This post explores a philosophical question as old as time. | Written by Daniel T. Dodaro
We’ve heard it before. Hundreds of times, even. The pen is mightier than the sword.
But is it?
If two knights were to duel, one armed with a pen and the other armed with a sword, the knight armed with a sword would surely win (if both knights exhibited similar skill and strength). One slice would splice the pen in two, leaving a volcano of ink sputtering all over the floor. And that’s if the pen-knight was lucky. Obviously, he risks losing much more than his writing utensil in their battle. Because of this, it is safe to say that no one would choose a pen over a sword in a physical confrontation if they had any (and I mean, any) other option available to them. So then, what’s the deal? Why do we say that the pen is mightier than the sword with such gusto and confidence when it is empirically not?
Let’s break this statement down. First, we must figure out what this adage is trying to say in the first place. Clearly, we are not intended to ponder the literal outcome of a literal pen going up against a literal sword (as discussed above). We can hopefully get to an answer to that thought experiment with little to no effort (John Wick’s skill with a pen and the Joker’s brutality with a pencil aside). So, defining what a pen and sword are in this context is foundational.
Here is how I would define them. Pen refers to the dissemination of ideas, ideals, stories, beliefs, etc. (written, oral, pictorial, etc.). Sword refers to physical strength, tactics, weaponry, etc. With these definitions in mind, the actual question that emerges goes something like this: is physical strength more powerful than an idea?
Well, that’s not a very good question, is it? Like with any overbroad question, the answer clearly depends on the situation. Few people would argue that the pen is always mightier than the sword or vice versa. So, taking this thought experiment a step further, we are left with the actual question I want to explore (briefly): when does physical strength conquer an idea, and when does it not? I know this is a contrived and vague question, but it’s raining outside and I am bored, so bear with me.
The dispositive factor here, I think, is scale. By scale, I mean (1) the number of individuals involved in any given conflict and (2) the period of time remaining until that conflict occurs. I would argue the sword generally beats the pen in smaller-scale conflicts, while the pen generally beats the sword in larger-scale conflicts.
Let me elaborate:
Small Scale: Take a small duel (like the knight example above). Here, (1) the number of individuals involved is two (or several, in some cases) and (2) the period of time remaining until a conflict occurs is negligible. It is fair to say that when two enemies have already descended into battle, physical might (and weaponry) will often decide the victor. Yes, it is true that one of the parties can convince the other party not to fight, and therefore, “win” with an idea/argument (pen), but this seems unlikely if tensions are already high. I would think that most reasonable people would bet on the swordsman over the poet/orator in a last-minute duel between foes. Thus, the sword generally wins.
Moderate Scale: Take a larger-scale conflict, one where groups, communities, societies, or nations are fighting for days, months, or years. Here, (1) the number of individuals involved is extensive and (2) the conflict is rarely immediate. In such scenarios, the pen and the sword are equally effective (although some might argue that the sword slightly has the upper hand). Military might and advanced technology (sword) are often determinative, but alliances, treaties, trade deals, etc. (pen) can also win the day. In these conflicts, the pen and sword are so intertwined that it becomes difficult to say which of the two is more powerful. Alliances are informed by physical might and vice versa. Nevertheless, propaganda, national pride, and ideals (pen) can close the gap and make up for deficiencies in tangible strength (sword). Thus, either the sword or pen wins.
Large Scale: Take a cultural shift that spans months, years, or generations. Take a story, religion, philosophy, message, or symbol that changes the way people think and live their lives. Here, (1) the number of individuals involved is usually extensive and (2) the period of time remaining until a conflict (if there ever even is a conflict) is usually substantial. In such cases, the pen does its best work.
Think about it: ideas spread like wildfire, but rather than burning everything they come into contact with, ideas have the potential to change and transform swayable listeners. An idea can inspire people to put down their swords, and if enough people adopt the idea, a large conflict can be avoided altogether. Moreover, ideas are especially powerful because they don’t always require force to instill them. In these cases, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Again, this is a very general and simplistic analysis. It is not exacting across the board. There are ideas that spread so quickly that they can set the entire world ablaze overnight (but to be fair, just because something happens “overnight” doesn’t mean it has not been building up for years). In such large-scale cultural shifts, those who choose swing a sword at an idea might as well swing that sword at the wind. Thus, the pen generally wins.
In conclusion, ideas have the unique ability to incubate across time and groups. In a single battle, without any time left and where only a few individuals are involved in the conflict, a sword is the better choice. However, with time on your side and enough heedful ears listening, an idea can stop a sword before it is swung (or before it is even crafted, for that matter).
Is it true that in some scenarios an idea can sway a single person, who can then use it to change the tide of battle? Yes. Is it also true that there are modern weapons powerful enough to allow a single person to cause mass destruction despite an overwhelming counterculture? Yes. This is why I use the word generally.
Like with any great question, the answer depends.
--------------------------------------------------------
This article was written by Daniel T. Dodaro, the author of Death, the Gardener.
All stories begin and end with a question. It is up to each and every one of us to discover what that question is.
Comments