Don’t get me wrong. Bryan Caplan makes some pretty good points in his short commentary “When to be Meek.”
He notes that the oft-given advice to stick up for yourself and demand what you want can backfire on you. He’s got a point. If you want to spend your life and career in the conventional middle of things, a whole lot of “please, may I” and “yes, sir” might go farther than confronting the boss and Making Demands.
But who the heck wants to spend life in the conventional middle of things?
Oh, I’m all for “please” and “thank you” — but given as merited, not as a strategy for getting ahead or getting along.
Caplan opens his argument with the phrase, “If you’re not getting what you want out of life …” then offers assertiveness or meekness as the sole alternatives. His assumption seems to be that getting what you want out of life is largely a matter of either being dominant or subservient — that is, it’s a matter of asking others.
But really, to “get what you want out of life” the world is filled — loaded, replete, brimming! — with alternatives to both bold assertiveness and forelock tugging.
To wit:
* Independence — not being beholdin’ and not asking “superiors” for anything
* Sneakiness
* Persuasion
* Going around an existing system or creating another
* Collaboration/cooperation
* Creativity
* Independence. Never mind that I already said that. It bears repeating.
You can probably think of lots more.
When to be meek? In the confessional, perhaps. Or when awed by serious greatness. But even Jesus, when he said the meek shall inherit the earth, wasn’t actually being meek.
At one time, “meek” meant a kind of quiet strength, a confidence that didn’t need to be acknowledged by others in order to be there. Now, meek means to be submissive and begging.
Strange how words change.
I thought that Dan Rowinski http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/everybody_is_lying_to_me_and_i_dont_care.php was being meek (in fact, cowardly) in your Sound and Fury piece; he’d rather give up than fight, and was rationalizing his position.
As for the meek “inheriting the earth”, I never understood what that meant (and still don’t). My computer thesaurus describes meek as: “humble, timid, submissive, gentle, docile, modest, compliant, mild, quiet, lowly, weak, cowed, fearful, tame.”
Which of those will inherit anything? Furthermore, why should they?
While it is permissible and even necessary to be gentle, modest, mild, and quiet at times, “humble” implies that we think less of ourselves than of others, and “docile” and “tame” remind me of pets trying hard to please their master. The other words (timid, submissive, compliant, lowly, cowed, and fearful) are what govt might wish to lay on the rest of us.
I think that the interpretation of “meek” in that biblical passage meant spiritual abandonment to God and the confidence that faith brings. “Inherit the earth” enforces the belief that the “meek,” who are abandoned to Christ and thus confident in their faith are indeed children of God and thus entitled as his heirs to “inherit” what he made, but it does not mean a literal inheritance of the earth itself.
Meekness in the biblical sense has little to do with being a doormat in the material world. It has more to do with quiet strength and confidence – someone who does not have to boast or be noticed, or “prove” themselves to anyone.
The definition of the word has changed over the years to represent a very weak person, -someone rather undesirable, whereas the original definition was quite different.
Hm. I thought this was going to be a screed about getting what you want in a job interview, or from the boss at a job you already have. Turns out he’s just being an elitist.
A major difference between the professional and working classes is that professionals appreciate the wages of meekness. They realize that if you want to move from high school to college, from college to an entry-level job, from an entry-level job to a promotion, you must get in the habit of saying, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?” Even if you’re elite in absolute terms, you ascend the hierarchy by showing deference to people who are even more elite than you are. The working class, in contrast, is dysfunctionally assertive. Maybe they put pride and machismo above success; maybe they falsely believe that pride and machismo are a shortcut to success. In either case, as Murray emphasizes, one of the best ways for elites to help is to preach the meekness they’ve so often and so fruitfully practiced.
Consider this one such sermon.
Sermon received. And ignored.
Well, I never thought it meant a literal inheritance, but couldn’t understand how it related to the spiritual either. Thanks for the explanation.
But I was never a good Christian. In fact I thought I might make a better Jew; praying directly to God, I never understood why Jesus was necessary, though I did “believe” in a few of his teachings. (Turning the other cheek was never one of them, though — literally or figuratively.)
Joel — by that part of his commentary, I was pretty much ignoring him. But yeah, that’s pretty blatantly, shockingly elitist. If he’d said the same thing about blacks or women or Latinos that he said about the entire working class, he’d be being savaged all over the media right about now.
As a member of the uppity working class (as I know you are, too), I laugh at the idea of some self-appointed elite trying to teach me to be “meek.”
Of course the meek shall inherit the Earth. I’m going to the stars.
Pat — “Turning the other cheek was never one of them, though — literally or figuratively.”
Yeah, same here. But in the vast and prolific field of interpreting the bible to mean what you want it to mean, I once heard a great interpretation for the real meaning of “turn the other cheek.” Seems it may not have been a gesture of meekness (in the modern sense). But an insult and a display of insolence — something along the lines of, “Go ahead and smack me again; you can’t hurt me you little creep.”
I have no idea whether there’s any truth to that. Unless the speaker is a scholar of Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, and has in-depth knowledge of biblical times, to boot (or can give a credible answer to the question, “How do you know?“), I don’t pay a lot of heed when people say, “What that really means is …” (sorry, water lily, nothing personal; just lots of experience). Still, I thought that was interesting — and a conceivable statement from the guy who said his followers should sell their cloaks to buy swords.
I’m certainly no Biblical scholar,lol, but Claire’s post on the meaning of ‘turn the other cheek’ is correct, according to what I’ve been taught (in sermons, thru the years) … also, the definiton of meek has indeed changed thru the years, but in terms of the Beatitudes, I believe it refers to those who eschew worldly power.
It’s an interesting perspective I had never heard before. *If* it were true, then I can see where all of Jesus’ teachings might have to be re-evaluated in terms of his true intent – which I’m sure neither Protestant nor Catholic Churches would tolerate.
“which I’m sure neither Protestant nor Catholic Churches would tolerate.”
Why ask them? Why should we care? I questioned and re-evaluated everything I’d ever been taught in church… and walked away from all of them. The creator of the universe doesn’t need anyone to speak for him/her. 🙂
Oh, that’s cool, Claire. No prob.
I’ve studied under some smart people who aren’t the typical superficial thumpers, but serious folks who took a lot of time to study, who can read and understand biblical Greek, and also took the time to study and understand the cultural times in which those things were written.
I don’t expect people to agree or believe what I wrote in my previous comment, – or anything I write, for that matter. 🙂 Just giving an explanation to the other commentator.
Not every Christian out there is similar to the ones we see in the media, or similar to people we’ve all met at some point in life.
Does this discussion have some parallel to the “Constitution means what I say it means” position of the SC. The constitution really has/had a specific meaning and so does/did the bible. The difficulty is well stated by Claire, but the meaning is deterministic.
Hey! I agree with Samuel Adams up there..the meek can have the Earth-it’s a Great Big Universe..
“The meek do inherit the earth, but they tend to inherit very small plots, about six feet by three.” (Robert A. Heinlein)
Which is about 6×3 feet more than I’ve managed so far. Nonmeekness never got me anywhere, so maybe it’s time try the other way.
Maybe turning the other cheek is reference to a good moon shot.
@ Matt, another: Sounds like the traditional Scottish version of “turning the other cheek”. There are advantages to a kilt.
I had always thought that eventually one might run out of cheeks. One has at most four. Then it’s time for the M1911.