The Difference Between Indifference and Indifference

cartoon from xkcd

At one time, it was considered acceptable not to have an opinion on a subject, especially if that subject was complex. It was all right to say “I don’t know enough about it to say”, or “I have no strong feelings either way”, or just simply “I don’t know”.

But no more. To not have an opinion is now seen as an admission of ignorance, or worse, as coldhearted and uncaring. After all, thanks to the (increasingly censored, propagandized, and mis- and disinformation-riddled) internet, you can quickly — and should — bone up on every subject that is being talked about anywhere, to have a heartfelt opinion one way or another. If you do not publicly and enthusiastically endorse the popular opinion, then, you must be tacitly endorsing its opposite — eg that Putin is heroic (if you suggest that the invasion is complicated and is in fact a proxy war between Russia and NATO), that trans people are unworthy of support (if you are a ‘radical feminist’), and that you abet the abuse of babies and children (if you are a vegan).

It is not allowed to say that, because an issue is multi-faceted and extremely complex, you do not feel knowledgeable enough to have a strong opinion. To not take the “right” stand is to support evil, and suffering. If you don’t take a stand, the terrorists win. The cartoon above pretty much says it all*.

There is, of course, a distinction between indifferent, and indifferent. The word has two connotations: The first, uncaring, the second, impartial or having no preference. Partisans and propagandists deliberately blur the distinction between the two very different meanings. So now we read about “a culture of indifference”, meaning a population that simply does not care, that lacks empathy, and which is, of necessity, cruel and heartless. Bad culture!

So if you don’t cheer for US/NATO military involvement in Ukraine, or if you don’t boycott Derrick Jensen’s and JK Rowling’s speeches for them being radical feminists and hence transphobic, or if you threaten babies’ and children’s health by not encouraging them to drink cows’ milk and eat meat, then you clearly don’t care about the suffering and misery your ‘indifference’ is causing. Shame on you!

There are two other words in English whose meanings are similarly confused and misused: disinterested and uninterested. Disinterested means unbiased or impartial. Uninterested means not having a position. Neither is any longer socially acceptable. The implication now is that if you’re uninterested, you’re wilfully ignorant, and if you’re disinterested, you’re uncaring — how can you possibly “sit on the fence” on this vitally important subject? You’re an apologist for the “other side”. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. What’s wrong with you?

Studying history, science and complexity can leave you in an uncomfortable and even untenable place: You realize there are complex reasons for what has happened, for what seems to be happening, and for why people have taken the positions, and actions, they have taken. But no one wants to hear them. People want things, and explanations, to be simple, black and white; they want there to be good-guy heroes and evil villains; they want a simple dichotomy of choices: A or B. And most of all, raised on the religion of progress and the pablum of Hollywood (and no, I do not have a position on pablum, I am simply referring metaphorically to its lack of fibre), they want a mostly positive trajectory and a happy ending. One where the identified good guys win and the bad guys get what’s coming to them.

As a consequence of a couple of decades of study of how the world really works, and of the history and nature of our species, my worldview (and this blog’s) has evolved to be one that asserts that everything happens for a (mostly highly complex and sometimes unknowable) reason that we should try to understand and appreciate (and not through resorting to simple armchair amateur psychology); that the nature and evolution of life, including humans, is cyclical, not progressive; that we keep repeating the same mistakes; and that there are no happy endings. Everything is a negotiation, an accommodation, a workaround, an adaptation. We do our best. “For us, there is only the trying; the rest is not our business.”

This is an extremely unpopular worldview. No surprise that most people are not interested in talking with or engaging me on most topics. I don’t blame them for that, or for anything.

Still, I try to be disinterested (impartial), without being disinterested (uncaring). Though I would be the first to admit there are things I just can’t care about, for reasons that are, I think, beyond my control.

Sometimes it’s enough just to keep learning, to be tentative in my beliefs, to be skeptical of dichotomies, to challenge everything, and to try to be as joyful and generous and appreciative and equanimous as possible in the face of it all. And to realize how much I don’t know, and to try to say “I don’t know” as much as I can.

* I am sensitive to the fact that the last reported case of widespread cannibalism (at least in “white/affluent/western” nations) was in Ukraine during the global Great Depression in the 1930s, during the horrific famine there. In the century since, there has been a relentless propaganda war between what is now Russia (claiming that famine was naturally caused by drought, economic collapse and disease) and what is now the NATO bloc (claiming it was entirely and “deliberately engineered” by Stalin). The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the unexplored chasm between these claims.