Nobody likes hypocrisy. In general, our society has decided that it is one of the worst faults a person can have. Hypocrisy, defined by Merriam-Webster, is "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." A feigning. An act. A conscious attempt to deceive others. This is bad, no doubt. It is understandable and even right when we feel betrayed by a person who feigns--the very word means a willful attempt to deceive--some virtue or value. But I think this word is too often misapplied.
There are various kinds of hypocrisy. It is most often associated with religion. Christians may recall how Jesus addresses many classes of people as "You hypocrites!" in the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 23). Jesus was, in fact, addressing the same issues with religion as we likely are when we use the word, namely that there are people who pretend to be religious and worshipful but who in fact are depraved. No instance has demonstrated the evil of religious hypocrisy more than the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church these last few years. The abusing priests are hypocrites for willingly reneging on their promise and duty to care for their flocks by sexually abusing parishioners; the episcopal authorities--the Bishops--were hypocrites for knowingly abusing the same promises and duties not only by keeping offending priests in positions where they could continue the abuse, but also by using their influence to hide the problem and effectively deny victims the help, healing, and justice they deserved. This, surely, was an instance of grave hypocrisy, and is rightfully labeled so.
Another common type of hypocrisy is political hypocrisy. Political figures are accused of this when they claim false affinity with working-class people (if they have come from a privileged background), when they endorse the use of military force if they themselves never served, or served in such a manner as to avoid any danger, or when they take a political stance that is expressly contrary to the teachings of their religion. These are pretty clear cases of someone feigning a virtue or perspective they they do not, in fact hold--often for political gain. And we rightly find that reprehensible. Yet here we begin to see the dangers of hypocrisy, because many accusations of hypocrisy levied at politicians come from their political rivals, who are eager that we (their constituents) may develop a negative view of one or the other politician. And certainly--to cite one example--a politician may speak up for the use of military force or weigh in on issues affecting the military if he or she has no military background. The liberal media does this all the time (not specifically on military issues, either), relying on their intelligence and worldly perspective to give their opinion authority. Clearly, not all of the opinions originating from people who are not intimately familiar with the subject or issue on which they opine are bad or hypocritical opinions.
But when it comes to accusing specific people, particularly acquaintances, of hypocrisy, I become especially uncomfortable. For few of us have either hidden a sex-abuse scandal or assumed an unwonted affinity with a demographic other than our own for material gain. Yet we are all surely "hypocrites" in some sense. It would be a very rare person who had never in his or her life feigned to be something they are not. As children, we have pretended to be good or loving in order to get a toy we want; as adolescents we try to shape our personality in order to "fit in" with others, or act like someone cooler than we are in order to get a date; as young adults we feign certain loyalties to befriend those who are in a position to assist us in our ambitions. Surely these are all instances of hypocrisy, yet we look indulgently on this in children and adolescents ("they will grow out of it") and we defend it in the young adults ("he or she is just 'playing the game' to help their career"). Let's face it: feigning is necessary to living a good life. One very clear and unequivocal example of this is that of a man dating a woman with the intent of asking her to marry him. He will feign that he is a better man than he is--perhaps he keeps his apartment tidy when he knows she will see it, or works hard to conceal anger or frustration at his job so as not to be an unnecessary burden to her--not to deceive her maliciously, but to show her what kind of man he's capable of being. Then this "hypocrisy" of which he is guilty becomes a motivation to actually be a better man than he was heretofore.
Yet this example clearly does not exonerate all acts of personal hypocrisy. Though we all may present ourselves as better than we are (to get a date, to apply for a job, simply to impress others, to motivate ourselves), there are also many things we do that are not excusable. C.S. Lewis points out at the beginning of his book Mere Christianity that one common characteristic of all people is that they do things they know they ought not to do, and don't do things they ought to do. Surely each of us has at least once experienced guilt over something, some act we might have committed or some right act that we might have left undone. The source of that guilt is realizing that we have not lived up to the standard or code we had set for ourselves, and if we consider that unspecified "standard" or "code" as a value or virtue we espouse (even only to ourselves), then the act that fails to live up to the standard is an act of hypocrisy. It follows that we only feign to hold the standard or code, since we don't adhere to it in all cases. This is especially true if we pretend that the act is not a violation at all, as when (for example) we justify a "white lie" to a loved one.
