untitled
Chapter Five. The dark side of Miss Manners
Irene: Why not? Even if he's wrong, who is he hurting?
T : Didn't we already cover this? By arguing for this position, he
moves us a little closer to that unnecessarily dangerous and
deplorable situation in which indifference to life and death has
become the norm. Ever visit the inner city, and talk to some of the
gang bangers there? As a teacher, I had the experience of doing
just that. And you know, the one common thread that ran through the
commentary of those who insisted on making a lifestyle out of doing
truly foolhardy things, was that they didn't even care if they died.
If someone is truly unafraid of anything, even death, then what
happens to the deterrent power of the threat of punishment? What
happens to the ability of the police, even when armed, to maintain
civil order, if those would breach it have been given such a false
sense of security, that they have become indifferent to any weapon
an officer may bring out? Look at the moonscapes that our inner
cities have become and the blood that their streets are drowning
in, and then try to tell me that the sort of lassez-faire attitude
that Robert promotes has proved harmless where it has been adopted.
Quite the contrary. It has lead to the notion that getting oneself
killed senselessly is a sign of heroism and manhood, because people
can still see the bravado and be impressed by it - but they will
no longer let themselves think about the tragedy or ask themselves
whether it served any purpose. The praise showered on those who act
foolishly and the scorn heaped on the more sensible, by those who
are no longer willing to think about the reasons they may have to
refrain from unnecessary risks, makes bloodshed a thing not averted,
but rather sought for its own sake, as if it were a good!
Irene: While you treat incivility as a thing to be desired for its own
sake. Do two wrongs make a right?
T : Should we be prepared to trade that which makes it even possible to
have a civil order, in exchange for the illusion of kindness we
maintain by not challenging the irresponsible things we hear, and
the irresponsible people who utter them? Let us not imagine that
the streets of our communities will be any safer, if we should
discard that reverence and treasuring of life among our peoples,
that have served to keep them so, in so many other, gentler places,
beyond the smoking ruins of what once were living communities.
Look at what has happened, when those now approaching adulthood,
thinking themselves to be the first who ever questioned tradition,
have rejected those values with a sneer, and not a second thought.
Gangs have been seen to form, in towns that had never seen a single
murder. It is our ability to feel for ourselves, and others, through
the insights we so gain - and our resulting ability to see reason -
that makes us more than bloodthirsty animals, that kill when the
first senseless impulse arises. Remove that, and all the world may
be another Englewood, if not worse.
Indeed, worse is to be expected. When the threat of personal harm no
longer suffices to deter our now uncaring masses, from lawless
conduct, the authorities may find themselves having to choose
between allowing the end of the rule of law, or engaging in
horrific reprisals against innocent third parties - the families,
friends and loved ones of the perpetrators. As those in power have
felt forced to do in other times, and other places, when people have
become indifferent to their own survival. Even if our criminal feels
pride and even pleasure in going to the injection chamber, our ruler
of a decaying society might think, let's see how much pride he feels
in getting his children dismembered, or how much pleasure he may
feel as he is roasted alive. Barbarism, in the name of law. But,
history teaches us, that is where this brand of "courage" leads us.
Irene: This fear seems exaggerated to me.
T : If you think this overdramatic, read a little Middle Eastern
history, and see where Robert's brand of bravado ultimately lead.
Or, for that matter, Medieval or Renaissance European history. Or
present day life in most of Africa. If you wish to be less scholarly
about it, go visit the inner city, where the gang lords have become
the effective law, and see how comfortable that they have become
with violently going after the families of their opponents, and with
the atrocities they commit. The caving of a young woman's skull in,
as her body is raped in its' death throes. The burning alive of
one who can't pay his debts, until, too disfigured to be gazed on,
he is sent onto the El with a box hanging by the stumps of his arms.
As one of the members of the gang that did it watches their victim
beg for money, he laughs as he watches him collect a few dollars
each night, trying to repay a debt that is compounding daily.
(As for where the law is, while all of this is going on, in clear
sight of those who would look, it is where it has always been. Down
at Dunkin Donuts, waiting for the next bribe, surrounded by a public
that couldn't care less, and takes pride in this.)
