Random Acts of Eccentricity

The phrase “We’re trying to educate society” sounds noble on the surface—like a humble public service announcement from enlightened folks who just want what’s best. But strip it down, and it reveals a pretty loaded worldview that a lot of users of it probably haven’t interrogated (or maybe they have and like what they see).
At its core, it’s not neutral. It positions the speaker (or their group) as the teacher—the one with the superior knowldge, facts, or moral clarity—and “society” as the ignorant pupil who needs correction. Society isn’t a room full of adults with their own experiences, incentives, data points, and trade-offs; it’s a classroom of dunces who haven’t read the right books, watched the right documentaries, or absorbed the right talking points yet. The implicit claim is: “If only they knew what we know, they’d agree with us.” That’s not dialogue; it’s a one-way transmission of Truth™ from on high.
This framing skips over some uncomfortable questions:
Who appointed you the educator? Credentials? Polls? A viral thread? A grant? History is littered with people who thought they were educating society—eugenicists, Marxists, religious inquisitors, corporate marketers—and plenty turned out to be wrong, self-serving, or both. “Society” has a nasty habit of pushing back when the lessons feel like lectures.
What counts as ‘education’ here? Is it presenting evidence and letting people weigh it? Or is it curating the evidence, framing the narrative, and shaming dissent as “uneducated”? The latter is what often slips in under this phrasing, especially on hot-button issues where the “curriculum” conveniently aligns with one ideological lane.
Why ‘society’ instead of individuals? It treats billions of people (with wildly different contexts, risks, and priorities) as a monolithic blob that needs reprogramming. Real persuasion happens person-to-person or through open competition of ideas. “Educating society” skips that mess and goes straight for mass influence—media, schools, policy, culture—because it’s faster and feels more righteous.
Plenty of people do use it in good faith: scientists explaining vaccines or climate models, historians correcting myths, parents teaching kids not to touch the stove. But the viral version you’re spotting often isn’t that. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of “trust the experts” without specifying which experts, or “believe women/science/follow the data” as a mic drop instead of an invitation to scrutinize. It dodges the harder work of actually convincing skeptical adults who might have counter-evidence or different values.
A more honest alternative? “We’re trying to persuade people,” or “We’re arguing for X based on Y evidence—here’s why.” That leaves room for pushback. “Educate society” assumes the debate is already settled and you’re just here to enforce the syllabus.