Unjustified righteousness and cultural snobbery

Form the earliest stages of human societies it has always been clear that free thinkers were elements to be kept under close scrutiny. It was clear that they were the most likely to hold the key to solve the problems that plagued the tribe, forging innovative hunting schemes or developing new technologies that could unlock huge food resources. But they also held the potential undermine or even subvert the established order: with the same flexibility that they could exercise to come with new tools they could also propose alternative governing methods that stripped the powerful of their privileges or caused a schism that disintegrated the tribe as a group. But the most worrying aspect of these ideas is that they can go undetected, shared by the originators with other individuals until they were just too big to be stopped. The invisibility of the ideas was (and still is) almost a superpower.

To keep the free thinkers in check, each society has developed their own devices: the most common was the proscription of "unhealthy" thoughts, but this commandment was hard to enforce, so there had to come along an almighty god that could see (and police) your thoughts. Declarations of heresy, witch hunts and para-military anti-rebel forces are just manifestations of the same feeling: if you are uncovered before your revolutionary thoughts had garnered a sufficiently widespread support the establishment could come down on you with all its strength and you could end up in prison or dead on the side of the road. Fortunately, in this time and age most democracies have stopped pursuing thought and ideas, and some have even turned their ideological tolerance into a kind of motto.

Photo: Travis

But there is, however, an important caveat in democratic societies: even when ideas are not prosecuted in themselves in many cases the cultural elites have erected themselves to be, if not truly a censoring authority, at least a minimal filter for probity. New ideas are encouraged and welcome, but the elite reserves the right to vet them, more on an aesthetic than on a political scale, and those ideas that cannot show the seal of approval are often regarded with contempt or even open derision. They are open to consider new options but they reserve the right to deem something unworthy of their appreciation, and this judgement would not only be valid for them, but it should be heeded by the society at large. But this assumption, that their assessment should be accepted by everyone, is wrongly based on the prejudice that the people outside the elite are unable to pronounce their own judgements and need therefore the assistance of an "informed" or "educated" opinion on what they should appreciate or spurn.

This comes to me because this afternoon during the first coffee break after the pandemic, I had an interesting, albeit a bit disturbing conversation with two of my colleagues, Jim and Karl. I mentioned that my sister in law had just given birth to their first daughter and my youngest brother David was fascinated with every little thing that the baby did or did not do: if she raised her head, followed the sound of his voice, hinted at a smile or any other of the myriad of cute things that babies do. I mentioned that it is extraordinarily interesting to follow along their development and how one day they are not able to do something but then the next day they are. Jim pointed out how crazy it is because it seems like you are trying to get to know someone, but they evolve faster than you can get acquainted, so it is like having a different person every week or every month. But he agreed that it must be fascinating; he and his partner are currently getting to know another couple and it is just as exciting, almost like falling in love all over again (only without the physical attraction). They also lose sleep just reviewing their interactions in their most recent outing together.

The disturbing part came when Karl mentioned that getting to know someone new is almost like reading a book. He asked me why people read and why I read myself, and I replied that simply because it was indeed exciting: as I mentioned in another post, reading is getting inside the head of the author follow along their lines of thought and pay attention to the details they want you to. When I asked him why he read himself he replied that he had not read anything "just for fun" for years, that these days was limited to professional magazines or technical textbooks, but back when he had time for it (this is what bothered me) he only read books that "taught him something". In particular he mentioned that some German authors like Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain, 1924) or Hermann Hesse (Steppenwolf, 1927) had helped him a lot in his quest to understand the human nature. I managed to build a nonchalant reply but was so unsettled by this comment that I lost track of the conversation. Luckily, it was time to go back to work so the gathering dissolved shortly after.

It is not that I do not admire these authors, which have made great contributions to the universal literature (although I have to admit that I was slightly revolted by the implied violence in the stalking described in Death in Venice). Where I completely disagree with Karl is in his assumption that there are "good" books, that everyone should read, and "not-so-good" ones, which are OK to read but are not worth the time if you aspire to become part of the cultural elite. Here my argument circles back to the assessment of probity that I mentioned before: I understand that some people do not have the mental energy to try different entertainment options and prefer instead to "play it safe" and follow the judgements of the establishment. It is just a matter of taste and if their taste are aligned with the establishment or the misalignment is small enough that they are ready to live with it instead of forging their own opinion, it is just their decision and they are entitled to choose. But other people prefer to pass their own judgements rather than relying on vicarious ones, they are more willing to deal with their own contradictions than with those of the establishment, and to take the fall for their prejudices and failures rather than hiding behind someone else to be able to plead non-guilty. And this preference is exactly as respectable as just following the mainstream, and should not be punished, ashamed or derided in any way.

Karl's cultural snobbery led him to an unjustified sense of righteousness that I was just not ready to contest on the spot of the sake of peace in the team, but stay assured that I will keep the issue in the back of my mind and tread very carefully the next time we approach the subject, so that I can stand my ground in front of him and claim back my right, everyone's right, to read the books they like for whatever purpose they want. And if they are not world-renowned German authors, I am sure that many other writers also have interesting things to share, at least because they are not the reader, and the combination of the writer and the readers stories is always fertile ground for the budding of a beautiful resonance. Have a nice evening.