Self-criticism

Generally speaking, I have difficulty in confessing to my own failures, certainly publicly. I suppose that such is not a unique trait, insofar as very few of us are likely to wish to emphasize the ways we have failed to all the world, especially morally. To a very large extent, only saints emphasize how terrible they are, paradoxical as that may seem when so stated. But paradoxical or not, it is also obviously true. And indeed, no doubt one of the reasons for that state of affairs isn't even always necessarily so much due to pride in the rest of us (as obvious a factor as that often can be). Rather, in many cases, it is simply that we are often blind to our own faults. I have no doubt that is true concerning myself. It isn't simply that I do not wish to confess to my sins and weaknesses (though that is often the case), but that I do not even see them in the first place [1], even if such blindness is itself my own fault. (Saints, on the other hand, are not only humble, but they are also very much aware of their flaws. Indeed, one could say that, in addition to the grace of God, they are able to be so humble because they are aware of their flaws. Most of us, on the other hand, are in great ignorance. If we do not possess such humility, it is often because we are not sufficiently aware of how we fail).

But while it is true that I often do not see my own flaws, it is also true that even those that I do manage to see I hesitate in proclaiming. Self-criticism, as important as it is, is something most of us tend to shrink from, at least publicly. So, for instance, if I "have" to, I will. There are occasions in which it is unavoidable. But otherwise, I do not do it so much.

However, instead of speaking in general, I wish to concentrate on two ways in particular that we often avoid (public) self-criticism that I have seen. (Others there may be as well, obviously, but these two are the ones that I wish to emphasize in this piece.)

The first is one that I know I am guilty of in my own experience (while not denying I may be guilty of the second as well). I often avoid self-criticism usually by avoiding any criticism at all. To give an example of what I mean: while occasionally I voice my thoughts publicly about something I believe to be wrong (say, in Facebook statuses or pieces like this), it is admittedly rare, and much less than it should be. I do not do so because I do not want to come across as a "holier-than-thou". In itself, that is right, but, of course, the obvious way of mitigating (even if not completely eliminating) the possibility of coming across that way is (wait for it!) by not being a holier-than-thou. While there are exceptions, still, many people are at least much more open to hearing criticism (even if not agreeing with it) if the other person proclaims upfront that he himself is guilty of failure as well. But....but....that would involve me criticizing myself! The horror! And as I've said, I'm not wanting to do that. I mean, really, I want to do the right thing. No doubt about it! But something so extreme as that? It’s impossible! Obviously, I’m being sarcastic there, but it’s not too far off the mark.

In short, one can describe my motive as a form of cowardice. And in that respect I am supremely guilty and a coward at times. True, it isn't the only reason I refrain from voicing criticisms of certain positions. In a great many cases (probably the majority, in fact), the reason (or the major reason, even if not the only one) is simply that I do not believe in voicing criticisms unless I am willing to engage in a (hopefully charitable) discussion afterwards with anyone who disagrees with what I write. It is easy to do that in private conversation, since (assuming it is written correspondence, such as private emails) I feel like I can wait till I feel up to the task before making replies. (And, of course, in those cases it is easier to emphasize that it is a criticism of the position, and not necessarily the person who holds such). But in discussions which can be seen by numerous others and not simply the person I am corresponding with, however, I feel the need to respond immediately to replies, even if I would rather wait. That itself is a flaw (a form of pride, I suppose), but it's a different flaw. So I just take the shortcut by not voicing my belief in the first place. Problem solved! Or rather, I substitute one problem for another, if I am to be honest.

But, in any case, as I said, one form of avoiding self-criticism I am guilty of, at times at least, is due to my own cowardice. But there is a different way of avoiding self-criticism that I also have seen. Perhaps I myself have fallen into it, too. But whatever may be the case, the second form of avoiding self-criticism many fall victim to is by engaging in pseudo self-criticism, in that while they are more than willing to criticize the problems and failures of groups they may be associated with (and thus engage in "self-criticism" in a rather loose sense), it ends there.

