It’s an unfortunate outcome for a popular band that its fans coalesce around a certain … tribalism. It’s natural that there’s unity around the band itself; it’s even natural for the unity to create a sort of commonality of public intent, especially when the band has intellectual and philosophical lyrics.
But there’s a problem: people want to be told what to do.
No, it’s worse than that: they really want to be told what to do.
And for a band like Rush, well… there’s a sort of “correct thinking” mantra in mind, with some assumptions about what “correct thinking” leads to - usually individualism, a certain aspect of compassion, often atheism. And it usually stops there… in the lyric sheet.
Fans, though, assume that these things mean that their version of individualism, their version of compassion, their application of theology, is obviously what Peart meant.
Lately, with politics being so laden with emotion on all sides, you see a lot of “Man, Witch Hunt, am I right?” posts, often well-intentioned, often repetitive, often seeking a sort of validation on the part of the poster, who feels like their political opponents are surely the antagonists of what is honestly a great, creepy, scary song well worth paying attention to.
“Witch Hunt,” from their “Moving Pictures,” is a song invoking the Salem witch trials to illustrate fearmongering led by “those who know what’s best for us.”
The problem, though, is that “my political antagonists are the song’s antagonists” - and while that’s probably true on some levels, the way I see it is that all antagonists are the song’s antagonists. It’s not about them - it’s about anyone who leads through fear and domination. It’s the “those who know,” not “what’s best for us.”
In fact, I’ll take it one step further: it becomes a song about anyone who wants to lead, and those who want to follow, which is why people get so touchy about it. It’s great when it accuses “the other side” - but if it’s got a lesson for us that changes what we do? That’s just awful and not something we want to contemplate.
That might mean that we’re the bad guys, that we need to do the work on ourselves, for ourselves - and we can’t even rely on our fearless, wise leaders to do the work for us, to guide us into the right path, because the problem isn’t which leaders, but leaders and being led.
It’s amusing, in a sad sort of way, that observing this in a Rush forum gets so much pushback: “But Peart said…” Yes, he did. He also said “Live for yourself, there’s no-one else more worth living for,” and “I will choose free will.” Both of those are inspirational statements, and - here’s a kicker for us all - they’re not necessarily prescriptive statements.
“Live for yourself” is phrased as an imperative - a command - but it’s still aspirational. If you are yourself, you should live for yourself; that’s about as prescriptive as he gets (at least, for this period of his writing; he mutated his delivery as his frustration with various sectarian beliefs grew.) As far as a prescription, it’s pretty weak; as aspiration, it’s fantastic.
Even “I will choose free will” - note how that’s phrased! It’s not “You should choose free will,” because that would subvert the point. He even says “You can choose these gods and mantras I cannot, but I will not do so myself.” I may or may not agree with Peart’s stance on theism - I’m far less offended by it than he was, I think - but I can absotively, posilutely support his approach to self-determination here.
And yet…
Pointing out that the subversion of Peart’s point is not theism but following blindly causes an adverse reaction: people trot out canards like “Well, that’s fine, but my side is the tolerant one, their side is pure evil, and you’re probably evil for being willing to shrug at it.”
With all due respect: really?
I understand, honestly; when you’ve become a follower, however that process is achieved, someone pointing out that the written words you admire speak against your position can be threatening - especially when it’s easy to apply those inspirational words personally. You’re a blind follower, but you’re an atheist? Well, Peart was an atheist, so surely that means he would have thought you were an awesome person for believing exactly what you were told to believe.
Here’s my problem: if I told you to stop being a follower - well… err… am I not trying to lead you, myself? Even if I attempt to lead you to individualism, I violate my own principles - principles I think I shared with Peart - in that I want you to live for yourself just as I try to live for myself as well.
It’s not even about being a “good person” over being a “bad person” - chances are I share a lot of common values with everyone, really, although the specifics will differ: I want people to be happy, and healthy, and satisfied in their own lives; we might have different definitions about what those mean (someone might say “I’ll be happy when someone gives me everything I want” while someone else might say “I’ll be happy given the freedom to earn my own happiness”, and someone else might say “I’ll be happy when all those people no longer exist,” a stance I have a hard time wrapping my head around.)
This isn’t about being a good person over being a bad person. It’s about the path to being a real person.
For me, this means observing over prescribing. Look, you don’t know me - a phrase I use specifically in my about page - why in the name of anything holy would you listen to me when I tell you what to do? Why would I listen to you? Is it because of the august position we have as lords and masters of our office chairs? I think not.
So I use my words - convenient, given that the World Wide Web is a mostly-written medium - and observe the best I can, from a position that I actually hold - not as a tribal warrior for this group or that group, not as a representative of a cohort, but as myself. We might agree; that’s convenient. We might not agree; that’s natural, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as we refuse to come to blows over it.
My influence ends at your perception, and that’s exactly what I want. I don’t want to convince you. I want to present a point of view, and if you find that compelling, then you convince yourself, and that’s far more effective than anything I could do, and it sets a pattern where you think for yourself and understand yourself, rather than following a script some uncaring Lord and Master decided you should have.
I get told constantly by reviewers that I don’t tell people what to do - and my response remains what it’s always been: Yes.
I am no-one’s Lord and Master but my own.