• QUESTION: It seems that many organisations in our society, including the governmental systems and administration in the Church, are hijacked by some flatterers. When somebody dissents sincerely, they are forced to leave. Is there any way out? -Jaison George
• ANSWER : Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST

It is true that we often prefer to be flatterers than dissenters mainly due to our forgetfulness of our prophetic role in the face of corruption and injustice. Many of us do not like to abandon the privileges we receive from the concerned authority. While the flatterers can influence the authorities, the dissenters may lose many privileges. Dissent is an unhappy expression, but it should not be seen as an act of a destructive rebel, but a sincere attempt to be critical in matters of serious concern. Though we do not have any scientific data, our experience forced us to assume that the flatterers influence many decisions of our authorities both in civil and ecclesiastical realms. In most cases, they are unnecessarily involved in the process of decision making and their interventions influence its outcome. Some justify it based on the reliability of persons. Naturally, people have to depend on experts or some ‘reliable persons’ in the process of discernment which may help them to make good decisions. However, the unholy nexus and networking of a few people may lead to degeneration and decay.

Flattering and Sarcasm in Life

Flattering is a nuanced word which is defined as “the act of praising someone, often in a way that is not sincere, in order to have a personal gain.” The term is etymologically derived from the act of ‘flattening down,’ or smoothing, that is to say, the attempt to ease personal relations in some way. Thus, flattery can be described as compliments as lying is to assertions. Like complimenting, flattery makes positive assertions about another person.

Some describe flattery as a ‘white lie’ a kind of appreciation which is not malicious or without any purpose. It is a kind of innocent compliment; just saying some good things about each other; a flimsy flattery but may not be sincere. Many of us are familiar with it. Sometimes people may appreciate in excessive commendatory language, with many adjectives and similes but may not intend it. For example, when students ask for recommendation letters, the professor may write that s/he is the ‘best’ and we may wonder how many ‘best’ would be in a class! Shakespeare narrates it sarcastically;

“When my love swears that she is made of truth
Oh, love’s best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flattered be.” (Sonnet, 138)

“It is true that we often prefer to be flatterers than dissenters mainly due to our forgetfulness of our prophetic role in the face of corruption and injustice. Many of us do not like to abandon the privileges we receive from the concerned authority. While the flatterers can influence the authorities, the dissenters may lose many privileges. Dissent is an unhappy expression, but it should not be seen as an act of a destructive rebel, but a sincere attempt to be critical in matters of serious concern”

In his famous book, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between flattery and complimenting. According to him, “the man who is pleasant in the right way is friendly and the mean is friendliness, while the man who exceeds is an obsequious person if he has no end in view, a flatterer if he is aiming at his own advantage, and the man who falls short and is unpleasant in all circumstances is a quarrelsome and surly sort of person.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1108a, 27–29). He makes a distinction between ‘the manipulative’ flattery and ‘the obsequious’ flattery. The first refers to an ‘excessive friendliness’ aiming at certain gains. The second has ‘no end in view’. In Gorgias, Plato asserts the wrongness of flattery not just because of its nature of deceitfulness but also because of its shameful and disgraceful aspects. In a particular way, this reflects on the flatterer’s character.

Flattery: The Unquenched Self-Deception

The flatterer aims to win the favour of the person in power. It is different from sincere praise which conveys positive or critical feedback. Most often flattery conveys positive but unreliable feedback. It consists of an exaggeration in the content of the complimentary attribution and the flatterer makes use of excessive commendatory language in describing the qualities or record of another person to create a favourable attitude in that person towards the flatterer. The flatterer knows that s/he is not telling the truth but s/he may not be aware about the deceitfulness. A good number of psychologists opine that flattery is the result of a lack of moral or psychological depth and it is a form of deception. Morally it is wrong and it becomes grave in as much as it causes harm or leads to a violation of rights. Flattered persons are more likely to assign credibility to and like the flatterer than observers, presumably because they are moved by vanity. It is observed that the psychological root of this difficulty lies in the universal inclination to ‘vainglory,’ i.e., the pleasure in basking in an enhanced self- and social image, which undermines the capacity to assess the flatterer’s real motives. Flattery is also compared with bribery, for here people use words instead of money or material goods. While bribery is typically a ‘deal’ between the two parties, in flattery more people are involved and it affects the decision-making process.

Flattery is closely associated with hypocrisy, for both vices consist of false pretence. Both can carry the form of self-awareness, acting out with to achieve a particular benefit or positive image. At the same time, both equally manifest an insincere attempt based on self-deception. But unlike hypocrisy, which is more applied to all, flattery may be personal. The flatterer tries to gain the favour of one authority, whereas a hypocrite attempts to please everyone. In contrast to hypocrisy, which applies to values and is displayed in public, flattery is primarily addressed to a particular individual is an essentially interpersonal relationship. Flattery is relational, because it operates only towards another person aiming at achieving a particular favour or personal benefit as a consequence of the favourable attitude.

