Meaning Well: Anti Irony #1
Oct. 10th, 2006 04:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
substituteOne of the worst things you can call someone now is "well-meaning."
A well-meaning person is always doing the wrong thing. The phrase encompasses many sins. The well-meaning person is presumed to be ignorant of the world's harsh ways, naive, gullible, and full of an unwarranted optimism especially about human nature. Arrogance or at least hubris is implied too, in that well-meaning people have an exaggerated view of their own ability to improve things.
One thing is certain: well-meaning people always make things worse. They're always trying to feed babies when the real problem is that parents won't work. Or getting in the way of a war because of the horrors thereof when the real problem can only be solved by winning the war. Or providing shelter for the poor when the real problem is the oppressive system that keeps them poor. Well-meaning people always seem to have band-aid solutions and don't see the picture. Their attempts to make things better always result in disaster because of something called the Law of Unintended Consequences which says that every time you do something that seems to mean well it will mean more trouble later on, in the larger scheme of things.
The answer to the problem of the well-meaning is to accept that the world is a harsh place and embrace that harshness. In fact, one is supposed to embody the world's hard ways. If someone misbehaves, punishment and force must be used. If there is a problem between governments, then it will inevitably result in war and it's best to prosecute the war as soon as possible. If there is a social disaster like a famine or an economic crisis, it's important that this "run its course"; mere half-measures like handing out food or shoes will only drag out the problem.
If a problem resists solution by bombing or jailing or some other harsh measures, then it is considered to be insoluble and part of the human condition. To say otherwise is, once again, to be "well-meaning." Tough-minded hard-nosed adults understand how unforgiving and full of suffering things are and don't try to change it. Only the very young and the fatally naive believe that things can be improved.
This is a place where Social Darwinism, Marxism, and Malthusian pessimism meet after having been thoroughly dumbed down into one idea: don't try to be good. The task is impossible and will make you into a victim yourself. Worse still, it will obstruct the natural way of things which eventually resolves conflicts. The Tao of this worldview is cruelty, and you must flow with it.
This attitude is everywhere in my country. The admirable person is said to be hard-nosed, realistic, rational, sober, and tough. His opponents are softies, Pollyannas, illogical, giddy, and weak. It's as though the Churchill-Chamberlain dichotomy was applied to every part of life: politics, religion, law, medicine, the arts, everything. You're either a heroic bulldog war fighter or an umbrella-waving idiot appeaser.
The word "aggressive" is entirely positive in all contexts. It has come to mean "effective," and anything labeled "passive" is by definition a failure. One roots out crime aggressively, and also treats disease aggressively, and even an aggressive prose style is given the seal of approval.
I urge you to resist this. Mean well.
Feed babies. Use band-aids on wounds. Give poor people 20 dollar bills and places to stay. Solve arguments without violence. Oppose cruelty and war. Be passive rather than aggressive. I urge you, in fact, to be a complete weenie and wussy, who can't see that what's needed is a short sharp shock. I urge you to think of criminals and drug addicts as salvageable improvable humans. I urge you to lose an argument more often and to resist an opportunity to destroy an enemy.
It's true that our conscience doesn't know how to manage a central bank or create a national water policy or stop the warmongering of dictators. And our conscience is naive about realpolitik and the tragedy of the commons and the necessity of breaking eggs to make metaphorical omelettes.
"Well-meaning" is our attitude when we listen to conscience. I am not ashamed.
A well-meaning person is always doing the wrong thing. The phrase encompasses many sins. The well-meaning person is presumed to be ignorant of the world's harsh ways, naive, gullible, and full of an unwarranted optimism especially about human nature. Arrogance or at least hubris is implied too, in that well-meaning people have an exaggerated view of their own ability to improve things.
One thing is certain: well-meaning people always make things worse. They're always trying to feed babies when the real problem is that parents won't work. Or getting in the way of a war because of the horrors thereof when the real problem can only be solved by winning the war. Or providing shelter for the poor when the real problem is the oppressive system that keeps them poor. Well-meaning people always seem to have band-aid solutions and don't see the picture. Their attempts to make things better always result in disaster because of something called the Law of Unintended Consequences which says that every time you do something that seems to mean well it will mean more trouble later on, in the larger scheme of things.
The answer to the problem of the well-meaning is to accept that the world is a harsh place and embrace that harshness. In fact, one is supposed to embody the world's hard ways. If someone misbehaves, punishment and force must be used. If there is a problem between governments, then it will inevitably result in war and it's best to prosecute the war as soon as possible. If there is a social disaster like a famine or an economic crisis, it's important that this "run its course"; mere half-measures like handing out food or shoes will only drag out the problem.
