So, I’ve started reading again: Sincerity

Apologies to those who said to not judge a book by its cover. The sole reason why I decided to pick this up and read was because “Sincerity: How a moral ideal born five hundred years ago inspired religious wars, modern art, hipster chic, and the curious notion that we all have something to say (no matter how dull)” by R. Jay Magill had such a simple and eye catching title on its plain cover that I had to read more. It’s an interesting look into the value we place into being sincere and in this cynical world, it serves as a nice documentation of the many descents into cynicism prior to date and an assurance to the pessimists that better days will cycle by soon. Without ado, here are some lessons I have learnt from the book.

1. The origins of Sincerity: the word first came into use after a Protestant reformer (before being burnt at the stake) described someone else he looks up to as sincere. It came into use much earlier in the Latin and French language, but in the former it largely described laws and doctrines and the latter simply meant pure and whole for physical things items. The word in English encapsulates a sort of religious purity that had not been connoted before. Speaking of that time period, it was super religious and had sumptuary laws which dictated the kinds of clothing to be worn by different classes to keep your social standing transparent and fixed. Things like lengths of swords, colours, hair, all helped enforce social boundaries. To think that clothing is not political, or irrelevant, is to fail to recognise the power it has on the outward appearance in society, which people in the past have realised.
2. Sincerity in early literature: the two main figures who peeled away into more honest and self-revelatory composition of Literature were Montaigne (who I remember for that one essay about whether it is better to smell good or have no smell at all), and Rousseau (who wrote with self-awareness about his contradictions and flaws with comical derision). They tried to be authentic to the reader instead of appearing curated and perfect as in Classicism, especially Rousseau who wanted to revolutionise Art, which he had previously viewed as signs of the decay of a civilisation as it is patronised by luxury and an upper society with so much time to create pretty things and ask difficult questions instead of putting in actual labour. Striving for sincerity in writing is difficult because published authors never simply write just for themselves, because the record of “sincerity” is performative the moment it is put on paper crafted for people to read. Is that really sincere then?
3. Sincerity is weaponised for the political: it is a value we seek from our political leaders as it inspires a sense of trust within the society. However, it cannot be the only foundation of political competency (Shaw once said: it is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid). Firstly, this is because then politics becomes only a game comparing skills of managing their image instead of good governance, and secondly, politics is brutal to those who are gullible and honest. In the Machiavellian world, we do not work towards a pretend ideal but survive and push for our own in selfish and brutal environment. Unlike average citizens, Princes should not be governed by ordinary moral scruples, hence sincerity should have no space in politics. This is a reason why I dislike the idea of being in politics – everything, even sincerity, becomes obviously a tool because any onlooker would know that no truly sincere person would have survived in such a cutthroat place.
4. Sincerity has also become a political kitsch: to be real was associated to being in touch with the ground sentiments, and since it became so essential to a politician, people fight out over the portrayal of their false sincerity. In the 1840 American presidency Harrison vs Van Buren, apparently the former is a lumberjack, macho Joe kinda of guy and the latter an elite uptight bore. It was between being on the side of the ppl instead of being an elite out of touch. People ate the whole underdog story. However, during Harrison’s inauguration, he wanted to use this sincerity to advance his political agenda, and gave a long speech of victory in the rain. Truly ironic, however, was that he ended up catching pneumonia and died because of that moment he leans against the crutch of being kitschy and “sincere”. Shortest presidency ever.
5. Sincerity as a foundation for Romanticism: sincerity of expression became a mark of poetic quality during this phase, and linked heavily with nature and the natural (the stripping and unburdening of societal farce) The Byronic hero really showcased that, living life with a truly YOLO attitude such that most Romantics end up dying early. This is the first instance where sincerity moved away from religion into Art. However, it still remained difficult to peel away from it (Wordsworth hailing nature as god, the crutch of a religious figure).
