sentence, in my mind is obviously not one to take literally, as it is far more simplistic than the truth. I was drawing a parallel, though, to the actual ache most have to be happy. I am pretty sure I have never met a person who did not have that ache. It doesn’t mean I am not aware of all the trash we take in. That was kind of the point. And yes, many a bird does not fly. Many birds that I love most, for that matter.
I am not sure we can be in honest disagreement when our interpretations of what I said are so different… but that’s cool. I still like a good discussion. I just happen to be one of those people who believe hope is a survival instinct and a necessity. It’s how we all rise up.
That reminds me I got to plan my Thanksgiving menu…..
This is excellent. And somewhat consistent with my research interest in the ideological implications of ascension metaphors, which are generally taken for granted as proper and neutral. (I.e. down, sitting, weighed close to the ground is somehow base, animal and inhuman; humans yearn to fly, transcend, ascend, yadda yadda.) Which makes you wonder: what is it about being grounded in our bodies or situations that we are so ashamed of, as a species, if so much of our language is oriented towards getting up and out of ourselves?
Hmm. Seems there was a slight misinterpretation, but you bring up a good and valid point, nonetheless.
My initial reaction was, “Go Moritheil! It’s hard to say that some people shouldn’t be allowed power and success, but it’s really true! Some people deserve it more than others!” But then I thought of the pigs in Animal Farm saying “Everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others.” And that sounds like my thought, and I don’t agree with those piggies. So I don’t know where I stand on this.
It’s a thought-provoking topic. I like it.
I agree because, as you mentioned, many strive for personal growth while neglecting the fact that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, meaning one must look at all sides of an issue before delving in for profits sake. Many colonists coming to this land saw it as a land of limitless resources at hand for their disposal, of course they wouldn’t consider that eventually these resources would run scarce or that using them would have eventual negative impacts. I like to refer to this type of economic conquest as “tunnel-vision”. Of course this applies to many other things as well. The whole time I was reading this post, I couldn’t help but think of a childrens movie called Happy Feet, about a dancing penguin. If you’ve ever seen the movie you know what I mean. However, I do believe that mistakes must be made in order for there to be progress, so in that aspect, it is ok for us to be overly ambitious and set high goals. So those birds on the ground can see these flaws from an objective perspective, and help right the wrongs caused by the high fliers. Yes indeed, we do need both.
I’m vaguely reminded of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcDbIA6mXWo
If “soaring” birds are considered the happily successful people, what about penguins? They look pretty happy.
Not all birds URGE to fly, some are happy where they are.
..
..I like emus..
(Sorry, I got the flu and I’m not thinking straight xD, but still, a good post.)
-Kunoichi
“You have to take the good with the bad when you make decisions or when you encourage things. When you advocate something, you should do so with full knowledge of the disasters that you might bring as well as the glories that you might achieve.”
This is the key point for me and the reason I like this post so much. This is the thing people forget about democracy, equal rights, love, fairy tales ending in “happily ever after”, etc, etc. Bad stuff will always happen. There is no rule you can make for yourself or others that will make it all go away. You can’t tell yourself “I’ll never date another so and so” and then expect never to be hurt again. You can’t be a victim of a crime, then get outraged that somebody didn’t get enough of a punishment, change laws around, and then expect never to be hurt again. We can choose to be open to life, or we can choose to stick our heads in the sand. Neither one is any kind of insurance policy against bad stuff. But I think the former style is more interesting than the latter. And birds of all kinds, flying or otherwise, live on both sides of this fence and both do just fine, on average.
What a strange position to take up.
I saw it in the original post and thought “What a downer!” Cat writes this thought provoking post about the trash we put in others way, and the desire to be what we were meant to, and metaphorically alludes to all birds aching to fly: and what do you do? Make the metaphor get down on all fours and defend itself in your brand of metaphysicsspeak. Bah! I saw the penguins on “March”, they sure looked to me like they would loved to have flown if it was an option for them.
Poor cricket, I say.
@LucyWrites -
That doesn’t mean that there’s nothing there. It’s precisely that assumption that positivity must be good that I want people to rethink.
@huginn -
Is the central issue what we care for, or is it about the results of our actions?
@prairiecowboy -
It’s not strange at all. What’s the difference between a kid saying, “if a little medicine is good, more has to be better,” and an adult who knows that there’s a limit to the benefit? Nuance.
@Rockhopping -
Yes; I don’t know if everyone got it but I think you certainly have. It’s a matter of awareness.
@KrazeeKunoichi009 -
It’s that idea that there is something wrong with you where you are that I find dangerous.
@talking_machine -
But is it the same as your thought, or is it merely similar?
@qwiggles -
You reminded me of the old medieval theory that man was, being higher up off the earth, more intelligent than other animals that walked four-legged. This was ultimately shot down by the birds, which flew much higher than man but seemed to utterly lack the gift of complex thought.
@MooncatBlue -
Hope is a necessity, but just about any tool can be misused. I’d like people to realize that Hope is not an exception.
@menskeet -
Right, and I would argue in this particular case the appearance of a flaw is valid: it is because the argument itself is not completely correct.
@moritheil - correctamundo.
they sky’s the limit. don’t we all want happiness? but sadly, not everyone has the same view of “happiness.”
@moritheil - I think I see your point, upon thinking about it further. Sometimes the truth is much more helpful than pure optimism…
I don’t think you’re overthinking it, Mori. Metaphors are meant to be picked apart, so long as we avoid equivocation, which I think you managed to do nicely.
On the other hand (and maybe I’m the one being to literal now), not everyone’s a bird. Those who are may ache to fly, possible or no, and those who aren’t may or may not wish to fly. For those who can’t fly, though, there are always machines to lift them.
what ever floats your boat. this would have been more fun if we had actually been speaking of the same things. Given the fact that you merely took that statement out of a context most everyone else seemed to understand, and used it for your own argument is fine, but to masquerade it as a difference in opinion is a fairly convoluted notion. I agree there are people who can’t, won’t or shouldn’t be falsely encouraged in this life, but that is irrelevant to the fact that we might want to be proactive and deliberate in how we choose to approach all that be. I know a lot of people, ranging from people with varying degrees of mental retardation to people who actually belong to Mensa. I haven’t met a person who doesn’t have a psychological need to be happy. Success in other things does not necessarily equate to happiness… and happiness generally correlates to attitude over intelligence. It was all I was implying.
Enjoy your day.
@prairiecowboy -
heh. I just want to bake you a pie. =0)
think of it this way: the noble kiwi, versus the supposedly extinct dodo.
the cockroach versus the butterfly, if you will.
@MooncatBlue -
I’m not trying to antagonize you, though this evidently doesn’t sit well with you. If what you posted was a painting or poem, would we still have this discussion about whether a subjective experience of it is valid for me to write about?
@moritheil -
no, it sits fine with me. I believe wholeheartedly in the right to write… and it is subjective ground. The thing was, all I had posed was that humans, opposed to seagulls, have the ability to choose what they swallow. Not all people have it figured out, but that was the point. I was talking about being sensitive to a universal psychological need- I have no qualms with what you said… only that you presented yourself as having a disagreement with me, but answered it with a different concept. Apples and Oranges.