There are consequences to living in a time that's soaked in story, and one of them is the sympathy for the devil effect.
What do I mean?
Well, it goes like this: in stories, redemption is key to catharsis and even when no redemption is possible, the story is more interesting if there are reasons the villain went to the bad (particularly if the reasons can either be traced back to the protagonist or his family.) It's just good plotting, since "he was just born evil" is not very satisfying in a story.
The problem is that we live in an era unusually soaked in story. If you think about it, our ancestors had far fewer (and shorter, and often less satisfying stories.) They were useful, but rarer.
Note that this is difficult to ascertain, and that studies on it might be iffy, but linguistic studies have traced mankind's oldest stories, and they range from just so "don't mistreat the stranger, lest you be punished" stories to family/adventure sagas.
Most of them had to be memorized to be re-transmitted. Let's be generous and say each person had about 100 stories they could call to mind, had heard/reheard, and which became part of how they viewed the world.
While these stories, like ours, "became a part of them" they would still learnt he most from their surroundings -- you know, the cautionary tales of "gorg ate bad fruit and died." -- than from the story.
Even in my childhood, when story was served up by newspaper, book, radio and elderly neighbors, it wasn't unlimited and mostly free as it is now.
Now story assails us from "news" (most more story than news, particularly from big sites), books, radio, tv, internet... songs. Interviews. It's almost impossible to go three steps without getting a fully-formed story thrown at us in some form.
I think we get 100 stories in a day, and most of them follow the formula of "more sinned against than sinner."
Heck, nowadays there is a disturbing tendency for it not to be necessary to give a protagonist any redeeming characteristics: just have him be mistreated a bunch and even if he is objectively a horrible person, he's instantly "good" by virtue of being a victim. In fact, for the young ones, this might be the only virtue recognized. And everything is excused of those who are "victims" while the designated villains get absolutely no hearing and aren't allowed redemption. (One of the worst mysteries I watched on TV, this woman who was practically a saint was found out to have been part of a white supremacist group in youth, and despite there being nothing to indicate she still had such beliefs or had done anything much wrong, all the "good" characters turn on her and destroy it, in some strange "justice" that has no contact with real justice.)
The problem with this is that it's really very easy for villains to pretend to be victims. In fact it's part of their stock in trade, and it takes very little effort.
And since you have internalized the idea that those who have suffered are good (or at least that their bad is justified) you'll be victimized again and again and again.
We see this in policy, in the large cities which have turned themselves into open sewers in pursuit of "justice" for the largely feral and addicted homeless.
And yes, I do realize this is big business for the cities themselves, but by and large the people in the cities allow it to continue because the homeless are judged as "victims" of an unjust society and therefore deserving. This is bolstered by story after story saying something like "Sure they're shiftless and addicted, but you'd be the same if you'd had their luck."
All of this is exemplified in the "bee sting" theory of poverty that people fall into poverty because they're overwhelmed with needs until they can't function.
While I'm sure this is true in some cases, it's not what's causing the "homelessness crisis" or the reason there is poverty. That is simply that most people will make no more effort than they need to to survive, and if you make them comfortable in poverty and addition, they'll stay there.
And incidentally, while no person is born evil, no person is born good either. Yeah, sure, as biologists and animal breeders will tell you, there are character tendencies inherent in everyone, but without strong encouragement to be "good" or "Moral" most humans will follow the path of least resistance.
And if allowed to satisfy all their worst impulses without consequence, they'll destroy themselves, and ultimately, all those around them.
The twentieth century turn against "Victorian morality" ultimately did no good to anyone: not society, not even the afflicted themselves.
You see, sympathy for the devil is ultimately callousness and lack of care to those who legitimately need help, who fell on hard times through no fault of their own, or even through a small misstep.
All this permissiveness and encouragement for the evil and shiftless to do as they will, will ultimately generate a backlash that will make people harsher and less caring of those who could otherwise be rescued.
Yes, some villains have tragic backstories. But in the end, whatever happens to you, you're not a robot. You make choices on how to respond. And it is best for society -- and perhaps even for you -- if you are judged on those choices, even as we hold out the possibility of redemption, and (because we're not the evil left) of forgiving evil if on balance you're trying to and have done mostly good.
Not to judge people on their actions is the ultimate evil because It assumes people are robots who cannot choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment