I read this quote from Montaigne shortly after a dinner with friends. They were encouraging my wife and me to attend a “No Kings” protest in Denver. I found my mind rejecting the notion right away. I’m sympathetic to many of the protesters’ concerns, so what was the cause of my rejection? Introversion? Laziness? While convenient, those reasons did not ring entirely true.
After reading the quote above, it became clear I’m comfortable lending my thoughts and sympathies to an idea, but I’m unwilling to give myself to a crowd whose words and actions may, in the moment or on a placard or in a chant, conflict even in minor ways with what I know to be a deeper truth or a more complex set of thoughts dwelling within me.
It’s important to maintain personal integrity and to not lose oneself in the swirling, evolving, and unpredictable demands of others. In a crowd, even one with noble intent, you are consumed and subject to what the crowd can fit on a sign or form into a shouted slogan. It reminds me of Noam Chomsky’s famous argument that concision is a technique of propaganda designed to enforce conformity:
Noam Chomsky · Conversations with History“He lacks concision.” Which is correct, I agree with him. Now, the kinds of things that I would say on Nightline, you can’t say in one sentence, because they depart from standard religion … I think that’s a terrific technique of propaganda. To impose concision is a way of virtually guaranteeing that the party line gets repeated over and over again and that nothing else is heard.
Social interaction and public service are important, but we must not allow external demands to consume our inner identity.