I ran across this blog post the other day: “Kill your inner cynic.” It in turn was inspired by an article in Men’s Health. Both make the same point: that successful people are never cynics and if we want to succeed, we should find some way to stamp out our inner cynic and greet life filled with belief and hope.
Now, that’s all nice and rosy. And I’ll admit that both authors have a point. To a point.
But let me put in a good word for the cynics of the world.
Mark Zimmerman, author of the Men’s Health piece, challenges readers to name one successful cynic. You can’t do it, he says. Just plain can’t.
Ah, but we can. Mark Twain. H.L. Mencken. George Carlin. Bill Hicks. Will Rogers. George Bernard Shaw. Oscar Wilde. Probably P.J. O’Rourke and Dave Barry. In fact, it’s hard to name a successful humorist or social satirist who isn’t a cynic.
And although he wasn’t successful in material terms, let’s not forget Diogenes, who lived his life exactly as he pleased and raised some pleasant hell while doing it. I’d say the fact that we haven’t forgotten Diogenes thousands of years after his death makes him a pretty darned successful cynic, even if he did choose to live and die in poverty. Wikipedia says he’s one of the few men to publicly mock Alexander the Great and live to tell the tale. He intellectually humiliated Plato. No small feat, that. In fact, those are a much bigger feats than the athletic and acting successes Zimmerman cites.
But then, cynic meant something slightly different in those days than it does now.
In fact, it’s mostly in the matter of definition that I clash with the above two writers of good cheer. They never define what a cynic is, but they cast their verbal nets to cover all manner of negativism. The guy who doesn’t believe in himself they call a cynic. The guy who thinks his life is ruled by bad breaks they call a cynic. The guy who attributes everybody else’s success to luck or unfair advantages they call a cynic. The guy who belittles your ideas (“That’ll never work!”) they call a cynic. The guy who gets together with his buddies and laments the hopeless state of the world they call a cynic.
And okay, that’s part of what being a cynic is about. That’s the bad part. The part that really does hold people back and make some folks particularly unpleasant to be around.
But both articles (which were published about a year ago) then go on to lament a 2009 statistic: only 22 percent of the American public trusted the financial system at that point.
Only 22 percent? Yegads and little fishies! If one percent trusted the U.S. financial system in 2009, it was one percent too many. If 22 percent trusted the financial system, that’s 22 percent viewing the world through rose-colored glasses as thick as the bottoms of Coke bottles. Heavens. That’s not a sign of cynicism. That’s a sign of delusional hopefulness.
Regarding that statistic, which he sees reflecting a sad level of distrust, Haris Fazlani, writer of “Kill your inner cynic,” further laments:
A healthy bit of skepticism is definitely warranted but where do we cross the line? Where does it go from, “Hmm, that’s pretty wack but it’ll probably get better,” to “I knew this financial system would screw up some day, the government can’t do anything right. We’ll be stuck here for at least another ten years.”
Um … but anybody who was actually watching with open eyes did know that the U.S. financial system was screwed up and headed for catastrophe — catastrophe that hasn’t even begun to finish unwinding yet. The government ultimately can’t do anything right because its very existence and every, single thing it ever attempts is premised on aggressive force and theft. And we’ll be damn freaking lucky if we’re on any road to long-term financial honesty, stability, prosperity, and greater freedom 10 years from now and not just in another bubble or a depression or a hyperinflation or tripping down some other as-yet-explored Keynesian dead end while imagining that all is well. You know that. I know that. Is our knowing that a flaw in our souls? Or are we just seeing reality — which is a virtue beyond every form of rosy hopefulness?
But Zimmerman and Fazlani don’t see it that way. In fact, while advocating rosiness, Mark Zimmerman overlooks what may be the single most truly hopeful and wise statistic he stumbled across. He can’t see its wonderfulness. No. In fact, he adds with a shudder: “Even worse: The … average American trusts a stranger on the street 55 percent more than a stockbroker, and 48 percent more than a large corporation.”
Well yes. Of course. The average stranger on the street is probably a decent fella.* Somebody who’d help you fix a flat tire or rescue your cat from a tree. Probably not somebody who’d connive you into a crooked investment to increase his bonus. Probably not somebody who’s lobbying government for special privileges or trying to pick your pocket.
What could be better and wiser and more conducive to happiness than trusting “the average stranger” over the the average institution? If that’s what cynics do, then I’m all for it.
Yes, let’s not spend our lives whining about what “they” (whoever “they” might be) are doing to us. And gods forbid, let’s not discourage our fellow humans from exploring their creative ideas (unless we know they’re the kind of folk who always produce disaster). And let’s try to believe in our ability to improve our own lives, even when things seem bleak and we feel weak within. Let us not cry in our beer as all the potential of life rolls over us, ungrasped, unappreciated.
But if seeing — and saying — the plain truth about corrupt and coercive institutions is cynicism, then hooray for the cynics! Let’s be hopeful and rosy and optimistic about a future filled with lots and lots and lots more cynics! Cynics who will see reality so clearly that they’ll stop wasting their time paying obeisance to hopelessly corrupted systems. Cynics who’ll just laugh and turn their back on all the pompous pretensions of pashas and potentates, and for that matter the preposterous pronouncements of Federal Reserve chairmen and the ponzified plans of Wall Street and Washington — and get on with living!
