On Being Cranky With No “Real” Solutions
(This is a reply to some questions raised in the comments section of my post yesterday)
While discussing things, especially politics, I am used to getting called a cynic, pessimist, too negative, unhappy, and so on. As I said yesterday, my politics might be best classified as cranky.
That being the case, I often get tired of answering the question:”What solutions do you have?” These shrewd interrogators usually go on to say something like: “Its just too easy to just sit there, complain, and point out shortcomings. What can you offer by way of a positive alternative?”
As soon as I respond with nothing or too little (which is usually the case), I am caught in their trap. My reply stinks of futility and failure, and above all, unproductive and toxic crankiness. I am exposed for the crank that I am.
I wonder about this. I mean, if definitive solutions are the golden standard, then, it seems like the bar for insight is set pretty high. After all, solution worshiping often backfires—like when you’re wrong. The most odd thing, to me at least, is how unnatural this kind of reasoning is.
For example, being a person with no knowledge or skill for fixing cars, am I not allowed to notice that there are copious amounts of smoke billowing from the front-end of my car and that it is making loud popping noises? Am I wrong to boldly assert that there is a serious problem here?
Or, if the car just won’t start for any reason at all, then, despite my lack of car erudition, am I not entitled to accuse my car of not working?
This kind of reasoning is about as effective as telling a sick person to stop complaining unless they have some kind of solution. What if they have an incurable disease? Should cancer researcher stop telling us how terrible cancer is in all its graphic detail until they find a cure?
And, furthermore, there are definite ideas in any good critique. A good critique is very specific about its discontent. If I say, “I hate Mexico!”, that is one thing; but to argue “I hate Mexico because of the following reasons substantiated in the following ways.”, is another thing entirely. We can find real ideas and suggestions within any worthwhile critique.
But, even without big ideas, there is value in being told that something is broken when it is truly broken, or even when it only might be. I would like to be told that my tire is flat if I don’t realize it. I would never say, “Don’t tell me that unless you have some real solutions!” Even if they, like me, know nothing about cars, there is still a great deal of real value in having been told that my tire is dysfunctional.
Nowhere else, that I can think of, do we require definite solutions so dogmatically other than when the critique we face is not to our liking. Then, all of a sudden, we become quite selective about a critique without an alternative solution. That functions to, hopefully, make us feel like we don’t need to take the criticism too seriously and go on with our lives.
So, I would argue that we need not dismiss someone for being a critic without a solution, and instead might engage and listen to what they have to say and have the courage to see if it is true, or offer some dispute if the critique seems unfounded.
Even if it bothers us and we can’t fix it right away, we might find ourselves living in something closer to reality and agonistic (not antagonistic) charity.
Comments are closed.
Whining, complaining, not settling for second best, being generally critical and “cranky”–these are all things that are usually grossly undervalued, in my opinion. So I agree with you completely on that point.
When a person gets “cranky” to the point of inaction or indecision, however, then whatever moral insight or other value that that person could bring to bear on events is severely diminished.
To cut to the chase, I think you should vote in national elections and recognize Obama as a potentially great leader, in spite of his flaws.
Withdrawing from the political process is a tantalizing option for the moral purist in us when we look at the corruption of the system in general and the shortcomings of the actors in it, but don’t we do better–have some net good effect–by staying involved and doing the best we can under the circumstances? I think so.
As for Obama, if you look at the big picture, he is doing some incredible things to change this country for the better. I will only mention his shift in foreign policy away from “don’t-mess-with-Texas” American imperialism. That is a big deal, with big implications for the fate of the world in years to come (and the fate of our kids).
So I say, stay cranky–but not maybe so aloof.
David,
I agree that quietism is an error, but I would not necessarily say “not voting” is the same thing as being “politically aloof.” It depends upon why one does not vote, and what else one does, beyond voting, to engage politics. I think sometimes we simplify the political process too much by thinking it is all accomplished by vote, when I think that is probably the weakest part of real social interaction.
Nonetheless, I also agree — it is good to be a critic, and to criticize possible solutions, to think things through, but it is also important not to focus on criticism without attempting (at least) to work on solutions. Even if most of what one says ends up being critical, and even if one can’t find a solution, pointing the way one thinks a solution could be discovered would help.