If a problem resists solution by bombing or jailing or some other harsh measures, then it is considered to be insoluble and part of the human condition. To say otherwise is, once again, to be "well-meaning." Tough-minded hard-nosed adults understand how unforgiving and full of suffering things are and don't try to change it. Only the very young and the fatally naive believe that things can be improved.
This is a place where Social Darwinism, Marxism, and Malthusian pessimism meet after having been thoroughly dumbed down into one idea: don't try to be good. The task is impossible and will make you into a victim yourself. Worse still, it will obstruct the natural way of things which eventually resolves conflicts. The Tao of this worldview is cruelty, and you must flow with it.
This attitude is everywhere in my country. The admirable person is said to be hard-nosed, realistic, rational, sober, and tough. His opponents are softies, Pollyannas, illogical, giddy, and weak. It's as though the Churchill-Chamberlain dichotomy was applied to every part of life: politics, religion, law, medicine, the arts, everything. You're either a heroic bulldog war fighter or an umbrella-waving idiot appeaser.
The word "aggressive" is entirely positive in all contexts. It has come to mean "effective," and anything labeled "passive" is by definition a failure. One roots out crime aggressively, and also treats disease aggressively, and even an aggressive prose style is given the seal of approval.
I urge you to resist this. Mean well.
Feed babies. Use band-aids on wounds. Give poor people 20 dollar bills and places to stay. Solve arguments without violence. Oppose cruelty and war. Be passive rather than aggressive. I urge you, in fact, to be a complete weenie and wussy, who can't see that what's needed is a short sharp shock. I urge you to think of criminals and drug addicts as salvageable improvable humans. I urge you to lose an argument more often and to resist an opportunity to destroy an enemy.
It's true that our conscience doesn't know how to manage a central bank or create a national water policy or stop the warmongering of dictators. And our conscience is naive about realpolitik and the tragedy of the commons and the necessity of breaking eggs to make metaphorical omelettes.
"Well-meaning" is our attitude when we listen to conscience. I am not ashamed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Thank you.
Date: 2006-10-10 11:38 pm (UTC)Why don't you submit it to the OP-ED of the Times?
Re: Thank you.
Date: 2006-10-11 02:09 am (UTC)I'm pointing people to this, dammit.
Re: Thank you.
Date: 2006-10-11 07:30 am (UTC)Re: Thank you.
Date: 2006-10-11 01:06 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you.
Date: 2006-10-11 08:25 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you.
Date: 2006-10-11 08:32 pm (UTC)Hey! You're a New Yorker, too. Huzzah. Friended ya.
Whereabouts? Not 524 E. 72nd St, I hope.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-10 11:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 12:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 12:49 am (UTC)I take the long view though: cultures, especially western ones, go through phases about this sort of thing
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 01:04 am (UTC)Up until the mid 17th century we've got a bunch of examples where "well-meaning" seems completely approvable, a nice, virtuous thing:
1387-8 T. USK Test. Love II. v. 117 Right as see yeveth flood, so draweth see ebbe, and pulleth ayen under wawe al the firste out-throwe, but-if good pyles of noble governaunce in love, in wel-meninge maner, ben sadly grounded.
1555 EDEN Decades (Arb.) 124 And albeit that he were not lerned, yet was he a vertuous and well meanynge man.
a1557 N. GRIMALDE in Tottel's Misc. (Arb.) 106 That nothyng hynder your welmeanyng minde.
1579 W. WILKINSON Confut. Fam. Love Bij, Take this briefe freindly and well meaning aunswere to your exceptions in good part.
1593 SHAKES. Rich. II, II. i. 128 My brother Gloucester, plaine well meaning soule.
1649 MILTON Eikon. xvii. 158 What a Cordial and well meaning helper they had of him abroad.
...but then we've also got negative ones developing mid-17th century and sticking in for the rest of the OED's examples:
1673 True Worship of God p. iv, Some out of a well meaning mistake, thinking that which they call Preaching, the only means of Salvation.
1697 DRYDEN Virg. Georg. Ded. 1 'Tis the fault of many a well-meaning Man, to be officious in a wrong place.
1712 ADDISON Spect. No. 299 3 She..treats me like a plain well-meaning Man, who does not know the World.
1828 LYTTON Pelham lxxxi, The annuity we have agreed upon, is only to be given in case of successnot merely for well meaning attempts.
1857 A. MATHEWS Tea-Table Talk I. 342 The well-intentioned but injudicious actions of what are called well-meaning people.
