Snark and the Status Quo
Snarky critique is generally just a defense of the status quo. But decisions must be made - the future must be entered into - uncertainties and all.
Maybe it's John Stewart's fault or Stephen Colbert's. Patient zero remains uncertain, but we do know that we have entered the era of snark. Biting sarcasm with a dash of wit is now the modus operandi of the day.
Snark masquerades as humor, often rightfully. But snarky critique is generally just a defense of the status quo. It is a way to dispense quickly with a new idea because look how clearly insane it is.
Here's the thing - humans love the status quo. If things stay the way they are, they may not be great - but we at least know what they are.
CS Lewis phrased it this way - "[we are] like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” Now Lewis was talking about our interactions with the Divine, but his point is broadly applicable.
Snark has a close, more socially acceptable, cousin - analysis paralysis. The ability to deconstruct an idea feels like being helpful. The man who shows the problems with every plan or idea, thinks he is being helpful.
We stop our children from touching a hot stove, wouldn't we do the same with an uncertain course of action?
The challenge is that a hot stove is real and known risk. Our action to stop the child is avoiding clear danger.
In a world that is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) - we easily think about other uncertainties in the same way. But this thinking is a very linear - do this to avoid that.
But, most uncertainties in today’s world do not function that way. We simply do not know all the things that can happen - both good and bad. The 'unknown unknowns' of Donald Rumsfeld. Or as the ever brilliant Mark Twain phrased it, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
When forced with a new idea that requires change, we prefer the status quo. This preference is reinforced because we believe our ability to imagine negative possibilities about the change shows us as highly rational and thoughtful even.
But too often, this sort of analysis does not consider positive outcomes with the same level of analysis. Nor does it consider the riskiness of doing nothing. Maybe the status quo is fine, but maybe the house is built on sand.
The challenge then is not to be analytical nor snarky. The challenge is to move beyond - to move toward action.
This is why Teddy Roosevelt remarked that ‘it is not the critic who counts’ in his famed Man in the Arena remarks.
I wrote recently about desperation and intention. Intention is the antidote to much existential despair, but intention requires an uncommon trait - the ability to reflect and choose.
But that is not enough. Intention must be accompanied by a corollary concept - a 'bias to action (“BTA”).
BTA calls for an end point to analysis and snark. It recognizes that decisions must be made - the future must be entered into - uncertainties and all.
Next week, we will discuss bias to action in greater detail.