But then, having met Michael, you know of whom I speak. How eye
opening it might have been, if you had met one of the young
witnesses. You know, it'll probably come as a shock, but as the
terrorised populace of such places huddles behind locked doors at
night, ettiquette does not tend to be its primary concern.
When life is held cheaply, these are the experiences that it brings
in its brief, ghastly course. That which is not treasured, is rarely
protected. Yet, those who lead us in this direction, are still
thought of as being kind and gentle souls.
These are the fruits of Robert's brand of enlightenment. And of
absolute tolerance being so relentlessly demanded as a condition
for being regarded as a civilised human being, that it comes at
the expense of the survival of human compassion, as people find
their hands tied whenever they try to oppose the rising tide of
barbarism. Until those hands get burned off, I suppose.
Irene: Yes, but those gang leaders are just sociopaths with a little
power, not a societal phenomenon.
T : How did they get their power, except through the influence they
gained over others? You speak of power as if it were a force of
nature, untouchable by man, instead of a reflection of how man has
conditioned himself to behave. Those sociopaths were molded, in
part, by their society, and rose to prominence because the social
conditions around them proved advantageous for the realisation of
their ambitions. These conditions are mutable, as are the prevalent
attitudes that lead to their creation.
Even so, are we always so far removed from the savagery mentioned,
as we'd like to believe? Or do some of us merely show more skill,
in sweeping our sins under the carpet? Those kids in Iraq who were
incinerated on the road of death, surely suffered as much as
Michael, for as little reason, and yet those who fired upon them
from behind were received as returning heroes. Relable the killing
of those who didn't want to be there, as they fled for their lives,
as a strategic choice, and watch how much trouble our "civilised"
citizenry is now having remembering the most basic concepts of right
and wrong. Is this a path we should proceed down any further?
One might argue that standard ettiquette does great harm in cases
such as these, by allowing people to take pride in their exercise of
virtues that they need not take the trouble to actually develop, as
it silences those who would force them to face the true nature of
their conduct. By helping to keep our consciences silent, by
falsely reassuring them that all we do is wonderful.
The reaping of innocents and the use of torture aren't abberations
in human history, they are the unacceptable norm. One that our
species laboriously rose above through centuries of bargaining, and
experiencing, and thinking, as we constructed ways of life that gave
us the opportunity to be more than the monsters that unthinking
nature made us to be - becoming more as the gods would have us. The
creation that took ages, and yet can be forgotten in a generation.
Irene: I don't see what this has to do with Robert.
T : At the foundation of the assumptions that this common
understanding rests on, is a reverence for life. One that a man such
as Robert would persuade us to throw away, just to get a little
attention. Cut away at its foundation, and our conceptual edifice
will not survive, at the instinctual level where it must function
in order to be effective.
With it will die the way of life it defines.
Irene: And Robert will do all of this by himself? I had no idea that he
was so formidable an adversary.
T : True, Robert won't substantially change the world on his own, but
he'll contribute to a change that we'd best not accept. Think of it
like this. If I throw a bit of garbage out into the street, you
can't see the difference. But if everyone feels free to do a little
bit of damage, in this way, soon we are living in a sewer. We must
act, not merely with the immediate consequences of our own actions
in mind, but with the understanding of what the attitude it reflects
will make of the world around us, if it should spread. Many small
contributions, for good or evil, together will have a major impact
on the life each of us faces.
Irene: Is it not the inevitable reality of life, though, that people
won't think that way?
T : If it is inevitable, then why isn't it universal?
If one travels, and sees the broad variation in the quality of life
to be found from place to place, one soon sees that it is indeed
possible for the people of a place to appreciate this, and for the
most part, refrain from doing that which they would agree would
make for a bad custom. Unthinking selfishness is not the inevitable
norm. Nor is it the one that endures, for those societies that
embrace it wither and die, to be displaced by those living by
more cooperative norms. One need not travel far either, to see such
places. A Metra ticket will still suffice. (*) But much is lost and
suffered in the process, so it is best that social progress be
achieved through thought and rational discussion, and not some
societal analog of natural selection.
But if people feel no obligation to be reasonable, and really think
about the things they say, such discussion becomes impossible.
