Eccentric Flower:200909/Realism
From Eccentric Flower
«September 2009 «Eccentric Flower
Realism
The thing which will amuse many of you is that I don't actually consider myself a cynic.
Furthermore, some of my views on human nature which I'm told you find depressing don't strike me that way. I think it would never hit me as depressing, my view of human nature, because to me it's just the way it is. Is it depressing when it's rainy? I guess there are some people who do get depressed when it rains, but it's just the weather, you know - doesn't seem like there's much point in being depressed about it or cheerful about it or really much of anything about it.
Now, this is a fine line, because while the weather itself doesn't really cause me any emotions one way or another, its consequences do. The rain itself is not something to get either pleased or upset about. However, getting wet may be something to get either pleased or excited about, depending on whether it is a pleasant summer walk in warm rain when you're wearing shoes that can stand splashing in the puddles, or whether it is an unexpected winter freezing rain when you're wearing clothes that you really don't want to get mudstains on.
I rather like the ancillary effects of thunderstorms - I like the wind and the sound of thunder and I think lightning is really cool. But leaks in your roof and trees falling on your house: not so good.
I think that this distinction between the basic phenomenon and its effects is one that other people don't quite make the same way I do.
Humans are intrinsically petty, selfish, short-sighted, vengeful, and greatly imperfect - but I don't cry over this, it's just the way things are. The question is what we do with it. I don't think you get to claim, "Well, I'm only human" as a defense for murder, for example. I'm mean and nasty too, but I don't go around killing people. Overcome. Learn. Suppress. Yes, it is a fact that we each of us have a megalomaniac monster lurking inside, but that doesn't mean we have to let it out.
The longer-scale issue with my views is that often I find people doing what I see as startled hand-wringing over something I find wholly unsurprising, based on my views of the fundamental nature of humans. I'm afraid that it usually strikes me as being disingenous or theatrical - like seeing a politician who is shocked, shocked to hear of corruption in his district. Well, hearing people react in shock and surprise to various news stories of bad things happening (of various degrees of badness) always makes me wonder, "Are you really shocked? How can you really be shocked? How is this a surprise to anyone? On what planet have you been spending your time?"
I'm sure I'm being uncharitable ... but then again, the charitable view is to assume that the person is genuinely surprised, which to me means they were being hopelessly naive about the matter at hand. Some people won't consider that an improvement.
Here's an article from this week's Economist about the ongoing brouhaha over our torture mess. I don't really want to have a deep discussion about this, but I'll put up a couple of premises that are fairly blunt and you can see which way you react to them:
1. Blackwater and outfits of that ilk are mercenaries. No matter how sweet a name you give them, that's what they are. Mercenaries are intrinsically without honor or scruple. It is built into the profession. They do whatever is necessary to complete the job they were paid for, and then they go take money from someone else - possibly the people they were just fighting. They bat for both teams routinely. To expect any sort of standard of conduct from mercenaries is ridiculous, and if you claim to be surprised by their activities, you are one of the two choices above: disingenuous or naive.
2. All standards of conduct fall by the wayside eventually in a war, or if you believe you are in a war. Now, the question of whether we were in an actual war in Iraq is a good 'un, but it's a side topic, a matter for another day. Certainly the soldiers who were there thought they were in a war; they were encouraged to conduct themselves as if they were in a war. There is no such thing as a gentlemanly war. It is now and always has been a lie, just as the Geneva conventions are a lie. (They're a fine idea, but if you think they are actually observed when the gloves are off, please see: disingenuous or naive.)
Prosecution after war for "war crimes" is a lie. I don't disapprove of killing the masterminds of war atrocities - in fact I rather approve it - but the stench of hypocrisy from Nuremberg still lingers in my nostrils more than fifty years later. (You don't really think the Allied leaders were saints, do you? Sure, they didn't try for genocide, but they weren't shining knights either.) The veneer of a trial, of a "war crimes" standard, was to appease the conscience of the men doing the condemnation. It, too, was disingenuous. It would have been simpler and more honest to say, "We are the victors and therefore we have earned the right to cleanse with fire," and simply sent the Nazi leaders to the firing squad without trial or preamble or pretense.
[Of course, some will make the point that bald punitive action, punishing the Germans without even a veneer of civility after World War I, was one of the main factors which led to World War II. That, too, is a very interesting topic for another day.]
I am not defending the actions of the soldiers at, say Abu Ghraib. I'm simply saying, "What did you expect? You sent them over there and told them to fight a war, as if it was a war, and then you got shocked when they acted the way soldiers in the stresses of war have always acted, since before the legionaries. You encouraged them to think of their enemies as inhuman, as military leaders always have in order to get soldiers over the considerable psychological hump of possibly needing to kill or mutilate other human beings ... and then had the audacity to act surprised when they gave no respect to their enemies' human rights."
