Pity for the pitiless

Last updated on: September 13, 2011 at 11:31 pm by Fred Clark

Pity for the pitiless 2011-09-13T23:31:42-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

To be pitiless, surely, is bad.

We don’t speak of someone as “pitiless” if we’re trying to express admiration for them. “Pitilessness” is never something we extol as a virtue. The only time being “pitiless” is ever described as a positive trait is in the context of sports, where we sometimes use words for otherwise undesirable traits to characterize a particularly fierce or dominant performance. “The pitiless pass rush tormented the opposing quarterback.” But even that analogous use in sports talk underscores our more general disapproval of pitilessness. We wouldn’t praise that football team for being pitiless off the field.

The list of near-synonyms for pitiless would include similarly negative terms — cruel, unfeeling, unkind, scornful, sociopathic. Yet for all that we still regard “pitiless” as wholly negative, its opposite is no longer usually seen as a positive. Pity itself is viewed as suspiciously condescending or arrogant. It has come to be viewed almost as a form of contempt.

This is reflected in the most prevalent use of “pitiful,” which is usually used these days as a rough synonym for “contemptible.” To say that something is pitiful is to condemn it as worthy of scorn. The original sense of the word, in which something described as pitiful was perceived as inspiring pity, is rarely employed any more.

This is a problem because pity — both the thing itself and the word we use to refer to it — is a vitally necessary thing. There are nearly 7 billion of us humans shuffling around on this planet and almost all of us are pitiful. We require pity from one another and we ought to inspire pity in one another. A world in which we are less capable of offering that pity, or not permitted to offer it, is a less hospitable world.

But the necessity and appropriateness of such pity does not in itself ensure that it will be any more welcome. The air of condescension remains.

And that may be unavoidable because, in fact, any given expression of pity, in word or deed, is an instance of inequality. Every discrete instance of pity always involves an imbalance of power. The one who has pity bestows it on the one who is pitiful. The act of pity corrects that imbalance and puts both parties back on equal terms, but in doing so it inevitably also highlights the prior inequality.

In this sense pity is akin to forgiveness — a kinship reflected in their also sharing the near-synonym “mercy.” Forgiveness also always occurs in a context of imbalance and inequality and likewise also entails an implicit acknowledgment of that imbalance. An offer of forgiveness can thus, like an offer of pity, encounter a hostile reaction. Mercy can sometimes seem like a bitter pill to swallow.

In the big picture the imbalance of any given particular situation doesn’t amount to much. Not for anyone who remembers the rest of life beyond that single instance. Overall, each of us will sometimes require mercy and sometimes have the chance to offer it to others. When one takes that larger context into account there’s no longer any reason to be hostile toward an offer of pity or to be arrogant about making the offer. The big picture keeps us from the absurd predicament in which extending mercy is forbidden as arrogant condescension while withholding it is seen as some kind of favor.

Such absurdity is the inescapable conclusion of a framework that condemns all pity as arrogant condescension. The proper response to such pitiable absurdity is to pity those who are caught up in it.

In defending and advocating pity here, I also need to challenge a popular confusion as to what pity means. It is not an emotional or visceral sensation in which one’s stomach is “strangely warmed” as tears well up in one’s eyes. I am speaking of pity as a rational, dry-eyed conclusion. Pity should be as arithmetically precise as the Golden Rule. The question of whether or not another requires pity from you is simply this: Would you want to be in their shoes? If the answer is no, then pity is an appropriate response.

This is relatively simple and obvious when the recipient of pity, the object of the love of which pity is one necessary form, is the victim of injustice or deprivation. It’s a far more difficult and complicated matter when the potential object of that pity is the perpetrator of injustice.

In the first case, pity compels us to act by meeting the needs of the needy and by using whatever power we may have to correct the injustice that was done, or is being done, to them. (Including, of course, ensuring that we are not ourselves complicit to that injustice.) That’s pretty simple, if rarely easy.

But what does pity compel us to do in the latter case? This is far from simple, in part because the perpetrators of injustice are far less likely to be receptive to pity or to mercy in any form. And it’s more complicated because the forms that pity and mercy need to take toward such a person — an oppressor, a predator, a bully, a bigot — don’t correspond with the squishy emotional sentiments we tend to associate with “pity” and any other form of love. To have pity on the perpetrator of injustice requires us to act against them — to convince or compel them to stop what they are doing, to rethink, reconsider, repent and restore. That may, in turn, require measures more forceful and coercive than simple persuasion.

If it seems odd to think of condemnation, criticism and opposition as forms of pity or mercy, then think again of the Golden Rule. Ask again the essential question: What if it was you in their shoes? What if it were you who had become the bully or the bigot or the oppressor? Wouldn’t you want your own bullying or bigotry to be confronted and opposed so that you at least had a chance for redemption and liberation?

Pity and the empathy of the Golden Rule always involves some act of imagination, and the imaginative act I’m describing here seems paradoxical. What if it was you who was an awful person? Wouldn’t you want others to do whatever they could to convince you not to be an awful person? I suppose one answer there would be to say, No, because if I were an awful person then I wouldn’t want to change.

But I don’t believe that’s true even of the truly awful. I don’t believe that such awful people — bigots, bullies, predators, robber barons and oppressors — are happy being who they are. Have you ever met a happy bigot? I haven’t. Not one. And it’s so hard to find, one rich man in ten, with a satisfied mind. I’ve known some awful people who worked awfully hard to convince others and themselves that they’re happy, but the sheer effort makes all that work unconvincing.

In any case, it just seems cruel to allow a bigot to remain a bigot or to allow a bully to remain a bully. It seems pitiless not to pity the pitiless. There’s a rough justice to it, I suppose, but God’s bodkin, man, use every man after his desert, and who shall ‘scape whipping?

And that, of course, is why pity for the pitiless doesn’t really require a leap of the imagination for most of us. The most awful bullies and bigots may differ from the rest of us in degree, but not in kind. I do not have to imagine what it might be like to be pitiless or cruel or hateful or predatory, I can simply remember.

And I can remember, also, what it was that helped me to become less so: Others who took pity on me.

Freely you have received, freely give. Sometimes that means compassionate sharing with others in need ,and sometimes it means pointing an accusing finger and standing in the way.

Uncategorized

IndigNation

Previous Post

September 13, 2011

Seven things that are not 'ironic'

Next Post

September 14, 2011 Two sins involving alcohol

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book of the Bible contains the genealogy of Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Luke Mark John Matthew