There was a thread on Inside the 40 Acres a few days ago about a transgender suicide. It was a heartfelt tribute to a person that the OP was genuinely impressed with. And we have no reason to doubt what he said about the humanity or the sweetness of soul of the person in question. The tribute was fitting and appropriate and well done.
In the thread that followed, the idea was generally put forward that the problem that had to be overcome was the problem of "judgment" in society: that suicide in transgenders was the product of a society that was quick to judge and harsh in its collective pronouncement against people who are different in these ways. And I believe that this sentiment decrying "harsh judgment" in society is extremely prevalent in 2018--to an extent that one may fairly wonder if it doesn't undermine the premise that the judgment of society is indeed so harsh.
Well, I certainly wasn't going to pick a fight there in that thread. But I do wonder if the sentiment about the harsh judgment of society is correct.
In his 1897 treatise on suicide, Emile Durkheim put forward a theory of "anomic suicide". Anomie, according to Durkheim, was "a condition in which society provides insufficient moral guidance to individuals".
As I read through the thread--and before I had remembered to think about Durkheim--I was thinking about my own 4th grade teacher, who had assigned us an essay, and who had emphasized the point that she wanted us to state our opinion and that no opinion was wrong if it was truly our opinion. And I had the thought, right then and there, that has remained with me ever since and in many ways remains the prevailing thought which informs my entire world view even today: If all opinions are correct, then nobody's opinion really matters.
And it still seems to me that this thought is crucial in explaining what we see in the world today. A society which practices extreme tolerance and which promotes and encourages the idea that all opinions and life choices are valid so long as they are authentically one's own, reduces eventually to the nihilistic realization that nobody's opinions and nobody's life choices make any real difference.
In expressing an attitude of extreme or unlimited tolerance to our young people, we like to believe that we are liberating them from the intolerance of the past. That is the direct teaching that we wish to communicate. But I think another, indirect and unintended teaching must also be acknowledged, which is that unlimited toleration is identical with meaninglessness. The lesson that everyone's life choice is valid is identical with the lesson that nobody's life choice makes any difference.
Surely our post-modern society is a very nice and a very kind society. But I think it is worth considering whether we--the older generations--in our totalitarian kindness, have abdicated our responsibility to provide guidance. And whether in our zeal to liberate humanity, we have not instead simply prepared the conditions of anomie that Durkheim warned about, and which lead our young people to the anomic conclusion that suicide is also a valid life choice.
In the thread that followed, the idea was generally put forward that the problem that had to be overcome was the problem of "judgment" in society: that suicide in transgenders was the product of a society that was quick to judge and harsh in its collective pronouncement against people who are different in these ways. And I believe that this sentiment decrying "harsh judgment" in society is extremely prevalent in 2018--to an extent that one may fairly wonder if it doesn't undermine the premise that the judgment of society is indeed so harsh.
Well, I certainly wasn't going to pick a fight there in that thread. But I do wonder if the sentiment about the harsh judgment of society is correct.
In his 1897 treatise on suicide, Emile Durkheim put forward a theory of "anomic suicide". Anomie, according to Durkheim, was "a condition in which society provides insufficient moral guidance to individuals".
As I read through the thread--and before I had remembered to think about Durkheim--I was thinking about my own 4th grade teacher, who had assigned us an essay, and who had emphasized the point that she wanted us to state our opinion and that no opinion was wrong if it was truly our opinion. And I had the thought, right then and there, that has remained with me ever since and in many ways remains the prevailing thought which informs my entire world view even today: If all opinions are correct, then nobody's opinion really matters.
And it still seems to me that this thought is crucial in explaining what we see in the world today. A society which practices extreme tolerance and which promotes and encourages the idea that all opinions and life choices are valid so long as they are authentically one's own, reduces eventually to the nihilistic realization that nobody's opinions and nobody's life choices make any real difference.
In expressing an attitude of extreme or unlimited tolerance to our young people, we like to believe that we are liberating them from the intolerance of the past. That is the direct teaching that we wish to communicate. But I think another, indirect and unintended teaching must also be acknowledged, which is that unlimited toleration is identical with meaninglessness. The lesson that everyone's life choice is valid is identical with the lesson that nobody's life choice makes any difference.
Surely our post-modern society is a very nice and a very kind society. But I think it is worth considering whether we--the older generations--in our totalitarian kindness, have abdicated our responsibility to provide guidance. And whether in our zeal to liberate humanity, we have not instead simply prepared the conditions of anomie that Durkheim warned about, and which lead our young people to the anomic conclusion that suicide is also a valid life choice.
Last edited:
