Health Activist/Advocate Propaganda

Enthusiasm without science is propaganda.

I wrote last week about a class I took recently about ethics, called Is Hitler more ethical than you? The class itself was about how animal ethics apply to those involved in agriculture. I have applied what I learned to my Health Activism for a couple of posts I hope will inspire some conversation among us.

Our instructor said something that at once I both agreed and disagreed with: She said "I hate activists. Activists push their beliefs on others based on their feelings, not on science."

My first thought was, "but I'm a Health Activist and I use science. I don't push anything I believe on others."

That is very true. I practice every day respecting everyone's right to choose to believe whatever they want. To me, respect means that sometimes we will simply agree to disagree, and that's okay. Here's the kicker for me:

You must know your options before you can make a choice.

With that in mind, I enthusiastically use science and experience to present a point. A choice. An option of something else to consider believing. I try to present both sides of a point as best I am able, and if I am not able to present another side, I try to be mindful that there may be another side and I may not be 100% right. I invite, nay ask for other opinions in almost everything that I write. Most of the time I don't hear from anyone who disagrees with me (which is too bad), but sometimes I do. I enjoy engaging those that disagree with me, not because I am making sport of their opinion or trying to push mine onto them, but because I am genuinely interested and want to learn more.

How do you make sure you are not presenting an issue from only one side? How do you resist spreading propaganda? Do you invite discussion from others who may not agree with your stance on a subject? Are you respectful of their opinions? How do you handle them when they are not respectful of yours?

The truth is, no matter how hard I want to present both sides of an issue, sometimes I know that I am just not able to do it as it should be done. I want to, but I may have had a terrible experience that colored my opinion. I may not be far-sighted enough to see all the variables. When this happens I try to let the reader know that I feel I am biased, and I try to present links to others with differing things to say.

Are you ever a bully - even just a little bit??

Like it or not, the word Activism, or Activist does have negative connotations, and I believe the older you are, the more negative those reactions may be. It took me a long time to warm up to the term, because I believed what the professor believed - Activists were bullies.

Pretty soon, I began to find myself defending the term. After all, I am if nothing else, active. I encourage others to be active participants as well, both in their communities and in their own health care. That is in fact, my goal!

My point is that - as Health Activists - I think it is even more important for us to set the stage. Activists in general have a bad rap, and often they deserve it. They write with incredible passion and feeling, but with too little fact and sometimes no science at all. To make matters worse, many communities discourage including scholarly links in their posts. I have personally been slammed (and even kicked out of a group once) for including links to illustrate a point.

I don't want to be the purveyor of propaganda. The mere word conjurs up visions of 20th century wartime propaganda, much of that by Hitler (which he said he learned from our US propaganda efforts). I want to illustrate points, not try to prove them, but that's tough for me sometimes.

What do you think of the line Enthusiasm without science is propaganda. How does it make you feel? Do you agree? disagree? Why?

Do you find yourself trying to find links to 'prove' a point? How do you most successfully illustrate your points without seeming abrasive?