Oliver Burkeman reviews the new book Assholes: A Theory by Aaron James.
Assholes, as James defines the term, present a conundrum: they enrage us out of all proportion to the damage they do. The asshole shouting into his phone on the bus, eating a smelly burger on the train or giving a running commentary at the cinema hardly ruins our lives. Yet there's something about them "bad enough to drive an otherwise coolheaded person into a fit of rage". That something, James concludes, is their failure to recognise the equal moral status of others. The asshole "allows himself to enjoy special advantage… out of an entrenched sense of entitlement", immunised against complaints. Obliviousness is a crucial ingredient here. We're outraged not by the phone-shouter's noise, but his refusal to grant that our interests count.
The challenge, in dealing with assholes, is that it's hard to resist the temptation to fight on their terms: when you explode in rage at an asshole, James argues, you're really demanding that he recognise your moral status. But that defines you as a supplicant, and an inferior, seeking his approval, thus reinforcing the asshole's worldview – so don't be shocked if it doesn't work. A better, albeit harder, plan is to remind yourself that you're outraged less by the asshole's actions than by his inner motivations. A nasty smell on a train – or a few minutes' longer waiting in line – is a mild irritation, against which you may be justified in taking proportionate action. But the asshole's moral attitudes, in a deep sense, are none of your business. Getting too psychologically enmeshed in them just makes you a wazzock.
Assholes, as James defines the term, present a conundrum: they enrage us out of all proportion to the damage they do. The asshole shouting into his phone on the bus, eating a smelly burger on the train or giving a running commentary at the cinema hardly ruins our lives. Yet there's something about them "bad enough to drive an otherwise coolheaded person into a fit of rage". That something, James concludes, is their failure to recognise the equal moral status of others. The asshole "allows himself to enjoy special advantage… out of an entrenched sense of entitlement", immunised against complaints. Obliviousness is a crucial ingredient here. We're outraged not by the phone-shouter's noise, but his refusal to grant that our interests count.
The challenge, in dealing with assholes, is that it's hard to resist the temptation to fight on their terms: when you explode in rage at an asshole, James argues, you're really demanding that he recognise your moral status. But that defines you as a supplicant, and an inferior, seeking his approval, thus reinforcing the asshole's worldview – so don't be shocked if it doesn't work. A better, albeit harder, plan is to remind yourself that you're outraged less by the asshole's actions than by his inner motivations. A nasty smell on a train – or a few minutes' longer waiting in line – is a mild irritation, against which you may be justified in taking proportionate action. But the asshole's moral attitudes, in a deep sense, are none of your business. Getting too psychologically enmeshed in them just makes you a wazzock.
No comments:
Post a Comment