I'm not saying you shouldn't try prosecuting for torture, if you really feel like it's a fight that has to happen. I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised torture took place ... and even if you win, it will not stop the United States from using torture again. When we want something badly enough and we think torture is the only way to get it, we will torture. Bet on it. No matter what laws have been passed. No matter what strictures are in place. No matter what the president says in public. It is not nice. It is not humane. It should not happen. But it will. And you shouldn't be surprised by it. If you are surprised by it, you are disingenuous or naive.
Here's an unrelated example which is less hostile and less controversial, I should think. Think of this as the gentle, sweet-tempered example. This web comic got me thinking.
It startles me that anyone, especially someone who was interested in history to begin with, could ever have thought that the situation with recorded history is anything other than depicted in the chart in that comic. I'm sorry it came as a rude surprise to Dava Butler (and I'm glad it didn't put her off history - history is important). But I admit I am genuinely surprised that it could possibly be a surprise. To anyone.
I mean, where did you think history came from?
History is folklore. All history changes in the retelling. History is an imperfect vessel of the past filtered through layers upon layers of human interpretation and bias. None of this should be news to anyone.
I sometimes wonder if I need to exercise more patience with humans. God knows I can be slow sometimes, but that's entirely the point: If it's obvious to me, the thickest head on the block, then surely it should be obvious to everyone else as well. I think of myself as the least common denominator, and I would prefer to be; the alternative is very disconcerting.
If I can't remain naive about this, then I will be forced to be disingenuous.
I take your point, and, if this makes sense, I sympathize with it without being entirely sure I agree with it.
I think the test case is the "little white lie" - the small untruth out of social politeness/diplomacy. Your stance, it seems to me, would endorse the white lie if it were useful. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Me, I'm on the fence. While I agree that it has virtues as a social lubricant, and that sometimes it is easier and better to tell the white lie, I often wonder if it wouldn't be for the best in the long run to say, "Look, I bear no particular malice toward you, but I think it would really help all aspects of your life if you started bathing more often." I mean, yes, the recipient might stop speaking to you for a while, and you might get a reputation for poorly-socialized bluntness ... but on the other hand, he might indeed start bathing more often. Dunno.
-- 18:54, 2 September 2009 (BST)
Iain:
When we want something badly enough and we think torture is the only way to get it, we will torture. Bet on it. No matter what laws have been passed. No matter what strictures are in place. No matter what the president says in public. It is not nice. It is not humane. It should not happen. But it will. And you shouldn't be surprised by it. If you are surprised by it, you are disingenuous or naive.
I really don't think that most people are surprised that there was torture; they aren't stupid. And honestly, I don't think there's much surprise about the whole thing at all, at this long-distant point. There's disgust and distaste because torture became official government policy, with guidelines about how to do what should only ever be aberrant, and the extent -- and periodic idiocy -- of that policy. (Really, you can smash someone's head against a wall, but you're supposed to make sure that they don't get whiplash? Because concussions are so much better?)
It startles me that anyone, especially someone who was interested in history to begin with, could ever have thought that the situation with recorded history is anything other than depicted in the chart in that comic. I'm sorry it came as a rude surprise to Dava Butler (and I'm glad it didn't put her off history - history is important). But I admit I am genuinely surprised that it could possibly be a surprise. To anyone.
REALLY, Col. Of course it's a surprise, especially to someone young; people are always taught that history is this definitive ... thing. Coming to the realization that history is made by the victors, and the interpreted records and artifacts that we find, is something that you really do have to realize. I'd wager, meself, that it's a realization that you had so long ago that you no longer remember how surprising it was to understand that.
If I can't remain naive about this, then I will be forced to be disingenuous.
...No comment. Absolutely none. Whatsoever.
-- 18:59, 2 September 2009 (BST)
"I often wonder if it wouldn't be for the best in the long run to say, 'Look, I bear no particular malice toward you, but I think it would really help all aspects of your life if you started bathing more often.'"
I can't agree. I've watched my mom all my life, saying exactly what she thinks, to whomever she thinks "needs" to hear it. Now she's almost 90, all alone, and when she dances off this mortal coil, there will be no service, no gathering, no nothing, because nobody will be sorry she's gone, except that maybe they'll have to find another bridge partner or something.
The thing is, she's entitled to her opinion, sure, but I don't think she should say things that hold the potential for hurt or embarrassment. It's not her place. After all, it's mostly just her own opinion, and who died and made her the goddess?
