The Challenge and Value of Unintended Audiences (Part Two)

This is a continuation from Part One. If you haven’t read it yet, please CLICK HERE.

Obviously, when I am speaking of unintended audiences, I am also speaking of secondary audiences. That is, hopefully a speaker or writer is aware of potential audience members that may vary both over time and space. Taking these into account will, I suppose, take away the “unintended” label. Still, going through the process of considering one’s potential audiences is beneficial, on several fronts. Here are a few anecdotal examples that make sense to me anyway.

First. This website has an intended audience of one. That one is myself. When I first created this website, I was thinking that I wanted to put down my thoughts for others. In a sense that is true, but as the years went by I started getting emails or comments given about how to increase my hit count, and get more reading. As I researched it, the more I was turned off by it. I was advised to talk about topics that others were interested in. I was supposed to pick tags and categories that attract people. I should link my posts to different social media venues. The more I looked into it… the more that I realized that (a) I want to write about the topics that I want to write about… not the ones that others are interested in. (b) I don’t want to chase down people. I will put weird tags on my posts and if someone finds it that way, that is fine… but I have no interest in seeking out people.

So I write for an audience of one— myself. Does it mean that others have no impact on me? They absolutely impact me. They motivate me to write… whether they read or not. I don’t write in a notebook. I like the idea that others might read. I do like the thought that I might have a positive impact on the world. Additionally, the potential of others reading makes me hone my thoughts, and question my prejudices. Some people can put the most horrible things on social media. Why would they do that? Perhaps because they feel the anonymity of being online. I recall decades ago when I was on Compuserve (prior to there being something called the Internet) and learned about people lashing out at others in ways that they would not in real life. This phenomenon was called “flaming.” In other cases perhaps they think they know who is reading. But going through the process of imagining a wide range of readers helps strengthen what one writes. The Golden Rule actually forces one to imagine things through the eyes of others, for how can one “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” unless one can reverse the situation… and reverse for many different situations and people.

Second. Early on in my mission work, I was back in the US speaking at my sending church. I had worked out a sermon based on people we worked with. These were meant to be inspirational stories. However, as I thought more about it… I realized that our church, even way back then, did put their services online. I started to realize that what I might call an inspirational story, could be viewed as being exploitative— especially of the people I wanted to share about. For example. One person had been a floor manager at a night club— a job that in practice was not far different from a pimp. She came to Christ and eventually became a team member in local missions. It is a wonderful story— but would the person want me to share this information with strangers? Perhaps not. Over time, I started noticing that missionaries could be shockingly exploitative. In truth, I don’t think these missionaries are bad people… but haven’t gone through the process of thinking about the affect of their words and pictures… and who potentially may be in the audience.

Third. Sometimes one cannot control or adjust for the audience. My wife and I wrote a book, “The Art of Pastoral Care.” The book was used in teaching some classes in different Bible schools. One of those schools was in Canada. One student read the book, and then gave a low review score. She was bothered that it was written from a clearly Christian perspective. She felt that it was inappropriate for the pluralistic society of Canada. She may have been right in this. Perhaps it was a bad book for Canada— it was written for the Philippines, the primary audience, after all. The reviewer also was unhappy that we did not speak of medical treatments for depression… and I assume other things as well. I am less sympathetic on this issue since it was for pastoral counseling. It is not a book on psychiatry. In the end, one must recognize that one cannot control the potential audience. The important thing is not that everyone is happy— far from it. Rather, if one’s message is rejected, it is important that it be rejected for the right reasons.

I think this is enough for now. However, I do think Colossians 4:5-6 is somehow appropriate for this topic.

5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

I must remind myself that I may be acting toward outsiders and talking to them, even when I think I am talking only to insiders.