Rudeness #1 “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” — Eric Hoffer

“Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.”

— Eric Hoffer

I encountered this quote yesterday from another feed and reflected on it for some time. Initially, I considered sharing it further, but I soon realized it was way too simplistic to qualify as a comprehensive truth. It’s a ‘pre trans/fallacy’*.

First and foremost, the entire matter depends on 1. how one defines “rude”—”oförskämd”, 2. who is accusing, and 3. why the accusation is made.

1. Definition
The word “rude” comes from the Middle English term “rude,” which itself originates from the Old French “rude.” This Old French term is derived from the Latin word “rudis,” meaning “rough, raw, or unskilled.”

In Latin, “rudis” was often used to describe something in its natural, unrefined state, and it also referred to people who were considered untrained or lacking in refinement or manners. Over time, in English, the word evolved to specifically denote someone who is impolite or lacking in civility, capturing the sense of being “rough” in social interactions. This evolution reflects a shift from describing a general state of rawness to specifying manners and social conduct.

Here in South Africa, some individuals deem me rude merely because I am white and occasionally wear a tweed suit and hat. Conversely, several others hold the exact opposite view.

I have now heard the following narrative repeated to me several times, the provocateur using somewhat different words but always with the same meaning: “Hey, white man, have you come to colonize us? To exploit us? To hypnotize us with your dream about a white God? Do you want to make me your monkey? I’m not your monkey.” At least the individuals conveying this to me are authentic about their fears and feelings.

Who is being rude in this situation? Am I being rude because I am perceived as provocative, due to the interpreted use of symbols that, to him, signify exploitation and colonization? Or is he being rude by labeling and categorizing me, putting words in my mouth, and attributing intentions to my heart based solely on his first impression of me, thereby already holding me responsible for his nation’s historical tragedies and traumas from which he is clearly still suffering? It’s as though he tries to speak for me, desperately in need of a scapegoat.

Further, am I being rude for even writing this? By repeating these words above, commenting on, or dissecting this entire infected dynamic, am I overstepping? Should I just let it be? Or would it actually be rude of me not to comment on it? I think the latter.

These dichotomous attitudes (quoted above) could function as proof of a binary way of thinking, showing internal opposing viewpoints or behaviors that strongly work against each other. Attitudes that are likely influenced by the racism and history associated with apartheid and colonization. I, of course, previously unaffected by these historical events, find it quite ironic that he considers me discourteous solely because of my race and the clothes I prefer.

I consistently strive to avoid rudeness; however, it seems quite futile because many people’s perception of me is predicated on the incorrect label they have already assigned, and whatever I do, it seems to fall into their already decided category with a precreated explanation—whatever I seem to do, in the eyes of some people, will only reinforce their original idea of me, with increasingly elaborate theories of rationales for my behavior—and no one wants to be proven wrong as it tends to exacerbate the situation even more.

Many subconsciously participate in a societal game that hinges on a “win-lose” dynamic, which they perhaps embrace due to a previous erasure of their own individuality. If one engages in this game and willingly assumes the “loser” position, they may first be perceived as extremely polite and insightful, the opposite of rude. However, such dynamics are very unsustainable (because they are not real) in the long run.

If one proposes an alternative through their actions—a “win-win-win” situation where many can benefit—it can disrupt some people’s mindsets and challenge their perceptions of their elevated positions, which they always feel compelled to defend. Unfortunately, such challenges often result in adverse outcomes, as these individuals may react irrationally (“Who does he think he is?”).

It is not my life’s work to prove that I am not rude to other people. In some contexts, it would be utterly impossible, and in most others, it is completely unnecessary.

Consider a recent incident involving a guy struggling with his housing situation. I had the opportunity to assist and support him. Viewing him as any other individual deserving of respect and optimal conditions, I endeavored to do my best.

However, it seemed that each act of kindness, possibly elevating my status in his perception, made it increasingly difficult for him to cope. He required assistance, but the more benevolent I became, the more he felt compelled to respect me, which he resisted.

This resistance led to anger and irrational behavior. Ultimately, in his view, my kindness exceeded his initial perception of me, which he could not accept. This led to him threatening me in bizarre ways, prompting me to distance him from my life.

I perceived this as quite rude towards me. Apparently, I was also seen as very rude because I treated him as politely as possible. He really seemed to fear that my kindness positioned me above him, a notion he could not tolerate. However, this entire scenario unfolded in his mind, and therefore bore no relation to actual reality.

“No good deed goes unpunished”
— Eudo, De nugis curialium

This is the current definition of “rudeness”.

2. Who is accusing?
Moreover, linking “rudeness” to “weakness imitating strength” is also very questionable.

Many contended that Napoleon was extremely rude, lacking “manners” as perceived by other European leaders of his time. Likely, this was because he did not adhere to most of the established “etiquette” but instead acted based on what was practical and pragmatic regarding human nature, psychology, and world affairs.

It’s very true that he did not conform to what others considered good manners, but he was certainly not weak, nor unskilled, as suggested. On the contrary, he was anything but weak—perhaps one of the strongest individuals in history, as noted by some of the greatest minds ever like Goethe and Hegel.

If, for example, I deem a doctor (or mom) incompetent because they are evidently treating my daughter incorrectly and harmfully, is it rude of me not to acknowledge the doctor’s (or mom’s) authority? Or is it a sign of strength to challenge an incompetent, or unskilled authority that has been wrongly established and executed?

3. Why the accusation?
Similarly, Winston Churchill, known for his central role in defeating Hitler and ending the Second World War, was often considered rude. He faced opposition from both allies and foes, partly because of his reputed lack of manners. The King of England found Churchill extremely unpredictable: often first feeling flattered, and then very hurt by Churchill’s remarks. But I doubt that it was ever the intention of Churchill to flatter, nor to hurt. The King of England at that time was probably just very fragile and took things personally.

Yet, these people who strove to maintain British etiquette during WWII could never have defeated Hitler based on adherence to their rules of politeness. As Churchill famously said, “You can’t reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” Sometimes, there is simply no time, nor very effective, nor skillful, to be polite. Was Churchill rude for defeating Hitler? Little Adolf probably felt so.

Rudeness is thus not necessarily a sign of weakness. But Eric Hoffer perhaps meant that rudeness occurs when one intentionally seeks to demean others. Is it rude or weak of me to write this post? That depends on my intentions. My aim is truth, never to belittle anyone.

Yet, as we read in The Apology by Plato, Socrates was executed for speaking the truth, because the truth undermine the erroneous social structures of those who should never be in power. So the people who killed Socrates because of their hurt egos maybe deserve to be belittled.

Therefore, be skillfully rude when you need to bee, and Bee Brave /BraveDave

*Appendix:
The term “pre/trans fallacy” was introduced by the American philosopher Ken Wilber, and it is a concept in integral theory and developmental psychology. The fallacy occurs when people confuse pre-rational states of consciousness with trans-rational states. Here’s a breakdown of the terms:

Wilber argues that avoiding this fallacy is crucial for a proper understanding of human consciousness and development, as it helps distinguish between immature and truly advanced states of human consciousness. Recognizing the differences can aid in personal growth and the evaluation of different psychological and spiritual claims.

The Alchemist Member since 2024-01-20

Loading + Follow Following