I, Ego. You, Critic
The blog. I like to speak in the abstract, because it creates a sense of personal absolution. Alfred Kinsey argued, “Everyone’s sin is no one’s sin. And everyone’s crime is no crime at all.” It’s a misleading bit of rhetoric, and patently poor logic, but with a little twist, you have the implicit formula for moralizers of all stripes, times, and ages.
Examples abound, but I’ll stick with one, because you’ll recognize the saturating form instantly. Here’s a typical phrase from apologist Tony Campolo, “We preachers have good reason for not clarifying what is involved in being a follower of Christ, because we ourselves are not about to do the things that Christ required of His disciples.”
The contents of the phrase are irrelevant. You see it. I think you know what you see. It’s that deceptive “we”. The inclusion of the self in a criticism which, self-applicable or not, really serves to vindicate the self in the public eye, or at least mitigate criticism, by beating one’s critics to note the flaw. In one effortless stroke a man performs self-condemnation, rises above peer-condemnation, and irreproachably condemns his peers.
It’s a crime I favour.
While the form is easily abused, I don’t believe it’s all bad. It serves men of many intents, some intents nobler than others, some men nobler than others.
A man’s warped ego is most apparent in his public personas. Even humility, in public, is often a product of ego. I won’t say always, since I don’t know much about souls and suspect some are purer than others.
Mine, at least, fits this description. I believe it’s inevitable. One might try to deny or repress it completely; the likely result of such an attempt is mere self-deception.
Let me sidle into the first person here. My ego thrusts me forward and onward, helps me to grow in many ways: intellectually, relationally, perhaps even spiritually and emotionally. To an extent.
To give it free reign is the danger. Like most people I am subject – or ought to be – to the checks and balances that naturally stem from peer relationships and the willful submission to authorities I recognize to be superior to me in some way. Ideally, my ego foments the desire and discipline required to learn and excel, and humility before those I trust reigns in it’s more destructive impulses.
A friend of mine had a quote on our dorm-room wall by Ralph Waldo Emerson that I’ve always liked (and may have posted before): “Every man I meet is in some way my superior, and I can learn from him.” It’s important to remember that the most basic way people learn is by imitation, but constructive criticism can also pave the way for new areas of imitation.
This all leads into a pretty simple idea I had. I was thinking I’d like to start a new blog eventually, called “You, Critic”. I would furnish it with a couple of simple rules.
1) I as author would not be allowed to use pronouns, except in what might be called asides to the audience. These would be for informational purposes only, in note form.
2) Criticisms of all kinds would be encouraged. I need to figure out how to get people to overcome the natural social barriers that keep us from being overly blunt with out criticisms, but I think there are ways. I can worry about that later. The thing is, I would not allow myself to respond to any of them, ever.
3) I would respond only to direct questions, and these I would try to respond to individually, and as completely as possible. Given the rambling nature of a lot of online posting, (cf. present post) I would guarantee responses, but it’s a guideline. But the bottom line is, if no question is forwarded, no reply would be given. The criticism would stand open for public evaluation without my rebuttal.
I believe this would force me to ponder criticisms internally, hopefully assimilating whatever truths they contained, rather than focusing on saving face in a public setting.
All that writing, and that’s about it. One further note: the criticisms would ideally be of all types: addressing rhetoric, content, logic, choice of subject matter, psychological caveats, and so on. I’d try to provide a static taxonomy for suckling critics learning to use their voice.
~~
Also, I don’t like Tony Campolo, just to clear that up. The quote serves illustrative purposes only.
steph said,
Jan 21, 19:22 #
well, despite what you thought, one person has now read your ideas in full.
possible? perhaps. necessary? still questioning.
Theburdman said,
Jan 22, 18:21 #
I think that it is quite appropriate that use quote Emerson, as this post has a transcendental feel to it. I only say that though, with my presuppositions about transcendentalism. I should probably research it more. I remember having a conversation with you once about the book Walden, but now I am rambling too.
I let my ego go unchecked as much as I can. It is a bit dangerous, as it often leaves me uninspired, but I do it for many reasons. The chief one is probably in an attempt to compensate for my neurosis and other insecurities. Perhaps I should attempt to make mine more efficient, but I feel that my happiness is at stake.
Now this is only my philosophy, but my style of blogging is usually personal and silly. I think this is good for me. I think it works to express my individuality, which is the appeal. I sometimes have interesting insights on more impersonal posts, but facts are too subjective for my tastes.