That Soft, Sucking, Sound
Webster defines 'squelch' as a noun for the act of suppressing something, and as a verb to move with a sucking sound.
When I was a young man, my first car, a 1973 VW Beetle, came with what was even then a ubiquitous add-on: the now iconic CB radio. CB stands for 'citizen's band' and in the pre-cell phone days, this device stood in for the seemingly inexhaustible human need to endlessly expostulate (Latin expostulatus, 'to demand'.) With this marvel of 1970s technology, you would talk with other cars and trucks that were similarly equipped about whatever passed for viable small-talk back then.
But what I found especially enchanting about my radio was a small knob labeled 'Squelch' (Latin exquassare, 'to squeeze, to crush'.) I thought this was just the coolest word I'd ever heard of.
Webster defines it in two forms, as a noun: the act of suppressing, a retort that silences an opponent; and as a verb: to emit or move with a sucking sound.
Inside my radio, the squelch function was supposed to be used to suppress weak signals, to eliminate the sound of noise when the radio was not receiving a desired transmission. Squelch can be turned off, which allows all signals to be heard. This can be useful when trying to hear distant or otherwise weak signals.
The squelching of the free exchange of ideas in society continues to grow in manners both overt and subtle. The squelch can be equally applied to evil, nonsense, and unfortunately, the unpopular.
Unpopular ideas, like unpopular people, are usually that way for a reason. They make us uncomfortable and force us to at least contemplate the revaluation of past and present beliefs. That's why we enjoy squelching them. However, it turns out that ideas are difficult to extirpate (Latin extirpationem, 'to pull out by the root'.)
The cure for this type of squelch is to foster a culture that values listening and engaging with different perspectives, even if they are controversial or unpopular. Sadly, we seem to be amid a cultural mindset that prioritizes confrontation and a zero-sum, not only must I win, but you must lose, ending condition.
In science, we often come across what are known as despised theories. These are concepts and hypotheses that are not only considered wrong but also dangerous. My favorite is Lamarckism, an 18th-century theory of evolution that posited characteristics acquired during life could be inherited. This ran smack into the newly discovered laws of genetics as pioneered by Gregor Mendel and later August Weismann. Attacks on Larmarck's theories would go on to assume almost circus-like hyperbole, including refutations on the non-inheritance of circumcision in Jewish offspring and one study that chopped off the tails of over one hundred mice and reported that none of the offspring's tails were any bit shorter.
This theatre was done despite Lamarck's injunction (Latin iniunctionem, ''to attach to') that the theory did not apply to injuries.
Lamark's theories are now considered a progenitor (Latin progignere, 'to beget') of the modern science of epigenetics, the study of how environmental influences on an organism can be retained and transmitted through generations. Research has shown that more than metabolic changes can be retained and conveyed. The benefits, or lack of, nurturing and other emotional experiences can also leave lasting influences that are conveyed to future offspring.
I guess the lesson here is to be very hesitant about reaching for the squelch knob and to be on the lookout for people and organizations who want to use it on you because more often than not it's the low-level noise we most need to hear, even if it's not the most pleasing to our ears.
Ironically, over-twiddling the squelch knob all too often backfires and turns it into a volume control that simply feeds the energy creature. Think of how flaccid and useless terms like 'misinformation' and 'fake news' have become.
Psychologists know of a common occurrence with a variety of names, but I'll call it The Law of Negative Trait Transference. You probably know it as the old saying, I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever bounces off of me sticks to you.
The researchers designed and monitored conversations, where one person would ascribe negative characteristics about another person, who was not present, to a third person. For example, Ann might say to Joe that their mutual friend, Jim, was clumsy. Months later, when asked to recount the conversation, Joe would likely not remember much, besides the fact that Ann is a very clumsy person.
The remembrance of the negative trait was transferred from the subject of the story to the storyteller.
The composer Pauline Oliveros viewed listening as a precursor to thoughtful action, a pause, a moment of reflection before engaging with societal issues. This concept is particularly relevant during times of political chaos, and she suggests that listening could be a healing and transformative act, advocating for inclusivity, peace, and compassion. Listening as a form of activism.
I can always listen more.