The Menance Of Double Standards

A British language philosopher J. L. Austin once said speech is act, and saying is doing. But what he said about language one century back seems untrue today. Many of us say one thing but very often do contrary to what we say.  The double standard is generally understood as a rule or principle unfairly applied to pass judgments on a case or event. This principle may also be differently applied to different people or groups. If somebody with a powerful position does something against the rule, for instance, they might be forgiven even for a serious mistake. But if a powerless person makes the same mistake, they might be punished. The practice of this anomalous judgment can be called double standards. 

Another form of double standard is the contradiction between what one says and does. This trend is by no means a recent one. In former times, sayings were in contradiction with doing. What Rama promised to do could not keep for long, as he believed in the words of a dubious washerman, doubted Seeta’s fidelity, and drove her out of the palace. Some critics argue that Lord Krishna violated the rules of war to make the Pandavas win the Mahabharata War. In ancient Greek literature also, Homer depicted gods as revengeful, who set up a vulnerable point in otherwise undefeatable heroes to vanquish them. This suggests that even gods contradicted in practice what they said. 

Impractical promises 

In our times also, we tend to contradict saying with doing chiefly for circumstantial and temperamental reasons. First, our physical circumstances do not allow us to keep our promises. Some promises seem impractical to implement in real-life situations. We say we should love everyone, treating them as brothers and sisters, but in practice, this is impossible. How can we love all eight billion people on earth whom we are unlikely to even see in person, let alone live and work together? Also, it is impossible to treat laborious and lazy people equally. Ethics dictates that it cannot be fair to feed those who are reluctant to work despite their capability. Second, our views are changeable by nature.

Therefore, we tend to adopt double standards in our own interests without being inflexible. Sometimes we also tend to change our views about certain things and events out of whims. In the immediately previous article published by Rising Nepal, this scribe advocated for embracing the biocentric worldview. But as essential as this is for the safety of the earth, the same is equally difficult to practice in contemporary situations. We live in a world where we need more facilities in the context of limited resources. So we take advantage of the innocent animals and plants that have to be saved to protect the environment and maintain ecological balance. We exploit nature, which ultimately may take revenge on us for our misdeeds. 

To take a simple but spectacular example, we talk about animal rights, but we also tend to kill them to have delicious meals. Many such examples can be cited from real-life situations. We say we should donate ten per cent of our total income, but in practice, we do not even donate one per cent. We advocate an equitable society where everyone should be equal irrespective of race, class, and gender. But in practice, the upper class exploits the lower-class people, the upper caste discriminates the lower-caste people, and men subjugate women. 

The most bizarre contradictions are in the field of politics. Authoritarians say their dictatorship is for the public good. But it has never been so. The powerful Western countries colonised many powerless nations to exploit them and said they helped their development. Hitler and Mussolini imposed Nazism and Fascism and said they established democracy. Even democratic countries advocate absolute freedom and social justice while simultaneously practicing discriminatory behaviour. This type of double standard is rampant. It has marred the evolution of liberty, equality, and social justice. 

The situation is not entirely incorrigible, however. The practice of double standards cannot be rooted out. Yet we can minimise it if we cultivate the habit of critical thinking and impartial behaviour. Very few people understand that criticisms are to ideas what knives are to onions. Ideas can be sharpened with critics’ knives. The more critical thinkers discuss reasonably, the better solutions are reached. Progressive ideas can only come out of adequate criticism. Harsh criticism targeting to hit the personality and reputation is undesirable to all humans. On the other hand, a eulogy to valorise somebody without their being so is also another extreme. A wise person practices impartial criticism of the actions somebody is involved in rather than condemning the personality and reputation of the person. 

Limitations

Because of the diversity and limitations, we cannot simultaneously see right and left, back and forth, far and wide. Critics and decision-makers, therefore, must wear white spectacles to fairly see things and events. If they wear coloured glasses, they might fall into the vice of double standards. Political actors, social activists, researchers, and decision-makers must be free of partisan outlooks if they want to avoid double standards. Another way of avoiding double standards is to control emotions and be calm and quiet while making decisions and acting them out. This is hard to do because every human being is inherently emotional also. 

According to an ancient Greek myth, we are the blend of Apollonian and Dionysian qualities. Whereas Apollonian characteristics encourage us to become sensible without being irrational, Dionysiac characteristics, on the contrary, trigger strong feelings which lead us to make unwise decisions and do unreasonable actions, often resulting in unwanted outcomes. This myth dictates that the human mind should be a blend of both qualities that may be necessary to balance our thought and emotion. We can correct the situation and put things in place by making hard efforts. It would be worth mentioning to quote Shelly here, “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?”

(The author is the chairman of Molung Foundation. bhupadhamala@gmail.com)