...it's not an absolute thing, of course, and the OED is spotty, but it's interesting to me that "well meaning" was pretty positive in the late middle ages.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 01:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 01:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 02:04 am (UTC)It has been odd to me, how the term "do-gooder" has become something of a perjorative... I think you correctly identified the wrong-headed cognitive frames that make people think that "well meaning" and "do-gooder" is actually a bad thing.
Thank you for coming down on the side of "good." We need all the help we can get right now.
mojo sends
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 02:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 03:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 04:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 05:56 am (UTC)There's a medical maxim for dealing with abdominal pain, which is mysterious and often resolves itself, and may get far worse with "aggressive" treatment. Young doctors are told: Don't just do something. Stand there.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-14 08:42 pm (UTC)Why? I wouldn't let him hit some other guy in the face, why am I different?
If it was a case of destroying him or destroying yourself, maybe there is a moral dilemma there (although very slight). But there are more options than fighting back directly.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 05:04 am (UTC)Also: The word "aggressive" is entirely positive in all contexts. In political or business discourse, maybe, but "entirely" and "in all contexts"? I might have a disproportionately high percentage of neo-hippies and/or educators of small children in my social circle, but that line strikes me as flatly untrue.
I do agree quite strongly with the gist of your argument, but some of the linguistic observations seem shaky.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 05:58 am (UTC)I do think that we're being encouraged to drop our consciences and stop trying to mean well, and that the motivation is uncomfortably close to fascist.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 07:48 pm (UTC)Sure, but that doesn't follow logically from (or even necessarily have anything to do with) the modern usage of the term "well-meaning."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 07:54 pm (UTC)I guess we just disagree, but I'm not entirely sure about what.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 05:39 am (UTC)My friend put me up to this
Date: 2006-10-11 05:50 am (UTC)I must apologize, but I am one of those annoying people who is bothered by grammatical errors. I pointed this one out to a friend of mine and he absolutely insisted I comment about it. He said you're going to destroy me and it will be hilarious.
Let me assure you that there will be no need for you or anyone else to fill my email box with comments denouncing me and everything about me. If you can show me that I am mistaken, that I somehow misread The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I will gladly apologize and hopefully we can leave things there.
Prosecute (v)
Date: 2006-10-11 05:53 am (UTC)Perhaps the use is now considered archaic. If so I don't care.
Re: Prosecute (v)
Date: 2006-10-11 05:59 am (UTC)Re: Prosecute (v)
Date: 2006-10-11 06:03 am (UTC)1 : to follow to the end : pursue until finished [was...ordered to prosecute the war with...vigor -- Marjory S. Douglas]
http://m-w.com/dictionary/prosecute
Re: Prosecute (v)
Date: 2006-10-11 10:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 07:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 08:20 am (UTC)(Signed, she who remembers when the Right succeeded in redefining "liberal" as a dirty word in political discourse, and has been pissed off about it ever since)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-11 04:48 pm (UTC)Boo to binary choices!
Date: 2006-10-12 05:13 pm (UTC)Like you, I'm sicken by the wave of rigid-thinking bullies who posit that listening to the opposition is a form of date-rape. You can find folks of this mindset on both sides of the political aisle.
I also agree that it is often a good idea to do nothing immediately, but accumulate additional information about a situation before choosing a course of action.
However, I wouldn't like to exalt passivity as an unalloyed virtue. Forebarance and thinking in broader contexts are better paths to Eudamonia.
It isn't OK to let yourself be abused. It isn't OK to let bullies have their way all the time. Your response needn't be physical reprisal, of course, but it should be a clear. Not every opponent is enlightened enough to see a passive response as morally superior.
Sadly, a good deal of our savage animal ways presist in the modern human mind. On a bad day, I fear that civilization is a maladaptive mutation.
I agree with your supposition that "well-meaning" is descriptively used to connote failure or incompetence, as in:
"America's Global War on Terror is a well-meaning foreign policy that has only increased global terrorism."
"Paul Tsongas's campaign platform of raising taxes to pay off profligate government debt was seen as well-meaning, but fundamentally unappealing to voters."
Keep on, keepin' on.
me ditto too
Date: 2006-10-12 08:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-13 12:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 10:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-14 08:31 pm (UTC)sarcasm?
Date: 2006-10-15 09:50 pm (UTC)Re: sarcasm?
Date: 2006-10-15 10:03 pm (UTC)i read your journal sometimes by way of gordon's
Date: 2006-11-05 01:48 am (UTC)i like you.