I often tell clients I did not become a lawyer to “help” people. In my view, “help” is nothing more than a conclusory term with no common meaning sufficient to guide a client or his or her lawyer through difficult disputes (and related litigation). It is also simply a relative word that I assume each lawyer in a dispute can easily voice as to how he or she is “helping” their own client. Using the word “help” more accurately means a lawyer is “fighting” for his or her client’s position.
As to these kinds of legal fights, the passion and joy I get from lawyering is helping level the playing field when another party unreasonably overreaches. The overreaching can occur for a myriad of reasons, including, as examples in many cases, an elevated sense of entitlement, an assumed superior right, or closed-minded ignorance. As I continually assess the progress of my litigation cases, I not only have to be well-versed on the facts and law of the case, but also attuned to assessing motivations of an opposing party; again, especially when I conclude entitled overreaching is at play.
Now, what do platitudes have to do with the above paragraph, such as “be friendly”, “be a team player”, “be kind”, “be considerate of others”, “turn the other cheek”, “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”, “god helps he who helps himself”, etc.? My sense is these platitudes originated from those already sitting in the upper winning or dominant position. Platitudes are merely armchair, conclusory statements that assert nothing more than their own conclusion or result. For example, merely repeating a platitude fails to consider why someone might not be able to “pull” himself up from his own bootstraps, or why a person might need to know what to do after once turning the cheek (e.g., what does he or she do next?). Platitudes in most cases are simply diversionary icons that do nothing more than suggest their own non-substantive meaning.
I could write pages about this platitude topic in its many everyday forms and effect. But, I will not bore the reader. However, last night I stumbled across an extremely compelling example of a speech that effectively goes well beyond simple, conclusory platitudes. This is a December 7, 1964 speech in London by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that was discovered only recently by Pacifica Radio Archives. Dr. King gave this speech before travelling shortly thereafter to Oslo, Norway to receive his Nobel Peace Prize. Click here for his speech.
I urge readers to listen to this speech in its entirety, and keep in mind one can still substitute — even today — in the context of Dr. King’s powerful speech all marginalized groups (who are persistently subject to entitlement-minded overreaching by others). This speech, in my opinion, is an extremely effective argument against the above simple use of platitudes. It also speaks to leveling the playing field, right up my alley.
At a minimum, listen to this speech beginning at 37:20 where Dr. King’s commentary about non-violence illustrates superbly the difference between someone merely voicing “non-violence” as a feel-good platitude, compared to Dr. King’s powerful and substantive expression of how one actually can practice non-violence.