Midterms are over, and I'm escaping life, going to Panera and contemplating failing my finals. Gosh, I miss Panera. The smell of bread and the sounds of people are so comforting. But anyways - failure.
The more that I'm at this school, in a world of fierce academia (although I'm sure Ivy league students would screech with laughter at that), the more I wonder if there isn't a fundamental conflict going on. A fundamental conflict in which I have never chosen a side.
I think that basic human kindness is the lowest common denominator. Simple "niceness", unchecked emotion, unquestioning sympathy -- what would education be, and more than that, what would art be, if these qualities were enough? Imagine the educated wit of A.O. Scott's reviews, the snappy snark of Lorrie Moore's short stories, the gloriously unforgiving imagery of Flannery O'Connor, or Joyce Carol Oates, without their respective wit and snark. Imagine rock music without its scathing commentary on our culture -- oh my god, imagine movies without that! We wouldn't have any Woody Allen movies if just niceness were enough. Hell, imagine blogs. We'd just be reading about feelings, with an endless variety of cheerleading/feeling legitimization in the comments section -- "You're beautiful the way you are and don't you forget it" followed by copying and pasting exclamation points. I mean, oh my god, imagine pinkindiaink without Kat's scornful impudence! There would be no pink india ink in a world like this, friends!
Kindness is not enough. A happy family of poor villagers (why do we always return to "villagers" when we want a controlled scenario? villagers or desert islands..) who care for each other have human kindness and sympathize with one another, but that is not enough. If it were enough, civilization would not have grown around us. There would be no ruthless business world on which we base our economic system, no competitive sports to drive us, no harsh academia to whittle youth into knowledgeable citizens.
You agree with me so far? Snark is important! Wit, high standards, genius, are important! But stop. Stop for a moment and re-read what I said about the villagers.
"A happy family." Those three words evoke the most profound longing for a child of divorced parents. How impossible it seems for them, and how much they would give up to have it, makes my dismissal cold and meaningless. "A family with human kindness." The child of an abusive parent looks at those words without comprehension. "A family of people who sympathize with one another." A person whose family has alienated her/him based on lifestyle or religious choices would feel the lifting of an unbearable burden to have that judgement replaced with "sympathy."
Kindness, therefore, is the lowest common denominator: it is not enough, but without it, everything else is extraneous. Art is snarky and cruel because the author depicts humanity with the vibrant, tingling brush of sarcasm - but the humanity has to be there.
I feel that people forget that. Professors have a reputation for tough love -- and I'm not the type to go running to the teacher, asking to change a grade because of personal problems. I'm used to strictness. But the other day, as I saw a teacher be unbelievably unsympathetic to a student's concern, I suddenly asked "why?" Why do we accept the lack of humanity from people just because their "higher" qualities are so numerous and cultivated? We automatically accept that talent can be not only eccentric (I'm all for eccentricity), but actually cruel.
Isn't it a little scary to be in a world where emotion exists to be mocked and problems are always excuses?
We are suspicious because the alternative is pliability, giving into ever demand, becoming naively a push-over. The alternative, in a broader sense, is mediocrity. Assuming the worst is the most efficient method, I agree, but don't we lose something? Aren't the pursuits of efficiency and excellence and the pursuit of humanity sometimes diametrically opposed? And if they are, which side am I on?
No comments:
Post a Comment