In this golden age of the individual, in which our cultural icons are recognized as often by first name — Madonna, Shaq, Jewel — as by their last, something has swung out of balance. Way out of balance. In a society whose citizens increasingly know their “rights,” personal empowerment too often comes at the cost of public decorum and a civilized, considerate society. Does it really have to be that way? I don’t think so.
One needs travel no further than the local movie theater to see what I’m talking about. It’s a miracle at times to actually hear on-screen dialogue — that is, in between conversational pauses benevolently granted by the chatting couple sitting near you. Think twice before asking these always boring, never witty conversationalists to tone it down. One does so at one’s own peril. Sitting through “The Talented Mr. Ripley” the other day in Springfield, I felt compelled to ask two teenage girls sitting two rows in front of me to be quiet. “Hey, if you don’t like it, you can always move,” one said. Sure, that’s an option, but something in me blanches at the idea of letting the incredibly thoughtless people whose constant talking disrupts moviegoing for serious film-watchers set the bar for in-cinema behavior. The lowest-common-denominator approach may work for television news and standardized testing, but does it really need to extend to movie theaters as well?
Lest you think that was an isolated incident, a few nights later while watching “High Fidelity,” a hilarious romp through the minefield of adult dating and relationships, it happened again. This time, the trouble was from behind: an older couple, in their 50s, chomping away on popcorn housed in a bottomless plastic bag they’d clearly smuggled from home. Some of you know what I’m talking about. After quick deliberation I turned and said to the woman as nicely as I could, “You know, that’s really noisy.” She told her husband what I had said, and I overheard him say, — not so difficult in most movies — “I don’t care if it bothers him.” Bully for him. After all, we all have a right to do as we please whenever we wish.
What’s often forgotten is that many of the choices we make impact other people in our community, whether on the road, in the classroom or at the Bijou. We have umpteen opportunities a day to help make life more or less pleasant for our fellows. In a community of 20,000 or so, such as the University, this becomes even more important. How many times have you walked into an unflushed, sewage-laden toilet stall in the locker room or the EMU? Just flush, baby! How many doors have closed in your face on your way to class? Hello! I’m a person, not a mannequin at Nordstrom’s.
How many of you whose scholarships hinge on maintaining high GPAs have wanted to throttle classmates who keep up a running dialogue in large lectures? Sure, they have a right to not learn, to ignore what the professor has to say. Indeed, we all have a right to the pursuit of ignorance. It’s just that those who are motivated to learn, to make the best out of the amazing opportunity that is college, have an equal right to pursue knowledge in an atmosphere that supports their efforts. And I would argue that our community is far better served by supporting the latter group, while encouraging the former to save their conversational impulses for other venues and other times.
As members of a community, we say as much with our silence as we do with our spoken advocacy. There’s nothing cool about staying silent when the exercising of personal rights interferes with another’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Wouldn’t it be a shame if the celebration of individual rights came at the expense of a civilized, working community? There’s no reason the two cannot co-exist and serve to bolster one another. No reason, that is, other than a continued decline in consideration and common courtesy, and an unwillingness to balance individual rights against what’s needed to keep the machinery of our community running smoothly.