I am relieved to be back attending to my duties as the curator of AmbivAnthrope, our collaborative weblog. I had a heck of a two weeks prior, covering for a coworker who fell ill, and have had little rest in my auxiliary (albeit bill-paying) duties of expertly preparing espresso drinks (or what basically amount to xanthine-laced cups of steamy milk flavored with the tiniest bits of diligently harvested, transnationally shipped and carefully roasted coffee, the deliciousness of which is then negated by abominable proportions of tooth-decaying sugary syrups requested by our esteemed ivy-league-university-enrolled patrons, because they cannot abide, much less savor bitter complexity in any form, be it coffee or life).
Now that I've got that off my chest; onward, and upward.
This week's entry is about our name, AmbivAnthrope, because, as my former professors have informed me, I am far too happy to make up words and then conveniently forget to define them, leaving the less-intuitive reader up the proverbial creek. Believe me, it's actually a load of fun for precisely the same reason. Of course, as I suspected, those few of you who have talked to me about the name have avidly thought up your own definitions using your good old SAT-prep context clues. But here's what I had in mind for those of you still wondering.
Ok, so, to be completely honest I didn't have anything in mind. In the first place, what I really required was a blog title that hadn't already been taken, and seeing as the entire lexicon of the English language has been made a website (official, and as-yet-to-be-recognized slang inclusive) and seeing also as "philoso_raptor70048.blogspot.com" simply would not do for obvious reasons, I enlisted my old habit of word invention, and decided I could just tack on any old definition ex post facto, because, well, this is America ain't it?
The idea came to me when I was trying to develop an overarching ethos of what this clearing we've slash-and-burned into the internet was to be all about. Of course, the primary drive of AmbivAnthrope is to specifically not prescribe an overarching ethos, and I wanted a word to reflect the the openness of this space, unhindered as I hope it is of political polarization, thoughtless theologism, pretentious pontification, or abstracted obfuscation. Of course, regarding the content of our contributions, one can be sure to find all (even the obtusest) degrees of slant in these categories, their authors being real, opinionated people in a world of words, but the blog itself is to have an air of laissez-faire, ideologically speaking.
So it struck me. Every time we read one another's material we do our very darnedest to suspend our own presuppositions momentarily in order to give another's ideas a fair shot. It's more than a mere courtesy to do so. It's a requirement for the transmission, creation, and flourishing of ideas. We pour ourselves into them after all, and outright dismissal of any thought in bad faith is worse on the soul than the most scathingly honest criticism made in good faith. It is not a ethic devoid of judgment or critique, but one that prescribes the method of such critique in a way as to foster mutual respect among ourselves.
When you behold, engage and respond to any contribution on this blog, you are an AmbivAnthrope.
The word itself, if you haven't guessed, is a portmanteau of a few existent terms. The first two, from which we borrow our suffix, form a sort of dualism between themselves. They are, according to a paraphrase of the Oxford American:
misanthrope - n. a person who dislikes humankind and avoids human society
&
philanthrope - n. (archaic) a person with the desire to promote the welfare of others
If you'll note, as I did, that there lie before us only two options regarding how to feel about the entirety of humanity, situated at the poles of hate (gk. misein) and love (gk. philein) you might be, as I was, a tad disappointed with the English language for failing to provide not only a mediated option (well, maybe I feel so-so about humankind) much less an option that doesn't devolve into either useless Calvinist cynicism or vapid humanist optimism, and lets us take a fair view of our world before we make a one-word judgement about the whole damned lot of us.
The third term, whose prefix we have borrowed is:
ambivalent - adj. having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone
Bingo!
Put it all together and what do you get?
ambivanthrope - n. a person having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about humankind and human society
Now there's a term that sums us all up neat and tidy like and wouldn't cost anyone's firstborn if I felt like purchasing a domain! For you linguistics types out there, kindly forgive the bastard union of a German prefix with a Greek suffix, because, once again, say it with me, with feeling: this is America.
I want to stress of course, that ambivanthropy is not at all a new concept. Some of the greatest unwitting ambivanthropes have written things, that unlike my own works, have actually contributed to the development of society and our ability to comprehend its unending problems. Karl Marx comes to mind, what with his fatalistic view of class warfare offset by the gleeful prospect of a freer future. Otherwise, I think of Flannery O'Connor, who reveals that human grace prevails, if often dormant, in a sterile and hostile world of banality and evil.
One lesser known ambivanthrope, in a work entitled Pedagogy of the Heart, has inspired much of my ambivalence on the subject of human nature. His name is Paolo Freire. He was a Brazilian educator, activist and writer on political and sociological theory. I wish to leave you tonight with his words. Before I do I'll leave you with a question or two to get your mind going for the comments. Who else can we term an ambivanthrope? Where else have you seen a refusal to capitulate one's view of humanity to a dualistic black-or-white paradigm? Do you hate this word and its definition? Speak up!
guilelessly,
b. guiles
From Pedagogy of the Heart by Paulo Freire:
It is not very difficult to invert Sartre's sentence and state that happiness lies within others. In large part, more-or-less artificial political divisions touch on this generally nonexplicit belief that man is either naturally good or naturally evil. Today, we know the extent to which contexts that pitch man against man generate hell, whereas contexts that generate solidarity build environments where people feel more fulfilled (27).
