(no subject)

[rivka]

In all persons there is the possibility of decency, however it may have been warped and deadened. The greatest adventure is to seek it out and establish it.
-George O'Dell

This is one of my articles of faith as a therapist. I heard this quote yesterday, at church, and seized upon it as an expression of something I have long believed. I used to say that my therapeutic skill rested on my ability to find a grain of likeability in just about anyone, and my belief in the possibility of change. But I like this way of expressing it better, because I can believe in the possibility of decency (however deadened) even in people for whom I can't find a single present thing to like.

I'm not sure that this is a particularly common article of faith. In some circles I move in, I get the feeling that the reverse is true - that there's a usually-unvoiced belief that real people, decent people who matter (because they're highly intelligent, and read for pleasure, and weren't popular in high school, and don't believe in silly things like Christianity or mainstream culture) are a small minority, while the majority of people are pretty much wastes of space. Deadwood. Sheeple.

How to explain the eagerness to believe that "most people" are everything you despise?

Comments

Elegant

[wiredferret.livejournal.com]

Ah, thank you. That is a very elegant way of putting it, indeed.

Mine gets expressed: "I cannot know all of someone, and choose to believe that the unseen is more than the seen."

Off the cuff

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

1)So they can feel better about themselves. Reminds me of a recent rant in a friend journal about how some northerners put down the South as backward, ignorant and bigoted like somehow those things don't exist in the northern states.

2)Because it takes less effort than believing in "the possibility of decency (however deadened) even in people for whom I can't find a single present thing to like."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Wow. Love that quote.

I'm certainly no therapist, but this is pretty close to my own philosophy of life. Everybody's worthwhile, somehow. Look for the good in people, and you'll find it. Complaining all the time about everybody else just makes *you* feel worse. Etc.

Thanks.

-J

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Add me to those who choose to expect the "possibility of decency" in people until they prove its absence (and they have to work pretty hard to do that).

There was an interesting thread in a.c on a related subject - whether one's default is to trust people or not - last week, and I came down on the "trust" side.

I've had some challenging opportunities to put this position to the test (ask me sometime about my "redneck" next-door-neighbor, back during the OCA campaigns), but the net result of trust and belief in fundamental human decency has been a positive one.

Expect the best of people and, remarkably often, they'll deliver it.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

How to explain the eagerness to believe that "most people" are everything you despise?

I think it's elitism, practiced by people who want to turn the fact they were rejected into a perverse badge of honor, rather than recognizing that yeah, just maybe they really were socially inept klutzes once. (Or perhaps they still are?)


A correlary to the "possibility of decency" is a desire to somehow acheive some measure of respect or admiration or whatever. I've used this to good advantage in the past, telling a ragtag bunch of Marines who'd been dumped on me that they'd been sent to our Company because we asked for the best mechanics their units could spare. (Well, we did, not that we expected such.) Sure, I knew they'd really been sent just to get rid of somebody else's disciplinary problems. But damn if it didn't work. Those men bought it, and went out and worked like Indy 500 pit crews, and even started to take some pride in themselves again.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"I think it's elitism..."

Hm. More likely, it's snobbery, at least along the lines laid out by Joseph Epstein, whose new book, Snobbery: The American Version I happen to have right here. Here's a pair of quotes, to show what I mean:

"The distinction, I believe, is that the elitist desires the best; the snob wants other people to think he has, or is associated with, the best. Delight in excellence is easily confused with snobbery..."

And:

"Snobbery, like religion, works through hope and fear. The snob hopes to position himself securely among those whom he takes to be the best, most elegant, virtuous, fashionable, or exciting people. He also fears contamination from those he deems beneath him. Snobs who have arrived do what they can to encourage hopelessness among those who haven't. Snobs who haven't arrived fear rejection the way other people fear cancer -- it represents death, of a social kind."

Great book. Highly recommended. As is most stuff by Epstein, who's been doing essays for 30-mumble years now.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, I just read a review of that book in the Baltimore Sun book reviews not very long ago. The behavior certainly fits Epstein's definition, though I think it's a hair-splitting definition that differs from common usage. Elitism, in general, is a view which excludes all but a select few. That covers the sort of conduct Rivka was refering to above.

Also, since we're looking at Epstein's ideas, I'll allow as while many religions preach a doctrine based on some combination of hope and fear, my experience of religion has been that religion works on faith and belief.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"The behavior certainly fits Epstein's definition, though I think it's a hair-splitting definition that differs from common usage."

Hm. So, it fits, which is presumably good, but it's "hair-splitting", which is presumably bad. Heavens. An essayist and magazine editor using words with specific meanings that add precision and nuance to the language, rather than clumping disparate words together in ways that don't add any meaning. Who'd've thought?

It's hard for me to say whether Epstein's use matches "common usage" or not. I just haven't read enough to have what I would regard as a sufficiently large sample size to make or refute such an assertion. And I would hate to clothe my own personal judgements in such an authoritative garment as "common usage". I hope you feel the same way.

"I'll allow as while many religions preach a doctrine based on some combination of hope and fear, my experience of religion has been that religion works on faith and belief."

So, um... For you neither faith nor belief are a sub-set of hope?

[wcg.livejournal.com]

See, I don't think he's adding precision and nuance to the language. It looks to me more like he's attempting to force a distinction that is, in itself, a sort of snobbery. But I imagine reasonable people can disagree on these things.

And no, I see neither faith nor belief as a subset of hope. Hope overlaps strongly with both, but I think it is possible to hold a belief and have faith in something while feeling utterly hopeless.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"It looks to me more like he's attempting to force a distinction that is, in itself, a sort of snobbery. But I imagine reasonable people can disagree on these things."

And it looks to me that you're resolute in thinking that "elitism" must always be used pejoratively. Not unlike the way some people thought about "patriotism", not long ago.

"And no, I see neither faith nor belief as a subset of hope. Hope overlaps strongly with both, but I think it is possible to hold a belief and have faith in something while feeling utterly hopeless."

What's interesting is this is the precise scenario I was thinking of to show that faith is a subset of hope. Just what kind of "faith" can one have without hope, that is not profoundly laced with insincerity, self-deception, or both? The only way I can see out of that is either masochism or nihilism... Neither of which, I'll readily admit, I've ever understood well.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

And it looks to me that you're resolute in thinking that "elitism" must always be used pejoratively.

Perhaps I am, but I see no point in continuing this discourse.

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

Because if you get put down enough times for being something, and you realize that everyone else you know is that something too, eventually you get one of those "reverse pride" things going?

Just a thought.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

I'm an unashamed misanthrope. I think people suck... until they walk in my office and then the "find the good in people" switch goes on and stays on (most of the time... I do have my failures...).

I have no issue with saying that in general, I can't stand people, I think the world has too many jerks and idiots and self-centered scumbags. I don't know that I think this encompasses "most people" but there is definitely a non-insignificant number of people who make me fantasize about carrying weapons on my person on a daily basis.

But I love my clients, and they've all got redeemable qualities. Doesn't mean I can always redeem them, but hey...

[eeyorerin]

I waver, often, between wanting to find the good in people, wanting to show them kindness even if they show me none, and the desire to disbelieve in everyone that I'm not close to, to write them off and shut them out. I'm aware of the latter tendency, and work hard against it, but sometimes when I feel misunderstood, or hurt, or scared, the temptation is there.

[saoba.livejournal.com]

"How to explain the eagerness to believe that "most people" are everything you despise?"


Beats me. Really.

I find I am looked at oddly by folks with this mindset because I will cheerfully admit I LIKE
people in general I like talking to people, finding out what they think and who they are and what they
have experienced that makes them the way they are.

Even the most ordinary-seeming people are extraordinary, aren't they? I find it to be so, over and over again.

I read a LOT. Our Roomie doesn't. I am fairly liberal in my politics, he is not. He likes to watch
NASCAR and he drinks a domestic beer and what
he knows about feminist theory could be inscribed on my thumbnail. He's a genuinely Good Person, and interesting to talk with. We're very differnet people, but tht doesn't make me 'better' or him one of the sheeple.

"Sheeple". Yeesh. (Not at you, Rivka, just at the idea of using a word like that to deliberately describe people.)


Barbara, who finds the mindset fairly hard to Get.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

...finds the mindset fairly hard to Get.

Think of the way many career military people say "Civilians." It's about the same.

[firecat]

How to explain the eagerness to believe that "most people" are everything you despise?

The Fox and the Grapes -- Aesop

why so eager?

[mittelbar.livejournal.com]

Because if the only thing you are ever taught to defend yourself against vicious and/or selfish peer behavior is "they just do that because [they're jealous/they're stupid/they don't know any better]" you either absorb that lesson or reject it at your own psychic peril? Because people have a strong innate impulse toward tribalism and self-superiority, which they transcend at their own physical and social peril? Because if you value things that are different, you acknowledge the wisdom and decency of the mainstream at the risk of losing your moral compass? Because it's not most people's "job" to overcome a revulsion against the foreign and difficult? Because it doesn't do you a lot of immediate good to believe in human decency if those decent humans mock and beat you? Because hating on outsiders has a quick and satisfying bonding effect? Because some people are very susceptible to psychic injury, and find rejection of others to be a handy preventative?

Because most people really *are* everything you despise, and a dichotomous mindset doesn't allow for them also to be everything you love?

I guess this makes me laugh a little, because I'm pretty sure that most people would say they *do* believe in human decency, if you only phrase the question right.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

I like that quote... it's kind of how I imagined God would have to think, to be able to love everyone. One could love what the person *COULD* be.

Why would people be eager to believe that most people are despicable?

If I'd fallen into that trap, it'd be fear. I've had a small mob spit on me; I was bullied, mocked, and had nasty tricks played on me. But I realized, at some point in time, that the risk was mostly gone. (I wish I had a bit more certainty about that. I still panic, and realize that, even now, I'm not confident that I won't be hounded out of a room full of strangers because of some invisible ugliness about me.)

If I still felt that risk was current, if I still felt that I could suddenly becoming an object of mockery and scorn and hatred, it'd be pretty natural to think low of "the people" who would do that to me.

Herm. A while back, I remembered the group-spitting incident, and I realized that it was, as likely as not, a smallish number of folks. Let's say, 5... still a large number. But, my memory says "everyone at the public pool that day". There were dozens, probably, and I feel as if every single one of them had to be there. But if there were even as many as ten, it would have been too goddamned crowded for any but the spit-champions of the city to reach me, given the small space it occurred in.

If *THAT* was what I accepted as "truth", looking at a crowd would feel more dangerous... and that feeling of danger, that they might 'attack' would be what would cause me to judge them badly.

In the case of misfits, I think part of it is the "jealousy" lie that gets thrown around too often. Many times, the bullies are too stupid to be jealous. But, all these adults tell you it's jealousy, so they must be right... and, thus, you *MUST* be superior.

But I think the bigger part (for misfits, as opposed to egotists) is a set of memories that say that *EVERYONE* did X, and for no good reason, and the inability to realize that it was probably more like a quarter of the folks they remember doing it... and probably 80% of those folks grew out of it, and are occasionally struck with feelings of "gad, what a little *SHIT* I was back then!" (apologies for language, but I wanted something stronger than "feelings or remorse"). So, they don't realize that what they think of as nearly 100% is closer to 5%.

But... I'll also mention that this kind of thing can be part of the healing process. When you can be angry and scornful of the people who do that, it's a sure sign that you realize that you didn't deserve it, and never did. It's making the next step that can be really hard. How can you prove that it was fewer than remembered, or that most of them grew out of a lot of it?

[redbird]

Partly, as firecat said, the sour grapes thing.

And partly because at least some of those groups that "we" (FSVO "we") were excluded from are the majority, or claim to be. "Mainstream culture" is, almost by definition, something lots of people do or enjoy. The majority of Americans do in fact consider themselves Christian (while meaning many different things by that term). If one of the frequent taunts was "you're weird", it's easy to believe that there are damned few like you.

</noodling>