By Amelia Morris
This essay has been lightly adapted from its original, which was published on Amelia’s blog.
“She’s just trying to be relevant,” a friend said forgivingly about a person we both know, a person whom I thought was being too loud and assertive with their opinion.
And I keep thinking about it — this notion of being relevant. The term is necessarily relative; relative to whom, and for what? If your goal is to be relevant to the broader world, then, yes, I think you have to be quite loud and assertive. This feels stressful to me. And also somewhat dangerous. But if your goal is to be relevant to yourself and to those closest to you, well then, that feels way better. That feels doable.
That being said, wanting to be relevant within a larger context, wanting — for example — Ezra Klein to respond to your thoughtful emails, to have your exact point of view heard and considered by a larger audience, of course I relate to that. But what I’m realizing is that this second type of relevancy can’t be the priority. Because if it is, I think one runs the risk of spouting a hollow morality. The George Saunders essay “The Braindead Megaphone” keeps coming to mind. It’s been way too long since I read it, but the feeling that’s stayed with me is one of a disconnected person being loud.
But, again, that term is relative. Disconnected from what? The word that arrives first is the “source.” The source? Hm… I’m assuming I thought of “source” because I’m trying to avoid the word soul. Because source feels slightly more solid, slightly more acceptable to literary, progressive types (If I’m trying to remain relevant, alas, it’s to this group) than soul.
Because “soul” seems to imply religion. And religion is not overly welcome in literary, progressive circles. It’s not exactly unwelcome, but if you’re going to be religious or write about religion, you better do it rationally. You better appeal to their intellect.
Okay, then. Challenge accepted.
