TIMIDITY SHUTS MANY A DOOR OF USEFULNESS
A closer look at the widespread Republican timidity and servility.
I came across a paper on the web which seems to address the timidity and servility which might be witnessed in the modern Republican Party. My writing was specifically upon timidity, however timidity and servility are both widely apparent in the modern MAGA movement. Although there isn’t perhaps a one to one comparison, I thought it might be worthwhile to place some excerpts from the paper for you to read. Think about the Republican Party as a group of individuals as you read this. This paper seems to be written with those who are of minority status at mind. Consider the modern Republicans in this same vein, that is their perception of themselves. Certainly they have taken on a minority mentality, especially in regards to following Donald Trump unquestionably. Many have undoubtedly felt some ostracism in their day to day lives by others who will not engage them in discussions due to their radicalism.
Intellectual Servility and Timidity
Alessandra Tanesini Philosophy Department Cardiff University, UK Tanesini@cardiff.ac.uk
@Ale1808
My main aim in this paper is to offer what is to my knowledge the first philosophical account of two intellectual vices that often beset those who are oppressed. These are: intellectual servility (or obsequiousness) and intellectual timidity.
Discrimination, slights, prejudice and hatred have profound effects on the psychology of those who face them every day. Writing at the beginning of the twentieth century, W. E. B. Du Bois notes in The Souls of Black Folk that “the facing of so vast a prejudice could not but bring the inevitable self-questioning, self-disparagement, and lowering of ideals which ever accompany repression and breed in an atmosphere of contempt and hate” (Du Bois 1990: 13). This lowering of self-esteem and crushing of self-pride, which is for Du Bois one of the psychological harms of oppression, is in his opinion experienced as a double-consciousness with potentially disabling consequences. In addition to seeing oneself through one’s own eyes, one also develops a “sense of looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity” (Du Bois 1990: 8). As a result, Du Bois also observes, one may become exceedingly obsequious to those who hold one in low regard in the hope that, by mimicking them, their measure of one’s soul may change. Du Bois thinks that education, as character formation, may contribute much to addressing this state of affairs. But, as he noted in several polemical addresses, many of the black educational institutions of his day actually promoted something akin to intellectual servility or obsequiousness (Du Bois 1973). In these passages, DuBois highlights that prejudice damages the character of those who suffer from it. It breeds in them dispositions that pose obstacles to their well-being including their intellectual flourishing. Discrimination, in his view, fosters some intellectual vices in those who are at its receiving end.
Those who are timid or servile evaluate their intellectual characters as being less worthy than those of many other people because, as Du Bois acutely observes, they measure themselves by the tape of a world that underestimates or even despises them. But the motivations for these evaluations differ. The servile individual accepts the low evaluation of the self, which he learns from others, in order to gain acceptance by an elective group. The timid person acquires her low self-estimation as a defensive mechanism designed to avoid rejection. She adopts a policy, reputedly advocated by Margaret Thatcher’s husband Denis, when he said: “Better keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.”
Timid individuals, then, like those who are servile, hold themselves in low regard, and feel that they are intellectually inferior to others. However, whilst the behaviors of the servile are guided by the desire to gain social acceptance and thus social status, the actions of those who are timid are driven by the need to avoid explicit social rejection, even at the cost of sacrificing inclusion. Hence, those who are timid readily accept the risk that others may fail to notice their existence, and thus form no opinion of their abilities, to avoid a negative assessment which timid individuals think is extremely likely if others get to know them.
The fear and anxiety about others’ opinions of oneself that is characteristic of those who are timid, when combined with their negative assessment of their own abilities, results in a disposition not to speak one’s mind, but to bite one’s tongue. So even when the person who is timid knows that her interlocutor is wrong about some issue, she may be too scared to say so, especially if the other person is powerful. Whilst ingratiation is one of the characteristic behaviors of those who are servile, self-silencing is one of the common strategies adopted by those who are intellectually timid and lack the courage of their convictions.
Those who are timid also justify their silences, their desire to fade unnoticed in the background, by claiming that their lack of ability is fixed and cannot change. These individuals hold themselves in low regard, but they are also resigned to the alleged fact that their skills and competences cannot be improved. Thus, the timid person also exhibits a tendency to fatalism about their inferiority which in turn causes them to lose any motivation they may have had to improve.