Now if someone is very outspoken about their values, their "hypocrisy" of this kind will be very evident. The man who declares in his conversation and his life--perhaps by often taking a stand or by often judging others--what his values are will be an easy target for an accusation of hypocrisy if he even once acts contrary to his virtue. On the other hand, a reserved man will rarely merit the same accusation, because he can reasonably claim that as he has not publicly declared his values, he cannot be called a hypocrite for failing to live up to any values at all. He can, however, be called by discerning people immoral or indecent. But while this distinction between hypocrites and non-hypocrites makes rational sense, it avoids the larger moral issue. It is safe to say that everybody has failed from time to time in being the person they want to be, and if every time that happens we reinforce our own hypocrisy, then we are incurably hypocritical, especially if we accuse others of the same vice. Again, that makes rational sense, but it is both harsh and unrealistic to judge people like that. Surely everybody deserves more than one chance. Furthermore, the man who is outspoken about his values (or who attempts to demonstrate them, as is the case of the suitor mentioned earlier) is usually trying to exhort himself to be better and not fail so often to live up to whatever values he has. The act of saying "I believe it is right to do this" reminds the sayer of what he believes is right and binds him to keep faith with his listeners (who, of course, would otherwise call him a hypocrite).
Of course, the temptation to judge another as a hypocrite is strong, since it often helps us feel better about ourselves if we can compare ourselves favorably to that other person. It is tempting. It soothes whatever insecurities we have about ourselves. But it is the instrument of the coward and the bully. And this is where accusations of hypocrisy become really damaging. Firstly, this accusation allows the accuser to marginalize the accused, either for political reasons (as mentioned before) or simply in the realm of personal relations. It gives the accuser a "legitimate" excuse to dislike and even be cruel to the so-called hypocrite. Secondly, when used as a weapon in an argument it can insulate the accuser from appropriate criticism and advice. And I find that a lot of good advice and constructive criticism is thus ignored by people for whom it would do the most good.
Accusations of hypocrisy and spiteful counter-judgments have become a defense mechanism against facing our own faults. Setting standards for ourselves is a normal and morally correct thing to do; failing to live up to them is understandable, since we are all flawed beings. Admonishing ourselves to live up to the standards we have set by making ourselves accountable to others through communicating our standards is also normal. It is part of how society is good for us, because it provides both motivation and oversight in this regard. The opposite of this, the man who claims no values to protect himself from the fault of "hypocrisy," is a coward. That man has abdicated moral responsibility, and is surely more disgusting and less of a human than the hypocrite.
Though none of us enjoy criticism (unless it is positive criticism), probably most of us recognize its value. The criticism of a coach, for example, helps us do better at the sport we are playing. Criticism or admonishment from others is another tool that reminds us of what we ought to do--and it can help form "values," since if we recognize that we are being criticized validly for some transgression that we weren't previously aware of as such, our values become a little more refined. Catholicism recognizes this moral dynamic in society by exhorting its flock to be humble, while at the same time listing as one of the coporeal acts of mercy "admonishing the sinner." Since we are all sinners, one cannot do this without a certain amount of hypocrisy. But otherwise sinners would never be admonished. After all, Jesus said "before you pick out the splinter in your neighbor's eye, pay heed to the wooden beam in your own," not "go ahead and leave the splinter in your neighbor's eye."
Being aware of hypocrisy is important, because it is a vice that can be very hurtful to others. But I think hypocrisy as a vice really is something malicious. It is an active, premeditated feigning designed to deceive others. It usually is the mark of a truly dishonest person. Too often, however, the accusation of hypocrisy is simply a form at lashing back or protecting one's own flaws or insecurities. And that is simply another way to make oneself feel better by belittling someone else--which by most standards is reprehensible and unfair. And so I think we should be much more careful in how we use the word "hypocrite" and it's derivations.
