November 4 1999, 815 words
Sincerity is not always a virtue. We tend to assume it is, because its obverse - hypocrisy - is almost always wrong. But Adolf Hitler was quite sincere in his hatred of Jews, and very probably sincere in his belief that exterminating them would solve Germany's economic problems. At the other extreme, the late Julius Nyerere was a very sincere idealist who believed in justice and economic parity. That did not stop him from imprisoning political opponents without trial nor did it prevent his social policies from impoverishing Tanzania.
I am speaking, of course, of sincerity as generally understood. Most people define sincerity as something more than mere truthfulness. Truthfulness has to do with being factually accurate. Sincerity, as I think most people understand the term, has to do with emotional honesty. The man who tells his wife she doesn't look fat in that dress may be lying about her figure, but he is being truthful about his affection. His wife, even if she knows he's lying like linoleum, therefore does not condemn him for insincerity.
On the other hand, the man who tells the sexy young thing that he's unmarried, a wealthy businessman, only thirty-eight and really, really loves her - if he says all this only because he wants sex, then he is being insincere even in the unlikely event the first three statements are perfectly true and only the last one a lie. (If the last statement were demonstrably true and the others a lie, however, I suspect that quite a few women would not condemn the man for insincerity.)
Human beings place great value on sincerity because we are social animals. A society can function effectively only if there is a certain measure of trust between the individuals comprising its social units, from husband-wife, parents-children, clan-clan, leaders-followers, and all the way up to people-government. In his book Human Universals, anthropologist Donald E. Brown describes the "Universal People" - those characteristics common to every known culture.
"The UP have customs of cooperative labour," writes Brown. "They use reciprocal exchanges, whether of labour, goods or services...The UP distinguish right from wrong and...recognize responsibility and intentionality. They recognize and employ promises. Reciprocity...is a key element in their morality. So, too, is their ability to empathize."
None of this means that human beings do not lie and cheat. Those characteristics, too, are universal. But, obviously, none of the universals I have listed could exist unless sincerity were a basic trait of human beings, and, moreover, a trait that was not only psychological but also political. But the sincerity that worked in simpler and ancient cultures may be counter-productive, and even destructive, in a complex and modern society.
When, for example, Maha Sabha spokesman Devant Maharaj can refer to the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust and write, "The truth is the very same type of religious assault against Hindus is taking place in Trinidad and Tobago", one can only hope that he is being deliberately dishonest. The alternatives are (1) that Maharaj is clinically delusional; or (2) we have in Trinidad and Tobago a major and well-funded religious organization whose leaders actually believe that there are Christian groups prepared to torture and kill Trinidadian Hindus.
Sincerity, therefore, can only be a virtue if we extend its meaning to include factual, as well as emotional, truthfulness. The truly sincere person will not try to twist fact to bolster their beliefs, or what they wish to believe. If Hitler had been a sincere man, by this definition, he would have also been a logical man. He would therefore have known that killing Jews solved nothing. But the readiness of human beings to believe leaders who truly believe their own lies, no matter what the facts, is the root of much fanaticism.
It is important, therefore, that people be trained to recognize those individuals who are falsely sincere or total hypocrites. Whichever group they fall under, these Universal Liars will display some or most of the following characteristics. They speak loudly and, in writing, use a lot of exclamation marks. They have a convoluted speaking or writing style. Often pompous. Overuse phrases like "The truth is." Often describe their group as homogenous, even when said group is not. Often describe other groups as homogenous, even when said groups are not. Vituperative against particular groups. They have little or no sense of humour. They do not have a sense of irony. Rarely agnostic or atheistic. Often claim superior knowledge, but eschew evidence and logic. Congenitally insecure, this insecurity usually being expressed by insistent statements about their identity, intellect or attractiveness. Contradict own principles, such as tolerance, opposition to capital punishment or parasitic oligarchies.
In my view, hypocrisy has always been the main cancer of our society. By stamping out hypocrisy, we would help stamp out many social ills. And I say that in all sincerity.
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh