Hypocrisy

For the death metal band, see Hypocrisy (band).

Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic. A person engaged in hypocrisy is called a hypocrite.

Though hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in debates, a few theorists have studied the utility of hypocrisy, and in some cases have suggested that the conflicts manifested as hypocrisy are a necessary or even beneficial part of human behavior and society.

Etymology

The word hypocrisy derives from the Greek language|Greek]] ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "acting out"; the word hypocrite is from the Greek word ὑποκρίτης (hypokrites), the agentive noun associated with hypokrisis, i.e. "actor." Both derive from the verb κρίνω, "judge, assess," presumably because the performance of a dramatic text by an actor was to involve a degree of interpretation, or assessment, of that text.

Nevertheless, whereas hypokrisis applied to any sort of public performance (including the art of rhetoric), hypokrites was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure. In Athens in the 4th Century BC, for example, the great orator Demosthenes ridiculed his rival Aeschines, who had been a successful actor before taking up politics, as a hypokrites whose skill at impersonating characters on stage made him an untrustworthy politician. This negative view of the hypokrites, perhaps combined with the Roman disdain for actors, later shaded into the originally neutral hypokrisis. It is this later sense of hypokrisis as "play-acting," i.e. the assumption of a counterfeit persona, that gives the modern word hypocrisy its negative connotation. In all this, we do not find the modern idea that the hypocrite is unaware of that his performance or argument stands in contradiction with his self: on the contrary, a hypocrite in antiquity was someone who intentionally tried to deceive others.

Defining hypocrisy

In an act of hypocrisy the aim is to condemn another person or people, not to condemn an act. To preach against an act of which one is oneself guilty, does not in itself constitute hypocrisy, even if one takes efforts to conceal one's behaviour. It becomes hypocrisy when it involves verbal attacks or demands of punishment against perpetrators of the act which one practices oneself. Hypocrisy can be too, simply put, the pot calling the kettle black.

Concealment or evasion is not necessary for hypocrisy; hypocrisy can involve the open practice of a behaviour for which one condemns others. If there is a salient difference between the critic and the criticised which makes the criticised person reproachable for the act, but the critic not, then it is not hypocrisy; e.g. a parent condemning their child for using a dangerous implement which the parent themselves uses is not a hypocrite. If the difference in status appealed to by the critic is bogus, then it is indeed hypocrisy. The term double standard is used, confusingly enough, for both cases, as a simple descriptive phrase in the case of the parents, and as a pejorative phrase for open hypocrisy in the second case.

Whether the criticism is based on the absence of a behaviour or on the practise of a behaviour, the same criteria for hypocrisy apply.

Hypocrisy and morality

Hypocrisy has been described alongside lack of sincerity, as a characteristic which attracts particular opprobrium in the modern age. Many belief systems condemn behaviours related to hypocrisy. In some translations of the Book of Job, the Hebrew word chaneph is rendered as "hypocrite," though it usually means "godless" or "profane." In the Christian Bible, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in the passage known as the Woes of the Pharisees. In the Buddhist text Dhammapada, Gautama Buddha condemns a man who takes the appearance of an ascetic but is full of passions within. In Islam, the Qur'an rails against the munafiq - those who claim to be believers and peacemakers, thinking they are fooling Allah and others, but only fool themselves.

Psychology of hypocrisy

In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.

Also, some people genuinely fail to recognize that they have character faults which they condemn in others. This is called Psychological projection. This is Self-deception rather than deliberate deception of other people. People understand vices which they are struggling to overcome or have overcome in the past. Efforts to get other people to overcome such vices may be sincere. There may be an element of hypocrisy as well if the actors do not readily admit how far they are or have been subject to these vices.

Hypocrisy in humor

Hypocrisy is often utilized intentionally as a form of sarcastic humor, not only in film and television, but among the population. Of course, there is a distinct boundary between humorous hypocrisy and what can be interpreted as serious hypocrisy. Often, if the hypocrisy act is carried out too long, one may get the impression that they are serious. Another form of serious hypocrisy that was intended to be funny is when the listener does not realize that it is humor, or when the speaker insults the listener. In comedy writing, this is sometimes called a "Stan Daniels turn," a joke setup where "a character says something and then does an immediate 180-degree shift on what he just said," according to The Simpsons producer Al Jean.

Theoretical issues

Multiple theories of hypocrisy have been proposed. The conflict caused by contradiction can lead to differing outcomes.

In organizational studies, theorists like Nils Brunsson have discussed the paradox of the morality of hypocrisy. Brunsson reasons that, despite conventional social reactions to it, hypocrisy may be an essential guard against fanaticism, and may be to the benefit of high values and moral behaviour.

In the field of international relations scholars such as Krasner have suggested that sovereignty, specifically as brought about by the Peace of Westphalia, reaffirmed the principle cuius regio, eius religio, meaning that the ruler's faith became the official denomination of his state. Krasner calls this a system of "organized hypocrisy."

See also

• Tu quoque
• Moral absolutism
• Moral relativism
• Pot calling the kettle black
• Champagne socialist
• Discourse on Judgementalism

External links

• World Scripture: Hypocrisy