—–
* With a few notable exceptions, which is why we go armed. “Trust, but verify.”
Oh Claire, you’re just being cynical.
😀
Love it. I’m a cynic from way back. I come from a family of cynics. We’re all quite happy being cynical, thank you.
Interesting how “success” is rarely defined by folks trying to sell it.
Those who say “…but it’ll probably get better” without doing something to make “it” better are being dependent on others. It’s like welfare. How is improvement probable if everyone just sits around and believes without actually acting to make it better? I’m not talking about silly “do SOMEthingness”, but precision of thoughtful action.
I am an American Cynic …. I trust, verify AND carry a 1911 :>)
Both authors use words to the effect that this issue “really got them thinking.” They leave the strong impression that thinking is an unusual activity for them. The stress shows.
Not defining terms is a good starting clue for fuzzy-headed, incomplete, lazy thinking. Casting a net so wide that any negative view, whether grounded in truth or not, is defined as cynicism is another clue. Making statements so blatantly and easily falsifiable as “You can’t name one successful cynic.” is a clincher.
Zimmerman in particular hasn’t done his homework. He hasn’t thought this through. There may be some wisdom here, something worth reading and discussing, but Claire advanced the intellectual football far more than either author. She did so with a grace and politeness that deserves praise. I would not have been so gentle.
But then, I’m a cynic.
I’m not a cynic, I just live a reality based existence.
It isn’t cynical, in my opinion, to want to know the facts of a given situation,regardless of what it is. Who I trust has a lot to do with my experiences-Joe or Joan Average(if there is such a person)on the street is likely to be a decent sort,so I’ll trust them until they prove I can’t. Most of the businesses I’ve dealt with have been up front and honest(the ultimate test of this is how they handle a problem you might have with them). Far less so with govmint agencies-and the local-yokel ones can be worse than the fed or state ones(I once got a thank you letter from the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet for a profusely illustrated tax return (“TinkerBelle From Hell and the Trailer Park Pixies”). I always wondered if people worked there, or Vogons..
Cynics, to me,are those who only look at the negative,and never factor in the good, or random chance.
This one is near and dear to me…I’m way more cynical in life than I am on the net beleive it or not.
At least that’s what other people say…I pretty much just call things as I see them, and I don’t hold back because those around me might have a different opinion. Brutal honesty = ‘cynicism’. But I’ll freely admit that I’m usually the first one to pipe up with “This sucks!” when everyone else is still pretending to enjoy whatever it is, so hey, it fits.
(On that note I just wanna say that Mens Health is a pansy-ass rag for neurotic guys who spend too much on clothes and make the gym floor look like something out of a Richard Simmons ab video.)
I’ve been both kinds of cynic, but pretty much look for the truth, try to figure out what I can do about it, and give others the benefit of the doubt. But that is very much tempered by the handgun on my belt, of course. Trust, but verify indeed.
Whoa, Claire. I gathered from your essay that you have seriously confused the word cynic with skeptic or even pragmatic. Skeptic and Cynic are not synonyms.
The “successful” celebrities you named were writers, performers and humorists… and every single one of them had pragmatic patrons, appreciative fans and pleased publishers. Nearly all of them were beset with personal demons, great brilliance and profound sorrow.
The magazine contributor probably had obsessive, dauntless, visionary folks like Steve Jobs, Amelia Earhart, Peggy Guggenheim, Benjamin Huntsman and Henry Ford in mind.
In my childhood, I was informed: “A cynic is simply a disillusioned Romantic.”
As a 60-something artist, hardcore & well-armed Constitutionalist and lifelong homesteader, I have witnessed its truth — across the board, across the decades and cultures. However, skeptics do not have to suffer to gain their gimlet eyes! 😉
Ah — here’s the dictionary definition for you Skeptics! 😉 lol
cyn·ic
/ˈsɪnɪk/ Show Spelled[sin-ik]
–noun
1.
a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
2.
( initial capital letter ) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.
3.
a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.
Amber Faith — Delightful comment. Welcome and thank you for you input. I don’t doubt at all that a cynic is a disillusioned Romantic. And yes, quite a few humorists or social satirists suffer from personal demons.
OTOH, it’s not quite correct to say that I confused cynics with skeptics or pragmatists, though. I was actually mocking the two other writers who did that. 🙂 Still, dictionary definition #3, applies to most humorists and satirists. And #2 is Diogenes, on the nose.
Great post, Claire. Many thanks.
This discussion reminds me of the famous observation by Walpola Rahula, author of the classic primer What the Buddha Taught, that the Buddha’s teaching, often regarded as “pessimistic” due to the somewhat inaccurate rendering of the First Noble Truth as “Life is suffering”, actually is neither “pessimistic” nor “optimistic”, but realistic, as it takes a realistic view of life and the world, with neither rose-colored nor bile-colored glasses interposed.
The two-valued system which insists you must be either a cockeyed optimist or a cynic is also reminiscent of the common understanding of political thought, which forces everyone onto a single spectrum with “liberal” (statist) at one end and “conservative” (statist) at the other. How liberating it was for me to learn, 30 years ago, that there is a third option, at 90 degrees to this two-dimensional spectrum.