No one is their best or worst parts

Image by Placidplace from Pixabay

It has become exceptionally easy and alarmingly acceptable to put each other into boxes. 

“You think this? So you must think that as well?” 

“That person is against this? Well then obviously they must be for that.”

From there the natural next step is to sort each other into “good” and “bad” piles and then call it day. But who do you know (in real life) that is truly that simple? Isn’t there real harm in putting someone in a good or bad pile?

The people who have been given the “good” label often escape scrutiny in the interest of maintaining a hero’s narrative. Recent reporting by the New York Times revealed activist and farm workers’ hero Cesar Chavez allegedly abused several girls and young women. Now followers and supporters are trying to figure out what this means for his legacy.

Does it tarnish or diminish the work others have done with him to move the cause forward? Are his accomplishments less meaningful because of terrible actions he allegedly committed?

Journalist Manny Fernandez, who broke the story, said, “No one wants to take down a hero, but we need to know who our heroes are.” 

Seeing only the bad in someone doesn’t seem to be the answer either. There is a concept in historical and literary analysis called “presentism,” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysis)] which places modern day expectations on past events and works. This is a concept, among others, that Professor Shilo Brooks wrestles with on his podcast Old School, where he talks to people about books that changed their lives. He recently interviewed journalist Eli Lake about beloved children’s writer Roald Dahl, who was also an open antisemite. They debate whether art can be separated from the artist.

Are the lessons kids learn from books such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda meaningless because the person who wrote them was deeply flawed? Would libraries be better if these books were pulled from the shelves?

It’s my humble opinion that trying to sort everyone into good and bad only creates blinders and false narratives about who someone really is. It prevents us from knowing them in all their complexity.

In 2021, HBO released Lady and the Dale, a 4-part mini series about entrepreneur and criminal Geraldine Elizabeth Carmichael. In a nutshell, after four marriages, Carmichael who was born male transitioned to female and tried to fake her death to shed her male identity. She later took on a new identity and went onto market “The Dale” a three wheel car designed by Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation. She was later charged with grand theft and became a fugitive.

In an interview the producers were asked if telling the story of a trans woman who was so flawed would hinder trans advocacy. Producer Zachary Drucker said that it was important to tell the whole story, warts and all. That helps show the spectrum of stories that exist within the trans community rather than play into stereotypes or tropes. She observed that Carmichael was able to escape capture for so long because the FBI were looking for a man and they lacked the imagination to look for a woman.

And that’s what stories and biographies can do. They expand our imagination for who people are or could be.

The latest theme for my newsletter “Let’s Get Messy” came to me after I read Nobody’s Fool by Richard Russo. I recognized friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances in Russo’s characters, and because the book is written in the third person, it gave me insight into what might be driving the behaviors of the people in my life.

Why does Sully’s wife work so hard to achieve perfection in circumstances that are so imperfect? Why is Mrs. Peoples so tolerant of Sully when no one else is?

Sometimes people make bad decisions because they don’t see any other options. Sometimes someone is exceptionally kind to a seemingly undeserving person because they know something everyone else doesn’t.

It reminds me to look for stories, biographies and histories that inspire me to be curious instead of judgemental and additive instead of reductive.

It reminds me to imagine there might be more to someone than just their best or worst parts.