Naive: 1) artless; innocent; unaffected. 2) foolishly
credulous; simple.
Notice what it does not say: stupid.
In my previous job, the ultimate insult that could be bestowed on another person was "stupid." At one management meeting there was a discussion of a particular associate not in the room. There were seven of us and the conversation veered from a legitimate business issue into the realm of discussing a particular person's intelligence. The conversation wasn't even a clinical, objective discussion, it was simply an opportunity for everyone else in the room to feel superior to someone not present to defend himself.
I respectfully objected and the room went dead silent. Now, there have been times when I've used the word "idiot" to describe someone, sometimes even myself, but that was actually a sloppy use of the term. I generally meant that someone had done something that had either annoyed me or that they'd done something that wasn't well thought out.
But just like the terms nigger and faggot aren't uttered in polite society, I object to someone being labeled stupid. And I more strongly objected when one of my colleagues would say that they did not respect another colleague. How is it possible not to respect an entire person? I understand not respecting a particular action. I understand being frustrated by a person, but how do you not respect someone? There are plenty -- plenty -- of people I don't like, but I can't think of one person I do not accord the basic courtesy of respect.
And yet, if I heard it once, I heard it at least once a day. I got tired of objecting, because it became clear that no one either heard what I said, or cared what I thought. But they at least respected me enough to apologize when I did object. But because labelling people as stupid and quantifying the amount of respect each individual was entitled to was as common as showing up late to work, I began to wonder if I was naive, or if I was actually stupid. I mean, I think one of the fundamental requirements of stupidity is that a person is blithely unaware of the fact of his stupidity, or am I just being naive?
Last week on Bill Mahr's show, John Mellencamp was a guest. Bill Mahr was railing against a segment of the American population that seems to buy the American political mythology. John Mellencamp said that most people in the heartland are good, honest people who just want to live quiet lives and elect people they can trust. He said that they were hopeful and perhaps naive. Bill Mahr jumped all over that statement, saying that in today's world being naive is inexcusable, that being naive is what has gotten this country into the mess that it's in.
Frankly, I couldn't disagree more. I think that it's cynicism and duplicitous people who have made a mess of things. I think it's not the people who take other people at their word, I think it's the people who lie who are destroying this country. I'm not just talking about the people who generate the big lies, like "weapons of mass destruction," I'm talking about the people who say they'll call for lunch, and never follow up.
It's the small lies that lay the foundation for the big lies. It's the inability to find a person worthy of respect that requires a person to lie to another person, and it's the belief that a person is actually stupid that enables a liar to tell his lie.
Yet, I'd like to believe that lacking respect and feeling superior is just a phase that most people pass through. I believe that at some point every person experiences a humbling event that puts the world and other people into perspective. I once read that it is impossible to be a saint without first being a sinner. I'm now coming to the opinion that it's also impossible to be truly naive without first being cynical.
No comments:
Post a Comment