A new phrase has emerged in contemporary conversation: compartmentalizing. It allows for the use of sets in thinking that may not overlap, that may be contradictory. It allows for a freedom in evaluation where someone might approach a new problem unencumbered by previous experience or decision. What used to be called inconsistent or cynical is now compartmentalizing.
I'm sure it has been around for a long time but I first noticed it with President Clinton who was excused his social behavior with this notion. The idea was that he was a competent leader, had been creative in managing the economy and his personal behavior was "something different", something to be examined by means other than were applied to the real reason he was there. This is more forgiving than the old utilitarian excuse that "at least he made the trains run on time."
In essence, this means that we are all watered by several different streams and we have different qualities with different growth and speed. So Michael Corleone can be a stone cold killer but a loving family man, Ted Bundy the Prince of Darkness to a young woman but a kind and interested conversationalist. It is in distinction to the "seed" notion of life--"psychological homogeneity"--which sees an individual as a whole, not as a crazy quilt of various and competing inclinations that break through to the surface at one time or another and under certain circumstances. And it feeds a modern need: We do not want to generalize, we do not want to judge.
There are times we should yield to the wisdom in the New Testament: By their fruits you will know them. Michael Corleone was a stone cold killer with a few exceptions; Bundy was The Prince of Darkness, but chatty. Both of these men may have something to say to us, just not much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment