By Stephen D’Arcy
Self-righteousness is a special case of being self-satisfied, complacent, smug. But here, the smug complacency refers specifically to a person’s belief that he or she complies, to a higher than normal degree, with the demands of some strict moral standard. This claimed moral superiority in turn is supposed to justify an attitude of scorn or disdain toward others, who supposedly fail to respect this high standard and in this way discredit themselves.
Importantly, self-righteousness differs from simple “righteousness” — the insistence on doing the right thing, simply because it is the right thing — in being a vice rather than a virtue. Why, though, is self-righteousness a vice, not a virtue?
It is a vice for at least three reasons:
1. First, because the self-righteous person helps himself or herself to a higher standing than his or her peers, and so claims to be superior, almost in the manner of a “saint,” whereas we only accept the standing of moral superior as an honorific status to be conferred on rare individuals by others, not a self-appointed status to be claimed presumptuously and unilaterally for oneself;
2. Second, because the smug complacency implies a confidence that one has little or no work to do to improve one’s own conduct and character, and thereby reveals a lack of concern for self-improvement, a confidence placed in doubt by the very behaviour that embodies it, since that behaviour itself is open to criticism and calls for correction; and
3. Third, because the most common marker or indicator of self-righteousness is the ostentatious stance of self-appointed judge, issuing explicit or implicit decrees of condemnation toward others, for their supposed failings, and this ‘judgmental’ stance reveals a lack of insight about or awareness of the universality of failings and shortcomings that motivate one’s finger-pointing, but on the contrary presumes that such failings are unique to the judged, and have no parallel in the words and deeds of the judge.
Now, it is sometimes said that social-justice-oriented political activists are particularly prone to self-righteousness. I’m not sure whether or not they are unusually quick to indulge in this sort of thing. But I do believe that it is widespread, and certainly no less typical of activists than of others. And that’s a problem, because it obviously undermines what they are trying to achieve, if (as I hope) they are trying to draw in wider circles of people, and to break out of activist subcultures to engage with the larger world. Clearly, a self-righteous attitude will deter engagement, on one’s own part, since one looks down on others and therefore won’t see them as potential comrades and partners in a common struggle; and it will also deter engagement on the part of others, because they will find one’s self-righteousness to be offensive and indicative of some activists’ contempt for ordinary people. Self-righteousness, in short, undermines both the interest of activists in engaging with the wider world, and the willingness of the wider world to be engaged by activists.
I believe that this problem came up, as a practical matter, during the Occupy movement, when many long-time activists found themselves, consciously or unconsciously, unwilling or unable to engage with wider circles of people flooding into oppositional movement politics, because some of those people had (arguably) mistaken ideas about a range of issues, from the role of ‘the Fed’ to the nature of colonialism and much else. No one would suggest that these ideas, where they existed, didn’t need to be challenged in various ways, by means of a process of popular education. But having mistaken opinions is not actually a flaw or a defect or sign of inferiority, clearly. It is actually the normal state of everyone. We just have different zones of knowledge and ignorance. So, a stance of condescension in such situations is clearly uncalled for. But in fact, at the time, I believe that some activists retreated from the Occupy movement because they were particularly judgmental about the political opinions of some of the participants. (My evidence for this is limited, but it is a perception I had at the time.) Obviously, there were in some cases perfectly sound reasons that people may have had to shift their attention elsewhere. No one would doubt that; certainly, I don’t doubt it. However, I’m quite sure that at least in a few cases, self-righteousness was an issue.
If self-righteousness is a barrier to strategically effective movement organizing, what can be done about it? I don’t pretend to know. But possibly counting it as one of the threats to left-activism — along with other threats that we express concern about, like state repression, activist burnout, or sexist behaviour, etc. — will help us resist any impulse to revel in self-righteous feelings, which seem to have some narcissistic appeal due to their ego-elevating character. If we count self-righteousness as a danger, a threat to our organizing projects, we might better be able to notice its appearance, and to motivate ourselves to walk away from it.
2 thoughts on “Self-righteousness and Left-Activism”
This is a mostly very good analysis of the pitfalls of self-righteousness that we see too often on the left – and I say this as a person who has been a socialist for more than 5 decades. And not just an arm-chair socialist but an active in-the-streets socialist. We need to remember that a movement to fundamentally change the US will not be like a cult or a consciousness raising group. It will include people with a variety of ideas, attitudes, etc on a range of issues but who are united – or, if we can avoid the self-righteousness that all too often drives people away – on the fundamental question of societal transformation.
As a right-winger, I no longer engage in public activism for this reason. Pro-life people believe they’re saving babies. Nothing wrong with wanting to save babies–though many of you will argue whether fetuses are human babies or not– I’m sure you’ll agree saving babies is a good thing.
Yet, somewhere along the way they forget about the babies. They concentrate on their “righteous” indignation against the women who’ll have to deal with an extra mouth to feed or giving up her own flesh and blood for adoption.
Maybe she’s one of those rare rape victims who became pregnant by her attacker, or more likely was used and abandoned by some creep who had his fun and threw her away after using her like some pro bono hooker. Now she’ll have to learn to love this child and not confuse it with the louse who “donated the sperm.” Or come to terms with the fact she can never give it the love it needs and has to abandon it to the tender mercies of Dame Fortune by finding a way to give it up for adoption.
Shot-gun weddings seldom work out. Never was a good option, though in the 19th century it was sometimes the best offered.
Lately taken to volunteering at one of those pregnancy care centers. We don’t refer women to abortion clinics, but we don’t tie them to a chair. They can find the local Planned Parenthood easily enough. Their choice, right?
Mostly we offer them free clothes, food, and toys. We also give them parenting tips, and help them to decide whether adoption is best for them and the child. (Don’t do adoption referrals either.)
Beats murdering some abortionist doctor vigilante style or bombing some clinic. Yuck!