One cannot choose to represent the interests of one group to the expense of an-other without suffering the responsibility of making such a decision.  Impact from the words and stories we tell may be farther reaching than many today are willing to see.  If one person is truly successful in the habits of the advocate, short-sighted selection of which issues to advocate for may prove more harmful than good.

It seems from the view of Aristotle[1] that our ethos is played out through our interactions and the response we receive from our actions which will always hold us accountable in the world.  Aristotle’s perspective permitted alienation though.[2]  Aristotle built hegemony into his system of ethics.

As advocates today, I agree to an extent with Aristotle.  He seems to be correct in judging our habits as our ethos.  Developing phronesis  that flourishes one within the good of the polis should be the goal of every civilized nation.  However, I reject the notion that one should understand their place within a story that predetermines subordination between two individuals.

It is my opinion that a strong phronesis would indicate an ability to dwell within any social situation.  A weak phronesis would indicate an unwillingness (or inability) to even venture into social realms in which the self doesn’t already dwell.  A strong phronesis indicates not only the ability to dwell outside of the self (as dictated by the stories that are always already being told) but also to be comfortable dwelling within the story of the other.

Strong phronesis (e.g. the willingness to accept an-other’s story without being consumed by the other’s story) by these standards makes advocacy difficult.  Today, we are presented with opportunities to defend one against another.  It is how the U.S.’s story has been constructed through its history.  The Patriots versus the Tories.  The North against the South.  The Citizens versus the Illegal Immigrants.  In these types of advocacy-prone situations, one side clearly loses while the other side reaps all of the reward and prestige.

It seems we get trapped, sometimes, advocating within disputes on a reactive basis.  It is a bastion of corporate-speak to talk of being proactive; however, maybe it is an apt concept for the inherent problems within advocacy today.  It seems that rather than dealing with specific problems as they occur; we might better serve the interest of time by examining beneath the specifics placed before us and attempt to gaze upon the elements of our currently accepted stories that are not working to help everyone flourish.  By addressing these elements beneath the surface that hinder us as a collective, we may be able to prevent injustice/wrongs from continuing into the future.

The stories we tell today, predict the stories we tell tomorrow.