Assholes

by Aaron James

  A person who knocks over a glass might be a klutz, but if he says whoops, then at least we know that he didn’t intend the outcome and regrets that it happened. A person who says yuck after dripping pizza sauce on his shirt or stepping in dog feces is someone we understand better than someone who seems not to care.

  Following sociologist Erving Goffman, Pinker suggests that we do this in order to “signal our competence and shared understanding of the situation to a generic audience,” where the audience may be imagined rather than real:4

  One goal … is to reassure onlookers that we are sane, competent, reasonable human beings, with transparent goals and intelligible responses to the current situation. Ordinarily this requires that we not talk to ourselves in public, but we make an exception when a sudden turn of events puts our rationality or effectiveness to the test. My favorite example is when we do an about-face in a hallway and mutter a soliloquy explaining to no one in particular that we forgot something in our office, as if to reassure any onlookers that we are not a lunatic who lurches around at random.

  The same goes for swearing out loud in the car. Pinker says cathartic swearing is a response to a “sudden challenge to our goals or well-being.” But that isn’t quite right; swearing with the term “asshole” is a response specifically to a person. Pinker himself notes in passing that “people shout Asshole! when they suffer a sudden affront from a human perpetrator, but not when they pick up a hot casserole or have a mousetrap snap on their finger.”5 Our theory explains why we swear only at persons: the concept of an asshole is essentially keyed to states of mind that only persons can have, in particular, the attitudes and dispositions involved in conducting oneself in a way that reflects one’s appreciation of others as fellow persons and moral equals. That does not itself explain why we call an asshole an asshole when we know that he won’t care. But we now have our explanation. When the asshole has failed to give us our due in traffic, we swear out loud, not to get him to listen but to reassure ourselves that others, real or imagined, would hear our case and agree. We in effect tell ourselves that if he won’t uphold our status as a moral equal, everyone else will.

  So swearing is, in a small way, a means of upholding one’s rights, seen as a kind of public status or standing. In that case, one can equally take a performative stand without harsh words. When an asshole is loudly talking on his cell phone for a long time with others around, one might say out loud: “Sir, given your cell phone behavior, I’m tempted not simply to ask you to keep it down but to inject a cutting remark or perhaps speak of you in less dignified words.” When the asshole chuckles and brushes the comment off, and even when he lashes out, it won’t undermine the point of having spoken up. (Some intelligent assholes will respect and appreciate a clever or stylish response and perhaps even feel greater respect for the person, if perhaps only for a short while.) Speaking up will be worthwhile in itself, if only to affirm the fact that speaking up is indeed now within one’s rights and a reflection of one’s standing, as a moral equal, to stand up and complain. Moreover, the others in line will appreciate having their rights publicly upheld for all to hear. Everyone (except the asshole) is then reassured that everyone sees that everyone deserves better and that everyone can reasonably complain. With that shared understanding reaffirmed, it can even then make sense to forgo efforts to change or stop the asshole. There may be better things to do with the time, such as have a fun conversation about what an asshole that guy was, about whether there are more assholes than there used to be, and so on.

  In short, the good fight for recognition is as much a fight for a public status as for anything else. It is not simply a struggle to get this particular man, on this particular day, to recognize one as an equal. Even when that isn’t in the cards, working to publicly uphold one’s rights or the rights of others is often worth fighting for, in any number of large and small ways.

  The point of speaking up is much like the point of nonviolent protest, for instance, as during apartheid in South Africa (where Gandhi first developed the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience). The goal of peacefully taking to the streets was not simply to persuade the entrenched white minority in power, who had already shown an extraordinary ability to wall out any reasons for racial desegregation. The goal was also to invite the larger South African public, including many potentially sympathetic whites, to appreciate the rightful claims of segregated minorities without using violence in a way that would trigger their defenses and close their ears.

  To be sure, the protests against apartheid wanted major institutional change, and that required actually bringing around a certain number of elite asshole whites (or at least a sufficient number of borderline asshole whites, so that the proper and deeply resistant assholes were marginalized). Yet protest would not have been entirely pointless, even if major institutional change was assumed to be hopeless. Peaceful protest might make perfect sense as a last stand. So might self-inflicted violence. The South Korean rice farmer who stabbed himself to death at the 2003 Cancun World Trade Organization meeting, in order to protest rich-world farm subsidies that impoverish developing-world farmers, needn’t have thought that his desperate act would usher in major institutional change. Public recognition of the plight of poor farmers might have been his whole point.

  Such dramatic interventions are not the normal mode of asshole protestation. It will be unreasonable and unwise to take to the streets every time one is slighted. Nor will there always be an audience to protest for. Even swearing out loud, for oneself, may be less effective than stony silence, an averted gaze, or conspicuous failure to cooperatively engage when one otherwise would (for instance, by refusing to bend over to pick up the asshole’s pen or paperwork dropped at one’s feet after he has cut in the post office line). A small silent protest may speak loudly, even if not to the asshole who refuses to hear. It may succeed as a self-affirmation as much as swearing out loud. Indeed, while swearing out loud puts one’s own dignity at risk, perhaps as much as doing nothing at all, a dignified protest in the small is nearly always possible and often worthwhile.

