Sigmund Freud was the first to describe the mentality of casting my failures onto somebody else. The crushing thought that I ruined my marriage is too much for me to face, so I blame my ex-spouse. Although exes have long been targets for this kind of treatment, public figures are even better. The further removed from my immediate relations, the safer they become. Something deep inside tells me I’ve failed to live up to my own standards. But it’s dangerous to be bitter towards my spouse. Instead, my anger rises towards President Obama. That way it’s not my fault and I can still live with the people around me.
Psychologists call this projection. It’s usually accompanied by some type of legitimacy to make it believable. I can’t blame Gov. Butch Otter for my own kid’s behavior. That wouldn’t make sense. Instead, I’m angry about the Idaho school propositions that I’m sure as sure will ruin my kid’s education. I’ll research all the data that reinforces my position; I’ll spread my views all over Facebook. It’s a subtle shift, but it takes the culpability off of me and places it squarely on Gov. Otter. Radio programs and talk show hosts are there to help. Fox News will give me plenty of reasons why Obama has ruined my life while MSNBC will tell me why everything is the fault of the House Speaker Boehner.
For Christians, the Bible can be a great source of legitimacy. A selectively literal reading can reinforce my bitterness towards just about any issue or public figure. Even some churches become resources. Liberal churches show me how my problems have been caused by the Republicans; conservative ones likewise with the Democrats. If not officially endorsed by their pastors, these views are often freely available from congregants.
I see the reason for the increasing political divide between the right and the left as partly due to our modern rational society. The idea that we are failures (or sinners) is not appropriate for public discussion. While this is certainly good for religious freedom, it has the side effect of causing this chasm in public life as we search for somebody to blame. If foibles can’t be expressed and forgiven, they get pushed into the subconscious where they emerge as bitterness and anger. The biblical authors were very clear on their assertion: We all fall short in many ways and we desperately crave the forgiveness of Christ.
But since we live in a scientific society, this is just silly religion. Instead, I’ll switch on Sean Hannity and find how Obama’s going to make my life miserable over the next four years. As my anger burns towards Obama, I’ll feel good because it’s not my fault.
Some immediate thoughts:
Is our inability (refusal?) to discuss ourselves as sinners really a matter of our rationality? Is refusing to acknowledge your own moral flaws rational (in any sense)? I guess I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “modern rational society.” Perhaps, the removal of the transcendent from public understanding and discussion; and thereby the discarding, maybe, of talking about the violation of impersonal or universal moral codes, the sort that require some sort of transcendence?
I agree that I’d like to see more public acknowledgement of the dark side of we humans. When I look inside myself, I often cringe. Is it too risky, perhaps, for public figures to admit their own failings, since we, as a culture, place so much emphasis on triumph and success? I think we would benefit from much more acknowledgement of our limitations, moral and otherwise.
I think the problem (and it’s been tagged and named as a problem since around the time of the founding of America, and not just in America, but in much of the Western world then and since) is, who gets to define what is a sin and what isn’t? Do we use the Ten Commandments, which include religious as well as moral commands? (And some glaring omissions, such as, “Don’t have sex with kids” which really would have been a good one to have on there.) Do we consult clerics for some kind of acceptable compromise? Which clerics? What about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Moonies… Does their religious tradition get a say?
I prefer to think instead about Transgressions, based on a rather old, but I think very dependable and agreeable standard: My rights end where yours begin; your rights end where mine begin. As long as my behavior isn’t impinging on some freedom you deserve, and vice versa, we can make a stable society where individuals are free to purse a religious tradition of their choosing, people don’t get robbed, murdered and raped without those things being illegal, and the government doesn’t have to arbitrate between religions and clerics.
@Glen- I like your discussion of the dark side of human beings. I think it is a very real element which we tend to ignore, perhaps because we don’t know how to talk about it in a public manner.
When I said modern rational society I was referring to the post-enlightenment era with respect to pre-modern society. We value rationality when at one time they valued the church. I believe our rational society is a definite improvement over rule by the church and I would never want to go back, but I also want to highlight that there have been some things that have been lost, and we pay the consequences.
Thanks for the comment!
@Sam- I wholly agree about the problem of how to define sin. I have struggled with that question for a long time and still struggle with it. I believe there is a standard; I’m just not sure what that standard would be. I certainly appreciate your view and will have to think about that some more. I wonder if its similar to the mystery of God; something that we know but can’t completely grasp. We aspire to reach it, but there is always room to grow and improve.
@Bruce Personally, I’m okay with ambiguity it my faith. 🙂
Bruce, now I see where you are coming from. I think the jury is still out on what we have lost … I suspect we in the end we may find we have lost more than many seem to currently think. Having said that, I wouldn’t want to go back either, and it wouldn’t happen anyway. Much of what we have lost, however, strikes me as recoverable, though in new forms, if we take past peoples and alternative forms of living seriously, and learn from them.
You seem to be right — we don’t know how to discuss our shadows in public. We seem to have no language for it, something Sam touches on too. This problem seems obviously connected to our having no agreed conceptual framework for discussing morality and making moral judgements.
Bruce, there’s a great book that touches on a lot of what you bring up here. I don’t know if you read Slate and/or are familiar with Farhad Manjoo, but he wrote a book about 4 years ago called “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post Fact Society.” He outlines, using examples across the political spectrum, how we’ve come to live in a world with so much media saturation that we’ve reached the point where we can pick and choose the facts we believe in. You can take, for example, the issue of climate change. In the past that would be something we’d look at as a society and have a conversation/debate about the best way to deal with it. In our current society, we debate whether or not it even exists. Anyway, it’s definitely worth a read. And I think you’re exactly right that our rationally driven cultural paradigm plays into that.
@Aaron- I agree with you and Manjoo that we have a problem with public discussion of facts anymore. I like the term “Post Fact Society,” and I’ll certainly check out Manjoo’s book. Thanks for the comment.