- For the death metal band, see Hypocrisy
(band).
Hypocrisy is the act of condemning or calling for the condemnation of another person when the critic is guilty of the
act for which he demands that the accused be condemned. Though hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in
debates, a few theorists have studied the utility of hypocrisy, and in some cases have suggested
that the conflicts manifested as hypocrisy are a necessary or even beneficial part of human behavior and society.[1]
Etymology
The word hypocrisy derives from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means
"play-acting", "acting out", "feigning, dissembling" or "an answer"[2]; the word hypocrite is from the Greek word ὑποκρίτης (hypokrites), the agentive noun associated with ύποκρινομαι (hypokrinomai), i.e. "I play a part." Both derive from the verb
κρίνω, "judge" presumably because the performance of a dramatic text by an actor was to involve a degree of interpretation, or
assessment, of that text.
Nevertheless, whereas hypokrisis applied to any sort of public performance (including the art of rhetoric),
hypokrites was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure. In
Athens in the 4th Century BC, for example, the great orator Demosthenes ridiculed his rival
Aeschines, who had been a successful actor before taking up politics, as a
hypokrites whose skill at impersonating characters on stage made him an untrustworthy politician. This negative view of
the hypokrites, perhaps combined with the Roman disdain for actors, later shaded into the originally neutral
hypokrisis. It is this later sense of hypokrisis as "play-acting," i.e. the assumption of a counterfeit persona,
that gives the modern word hypocrisy its negative connotation. In all this, we do not find the modern idea that the
hypocrite is unaware that his performance or argument stands in contradiction with his self: on the contrary, a hypocrite
in antiquity was someone who intentionally tried to deceive others.
Hypocrisy and morality
Hypocrisy has been described alongside lack of sincerity, as a characteristic which
attracts particular opprobrium in the modern age. [3]Many belief systems condemn behaviours related to hypocrisy. In some translations of the
Book of Job, the Hebrew word chaneph is
rendered as "hypocrite," though it usually means "godless" or "profane." In the Christian
Bible, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in the passage known as the Woes of the
Pharisees. [4] In the Buddhist text Dhammapada, Gautama
Buddha condemns a man who takes the appearance of an ascetic but is full of passions
within.[5] In Islam, the Qur'an rails against the munafiq - those who claim to be believers and peacemakers, thinking they are fooling Allah and others, but only
fool themselves. [6]
Psychology of hypocrisy
In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by
their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others
while justifying ones' own actions. [7]
Also, some people genuinely fail to recognize that they have character faults which they condemn in others. This is called
Psychological projection. This is Self-deception rather than deliberate deception of other people. In other words, "Psychological
hypocrisy" is usually interpreted by psychological theorists to be an unconscious defense mechanism rather than a conscious act
of deception, as in the more classic connotation of hypocrisy. People understand vices which they
are struggling to overcome or have overcome in the past. Efforts to get other people to overcome such vices may be sincere. There
may be an element of hypocrisy as well if the actors do not readily admit to themselves how far they are or have been subject to
these vices.
Hypocrisy in humor
Hypocrisy is often utilized intentionally as a form of sarcastic humor, not only in
film and television, but among the population. Of course, there
is a distinct boundary between humorous hypocrisy and what can be interpreted as serious hypocrisy. Often, if the hypocrisy act
is carried out too long, one may get the impression that they are serious. Another form of serious hypocrisy that was intended to
be funny is when the listener does not realize that it is humor, or when the speaker insults the listener. In comedy writing,
this is sometimes called a "Stan Daniels turn," a joke setup where "a character says
something and then does an immediate 180-degree shift on what he just said," according to The
Simpsons producer Al Jean.[8]
Theoretical issues
Multiple theories of hypocrisy have been proposed. The conflict caused by contradiction
can lead to differing outcomes.
In organizational studies, theorists like Nils Brunsson have discussed the
paradox of the morality of hypocrisy. Brunsson reasons that, despite conventional social
reactions to it, hypocrisy may be an essential guard against fanaticism, and may be to the
benefit of high values and moral behaviour. [1]
In the field of international relations scholars such as Krasner have
suggested that sovereignty, specifically as brought about by the Peace of Westphalia, reaffirmed the principle cuius
regio, eius religio, meaning that the ruler's faith became the official denomination of his state. Krasner calls this
a system of "organized hypocrisy." [9]
See also
References
- ^ a b Nils Brunsson (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and
Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press; 2Rev Ed edition. ISBN 978-8763001069
- ^ Pocket Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary, ed Morwood and Taylor, OUP
2002
- ^ Melzer AM (1995). Rousseau and the Modern Cult of
Sincerity. Harvard Review of Philosophy. Spring 1995, pp. 4-21
- ^ Gospel of Luke 11:37-54 and Gospel of Matthew 23:1-36
- ^ "What is the use of platted hair, O fool! what of the
raiment of goat-skins? Within thee there is ravening, but the outside thou makest clean. The man who wears dirty raiments, who is
emaciated and covered with veins, who lives alone in the forest, and meditates, him I call indeed a Brâhmana. I do not call a man
a Brâhmana because of his origin or of his mother. He is indeed arrogant, and he is wealthy: but the poor, who is free from all
attachments, him I call indeed a Brâhmana. Dhammapada 394-396, Translated from the Pâli by F. Max
Müller
- ^ "And of mankind are some who say, 'We believe in God and the Last
Day,' when they believe not. They think to beguile God and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they
perceive not. In their hearts is a disease, and God increases their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. And when
it is said to them, 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say, 'We are only peacemakers.' Behold they are indeed the
mischief-makers but they perceive not." Al-Baqara 8-12
- ^ Jones, E. E. & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of
attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3, 1–24.
- ^ Stewart, Susan (April 14, 2007). Stan Daniels, 72, a Writer
of Emmy-Winning Sitcoms, Dies. The New York Times
- ^ Stephen D. Krasner (1999). Sovereignty: Organized
Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0691007113
External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)