The gap between lip-service and practice is too wide in our lives. It is evident in the conduct of men in the highest offices; they speak effusively about principles and morality but rarely walk the talk. This chasm between their words and actions is too obvious to us because, to their misfortune, they are constantly followed by media channels’ cameras that record everything they say and do. News anchors, aided by large hard drives and technology capable of searching vast amounts of data in the blink of an eye, are quick to play back their old statements when needed to hold them accountable. It generally seems fair to us as it gives us not only chuckles but opportunity to lampoon them.
But what if there were a system attached to all of us, eavesdropping and recording everything we self-righteously and endlessly talk about, only to suddenly replay it when we act in complete contradiction?
If this were so, we would have been able to see a malaise many of us suffering from – the self-righteous attitude. Psychologists describe self-righteousness as an attitude where individuals see themselves as morally superior to others, often judging and criticizing others while ignoring their own flaws. Hand on heart, ask yourself: isn’t this generally how our society behaves? No? If not able to acknowledge, let’s try diagnosing it another way.
A self-righteous attitude manifests in many ways: confirmation bias is the most common one which, as described by English psychologist Peter Wason, is a tendency to seek information that validates one’s preconceived ‘truth’ while dismissing every evidence that comes into the conflict with it. Does this behaviour not rule supreme in this society? Is it not particularly true about our political views? Is it not a fact that people here readily dismiss every argument and evidence that is incongruous with their political belief, no matter how logical and strong these are, and tend to lap up to arguments that favour their truth even if it is incompatible with logic and reasoning? If yes, these are the strongest symptoms of the disease of self-righteousness.
This disease is anathema to growth, as it inhibits germination of new ideas, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, effectively bringing a society to a complete political and social standstill. Reinforcing the notion of being already ‘right,’ it discourages the notion of self-improvement and when this mindset permeates in society at large, it brings social and political stagnation. Psychologists like Dan Gilbert (author of Stumbling on Happiness) have argued that the ability to adapt one’s thinking based on new information is essential for both personal happiness and societal advancement. Self-righteousness prevents this flexibility. People who are unwilling to challenge their assumptions or learn from experience become resistant to change, which can stagnate not only personal development but also societal progress. What happens when this mentality permeates society at large is already palpable in this country since social and political stagnation is what defines our society now. We are stuck in a political rut where a familiar sort of politics hangs heavy in overall political landscape; a brand of politics which is marked by extreme conflict, hate, accusations and re-accusations.
A self-righteous attitude manifests in many ways: confirmation bias is the most common one which, as described by English psychologist Peter Wason, is a tendency to seek information that validates one’s preconceived ‘truth’
Not to speak of the flourishing and growth of a new political or social movement, no room is left for engagement between existing political ideologies because, as a self-righteous attitude tends to engage only with those who share similar views and beliefs, it leads to echo chambers where divergent views are discouraged and even ridiculed. The absence of cross-ideological engagements paves the way for polarization. Jonathan Haidt, an American social psychologist and author, argues that polarization is the destiny for a society obsessed with self-righteousness. Isn’t our society badly falling victim to this state of affairs? Isn’t constructive engagement among diverging political ideologies a rarity?
Clearly, polarization has befallen us, pitting us against one another. Thus, we have a politically and socially fragmented society where the thought process is just limited to the concoction of unique ways to let the other side down. Heckling and badgering of even families have become normalized, and hecklers are being hailed as national heroes. We have good words only for our side of the aisle while reserving jibes, pejoration, and expletives for those on the other side. No stratum is immune to this—academia, journalists, social media influencers, lawyers, doctors, civil servants—name any community.
In this regard, X (formerly Twitter), a microblogging platform widely used by people in Pakistan to express political views, serves as a microcosm to assess the social, political, and moral tendencies among different social and economic groups. There, notable figures from various fields are often found locked in verbal jousts and ‘us-vs-them’ style posts aimed at ridiculing ‘them,’ pointing to the cross-sectional penetration of polarization.
However, as gloomy as this scenario may seem, the good news is that this is not an irreversible fate, and the power to break free from a self-righteous mentality lies with us. Escaping this attitude entails developing cognitive flexibility and emotional intelligence. Cognitive flexibility is the ability to change views when presented with new information, logical reasoning, and documented facts. To achieve this, we need to escape the echo chamber and listen to and engage with the ‘other side of the aisle.’ Exposure to the beliefs and views of the other side can help ignite critical thinking, leading one to seek new ideas, shed ‘always-right’ beliefs, and espouse a growth mindset. However, the regulation of one’s emotions is crucial while engaging with ‘them’ to prevent the interaction from degenerating into a combative exchange, and this is where one’s emotional intelligence comes into play effectively. Internalizing emotional intelligence is even more crucial for us, given how we flare up at opinions incompatible with the ‘truth’ close to our hearts. We daily see political leaders and analysts going hot and cold on prime-time talk shows, and similarly, commoners at the street level bickering over divergent political views is a common sight these days.
Even more crucial is the acknowledgment that the responsibility to change ourselves lies exclusively with us, and no external force—be it a politician or a leader—can change our mindset for us. While others can assist us, only we can change our way of thinking.
And to change our way of thinking, it is crucial to imbibe the truth: we are all humans, and humans are imperfect and error-prone. The same goes for us and others, and therefore, we need to be empathetic and respectful toward others while being introspective and iconoclastic toward ourselves.
In the end, I feel an irresistible urge to evoke a few lines from Khalil Gibran’s literary masterpiece, The Prophet:
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul."
Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.