Many times, for instance, I see a Christian criticize the Church, or I see an American criticize America. (There are many other examples, but I'll stick with the examples of Christians and Americans for the sake of simplicity). Sometimes such criticism is made in a humble way, and truly is only done for the good of the Church or their country. That is to be appreciated, since a blind optimism is disastrous. But then there are other times that such types of "self-criticism” are not so humble, and are in fact more offensive than the most jingoistic American or the most triumphalistic Christian could possibly be, because it appears to be filled with more pride on a personal level. Thus, some engage in heaping abuse on "the sins of Christians", or the "evils of America", or what have you. They can often be brutal by pointing out serious flaws. And, indeed, often the criticisms are quite true. There is no denying it. But I can't help but notice something. And that is what makes it unbearable. There is one Christian, at any rate, who such a person doesn't criticize. There is one American, in any case, who isn't totally evil. In short, such a person is a Christian or American who (while "bravely facing the applause" of outsiders) engages in "self-criticism" without, you know, actually criticising themselves. They'll criticize their brothers and sisters in Christ. They'll criticize their fellow Americans. But they're remarkably silent on their own personal flaws. (I suppose such a Christian has been immaculately conceived, and such an American really does conceive of himself as an example to his fellow Americans to be imitated).

This is something that (if I'm to be honest) irritates me to no end. Not that I'll pretend I may not be guilty of it myself at times, and simply do not have sufficient self-awareness (remember what I said about being blind to my own faults?) But that simply means that I myself would be guilty of the same crime and need to work on fixing my flaw. It doesn't mean it ceases to be a grave fault. (It wouldn't be the first flaw I've noticed in others that I'm guilty of myself, even if I'm not conscious of it at first)

Ironically enough, though, it is the very people who are most condemned in our society for being "self-righteous" that, in my general experience, are least likely to fall into this type of self-righteousness. For instance, take fundamentalists as an example. I am a former fundamentalist who has since become a Catholic. Naturally, I disagree with some fundamentalist doctrines now and, indeed, since I am a Catholic, there are plenty of fundamentalists who no doubt think I am bound for Hell. Obviously, I believe them to be in error in some ways. Yet while there are exceptions, in my general experience fundamentalists are often willing to engage in self-criticism more than most of their critics who condemn them for self-righteousness are. If they condemn America for its godless ways, they're no rougher on America than they are on their own personal failings. (Of course, as I said, there are exceptions, but they are that: exceptions. At least in my own experience, which is all I can vouch for). No doubt they have their blind spots, but at least they genuinely make the effort of self-criticism. Were we all as "self-righteous" as such fundamentalists, we might actually approach something that could justly be called humility, because we would engage in true self-criticism! If many fundamentalists I have met mistakenly think I am bound for hell because I am a Catholic, at least they don't make the mistake of thinking themselves as bound for heaven because of their own innate goodness. That is a lot more than can be said for many of their critics who condemn them for self-righteousness (with no trace of irony).

So, to conclude these rambling thoughts of mine which I set out for my own reflection, but which may be helpful for others, I would just like to quote a particularly good passage from (who else?) G.K. Chesterton:

What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but the absence of self-criticism. It is comparatively of little consequence that you occasionally break out and abuse other people, so long as you do not absolve yourself. The former is a natural collapse of human weakness; the latter is a blasphemous assumption of divine power. (Sidelights)

Notes

____________

[1] Incidentally, when I worry about any character flaws I have, what truly concern me the most are the ones that I am not accused of rather than the ones I am. For instance, as a Catholic, I realize that I will always face serious accusations by certain people, even when the accusations can easily be demonstrated to be examples of projection. But even granted for the sake of argument that those who accuse Catholics are correct, at least Catholics are aware of the accusations, and therefore not in total ignorance of them. The same thing can be said concerning criticisms that are directed against me personally. I am aware of the accusations. If any accusations against me are valid, at least I am on the first step to fixing such flaws by being aware of them.

But what I wonder is, what things will seem to be "obviously" wrong about our society to our descendants a couple centuries down the road that very few people, if any, think are wrong today (including myself)? After all, constantly modern people criticize our ancestors for things that were "obviously" wrong . Yet our ancestors (as a whole) certainly did not think that they were "wrong" at all (or at the least thought that they were not as seriously wrong as we recognize them to be today). Yet, unless we start to think that our society, unique among all societies in world history, is somehow immune from the trap of falling under such widespread errors, it is extremely probable that you and I and most people today, whatever other disagreements we have between ourselves, nevertheless are unanimous (or nearly so) in accepting errors which will be rightly condemned by later generations. Just a thought that really is not directly relevant to the main point of this piece, but still something I wished to mention.