So I am glancing at the op ed pages of today’s New York Times and I come across a piece that makes me grit my teeth with how it begins. I was planning to read and consider it because it was titled Trump, Truth and the Power of Contradiction, which sounded interesting.
Why did I grit my teeth? Consider the first sentence:
Consistency, Emerson said, is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Except, that is NOT what Emerson said, and it is a distortion of his intent. It is from his essay “Self Reliance.” Allow me to put the proper quotation in bold as I give you the entire paragraph from which it comes:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
It is not that Emerson was opposed to consistency per se, but rather that insisting upon consistency at the expense of more important things, for example, the search for real truth and meaning, is truly foolish.
This is one of two phrases that I consistently see misquoted, even by people who should know better. The other comes from the Supreme Court opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr in Schenck v Us, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the case which established the “clear and present danger” test as the standard by which free speech could be restricted. One often hears someone say, “Well, after all, you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.” Except that is NOT what Holmes wrote, and is also a distortion of his intent. Again, with the appropriate words in bold, here is the context in which the actual words so often misquoted appear (omitting the citation of a previous case:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that, if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced.
By the reasoning that follows the oft misquoted words, if a theater were on fire shouting so serves an essential and protected purpose, whereas if it is not it causes a panic such that it creates a “clear and present danger” to the safety of the others in the theater, a danger for safety and order.
I have two purposes in posting this piece. I will start with the notion of accurate use of famous phrases, but then get to the underlying issue of consistency, not as it appears in the op ed, but rather as I see it misused in a way that distorts our politics and policy.
We already have a problem with the expressions of famous people taken out of context nin order to make particular points, political or otherwise. Thus we have seen those who wish to oppose efforts to remedy the damage still done by the racism historic and present in our society take the following words of Dr. King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
But King spoke those words in a broader context, that is, of a major transformation of an American society that was still distorted by racism and discrimination. Consider the words that immediately follow those I have just quoted:
I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
And yet, today, in Alabama and elsewhere we still see many of the same attitudes, perhaps not as overtly expressed. But is not the idea of rejection of Federal authority “interposition and nullification” often offered because of people who wish to reject Federal efforts to make the lives of those who can be classified as “other” by race, religion, sexual orientation or some other category better than they are, to lift ALL people up?
At least when the actual words are misapplied, we are able to argue about whether they are an appropriate application, about the intent of the person who first offered them, and whether they are relevant in the context in which they are now applied.
Those of us who teach have a responsibility to teach critical thinking, at least we should. But we have to acknowledge that someone can use such a skill to reach very different conclusions than we would, in part because humans as individuals and when they come together in groups/societies are not mathematical formulae that are determined by the factors used.
That comes to the issue of consistency. We start with the notion that some people wish to drive all of politics through an ideological lens. We can see this on both sides of the political divide: those who insist that something is not pure conservatism, or — and this is certainly relevant on this site — who claim that someone or something is not “progressive” because of a position on one or more issues, ignoring the thrust of the political actions of a lifetime.
But even for those who do not view things purely ideologically, there is a strong tendency to play “gotcha” if we think we can find a contradiction between what is said or done on one occasion versus another.
But go back and look at the first category of people Emerson slams for their dedication to “foolish consistency” — little statesmen.
Perhaps I am more willing to reflect before I judge as I approach the end of my 7th decade in 15 days. I note that once I announced my support of Secretary Clinton some months ago some dragged out what I wrote in a different context 8 years previously. Although I can justify the change of positions to a different context, I acknowledge that I was far more judgmental then, that the experience of living with my wife’s cancer and the wrestling I have done with what I do with the rest of my time on earth since I first tried to retire has resulted in my being less judgmental.
But this is not about me. Rather, it is about the human condition. The teenagers I have taught, ranging from 7th to 12th graders, often have a finally honed sense of justice and fairness. It usually starts with their identifying if they think people are being treated differently. One thing I try to teach them, to help them learn, is that there can be circumstances that warrant differential treatment. Perhaps it is the old apparent conflict between justice and mercy, the former seen as absolute with no variation of consequences because of circumstances, the latter being willing to forgive and help rebuild. Our terminology sometimes show this — the attempt by Quakers to rename what had been known as prisons to a new term, penitentiaries, with the idea that sufficient repentance could allow us to welcome back those who had previously offended us, violated the basic social contract necessary for us to live in civil society.
Please note, I do not in the words I offer here attempt to justify all inconsistency. That can be as foolish, in Emerson’s mind as well as mine, as an insistence upon absolute consistency in all circumstances.
When we encounter, in a politician seeking our support or an acquaintance wishing to maintain a commercial or personal relationship with us, something that seems inconsistent, it is of course possible that what we perceive as inconsistent is in fact quite consistent in a larger picture or according to a set of standards of which we lack knowledge. Thus it might be more appropriate to inquire rather than to scream our objections.
I look at that last sentence and I think of how much that is wrong about our political discourse. We are far too quick to scream our objections.
I have no trouble with loud voicing over injustice, especially as I see it applied to others who might lack the voice or agency to fully advocate on their own behalf.
And I am more than aware of many statements that inform us of the need to speak up, to act forcefully, in the attempt to rectify the wrongs that we encounter. Certainly had I any doubts, I would again go and read words of Dr. King, starting with his Letter From Birmingham Jail.
I had not intended to post this morning. I sit in my local Starbucks. I planned to glance at the paper, then get to work on filing applications for teaching jobs for next year, since I have no guarantee of continuing in my current position and this is prime hiring season among local districts and schools. I also need to work on the demonstration lesson I will be presenting on Thursday for a very interesting opportunity.
I read the words in the op ed, and found myself annoyed. First my annoyance was at yet again seeing the words misquoted, and then about the notion of consistency.
I think that when we quote words for effect, we have a responsibility to quote them accurately. That is a necessary first condition. Then we should be careful if we are applying them outside the context in which they were originally offered. It is possible that we may find them useful as a lens to examine something very different from how they were originally intended, and if so we should acknowledge the difference in how we apply them, rather than leaving our listeners/readers to infer that by using them we are asserting the person whose words they were would necessarily affirm the cause to which we apply them.
So I guess I am concerned with consistency on several levels. I think we do have an obligation to accuracy in using words of others.
But ultimately, I am more than willing to cut politicians and others some slack when what may appear as inconsistent is because of addressing the very messy inconsistency of the human condition.
It is one reason I push back so much against standardized testing and measurement as the sine qua non of current educational policy, because our students are not standardized.
It is why I am willing to listen to ideas from people with whom I can strongly disagree on most issues, because I live in the same space, and should try to understand their concerns, and be willing to work together on issues on which we agree, even if I might forcefully condemn some of their other positions.
I am at times inconsistent. I acknowledge that.
I would hope that when I am not, when I am consistent, it is not for foolish reasons.
The most foolish reason I can think of for consistency is the fear of being accused of being inconsistent.
And because of that, I recognize that I still need to work on being less judgmental towards others.
Just some thoughts for a Sunday morning?