Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Sex, Lies and Hypocrisy
UNORTHODOXY
By Patrick J. Deneen
Of late there has been a bonanza of high-profile sexual scandals. At least two of these have featured visible conservatives caught in adulterous relationships - S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford and Nevada Sen. John Ensign. And two have been celebrities whose assignations raise questions of legality - Roman Polanski, who is charged with having sex with a minor, and David Letterman, whose relationships with subordinates have raised questions whether these could be wholly consensual relationships. Barrels of ink have been spilled on each case -- but charges of hypocrisy have been leveled at only two.
To the extent that there have been criticisms of Polanski and Letterman - and some in Hollywood have gone so far as to excuse Polanski's actions as the forgivable excesses of a creative artist - such criticisms have been directed toward the fact that they engaged in actions where consent was questionable. In having relations with a minor and an employee, these sexual relations are tainted by doubts whether the respective partners were fully capable of assenting to the sexual acts.
By this measure, the relationships of Sanford and Ensign would seem to be unproblematic - they were engaged in fully consensual adult relationships. There has been no suggestion of coercion or undue influence, even given that both these men hold positions of political power. To my knowledge, no accusation of impropriety arising from an issue of consent has been lodged.
Yet their assignations have been widely criticized, especially by writers on the Left, on the charge of hypocrisy. That is, as defenders of "traditional family values," it is suggested that their adulterous relationships revealed that their respective political views - ones that defended the idea of traditional marriage and the legitimacy of human sexuality within that estate - to be, in fact, stances that they never meant to be taken seriously. It has been widely suggested that their actions undermine the legitimacy of their views on family and sexuality. Indeed, one might conclude that had the likes of Roman Polanski and David Letterman simply engaged in sexual activity with the same sorts of mistresses as Sanford and Ensign, they not only would have escaped the taint of dubious consent, but that their actions would be free of the charge of hypocrisy. Since neither is not known as a defender of family values, there would be little to criticize..
Upon news of the infidelities of high-profile conservatives, many denounced the hypocrisy of the conservative politicians, and concluded that their stances on various matters related to sexuality - for instance, opposition to abortion, gay marriage, civil unions, gay adoption, etc., were now voided of any legitimate content. One representative expression of this view was found on the Huffington Post website, where Christine Pelosi called for an end to "hypocrisy," implying that any such conservative positions are illegitimate as a consequence of these politicians' respective inabilities to live up to their own marital vows. While this argument represents a fundamental non-sequitur, still, the larger point is that personal sexual hypocrisy by necessity delegitimates any position that argues for traditional sexual morality.
Hypocrisy is a curious charge. According to Rochefoucauld, "hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue." That is, hypocrisy is a charge leveled when someone fails to live up to the virtuous standards being expounded. The Greek etymology of the word "hypocrisy" is revealing: meaning "to play a part" or "pretend," a "hypocrite" was understood to be an actor on the stage, one appearing or seeming to be something while in fact being something else.
The charge of hypocrisy, then, in general tells us something about the person who "seems" rather than "is," in this case, the person who commends certain virtues while failing to live up to them. But, equally, hypocrisy can tell us something about the virtues in question, in part by raising questions whether the failure of their defender to live up to those virtues reveals that the standards are too high or unrealistic. But it is far from necessarily the case that the failure to consistently achieve a life of virtue is proof of the illegitimacy of virtue itself.
Traditionally, the charge of hypocrisy is leveled against one who loudly denounces the failings of others while failing to live up to the standards they otherwise recommend. By this standard, there is good reason to suggest that Sanford and Ensign are indeed hypocrites, especially considering their insistent denunciation of the infidelity of President Clinton. Yet, such a calling out is not in itself a denunciation of the standard in question. Jesus often denounced "hypocrites" without necessarily calling into question the standard of piety that was insufficiently or falsely being observed by the Pharisees. "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" Pointing out one's hypocrisy is, above all, a call to redouble one's efforts to live up to the high standards that one declaims; far from discrediting those standards, the charge of hypocrisy is a call to deeply critical self-examination, confession and recommitment.
Any virtue worthy of its name will turn out to be difficult to attain, lest it not be worthy of the name. Virtue is praiseworthy and honored in significant part because it is a difficult standard to attain, a certain attribute or excellence of character that comes only with strenuous effort and even difficult forms of self-denial or self-transcendence. No human is capable of attaining every virtue in complete fullness in a constant and perfect manner. Where a certain standard is held to be worthy of attainment, our failure to perfectly embody any such standard is most often less an indictment of the standard than an acknowledgment of our own inevitable shortcomings. Like the best baseball average, a life that aspires to high standards is bound to be marked more by failure than success, since we are flawed and imperfect creatures. We are all likely at some point to be hypocrites, at once praising exacting standards while inevitably failing to live up to any standard worthy of the name. One only fully escapes the charge of hypocrisy by failing to have any standards whatsoever.
By contrast, today one sees the charge of hypocrisy being leveled to raise questions, even denounce, high standards of behavior. In the case of Sanford and Ensign, it is implied that since they failed to observe their marriage vows, their own positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage stand refuted. It is suggested that since they were unable to exercise control over their sexual choices, they are in no position to speak critically about the sexual decisions of others. Rather than concluding that they should redouble their efforts to fulfill their marital vows - recognizing our shared propensity to failure, even sinfulness - the implicit argument being made by their critics is that grave misgivings about abortion or the redefinition of marriage are now moot.
This is not only a tactic limited to critics of conservatives who fail to live up to their own standards regarding sexual behavior. It is also a common criticism by conservatives directed at liberals who fail to live up to their high demands of liberalism. Many on the Right have criticized Al Gore for living in a large house, and for jetting around the globe in the effort to promote less jetting around the globe. Many denounced the likes of then Treasury-nominee Timothy Geithner for failing to pay all of his taxes. Just as critics of Sanford and Ensign imply in their charge that in committing adultery, "family values" are delegitimized, so in these instances, Right critics imply that environmentalism and taxation are indefensible by dint of these liberal failures.
Any such criticism trades on the generally-held acceptance of these standards, and has purchase only insofar as the hypocrisy is widely recognized and acknowledged. Even as the charge of hypocrisy is leveled, the standard is implicitly affirmed. Those who suggest that the actions of Sanford and Ensign render dubious their calls for "family values" argue on behalf of a world in which only the actions of a Letterman or Polanski would be problematic, suggesting that adultery could become a norm so long as consent is the only basis for judgment in matters of sexuality. But surely this is a position that is deeply problematic, considering the centrality of family and marriage in the health and continuation of society.
How awful a world in which hypocrisy did not exist, if such attainment came at the cost of dropping difficult standards and living up - or failing to live up - to nothing at all.
By Patrick J. Deneen |
October 14, 2009; 2:29 PM ET
| Category:
Unorthodoxy
Save & Share:
Previous: Finding Community in Diversity |
Next: Catholic Bishops' Advice on Afghanistan
Posted by: ThomasBaum | October 15, 2009 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One of the more risible defenses of moral hypocrisy I've ever read. The author says it's better that Ensign and Sanford espoused high standards and fell short, rather than have no standards at all. Suppose they never personally adhered to those standards, but only claimed to in order to fool voters into electing them?
Posted by: bpai_99 | October 15, 2009 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is quite an interesting article on hypocrisy. Insightful, and though it appeared the author is standing in defense of conservatives that fall into controversy by failing to consistently live up to the morality they preach, he also took a relatively even look at the phenomenon, and presented the concept that the standards that we hold may not be minimized by our own lack of living them perfectly in an unbiased way.
It is well worth dialoguing the effect of spokespeople for a cause failing to live that cause. Hypocrisy may not be a cardinal sin, as Edbyronadams declares, but it seems that upon being caught in a hypocrisy, and labeled that, (especially the really vocal and visible voices for a cause), these people are seen almost universally on a level of a thief, if not a traitor, disloyal and untrustworthy.
Minor sin, perhaps, considering murder and rape, but it is like a form of suicide, a slitting the throat of your own standing and credulity in the public eye. This does seem to be universally the case.
The author seeks to maintain the value of the virtue that is espoused by the hypocrite. "But it is far from necessarily the case that the failure to consistently achieve a life of virtue is proof of the illegitimacy of virtue itself."
Two things. First, I believe that it is true that virtues that are fought for should stand on their own merits and not rise or fall on the actions of any individual, even as actions of high profile individuals DO make and effect and DO bring the topic into public discussion, so raise the visibility of it.
Second, the author writes from the assumption, held by conservatives and resisted (often) by liberals, that 'old time family values' are a higher and purer aim than an alternative, or less homogeneous, culturally acceptable lifestyle. It is this stance that Mr. Deneen is defending while using the rationalization that 'we are only human, imperfect, we are all hypocrites sometimes'.
He may be right in that assertion, but it may make little difference in the lives of the Famously Hypocritical.
Posted by: justillthennow | October 15, 2009 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Without standards the standard becomes yourself which is arrogance run amok.
Hypocrisy is a minor sin. It doesn't make the cardinal sin list. It has only been elevated because of politics.
Posted by: edbyronadams | October 15, 2009 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.
The sexual misconduct of hypocritical politicians, entertainers, priests, rabbis and evangelists simply is added evidence of the out of control situation.
from the CDC-2006
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms (see the recent Pew study) and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.
Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???
Posted by: ccnl1 | October 14, 2009 11:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hmmm, no mention of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church condemning gays from the pulpit while several hundred pedophile priests go free from prison and aren't even defrocked.
Posted by: coloradodog | October 14, 2009 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"How awful a world in which hypocrisy did not exist, if such attainment came at the cost of dropping difficult standards and living up - or failing to live up - to nothing at all."
The appropriate analogy is that Republicans are arguing that the only moral choice is to be a teetotaler because the only alternative is being an alcoholic.
It turns out the rest of us see no problem with 'responsible alcohol consumption' as an appropriate standard.
Posted by: FYIColumbiaMD | October 14, 2009 8:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Whether or not one believes that Jesus is Who He Is, one of the interesting things that He said was: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".
He did NOT say, 'He who's sin is not as bad', did He?
He did NOT say, 'He who's sin is forgiven', did He?
We seem to be very good at setting up a hierarchy of sin whereas Jesus spoke of sin as sin.
Does it ever seem as if Jesus spoke too simple and straight-forward for the "learned" of His day and our day to get the point.
In the posting, it is quoted, " "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" "
Do you think that Jesus is trying to tell people that rather than trying to "cram it down other's throats" at least attempt to live it yourself.
One of the things that "Christianity" isn't: Telling others to be "Christian".
One of the things that "Christianity" is: Attempting to live it, even when one falls short.
Of course, sometimes, it may be difficult to see this in action because it is not always, to put it mildly, in action.
This, I believe, is what led Ghandi to say what he did about "Christianity.
There is more to Christianity than meets the eye, just as there was more to Jesus's crucifixion than met the eye.
See you all in the Kingdom.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.