Hypocrisy, Consistency, and My Problem with Alan Watts
I was browsing an anti-consumption subreddit the other day and came across the following quote from Oscar Wilde:
“For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.”
I’ve been thinking about identity, consumption, and how the two are interrelated and I felt this quote summed up a lot of my feelings in few well written sentences. Then I looked at the top-rated comment which read:
“Oscar Wilde spent extravagantly on clothing and interior design. He single-handedly sped up the fashion cycle in London in the 1880s.”
The commenter didn’t bother to source this claim, so I didn’t bother to check, however based on the little I know about Oscar Wilde, it wouldn’t surprise me if this was somewhat true, hyperbole aside. There was a reason this comment was the most highly rated, aside from the subreddit being small; the commenter was exposing a perceived hypocrisy. Everyone detests a hypocrite, and everyone loves to mock them, myself included.
Donald Trump tells everyone to boycott coke, and then has to clumsily hide a bottle behind his phone during a photo shoot. Ted Haggard preaches the sin of homosexuality and the virtues of Christianity but is secretly paying for gay prostitutes and smoking crystal meth. It feels good to call these people out. How dare they act morally superior? How dare they tell me what to do? But does existence of hypocrisy itself make what they are saying wrong?
I don’t agree with the positions of Donald Trump or Ted Haggard, but not because they were hypocritical. I agree with the sentiment of the Wilde quote. Does the fact that he apparently failed to live up to his stated ideals make his stated ideals any less worthy of our consideration? Does a failure to live up to our ethical standards make those standards any less worthy of our striving? What does this have to do with Alan Watts?
I was reading a book by Jack Kerouac, and basically every character in most Kerouac novels is a pseudonymous real-life person. At one point Jack is at an extended alcohol-soaked party with all his enlightened Zen buddies. They are all poets and writers, and they all call each other “Bodhisattva” and prattle on about Buddhism, while their primary aims appear to be to become as intoxicated as possible and get laid.
At this party an older man shows up, who turns out to be a pseudonymous Alan Watts. The Alan Watts character proceeds to get as drunk, horny and pretentious as everyone else. This came as a shock to me who had only experienced Alan Watts via YouTube clips. For those who don’t know Alan Watts, he was influential in popularizing eastern philosophy in America in the middle of the last century. He’s got a great voice, a memorable look, and says a lot of thoughtful things, some of which resonate with me. Alan Watts was also an alcoholic, a serial adulterer and a self-identified “terrible father” of seven children from three marriages. While it may seem like hypocrisy, I believe it is something worse. I believe Alan Watts was being consistent with his personal philosophy.
Alan Watt’s seemed to believe that changing one behavior was not only impossible, but spiritually wrongheaded. Paraphrasing, he wrote: “Self-improvement is a dangerous form of vanity. At 35 one’s character is fully formed and has to be regarded as an instrument to be used rather than changed. … I am fully aware of the futility of myself trying not to be selfish, of the contradiction of myself even desiring or asking not to be selfish.”
Taken from a certain vantage point this could be seen as sage advice, some things are better to accept about ourselves than try to change. But constantly cheating on your partners, being a bad father, and dying of alcoholism at 58? Those seem like things we ought at least attempt to avoid. And it’s not that he did these things that’s my problem, it’s that his whole philosophy seems to justify them to an extent. He not only did things that I believe ought to be avoided, but he found a way to make them good (I am being true to who I am), or at least morally neutral (change is not possible).
I don’t really care that his image of an enlightened Zen master does not mesh with his lived reality. Hypocrisy does not necessarily undervalue the good that can be taken from a message. What I care about is that his messages seem to justify his shortcomings. The cliché is that no one is perfect, we have to take the good with the bad. Living consistently with your principles is the ideal, but I also believe we should set the bar at a reasonable height; strive for improvement and risk hypocrisy, rather than set the bar low and rely on clever excuses and self-satisfied selfishness for the sake of consistency.