A lover's quarrel with experts
I used to hear it in the pubs when I went there. I’ve
heard it in Bible classes and sermons and read it in lorry loads of
books. "All we need to do is..." then follows the solution to
moral/social/economic/family/national and international problems that
were/are on everyone’s mind. Even the Beatles got in on the action. "All
you need is love...dant dant da..." If only we knew what love would do
in all situations and if only we could ensure that all would be lovers
we’d be in great shape, wouldn’t we? In our saner moments as we reflect
on global challenges each of us knows we can’t meet them, we don’t know
what to do or how to do it. And even if we did, all our brilliant and
wise schemes for wholesale reformation and renewal flounder on the rock
of human sinfulness. So with what wisdom and heart we have, we cut out a
piece of the action and get on with it. This is good and how it should
be. Albert Schweitzer, no stranger to tremendous difficulties, said he
didn’t let the size of the job paralyse him—he seized a lump of it and
started banging away.
Speaking as a Christian I would say that in the end our difficulties
are more moral and spiritual than anything else because our pride,
self-centeredness and greed set themselves against even those programmes
that have the look and sound of wisdom and charity. But in the entire
mix that is human life there are major difficulties that retard our
working with the mammoth problems. One of them that continues to nibble
at the edges of my mind is trying to find the balance between our need
for "experts" and "leaders" and our willingness to let "experts" and
"leaders" make decisions for us that affect hundreds of millions.
Hosts of us allow celebrities and agony aunts to dictate how we
dress, speak, think and behave. Even those celebrities and media
advisors that don’t take themselves too seriously become our guides. It
isn’t one-way traffic—the public would have it so, but if we wanted to
we could topple the foul-mouthed and self-confessed slobs that feed on
our love for slime. We look at the muck that people like Robert
Mapplethorpe put out and art experts intimidate us into believing that a
crisp picture of one man urinating in the mouth of another is "classic"
and "brilliant". Yes, but the light and shadow, the sharpness and
contrast show how well shot the photo was. No doubt, and the Berlin was
probably perfectly built for the purpose it was intended but should the
wall have been built or the photographs made? If technical or pragmatic
brilliance is to blind us to moral muck or the oppression of the
vulnerable maybe Stalin and Hitler should be praised for their
manufactured famines and their death camps.
Experts can out-talk us; that’s part of the problem. In the matter of
censorship we’re told that freedom of speech shouldn’t be curtailed. We
all know better—that is, those who care to know better—but we can’t
out-talk these people. Inch by inch they talk us into believing it’s all
or nothing and because we aren’t able to answer all their arguments we
begin to doubt the obvious. Yes, yes, I think there’s a place for people
like David Hume who said that the only reason we say water is wet and
sugar is sweet is that we’re too lazy to argue it out. But then Hume
said he often got tired of inwardly hearing himself argue and he just
went and played backgammon with his friends. The old bone of contention
that there’s no proof that movies and television and literature affect
how we behave comes in here. Everyone knows that we’re affected
but when it suits the experts we hear talk about "proof". What kind of
"proof" is proof in this area? The very fact that these silly people
appear on talk shows or give interviews or write books exposes their
nonsense but when we descend to details, "proof" is demanded. One noted
American judge speaking about pornography said something like, "I can’t
define it but I know it when I see it." And the experts sniggered. Good
for the judge! Percy Ainsworth, in another setting, said to his
students, "I want you to understand it so I won’t define it."
Another element in the challenge is the human necessity to
differentiate between the legal and the moral so that we can exist as
societies of humans. Courts are all about legality and if you want
morals, a former British Prime Minister said, go to your clergyman.
Well, I think we have to acknowledge that the pragmatic distinction is
essential but that only underscores the point of human wickedness. To
keep wicked governments from oppressing the citizens we have established
rights for the accused that are now so fine-tuned and cunningly argued
that they promote further wickedness by citizens and injustice is
perpetrated on their victims. And what is tragic here is that "the moral
right" of the accused has become the chief moral right. Lawyers don’t argue their case for the defence merely on legal grounds, they claim that a defence is a moral
right. Bring in the moral right of freedom of speech and life (and with
it a flood of moral filth and victimisation) and then damn morality as
irrelevant. One film critic who "calls it like it is" was absolutely
besotted with Reservoir Dogs and Good Fellas but thought that I Am Sam was "offensive" as well as unhelpful. We’re supposed to take him seriously.
In the UK, government ministers have just given the pubs/bars license
to stay open longer, twenty-four hours a day if they want to. This is
to help combat excessive drinking. Bless me! Only the already excessive
drinker would want to drink longer. Good grief. In any case, the booze
industry is a parasite on any society. Alcohol is the most abused drug
known to man. Its side effects (beginning with its power to eat away at
our capacity to be responsible) are numerous and many of them deadly.
Pharmaceutical companies are sued and pull drugs off the shelves when a
number of people are hurt by their use. The booze industry? A handful of
"experts" say we should give more people more time to drink
("responsibly," of course). Never mind the side-effects of the booze
drug. Oh well.
I’m done for now. I had thought of saying I don’t know how to fix these problems and then I thought, "Would anyone even imagine to think
I needed to say that?" So I decided not to say it. This I know, there
are areas in which I’m glad to defer to experts but I’m choosy about the
areas.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.