So you've coined this term that apparently represents this form of moderation. Ambivalence denotes mixed feelings, feelings somewhere between good and bad, benevolent and malevolent, hateful and loving, etc, etc. On the continuum it is at some vague point between two given extremes. Or perhaps it is like the center of an abstract venn diagram contructed around some hot button issue, i.e. Paolo Freire-man is either good or evil.
ReplyDeleteHowever, would you agree that it seems from what your describing that, in terms of the definition of ambivanthrope, you are not so much emphasizing the idea of centrality as you are of plurality? It's not so much that an ambivanthrope takes a moderate position on the human condition as it is that they take a pluralistic one. The ambivanthrope RECOGNIZES that some men say "man is born evil" while other men say "man is born good," and still others synthesize some combination of the two.(I'm really suffering without an italics key here)
As you alluded to, along with this pluralism often comes confusion and contradictory ideas. Mixed bags, paradoxes, existential crises, unsolvable thought experiments. Call them what you want. Given that the ambivanthrope has incorporated these into his own definition, it would seem as though he embraces such pluralistic paradox as an unavoidable fact of life, otherwise why would he have such mixed views on everything?
So, my question is is the acceptance, or to put it another way, surrender, to contradictory ideas healthy? Is it OK to be confused in the middle of the continuum, so to speak, or would it be far better for us to be extreme, even if in doing so we risked getting it completely wrong instead of always half right? We generally associate paradox with discord, but can it be peaceful? We generally associate not knowing with fear, but is this culturally constructed? Does the ambivanthrope actually believe in anything at all, or is just some post-modern nihilistic figure? Even if he is, is it realistic? Is it wrong?
*The caveat here is that I'm assuming that pluralism leads to contradictory ideas. Clearly this is not always the case. Nevertheless, I think there are clearly demonstrable times of true conflict, or, to use your language, ideas that truly are contradictory. The question is how should humans best approach such situations.
Feel free just to read the quotes, click on the link and skip over my circular thoughts because they stay pretty soupy in the middle.
ReplyDeleteI think to myself first: Of course, everyone, and obviously.
Then: no wait, there are actually people out there who really believe in or really don't believe in humanity.
For most everyone else, comfortably not living in the absolutes, there is a seriously huge spectrum-- I both fully believe in and don't believe in humanity, I sort of believe in humanity, humanity is fine but my life sucks, my life is pretty good but human society is destruction...
The ambi duality might be a specific identity within that spectrum. If you're ambidextrous you are fully capable of using both hands, not a little unsure how to use either.
So, I am scrolling through some iconic figures: Johnny Cash, Rauschenberg, Frederick Douglas, Roger Waters, Camus, probably Bach, and Picasso, and Subcomandante Marcos... It's clear to me that any meaningful art, movement, or innovation that has been made and we remember is somewhere within the "I-don't-purely-believe-in-or-purely-not-belive-in-humanity spectrum," (and maybe there isn't even anything in the extremes, I'm not sure about that one yet). But maybe the ambivanthrope really has to feel both in love with and in digust with people and their world, and can't be ambivalent about it. But there is a spectrum of ambivalence too... so I'm starting to feel like this word might not be useful to describe people, however I do think its a good idea to use it as a way to think about humanity and the art, innovation, and shit that people make in order to pointedly encourage seeing and practicing inside of the "humanity-is-really-fucking-complicated-and-everyone-knows-it-but-its-still-useful-to-try-to-look-at-the-good-and-bad-aspects-in-order-to-focus-thoughts-and-conversation-feelings-and-ideas spectrum".
With all that out...
Right now I'm into Charles Bukowski and Tom Waits.
I think they are probably ambivanthropes. I'm pretty sure they both think life is awesome and that they think the really shitty parts of life are what make it intersting enough to be worth living. I'm not sure whether either of them thinks humanity as a whole is good or bad, or both, but at this point I think I've decided that question is too hard to answer (and maybe not worth the time going in circles).
check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12qBoy2rhVw
its pretty beautiful
also
And the Moon and the Stars and the World
Long walks at night--
that's what good for the soul:
peeking into windows
watching tired housewives
trying to fight off
their beer-maddened husbands.
-Bukowski
If anyone has read Post Office, he does a pretty good job to confuse whether or not to believe in some inherent goodness of life, or not.
maybe that's the point of ambivanthrope-- so we stay confused.
new word!
oh words... so many words.....
one more
"My memories are like coins in the devil's purse, when you open it you find only dead leaves."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
@the search:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I hadn't made it extremely clear that the use of the word 'ambivanthrope' was *not* (italics!) some middle ground between two ends of a spectrum or continuum. It's not a melioration of cynicism with a dash of gullibility or something like that. I meant to point out that our set of linguistic constructs in English contains a dualism composed of two single-word antitheses, which describe an individual human's outlook on the rest of humanity: 'misanthrope' and 'philanthrope.' Granted, anybody with a bit of sense is--I think SarahK put it the absolute best--"capable of using both hands, not a little unsure how to use either." We can use each construct where it is suited in order to better grasp a particular situation or a phenomenon of human behavior that we've just observed.