In my field, occasionly someone will say something like my Internet is broke. Is such an observation valuable? At the most cursory level yes. Does it aid in fixing the problem? Not really. Likewise, observing the sounds under your hood only advances us so far. Your commentary on the car is of no use to the mechanic once you get past that part.
Given dichotomies, it is not a sign wisdom to say I don’t know. The information is available to make an informed decision, even if a wrong one. If there are two mechanics in town and you choose mechanic A, the worst thing that will happen is you will be wrong. At that point you choose mechanic B. If they are both wrong, you are no worse off than you were before you went to the mechanic, other than paying for the mechanics’ time. There is no prudence in letting the car sit and quibbling over the competence of the two mechanics, particularly if you need a car.
MZ: I qualified my point on critique beyond the basic level of pointing and saying that stuff is broke. It was when I wrote: “And, furthermore, there are definite ideas in any good critique. A good critique is very specific about its discontent. If I say, “I hate Mexico!”, that is one thing, but to argue “I hate Mexico because of the following reasons substantiated in the following ways.”, is another thing entirely. We can clearly find real ideas and suggestions within any worthwhile critique.” This is the point: to make a “worthwhile” critique, but, still, just a critique nonetheless.
David: In my previous post I wrote: “I always vote and sometime that means staying at home because there is no authentic suffrage to be had at the polls.”
I really mean that. I always vote, one way or another. Given the gross manufacture of consent (to use Chomsky’s terminology) in our elections, sometimes the only way to go is to vote by not going to the polls or going there and making a very alternative decision at the box.
Now, regarding Obama. I did say he is a comfort to have in certain ways, but, I am not moved by the gradualism of his appeal. That is about as serious to me as being very happy to not be stabbed in the chest anymore when one is only being kicked in the head.To do so, I would argue, is to be quite aloof and desensitized the actual meaning of political circumstances.
Henry: We agree, of course on the notion of suffrage. But I would simply say that I think quietism is very underrated (by myself, principally) and it might be one genuinly new thing we haven’t tried as a society… But, then, I think about it and the ramifications do seem extreme, but hey lets give it a flying chance in our heads at least!
Sam
Quietism is a heresy (as is well known), though it is founded upon, and an extreme version of, hesychasm, of which I am profoundly influenced by. So I think it depends upon what we mean here. Quietism in many respects is the inverse response to Jansenism, which is why, though on an apparent level it appears to follow hesychasm, there is a major difference between the two. It is the “popular” version of hesychasm in the way Western Zen is “Zen.” Both neglect much of the actual life found within hesychasm and Zen monasteries and instead rely upon a few snippets of written text.
But I don’t think your are suggesting complete retreat from the world into inaction. At least I hope not.
You’re right, I am not. And I guess that I don’t really know what quietism is. I have just gleaned some of the sensibility of it from a Quaker friend of mine and a few essays by Julia Kristeva. I don’t really keep track of whether I am being a heretic or not, otherwise, I fear it would consume all my time. Ha!
Sam
Being Byzantine, and so profoundly influenced by hesychasm, I had to find out and understand quietism and why it was rejected (for it appeared on one level to be hesychasm, even the name is a translation of hesychasm). The old C.E. (which I am not always a fan of, but it is close enough for comfort here) describes it as this: “Quietism (Latin quies, quietus, passivity) in the broadest sense is the doctrine which declares that man’s highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life. In the state of “quietude” the mind is wholly inactive; it no longer thinks or wills on its own account, but remains passive while God acts within it.” Indeed, not only being influenced by hesychasm and one who uses it to engage Buddhism, you can see why it was important for me to study what quitism was or was not, since I am often “close” to it myself.
I see. I have a lot to learn about that.
Sam,
I never said you needed to have definitive solutions to human problems. I actually think a great political evil involves always thinking there is a political solution to our problems.
I was just looking for a few good ideas about the good society. If we’re talking about politics at all, we should probably be at least tangentially discussing how we think society ought to be organized.