(pic from here)
Brooks wrote a column in the NY Times yesterday about the “dignity code” and how it’s been obliterated. He describes the dignity code as follows:
The dignity code commanded its followers to be disinterested — to endeavor to put national interests above personal interests. It commanded its followers to be reticent — to never degrade intimate emotions by parading them in public. It also commanded its followers to be dispassionate — to distrust rashness, zealotry, fury and political enthusiasm.
He then talks about the forces that have killed it.
I disagree with him on many levels. If you look at Brooks’s reasons for the destruction of the dignity code, all factors come from the speed at which modern information moves. It was hard to find dirt on Martin Luther King or Ronald Reagan because there was no internet, no bloggers, no TMZ, no wiki, etc. We do the “personal branding” because we don’t want to get lost in the media saturated crowd. Had Jon and Kate existed back then, people wouldn’t have the means of finding like minded people to discuss it with, and we wouldn’t be opening up our innermost lives because we wouldn’t be able to find so many people with whom to share. Mass evangelism came about because of TV, and egalitarianism reached a new level when everyone could publish on the web. Information in the prior era simply moved more slowly. It’s a function of technology.
However, my thoughts, when I read the article, is that the dignity Brooks describes is exactly the Asian stereotypes that many of us try to avoid. Disinterest, reticence, dispassion? That’s what we’re supposed to be. And yet, that is where dignity exists, according to Brooks. Somehow someone somewhere convinced us all that this outward dispassion is a bad thing.
Interestingly enough, in movies like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” outward dispassion is portrayed as a sign of strength, much the same way Brooks describes it.
So perhaps this article provides some kind of defense for the “be yourself” argument? I believe in personal branding and outward striving because I believe that people need to move in order to achieve great things. I myself am probably loud, compared to the general population. However, restraint isn’t a bad thing, and it could even be a form of strength. Especially in this era of new technology, I think we’re going to see that people value both characteristics–the loud promotion and sharing, along with personal restraint.
Thoughts?
No related posts.
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
A blogger talking about personal restraint? Haha, sorry, I couldn’t help myself. I think your last sentence pretty much sums it up: be yourself but don’t be an asshole. But I know you’re talking more about our community. In that case, I can’t help but think of my favorite quote from Ghandi: “Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress.” I think we all agree that there are plenty of things that need improving before we can rest on our laurels. And pretending otherwise is just another way of throwing in the towel. There is no dignity in being a doormat.
Haha…bloggers are the anti-restraint!
This whole restraint vs. striving thing is a very interesting philosophical question. Has anyone here read the play “Dirty Hands” by Jean-Paul Sartre? It’s the same deal–we need to do things intentionally. I think in a busy world like the one in which we live, it sometimes becomes difficult to gauge intentionality (is that a word?). In other words, we should use restraint knowing that it’s a choice, not out of fear, and we should use loudness knowing that we’re trying to make a difference, not losing control.
We need to be constructive with our comments, if the point now is to show the pros and the cons; are we building up to something or just going in circles?
intent is single and plural. thoughts
intention is action
the whole spiritual thing:
Is that some good people can afford to do some bad things, some cannot. The thought where people work hard to make money, and save money; at what point will they spend money? Leaders invest in the hopes that other people can develop their own wealth. (spiritually) The issue is trust and responsibility between the 2 groups. It is so much the same in parenting.