It is true that all language is constructed. It is true, also, that much (if not all, though I can't say with authority) language forms along the lines of useful dualisms; reference points, or metaphysical ideal types by which we measure (and into which we round-peg) our sense perceptions. The trouble begins when we let language construct us unthinkingly. Freire is hitting on this point. The nonexplicit beliefs underlying artificial political divisions are these useful constructs inflated from tool to god (all you religious folk, think Jeremiah, making fun of the dummy who burns some wood and makes an idol of the rest). For instance, I have heard Christians who connect their faith with their support of a capitalistic economy by arguing "I believe individuals are basically bad (i.e. have a fallen nature), and therefore I believe that allowing the free market--which ideally is controlled by no one in particular--to allocate resources is preferable to allowing a government run by individuals--tempted with corruption and power and greed--to control allocation by fiat." This, in and of itself is a sound and rational argument provided a few assumptions hold true, the first of which is that people are basically bad. Many converse examples can be dreamt up about the happy-go-lucky Left, but I think the point is made.
The above example is an instance of someone letting their constructs construct them. This person has allowed their misanthropy--writ large by the 'word of God' in the form of sin doctrine--to rationalize a political position, that, at the end of the day, just makes them comfortable in their worship of their real god: money. What this doesn't prove is that it's wrong to deify money (it is, but that's another topic altogether). What it does prove is that this person is a liar (at best, horribly self-deceived). Such is the danger of deifying our constructs...
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said: "The true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time." I think he was a pretty sharp guy, but I'm really only dropping his name to give credit, because I would dig this idea even if Dr. Robotnik said it. (I hope this answers your question "it is healthy?") And again, I *love* the connection SarahK made to ambidextrousness. Therefore, the search, you are correct. I am not arguing for centrality between two extremes with this term. Merely watering down one side with the other castrates our new term, making it powerless, a slave to the dualism, and a weak, middling waif of a word. An ambivanthrope is one who can wholly inhabit either pole outright, transcending both; enabling impassioned judgment of *and* equally impassioned hope for humanity, having eyes to see joy and grace, not because hope and judgment are polar extremes, but rather moments in the same process, cast on the same wind. We need a word with power, one that stands for a singular concept. Again, claiming a middle point on some continuum would merely strengthen the dualistic nature of the two extreme outlooks. We're looking to (close your eyes if your brain shuts down at the first mention of any postmodern philosophy---------) deconstruct the dualism here.
ReplyDeleteIn order to deconstruct I'd like to divulge a root concept shared by both ends of our mis-philanthope continuum: cynicism. One might not readily associate philanthopism with cynicism, but I believe the shoe fits, if we understand philanthropism as the rose-colored-misguided-faith-in-humanity sort of philanthropism. Also, what I really mean by cynicism is not an overall downer mindset or just a really pessimistic outlook, but more precisely know-it-all-ism. I admit, the search, I wasn't sure what you meant by pluralism, because I think you're using it differently than I've seen it used. But the way you might have used it, it might be a fitting useful antithesis to cynicism, completing the useful linguistic dualism between them. The cynic presumes to know everything about the world. Within the scope of the mis-phil dualism, they presume to know so because of adherence to a belief that humans either rot or rock.
To provide a conspicuous example of a philanthropic cynic: Stalin.
So, if I'm reading you right, the search, abivanthropism stands less in relation to misanthropy or philanthopy, more to cynicism or perhaps pluralism.
If, however, by 'pluralism' (o, loaded word) you mean the attitude of "some folks like people, some folks don't, it's all the same to me," this is decidedly *not* what I mean. Again, I take any confusion upon myself...
Speaking of confusion, and the holding of contradictory ideas, I do believe what Fitzgerald said about it taking an adept mind to do so, but I also think it's a wonder--a very illuminating wonder--that it's possible at all. There is such a possibility because at the end of the day these terms are just constructs, and best used as tools rather than gods. You suggested that not knowing is associated with fear. I would suggest that all claims to positively know outright (know-it-all-ism) are the purest expression of fear, making a god of what was once a tool, because you are afraid to use another tool and with it find that so much was left undone and misunderstood; so many moments left uninhabited, even though you were bodily there; so many people left utterly unloved; so many details and nuances of absolute ecstatic beauty in creation for which you never had eyes; the depth of the expressions on the face of a loved one...
ReplyDeleteIt's here where this discussion defines itself from others. It is not a search for (G)god(s) or (T)truth(s). Nor is it a place to say with confidence that everybody can just bring whatever it is they believe to the table and that will be accepted. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Pluralism is as moot a point as absolutism here. The only constraint is mutual love for persons; one another.
This discussion is a pragmatic one; one of finding terms and linguistic tools and concepts that strengthen us *in* the above searches. It is basecamp for other mountains, our treks elsewhere.
Come in. Enjoy the fire. Have some cocoa. Share a story. Peace out.
b. guiles
Oh! And, SarahK, you might be into this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1t6a0zCkQ