6. Sincerity and Art: the word “artist” entered English language during the Romantic era, and is derived from “ars” which means skill. There are of course different commandments for Art to be sincere, either some saying that an artist requires a space with “a gentle alienation as a child is solitary from adults”, in contrast to Nietzsche’s concise and unforgiving “be hard”. There are also artists who had vastly different views on sincerity in Art. Oscar Wilde thinks that art created to true sincerity is ugly and to strive to be artificial and creating that mask is what makes Art deliberate and beautiful. People like Duchamp, however, proved through his work The Fountain, that sincerity is what moves people. It might not be sincere in its form (since the urinal is quite literally mass produced and he had zero contributions to its craft) but there is sincerity in intention and that is what made it such a landmark piece. There’s also people who believe that sincerity is impossible in Art, as only the insane can create artistic authenticity, as with Freud’s belief that sociopaths are the most sincere (ironic as it is) as they do not inhibit the desires of the id.
7. The duality of men: critiques of sincerity think that it is impossible to align all aspects of a self to one standard. For example, the Romans viewed the inner and outer, private and social self as non-contradictory and both are required to meet different needs to complete a whole. I think it is quite true, that we are all two-or-more-faced to behave around different people.
8. Art vs Capitalism: Andy Warhol and modernist artists believed that instead of holding on to the Romantic conception of how Art distinguishes us above the “low-brow” commercial advertisement, it should be seen as a vessel to even out the capitalist inequalities (no matter your income we all drink the same Coke kind of concept). Their artworks were not trying to say anything, much to the dismay of critics clinging on to Art’s romantic ideal of attaching meaning and striving to fix society. As a result, irony became a favourite tool for artists to play with as Art grows in the shadow of contradictions between consumerism (mass production creates inauthenticity) and artistic enterprise.
9. Death of the author: Since Art no longer just strives to be sincere, the works an artist has produced is no longer in their control once it is revealed to the world. It does not matter about the author’s intent, because the argument goes that it seems arbitrary the creator’s vision is given priority over all the many other interpretations of the consumers. Hence, if the original intent is not the only way to interpret a piece of work, sincerity as adherence to that intent no longer suffices as a yardstick of the artistic value. This forces the modernist artists to oscillate between sincerity and irony and trying to say what they mean whilst undermining what they say to gain popularity with the cynical audience.
10. Authenticity of photographs: Advertising in 1920s rarely used photographs 6% but after Great Depression it sort of became a breakthrough to photograph your products as it became a symbol of authenticity. People believed that photography cannot lie. It is really interesting because nowadays almost all advertising uses photography and we are all aware of the manipulation of photos. It has inspired such a deep-seated distrust in pictures we see that is completely contrary to the reason why such a method of advertising was popularised.
11. 48 laws of power: This book has served almost as a bible for those who scorn the idea of sincerity. It dictates that to grasp power, one must not hesitate to undertake all forms of brutal cheating and to shun connections with people. Reading some of the “laws” made me uncomfortable because it goes against the deeply humanist and relationship centric values I have been brought up with. This highlights how sincerity is necessary for the individual in our acting capacity as a decent human (otherwise to strictly follow the advice of the book makes you an asshole nobody likes) but we must recognise that it is not the best method for guiding career decisions and existing in a society. It is our choice whether we wish to compromise on that standard of sincerity for the sake of getting ahead, and this willingness to compromise is what creates the discussion over moral issues.
12. The end of sincerity in politics: Nixon’s Watergate scandal crumpled the fragile paper of trust in American politics and marked the end of sincerity in politics. Politicians no longer really have to be sincere, simply portray themselves as deceptively so. John F. Kennedy’s anti sincerity sentiments during Cold War where he rejected Khrushchev’s claims of sincerity in the negotiations of conflict also indicated a new era of the game of appearance in politics. This book is heavily situated in the American context, and I am sure it might not always be the same observable changes in politics elsewhere, but one thing is for sure, that it is not simply America that has weaponised sincerity.
13. Weak people cannot be sincere because it confronts us with uncomfortable frankness. That’s it, that’s one line in the book that says a lot.