It may seem odd that I present intellectual timidity as a vice which is opposed to humility rather than, as it is commonly presumed, to courage. In response, I want to suggest that one vice can stand in opposition to several virtues. In this case, more specifically, it seems plausible to think that fear of having one’ alleged intellectual incompetence exposed is a kind of cowardice and a way of lacking in humility. It is also plausible that the self- appraisals I attribute here to intellectually timid individuals are at the root of other behaviors characteristic of epistemic [adjective - of or relating to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it] cowardice such as being fearful of defending one’s views, avoidance of any intellectual risks, and a resigned acceptance of one’s own shortcomings.
From these characterizations it should be apparent that timidity and servility are related, even though they also have distinct and differentiating features. Those who are timid have a negative view of their abilities and feel inferior to others. In this regard, timidity and servility are similar. However, they differ with regard to some of their behavioral and emotional manifestations. Intellectually timid individuals suffer from fear and anxiety; those who are servile are dominated by a sense of shame. Whilst servility causes ingratiating behaviors, timidity is characterised by self-silencing. In addition, those who are timid lack the courage to express any opinion; those who are servile, instead, are disposed to accept, and uncritically make their own, the opinions held by high status members of the group to which they wish to belong.
Although timidity as characterised here differs from servility, it is nevertheless possible and indeed might be likely that those who possess one of these vices may also suffer from the other. This is because they are both responses to threats of social exclusion due to one’s perceived membership in a subordinate or stigmatized group. Servility develops through the habituation of ingratiating behaviors such as flattery and conformism; timidity through the habituation of self-silencing.
The timid individual, like the servile, suffers from low self-esteem and feelings of inferiority. That is to say, this person also has attitudes toward each of her intellectual qualities which are largely negative, and which are based on social comparison judgments. Attributing an ego-defensive function to these attitudes explains the behaviors and mental states which are typical of timidity. Since these individuals wish to avoid rejection because it constitutes a threat to their self-esteem, they develop attitudes toward their intellectual qualities based on their effectiveness in avoiding opportunities for rejection. Hence, these individuals prefer to avoid being noticed and are fearful of anything that makes them stand out. One would, for this reason, expect them to form negative attitudes toward any of their intellectual features that causes them to speak, do well, or in other ways be noticed. One would also expect them to be fearful, to have a disposition to be silent, and to have a low opinion of their intellectual abilities.
Finally, timidity damages self-knowledge because it promotes lack of motivation and resignation to the status quo. Since the acquisition of self-knowledge requires some perseverance and is facilitated by a motivation to improve, timidity functions as an obstacle to knowing about one’s intellectual strengths and weaknesses. Since understanding oneself requires effort and dedication, one is less likely to engage in this endeavor when one is demotivated and disengaged. It is also plausible that the pursuit of self-knowledge would appear somewhat futile to those who think that improvement is beyond their abilities.
These two vices are also obstacles to the acquisition of knowledge about the world in which one lives. First, there is evidence that people underachieve to be liked by those whose acceptance they seek (White et al. 2002). Second, by undermining individuals’ confidence in their abilities, these traits function as self-fulfilling prophecies. Those who suffer from them act in accordance with their distorted negative self-assessments even though such behavior may atrophy their abilities and diminish the opportunities for improvement. Hence, they fail to acquire knowledge that they may otherwise have gained. Third, timidity and servility also promote the development of further intellectual vices which prove to be further obstacles to effective inquiry. For instance, timidity fosters incuriosity with the resultant tendency not to ask questions, not to explore or engage in inquiry. Servility promotes epistemic dependence and inhibits intellectual autonomy, resulting in a tendency not to think critically about the views advocated by those in power.
This paper doesn’t really address what to do about the person of timidity and servility. It might seem that I’ve avoided the meat of the problem in not suggesting solutions. Being self-aware is probably the first step, although practicing timidity and servility on a continual basis is probably self-reinforcing, and to break this cycle may be very difficult to pull off. I hope you enjoyed this regardless, and have a more defined idea of our MAGA brethren.
157th Posting, January 30, 2024.