I don't consider staying quiet to be hypocritical, but more a matter of self-preservation. You can remain true to yourself without alienating somebody else with an unnecessary comment. True, in the case of bathing, for instance, you might be helping the individual. You're generally not the only one who has noticed the problem, and yeah, somebody ought to speak up, only nobody else does. But hair color, weight, choice of clothing? None of my beezwax and I keep my own counsel.
This can be taken further, into the realm of "silent majority." Avoiding confrontation by keeping quiet about your point of view. In cases like that, I try to limit my comments to venues where thoughtful discussion is practiced and appreciated. I'm no zealot, so I avoid the soapbox and keep a low profile.
As for being naive, I admit to being a complete and utter optimist. I hold out hope that Things Will Be Okay, despite much evidence to the contrary. It's not naive or disingenuous. It's hopeful. Nothing particularly spiritual about it, except I do pretty much believe in karma. If I had to be "realistic" as you suggest, I'd be miserable all the time. I'd have to throw up my hands in utter despair and wonder why bother. So far, I've avoided that outlook. It's the only way I can survive. Wish me luck.
-- 19:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)
Iain: See, this is where we get into whether I am being cynical or realistic. I say that torture has always been policy, under the surface, whenever circumstances were deemed to justify it. Sometimes the "justification" has been thin indeed. My wife would claim there is NO acceptable justification for torture, and she has a point.
My personal belief is, however unacceptable, it has always gone on below the surface - what happened in Junior's regime was that it got so close to the surface that the majority of the public suddenly couldn't ignore or remain ignorant of the fact it was happening. Soon it will wash back deeply enough again that they can safely kid themselves, and life will go on as usual.
Somewhere, in nearly any prison or detention facility you could pick at random, at this moment, someone is being treated in an inhumane way for a trumped-up reason. I do not claim this is excusable. In fact I say it is horrendous. But that wasn't what I was discussing - I was discussing the tendency of people to want to close their eyes and ignore it and claim to be surprised by it.
Coming to the realization that history is made by the victors, and the interpreted records and artifacts that we find, is something that you really do have to realize. I'd wager, meself, that it's a realization that you had so long ago that you no longer remember how surprising it was to understand that.
You could be right. In which case it would be about the first time I had reached the stage in Piaget's scale where I was capable of realizing that words could talk about something that had already happened. That must have been pretty damned early indeed. If Mom was talking about something that happened last week, of course it was told through Mom's lens. History in books could not possibly be any different.
I refuse to admit the possibility that I was unusually insightful about this.
-- 22:44, 2 September 2009 (BST)
How about this position (I'm not advocating it, just articulating it): Yes, there is going to be torture. But I want the torturers to have to do the calculus of "I'm going to go to prison for the rest of my life for what I'm about to do. Is it worth it? Is the result I expect to get worth losing my freedom forever?" If you really thought you could save 8 million lives from a nuclear device in New York City by hooking up KSM's gonads to some high-voltage wires, and you were willing to spend the rest of your life in prison, they sure, throw the switch. But if the results are not worth your life to you, then don't go torturing someone else to get them.
-- 02:53, 3 September 2009 (BST)
No, Col, I think the white lie thing is orthogonal to trying to live up to standards that are higher than you can actually manage to achieve. Whatever you decide your standards on honesty are, I don't think "I know I'm *going* to white-lie in the following ways," should necessarily mean, "And therefore I believe it's okay to do so."
-- 17:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)
Oh, well, I agree. That's not the sort of hypocrisy I thought you were initially talking about.
I guess my question would be whether it is hypocritical to have high standards if you knew those standards were never, ever going to be met. I can't decide. I mean, I think there's an issue with setting your standards too high, but I'm not sure if it fits my definition of the term "hypocrisy," which to me is more closely linked with "one standard for me, another for everybody else."
-- 17:30, 3 September 2009 (BST)
Mrissa:
I think hypocrisy is underrated. I think having a set of standards we would like to be able to live up to is a good idea even when we can't quite get there. Obviously this doesn't mean we should go around being crassly hypocritical all the time, and there's a big difference between "this is what I should do and I'm having trouble getting there" and "this is what other people should do but it doesn't apply to me." But hypocrisy is so thoroughly bashed that it's not at all hard for it to be underrated.
I did an author interview for a magazine today, and one of the questions they asked me was whether a book or character had ever disillusioned me. With regards to character, I thought, "Huh? Who thinks of book characters that way? They are *fictional*." But with books, not for a very long time. Sad but true.
-- 18:47, 2 September 2009 (BST)