Irene: But you do seem to go unusually ballistic when the question is
one of a philosophical nature.
T : I would disagree. If my words should summon forth emotion, I do not
apologise. We are speaking of morality, and how its observance or
breach shall impact on life. It is only natural that emotions should
be stirred by the suggestion of such an impact. But what I have said
has been offered with an understanding of emotion, not framed by it.
Would it be rational for me to look past the ills that an attitude
would bring about if adopted, because we will feel ill toward it on
thinking about them, or should I recognise that this is a sign that
the issue is important enough to us to command our attention?
As for the precedence I give such subjects, remember that in
speaking of them, we do not merely express our own thoughts, but
also influence those of others, and so more is at stake. Given
the memory of how people have responded, it would be disingenuous to
pretend otherwise.
Irene: Even so, is what Robert is doing here, really that bad?
T : We must remember that as we act and speak, we influence those around
us, who influence others in turn ... and our actions are thus felt
by those who never know of us, much as a ripple on the surface of a
lake will reach places far from where it originated. But unlike that
ripple, our influence, if it is a fresh one, in capturing the
attention and imagination of those who it reaches, may pick up
strenghth. Imagine the tempest that our seas would soon be consumed
by, if waves were to behave like that.
Yet, such is the nature of public discourse, because our ettiquette
calls on dissenters to not dissent too effectively, while all around
rush in to agree with the consensus of the moment, each eager to do
so a little more forcefully than the ones before, in order to win
the favorable attention of his peers. The slight breeze that is the
wind that each wishes to blow with, soon becomes an unreasoning
storm, as the popular consensus is driven to a new absurd extreme.
One that people will find increasingly difficult to dissipate.
Robert and Elaine's philosophy, of ignoring that which makes one
unhappy, removes a counterbalancing force, to this drive toward
extremism through conformity. The hope might be, that as the
consequences of ill conceived ideas become more horrific, a backlash
might arise. But our courageous couple would have us merely change
what our idea of good was, in order to be able to think of the
unpleasant consequences of our actions as if they were pleasant
ones. This dulls the awareness of the harm being done, and keeps
those doing it from stepping back, and thinking about their actions.
This sort of attitude destabilises society. We do right, when we
defy the foolish code of ettiquette that inspires it, sensibly
electing to help undermine it in a small way, by doing so.
Irene: Be that as it may, aren't you being unreasonably apocalyptic?
T : You mean, in anticipating the possible decay of societal values,
and the civil order they make possible?
Look back at what is left of our cities, if you think that
we aren't well on our way there. Places where the police extract
confessions out of suspects through beatings, burnings and
electroshock torture, to public approval. Cities so much of which
have been leveled, as people have torched buildings for the sheer
delight of watching them burn, that it is often hard to tell
that the land one gazes on is theoretically part of a city. Where
1,000 people can be on official record as having been gunned down in
the course of a year, without anyone seeing anything unusual about
this. I'm not sure what I'd call this state of affairs, but
"civilisation" is not the word that comes to mind.
One need not speculate on how those who act to make this reality
happen can bring themselves to accept it. They use almost the exact
same words that Robert has used here. "We all have to die sometime,
so who cares?" Only, when Robert says this to suburbanites, the
nihilism is a trendy novelty for them, while it's established custom
in the inner city. Robert is pushing those around him into trying a
social experiment that has already been carried out - with
consequences that have been documented in exhaustive, nightmarish
detail. Consequences that we are seeing repeated elsewhere, now, and
can expect to see in greater depth if the attitudes in question take
hold more firmly.
Shouldn't we, as a society, have pulled back, long before going down
this unpleasant path? Where is the virtue in waiting for for such
absolutely predictable horrors, to unfold, before making the attempt
to avoid them? Why knowingly start in a bad direction? Having had
its unpleasantness thrust in our faces, why proceed down it any
further than we already have?
One doesn't have the right to contribute to that which makes such
unfortunate realities as those just mentioned, possible.
your options
- continue with this discussion
- question : aren't these discussions getting rather unnecessarily long?
click here for an answer to that
(*) Metra is a commuter rail system for the Chicago metropolitan area. A trip on Metra could not take one any further out than the suburbs.
bravenet.com