Dissent: A Catalyst for   Renewal

Dissent is defined as “being against an attitude, idea or behaviour.” It is an intellectual disagreement on a particular point in an agreement. In most cases, dissent can be understood as a critical disagreement with some aspect of the decision-making. In a broader sense it can be understood as an unwillingness to cooperate with an established source of authority, which can be social, cultural, religious or governmental. It is an indispensable part of the learning-teaching process in decision-making. It occurs in a situation when the ideals are perverted and people are denied their basic rights. It can be the result of a triggering event, which is beyond the endurance of an individual or an outcome of some dissatisfaction in a particular situation. Among many reasons, the poorly given decisions of the organisation’s managers, especially when they become unethical or against the law as well as being unproductive, useless or in a manner which teases the members. Dissent also can be an expression of an opposite view, very often of the establishments. The burdens, duties and responsibilities of the members and discrimination for some individuals can cause dissent in organisations. Whatever the situation or reasons, the dissenters who make sincere criticisms against the dishonest or unjust systems demand to renew it.

“The process of dissent may not be easy at all. The system and authorities who do not like change and critical remarks seek to silence, suppress or to marginalise the dissents by all means. There are many examples of its impacts in history. Though initially, they were targeted and haunted by the authority, it could not survive long. Either they were forced to change or step down from power for a new generation.”

Dissent has primarily been associated with activities of critical thinking or thinking for oneself by questioning accepted notions of authority, truth, and meaning. Critical thinking in some sense, must necessarily involve dissent. There are many studies on the range of dissent in political theories, that make a search into the questions of promotion, toleration and control of the state. Similarly, dissent is also related to toleration. For Philosophers like Plato and Kant, dissent was important for promoting either the capacity of individuals, or to examine their lives in relation to others, or a collective capacity for public reasoning. Kant sees dissent as a sign of critical thinking. He calls it mature, or to pursue an “examined life” often involves developing positions that contrast with the conventions of a thinker’s age and society. This puts critical thinking individuals at odds with other members of their society and frequently with the state itself. Dissent, thus become a powerful source for developing effective public reasoning, itself necessary for determining the legitimacy of the actions and institutions of a given state as well as the customs and practices of a given society.

Dissent has an important role for protecting the individual rights and freedom as long as it does not contain violence and destructive insult. As the dissenters speak against injustice to victimising protected groups, it can function as a catalyst for social change, political uprightness and human well-being. The demand of dissidents for transparency, openness, truthfulness and justice would eventually move towards the actualisation of common good. They can collectively function as watchdogs who monitor the activities of the government or organisation, about their policies and actions, a check to abusive power in governmental and organisational systems. Thus, they function as a source of renewal, reformation and change. Though it may create some (temporal) harm, ultimately it leads to change and renewal.

Be not Afraid

The process of dissent may not be easy at all. The system and authorities who do not like change and critical remarks seek to silence, suppress or to marginalise the dissents by all means. There are many examples of its impacts in history. Though initially, they were targeted and haunted by the authority, it could not survive long. Either they were forced to change or step down from power for a new generation.

This reality can be seen in the history of the Church, beginning from Jesus till the present time. Jesus expressed his disagreements and dissents with then-powerful religious leaders. His life was a continuous confrontation with the existing unjust system. It further can be seen in Paul’s struggle with Peter (Gal 2:11-21). The history of the Church shows many confrontations, questions and challenges. It was very clear in various discussions of Vatican II and the present synodal process. In many cases, official teachings or positions of the Church were changed due to the moral sensibilities of the people, to critical reflection of the theologians, or to the attentive listening and discerning judgment of the magisterium.

Pope Francis entrusted the youth with an “exciting but also challenging task: to stand tall while everything around us seems to be collapsing!” (Homily, 21 November 2021). He requested them to act as “the critical conscience of society” and asked them not “to be afraid to criticise.” They should find “the courage to swim against the current, to be free and authentic, and to stand up for their dreams and ideals of truth, love, justice and peace with Jesus.” They should have the courage to swim against the unhealthy current of selfishness, closed-mindedness and rigidity, that often seeks like-minded groups to survive. The fight for truth and justice will be possible only when one opts “a life without shortcuts, without deceit, without duplicity.” In such a situation, compromise may not be possible and life should be taken seriously. To be critical, one should be “passionate about truth,” so that, the youth with their dreams can say that their lives are not captive to the mindset of the world. One is free, because he/she reigns with Jesus for justice, love and peace!