Ellington

So suggests Stephen Metcalf in a brilliant article for Slate, titled "Moral Courage," where he takes on the whole idea that being contrarian proves that you think for yourself. Favorite quote:

Imagine that the labels "morally courageous" and "intellectually honest" didn't refer to inner personal qualities but instead were prizes in a language game. The goal of the game is to be awarded the labels "morally courageous" and "intellectually honest." To win the prize, you must obey the rules: Never parrot conventional wisdom, and whenever possible, cast yourself as the victim of a speech-suppressing enemy. Any avid consumer of American newspapers and periodicals, especially over the last dozen or so years, will recognize the language game immediately: It's called "punditry." In punditry, the premium on being contrarian or unique is set very high, while the premium on being right often shrinks to an extensionless point. As is usually the case, the downgrading of truth brings with it an upgrading of sheer chutzpah, frequently under the guise of moral courage.

The target of his wrath: Andrew Sullivan's blog comments praising The Bell Curve, which those in the so-called scientific racism movement thump as if it were the Good Book itself. And while a Slate article accusing people of outrageousness for outrageousness' sake would be a lot like...uhm...George Carlin accusing people of outrageousness for outrageousness' sake, the fact remains that the article is on target.

So how do you tell punditry from real freethinking? Sometimes it's a hard call, but the metaphor that comes to my mind is adolescence versus adulthood. The punditry impulse, the adolescent impulse, is to say and do things to prove our independence--to prove that we are individuals, that we stand apart, that we are strong, that we are capable of making our own decisions. But the adult thing to do, the true freethinking thing to do, is to scrap the whole idea of proving our own worth to others. I think real freethinkers know they're independent; they don't have to go around starting arguments, praising unpopular ideas, building unexpected coalitions, just so that they can bask in the warm glow of credibility.

Credibility is just another form of social acceptance--one among many. It's something that insightful freethinkers tend to get, but if you're out there looking for it, what you're doing is letting the judgments of others determine your belief system. That ain't freethinking. That ain't intellectual honesty. And that sure as hell ain't moral courage.

Oh, and The Bell Curve? Intellectually dishonest garbage. Sullivan should know better.