The False and Lazy Charge of Hypocrisy
Published December 12, 2002
All Four Elements are required, yet hypocrisy is often confused with Element # 3 alone: Failing to meet one's own standards. The Christian minister who cheats on his wife. The rich liberal who opposes school vouchers but enrolls his children in private school.
Failing to meet one's own standards is not hypocrisy.
If an obese woman advocates dieting, but laments the difficulty of sticking to one, is she a hypocrite? Of course not. She has failed to meet her standards, to follow her own advice. But she is not a hypocrite because Element # 4 is missing. She never claimed to stick to her diet.
Thus, a Christian minister who routinely confesses to being a sinner (as many Christians do), or a rich liberal who laments that public schools are just not good enough for his children, would not be hypocrites. They advocate certain standards, yet admit to falling short.
Falling short of a standard should be no bar to advocating a high standard, so long as one is open about his own shortcomings. Were it otherwise, smokers would be deemed unfit to warn children against tobacco, lest they be "hypocrites." Yet a man who fails to meet his own standards, rather than being a hypocrite, is often the best advocate of a different course of action.
Sometimes the best advice is: "Do as I say, not as I do."
(Accurate definitions aside, one practical problem of defining hypocrisy as failing to meet one's own standards is that it discourages high standards. Under this false definition, a man who merely meets 80% of his high standards is judged worse than a man of no standards. "At least he's not a hypocrite!" Yes, at the very least.)
Hypocrisy is also confused with double standards. Yet once again:
Double standards are not hypocrisy.
Dad goes to bed later than the bedtime he sets for his child. Does this double standard make dad a hypocrite? Of course not — because Element #2 is missing. Dad never applied his child's bedtime to himself. Indeed, he would freely admit to anyone who asks that his child's bedtime does not apply to him.
A mere double standard is not hypocrisy.
A movie star advocates a ban on gun ownership, but then obtains a carry permit. Is she a hypocrite? Yes, if she suggested that all should be banned from owning a gun. But if she publicly claims that celebrities are entitled to a gun privilege denied to others, then no. She'd be arrogant and elitist, but not a hypocrite.
- The False and Lazy Charge of Hypocrisy
- Published: December 12, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Books: Horror, Books: Literature and Fiction
- Writer: Thomas M. Sipos
- Thomas M. Sipos's BC Writer page
- Thomas M. Sipos's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
I would have taken a slightly different tack. Instead of saying "Hypocrisy is not the failure to live up to one's own standards" (I think it is exactly that), I call attention to how un-special hypocrisy is.
Of course we fail to live up to our own standards. It is the most natural thing in the world to be hypocrites, like breathing and defecating.
The only way out of it is by publicly espousing such low standards (think of a famously permissive person like Rousseau or an unapologetic criminal like G. Gordon Liddy) that hypocrisy is unlikely.
I also agree that there is a public element to hypocrisy. But that is simply because we don't know a person's standards until he or she states what they are. Secret crimes don't come back to bite us in the butt the way public crimes do.
So I agree that the charge of hypocrisy is often "cooked up," as we see with Trent Lott's remarks, and the cant of those who are calling him on the carpet.
Of course, his problem is less hypocrisy than fitness for office. Far from being a hypocrite, he is simply a man with offensive standards.
Should we castigate those who jump on the bandwagon? Again, they are hypocrites, unless they have led lives of improbable virtue and consistency.
But the greater good is probably to rid ourselves of this loathsome creature because his naked chauvinisms offend even us garden variety hypocrites.







Fascinating and important distinctions - thanks!