Bullshit in America
Advertisements are full of it. Your boss has to bullshit with you to keep things rolling smoothly at work. You had to bullshit a little bit to get the job in the first place. The Olympics are ripe with it. Elections rely on it. There is an area between the Truth and the outright Lies where we find our Gross National Product: Bullshit.
We are seeking a definition. Bullshit is not complete untruth; many times it is a sugarcoat on the truth. Nor is it a lie. A lie is on the far end. Lying is Swiftboating, lying is illegal in many situations. We lie sometimes in our everyday life. But we bullshit more often. We bullshit to cover ourselves, to pacify others, to assure people that the things that we promised will be done. Often we are speaking bullshit to power. You bullshit at work; you have to. Your work is an acting job. You are someone different at work than you are in your life, and this is mostly a good use of bullshit. The coworker who insists on telling you the intimate details of their life, they are crossing a line. The workplace is no place for the naked truth. In order to maintain the right atmosphere at work, you should bullshit a little bit. When you meet your coworkers outside of work, you can ease off it a little and be yourself. Within reason.
When we say someone is Full of Shit, we generally mean that there is a fundamental lack of credibility there. Many of these people are quite charming and the clever things they say tend to be very entertaining and provocative, even if they are untruthful or off-base. These are often well-educated and well-informed people who can talk a good talk. On the first meeting, you might be fooled. You can be so persuaded by their rhetoric that you might even regurgitate their bullshit as your own, in another setting. They rewrite history, they draw circles in the air linking disparate events and creating odd yet creative conclusions. They find a way to make the bullshit true. They have a talent and a knack for it. They are out there. And you may not even realize it until you have known them for years.
There is the official bullshit, the glossy stuff that we get in the media. The mainstream media has crossed over and found a clever link between information, education, and entertainment. Deliberately provocative, oversimplified and quick, the news media and advertising are designed for your enjoyment. Yes, they also want to persuade you. There is no pure news source. There is no bit of news that you might receive that can pass as pure truth. This is the News, not the Truth. Otherwise, they would call it so. This is the spread of information, and just like a virus can disguise itself as something healthy and beneficial, the media can infiltrate our heads and our culture. We are entertained, and we also become the entertainers. When you spread a piece of news by word of mouth, when you discuss an event, you are taking part in the media process. You are spreading fear, bullshit, and your credibility goes on the tightrope.
Credibility is less important than provocation and persuasion. And that, in itself, is the magic carpet that bullshit rides upon.
Ethically speaking, should you cut through the bullshit? Can you fight the bullshit current? Are you going to crusade for the truth? Are you going to dig deep enough to find the truth? Are you better off insulating yourself and others within a comfortable bubble of bullshit? Are those lies convenient? Do they keep the peace?
A few years ago I tried to start a National Day of Honesty. Many people thought I was crazy and they fought me on it. So I decided that no matter what, I would still participate in it, even if I was the only one. I spent the November day quietly giving my honest response to everything. I told my truth to everyone, from clients at work to my employers to my family. When I thought the truth would be too painful, I witheld it and said nothing. I thought this might provoke arguments, that total honesty would start a fight everywhere I went. But instead, I found that honesty felt good. I doled out sincere compliments to people. I even engaged in a beautiful discussion on the purpose of life. I had to speak honestly. I sincerely believe that the purpose of our existence is to love one another, and we talked about it.
Then the sun went down. Back to normal. I could not live at that pace. I could not walk around with my eyes so open. Telling your own truth helps you see the truth in things. And that will bring tears to your eyes.
Don King once said "Bullshit makes the flowers grow." Would we rather live in the rose-tinted bullshit world? Would we rather ignore the suffering in this awful world than confront it? Is it part of what makes us human? Is it at the core of many of our beliefs? Is bullshit a part of love? Friendship? World Peace?
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this Story
Is There Bullshit 'Only In America?'
The quote from Don King, boxing promoter and also of the flowering of bullshit, reminds me of Mr. King's belief that people who have degrees in B.S. can not only survive but thrive, 'only in America.' .
But, after watching the Beijing Olympics, I know that bullshit is thriving there too, that is if I depend on one of the definitions offered in a2ethics.org correspondent barcode 2x's original post: that all advertising is, in the end, just plain Bullshit. From the Opening Ceremonies, featuring the inventions China has given to the world, to the seemingly flawless running of the Games, the advertising for China's introduction as the 21st century's next economic and political superpower was on the grandest of B.S. scales...and very, very persuasive.
Perhaps less persuaded by the opening event would be one of its philosophical stars. No, I am not talking about the singers at the top of the papier-mache (?) world in the Opening Ceremonies, but about the several thousand Confucius impersonators in the high hats and sweeping gray outfits. Were they in silk or chiffon? No matter.
But how they were dressed would have mattered to the real Confucius, China's most famous philosopher and rituals teacher, who lived from 551 to 479 B.C. (Not B.S. but as close as scholars are able to pinpoint the dates.) And my guess is he would not have approved of much of the Beijing Olympics at all. It is not that he didn't like sporting endeavors. From accounts of his students, he enjoyed archery and fishing.
What would have troubled Confucius was the supreme emphasis and singleminded attention by the Party elites in the Chinese goverment to manipulate and exploit traditional Chinese symbols and to rewrite the history of China through the use of language and of brand naming. It is true that all of the athletes were given Chinese, and thus, new names upon their arrival. The better to understand who the outsider and foreign athletes were for the Chinese spectators.
But, for Confucius, naming was not for branding, convenience or even understanding between people who speak different languages. For him, getting names right was central to his entire teaching. Confucius's principle idea was that leaders ruled through their moral power alone. If a leader did not set a moral example by fulfilling his proper role, then he was not worthy to rule and would lose the trust of his people. If the leader could not be trusted, then the leader was not the only one doomed. The country itself was doomed.
A famous story is revealing. A student asked Confucius: "If a king were to entrust you with a territory which you could govern according to your ideas, what would you do first?"
Confucius is said to have answered: "My first task would certainly be to rectify the names."
The student in turn was perplexed: "Rectify the names? And that would be your first priority? Is this a joke?"
So, Confucius (who I suspect was not like David Carradine or any other martial arts, wu xia, 'Karate Kid' master etc., and did not say things just to give people the idea that something profound had been said which needed no explanation) clarified:
"If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible---and therefore, all human affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible.Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names."
In short order, Confucius was telling his student, and everyone, that if he were king, he would rid the country and the land of...Bullshit. The reason? Everyone thinks that it is Ok to bullshit, because it has few real consequences. But, at least for Confucius, the consequences of bullshit are so great that we ignore them and imperil ourselves.
During the national conventions over the next few weeks, we will be hearing alot about how and what, and mostly who we need to bring America back, and implicitly to bring America back the gold medals and our economic and political superpower status we increasingly fear China is beating us at now and in the future.
In addition to cutting our dependence on oil and on credit from countries, including in the latter case,China, we might give some attention to cutting our dependence on Bullshit.
(The story about rectifying the names comes from a translation by Simon Leys of The Analects of Confucius. There are many translations of The Analects, but the one by Leys, in my opinion, is the best. Check it out: The Analects of Confucius, Translation and Notes by Simon Leys, W.W.Norton & Co., 1997.)
Still B.S.ing on Bullshit
A few years ago, I was happy to see Harry Frankfurt, a very well-known ethics professor, on "The Daily Show." I didn't know what he looked like, but had read some of his work. John Daily was talking to Professor Frankfurt about an essay he had written, oh about 25 years ago, called "On Bullshit." The essay had been reprinted and had struck many, including Daily, as very useful and relevant for today's times.
The interview was a bit beyond me, but I got the book, which was cleverly marketed to look like one of those Beatrix Potter and "Pat the Bunny" small children's books. But, perhaps I should have stuck to Peter Rabbit. (I hope to go back to it soon, and read it again for another post. This bullshit topic requires alot of back and forth and deserves more thinking and further b.s.ing on the site.)
And just mentioning Peter Rabbit and other stories of childhood, and well beyond, makes me think about what a2ethics.org's bard, barcode 2x said about bullshit...that sometimes b.s.ing is charming from certain people, because they are consummate storytellers.
So,yes, I agree, that there is a place, even a moral role for Bullshit in a community. It takes the shape of that community person who is the storyteller, the raconteur. In many places, including America, the storyteller is an important person, because the tales told hold moral lessons and have moral value. So where is this going and what does this have to do with Bullshit?
The point is that the storyteller embellishes and weaves the tale so that people will find it memorable. In doing this, the storyteller's exaggerations and flourishes are part of the tale. The raconteur is in part a master bullshitter. And we love these stories, and the raconteurs who do it best! We make moral exceptions for the best bullshitters, because they are so imaginative and entertaining. I know several people who are great at such storytelling; I know they are not really true, but I can't imagine them telling a story without its bullshit.
But here is my question: what happens when the designated storyteller, the teller of tall tales becomes institutionalized AND everyone is given the opportunity to become the community raconteur? If we are all bullshitters, and some of us are very poor at it, then does the art of bullshitting become diminished? And equally important, does the democratization of bullshitting, where everyone gets a shot at it, diminish our own abilities to distinguish the good from the bad stories?
This is no bullshit. I am interested in learning more about the ways and the whys of b.s.ing and differences between cultures on the topic.
For your own look at Harry G. Frankfurt's essay, On Bullshit, the book was published by Princeton University Press in 2005. I would also recommend one of his other books, my favorite: The Importance of What We Care About.