  HITTING THE SWEET SPOT

  All this is to say that there is space between acquiescence and all-out resistance, not how one is to reliably hit that sweet spot. There is no general recipe or procedure for actually doing this, even once we know that moral recognition is what we are after. Still, for what it is worth, here are two suggestions.

  The first is: don’t try to change the asshole, and cooperate only on your own terms. The second is: take a stand at the right time. We take each suggestion in turn.

  OWN YOUR ATTITUDES

  According to a Stoic principle, one must always accept what is given. One can hope for good things and work toward them, but one should not strive for what is not within one’s power. As the wise Epictetus explains, “If [a way things appear] concerns anything outside of your control, train yourself not to worry about it.”6

  Among things not within one’s control Epictetus explicitly includes the recognition or lack of recognition by others. He writes:

  It is only after you have … learned to distinguish between what you can and can’t control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible.… Such things as … how we are regarded by others … are externals and therefore not our concern.7

  Since one can’t change an asshole, then, one shouldn’t try. One shouldn’t seek recognition in his eyes.

  Now, the Stoics arguably take this too far. They famously counsel that one can retain happy equanimity even while being stretched on the rack or in the face of the death of your own child. One need only adjust one’s interpretations of how things appear. It should then be relatively easy to accept being taken advantage of by an asshole. As Epictetus explains:

  People don’t have the power to hurt you. Even if someone shouts abuse at you or strikes you, if you are insulted, it is always your choice to view what is happening as insulting or not. If someone irritates you, it is only your own response that is i
rritating you. Therefore, when anyone seems to be provoking you, remember that it is only your judgment of the incident that provokes you.8

  Indeed, as Epictetus elaborates, it is the provocateur who is mainly injured:

  If someone treats you disrespectfully or speaks unkindly about you, remember that he or she does so from [his or her] impression that it is right to do so. It is unrealistic to expect that this person sees you as you see yourself. If another person reaches conclusions based on false impressions, he or she is the one hurt rather than you, because it is that person who is misguided.9

  So we are to own our perceptions as our own. If nothing else, this is a good way of mellowing oneself out. Still, having mellowed, one might well finally conclude, on due reflection, that this guy is a serious asshole and that some response—perhaps a quick riposte—is indeed called for. It is only if there really is nothing one can do by way of reply that full disengagement becomes the wise course (as in “Here he goes again; let us observe whether his technique is changing, perhaps even improving!”). When constructive replies are in the cards, we will rightly take our chances on action. Epictetus might well agree, as long as action flows from full acceptance that the world may not cooperate. We should act decisively but stand ready to let go. Trying is fine, as long as it is not fruitless striving for what is not in our power.

  What, then, should one try for? For the Stoics, the flip side of our lack of full control over the world is that we have correspondingly heightened personal responsibility for our attitudes and interpretations, which are within our power. A responsible reply to the asshole will seek after what is achievable and worthy. The practical challenge is to seek that and nothing more. The Stoics tell us how: we appropriately judge the appearances, through clear thinking. As Epictetus explains, “It is through clear thinking that we are able to properly direct our will, stick with our true purpose, and discover the connections we have to others and the duties that follow from those relationships.”10 As we might put it, we are to seek self-clarification. We might start by mindfully considering how we are now feeling; what we are tempted to strive for; what seems difficult to let go of; and what the alternative thoughts, feelings, and plans would be. We then consider which reactions are ultimately just and worthwhile, settle upon that course, and stay with it. If a goal such as getting the asshole to listen or teaching him the error of his ways is tempting but unachievable or unworthy, we first identify that we are indeed, right now, drawn to acting for the sake of that particular end. Without self-judgment, we then let go of that particular goal and adopt a more worthy and more achievable aim, such as upholding our rights or the rights of others in a public way, without expecting the asshole to listen or change.

  The possibility of self-clarification helps explain why we do not have to completely avoid the asshole, which we earlier said was often too costly. It can easily seem that, in cooperating with the asshole at all, one becomes complicit in one’s own exploitation—a sucker—by sustaining the cooperative interactions the asshole takes advantage of. But this is not inevitable: one can cooperate on a footing of self-respect as long as one cooperates on one’s own terms. One might allow oneself to have a conversation with the asshole, for instance, but without giving him the openness or the time that one would give to a friend or a nice stranger in a coffee shop. Such terms are one’s own when they reflect one’s own clearheaded judgment about the sorts of engagements that are, for one’s own reasons, worthwhile. If you have a light chat with the asshole because you think this helps to uphold a tone of civility at work, then, as long as you believe that upholding civility is worthwhile, you are not necessarily being co-opted into the asshole’s normal ways—even as you may well be supporting one general form of cooperation that the asshole cheats.

  We have said that one shouldn’t try to get the asshole to listen. But now it might seem that this could be worth trying for. If one can cooperate with the asshole, why not at least try to get the asshole to eventually change? We usually won’t know that this asshole won’t give us the recognition we are owed. He is resistant—he is an asshole—but he might well budge, and there is always room for hope, perhaps against hope, that his walls will come down. Perhaps a failed stratagem will work the next time. Perhaps some new tack will get through. Perhaps persistent, patient resistance will eventually pay off. Shouldn’t we at least then try? Even if it failed, wouldn’t such an effort be worthwhile?

  We suggest not, for reasons our initial counsel of productivity provided: for many of us as regards most assholes, the appropriate maxim is: “Don’t waste your time.” To adopt asshole reform as one’s personal cause may well be fruitless. It will invariably mean forgoing more valuable things one could be doing instead, things such as listening to music, having coffee with a friend, or helping the poor. Add to that the persistent frustrations and struggle to stave off despair, and asshole reform will not make a lot of sense. To be sure, for some of us and some assholes, the cause might be sensible or indeed the only choice. Perhaps the asshole is one’s husband or the father of one’s child. Here Stoic wisdom suggests biding one’s time and devising a cunning plan, a plan that finds a way of getting through while not simply enabling the asshole—all while steadily reminding oneself that success is ultimately not within one’s power. For those in this difficult position, something more useful than a philosophical book about assholes will probably be required. It may help to love and forgive the asshole, to the extent that this is possible, perhaps in hope of his moral reform, assuming one can do that without losing one’s self-respect.11 Even so, it will be wise not to insist upon or labor for his reform.12

  PROTEST, BUT SELECTIVELY

  We thus have our first piece of advice: don’t try to change the asshole, but feel free to cooperate on one’s own terms. Our second piece of advice is: take a stand at the right time. We should speak up in protest, on behalf of oneself or others, but only (or at least mostly) at the right time. When is the right time? Our answer is “often enough”—that is, often enough to preserve one’s self-respect and to uphold the rights of others when duty calls.

  That answer isn’t especially helpful. How often is often enough? When does duty call? But it is not clear that there can be a more general rule, given that people have such different circumstances. Certain issues may require special vigilance by all; if the asshole is sexist, as many are, both women and men will need to reliably uphold the boundaries of respectful treatment, for example. But most cases are more complicated. Whether one should take a stand now might depend on what else one has going on that week. Someone dealing with a family crisis won’t have time to stage a protest. Someone in a slow spell at work might. Moreover, people often have very different temperaments. Those stable in their sense of self-worth will find it easy to blow off the asshole’s slights and only occasionally sound a protest. More sensitive types will need to persistently speak up.

  THE MANAGEMENT ARTS

  If we can do little more than offer general rules of thumb, which we have to use our best judgment to apply to the situation presented to us, we might at least explain why this should be so. This is to be expected: asshole management is less science and more art. It is less like following a procedure than having the knack for an art or a craft in Aristotle’s sense: it can be learned only by doing, not by following rules that one could fully grasp ahead of time. Ideal asshole management is akin to the martial art of aikido, which allows one to absorb the force of one’s attacker, by turning his own momentum against him, in order to protect oneself (and the attacker) from injury. Like asshole management, aikido cannot be fully grasped by any set of formulae; it must be learned by practice, usually over many years.

  This also explains why hitting the sweet spot with the asshole is so difficult. We are surprised to see the aikido black belt swiftly disable a knifeman. The act shows a real possibility of reaction that otherwise wouldn’t have seemed to be there. One can learn to see and seize the possibility ahead of time but only with much p
ractice over time. When we repeatedly fail to get our own response to the asshole correct, then we rightly give ourselves a break. In aikido, to demand that a yellow belt perform like a black or brown belt is unkind and unrealistic: it fails to appreciate how difficult learning the practice is. So we shouldn’t expect perfect asshole management, even when we have given it more than a college try. Nor should we necessarily preoccupy ourselves with the mastery of this particular art. Here, again, the good counsels of productivity apply. Should you devote your life to asshole aikido? While that would not be entirely unworthy, there are probably better things to do with the limited time one has in life, things such as learning to paint large canvases in the abstract; refining one’s taste in jazz; or, indeed, learning the martial art of aikido for the sake of the practice itself (rather than for the few occasions one will ever use it in a fight). Life affords only so much time, and there are better things to do—sweeter spots to hit—than perfection in the asshole management arts.

  POISONING THE WELL

  We have been considering asshole management in one-on-one encounters. We now turn to asshole management in a small group, where the difficulties can become especially acute. When people gather in shared purpose—say, at a boardroom meeting, in a small business, in a community construction project, or on a camping trip—this often brings a certain amount of fellow feeling and good vibes. The asshole poisons this well of goodwill by turning well-meaning people against one another. This puts him in the advantageous position of being able to prevent the group from cooperating so as to keep him under control.