Courting Blindness

[Image 1] Photograph, Thalia Black

Last week I had a few experiences that made me seriously analyze where in my life and thinking I was courting a level of blindness—deliberately avoiding the truth through self-deception—and I thought I’d share some of the thoughts that surfaced as I probed a little deeper into my own psyche and my observations of others.

From my own analysis of the human family, courting different levels of blindness and deliberate self-deception is a common phenomenon. All humans do it, to what degree could be argued, yet despite one’s acknowledgement of, or lack thereof, the human need to put up blinders and protect oneself from the honest truth, is a propensity we all share.

In today’s entry, I thought I would observe a particular aspect of blindness I witness regularly, both in others and in myself, that of blind loyalty.

Blind loyalty is a form of self-deception I find intriguing, in most part because of how it’s practitioners are penalized, rather than rewarded, for their devotion.

There is, truly, too much to say on the subject, and so I will have to reduce my remarks to only a few, leaving me, I’m afraid potentially open to extreme skepticism.

However, because I find this to be such an important topic, I’ll take that risk.

A necessary disclaimer

As always, I hope to avoid serious hypocrisy as I wade through the waters of these observations, yet I know it’s almost impossible not to have a little creep in here and there. For this, I apologize in advance.

I also recognize that many of my thoughts are unoriginal and there are those who have more eloquently and scientifically assessed said behaviors. As this is more of a classical argument, not a research paper, I acknowledge what I am about to say is strictly based on opinion and observation rather than statistical analysis.

Instead, the goal here, as per usual, is to share thoughts and observe human nature more like a fly on the wall than a scientist doing an experiment.

With that said, I also acknowledge that personal experience, that includes the personal evaluation of observable behavior in others, helps me to reformat and correct, if necessary, any of my own thinking and behavior that are being led or misguided by self-deception.

I fully believe that as we witness, gain clarity, and become enlightened, it is our duty to challenge and change our own beliefs and behaviors to align with the honest truth, whatever that may be.

It is not for me to change humanity, but to change myself.

As difficult as that often is, that discipline is the goal here, to open a space for myself and others to observe human behavior and peer through different lenses of thought and then challenge and change what is no longer supporting the truth within.

Blindness

In order to set some type of parameters for this argument, I’d like to first define what I personally mean by blindness.

For the context of this entry, I’m defining blindness as the stubborn and willful act of ignoring and overlooking the truth as it pertains to oneself.

In essence, being blind is a snuffing out of what one feels to be true or right in one’s heart and mind in order to appease, support, or protect oneself or others from discomfort, humiliation, judgment or criticism, or from accountability.

Blindness directly refers to one’s unwillingness to witness undeniable truths, especially in seeing ones own fallibility and errors, for whatever reason one may be choosing to ignore those truths.

Blind Loyalty

Loyalty is a virtue, not a fault. It is a two-way street. It is the glue that maintains camaraderie and peaceful relationships. It is a sign and illustration of one’s devotion, mutual affection, and love. Loyalty is patriotism, support, and a show of integrity.

Loyalty, however altruistic in certain contexts, can also go bad.

For example, a loyalty that demands injudicious allegiance, that degrades or diminishes one’s sovereignty and worth, and that requires only one-sided participation is a fault.

In other words…

Blind loyalty = giving loyalty without receiving it back.

Loyalty is earned through trust, and without trust, loyalty becomes a subversive and obligatory tactic for gaining undeserved support and unwarranted obedience.

For example, a parent that demands respect or loyalty without first building and engendering trust is, by all accounts, a bully and is not worthy of a child’s absolute fealty, for when a child indulges a totalitarian parent with absolute, blind loyalty, the parent’s entitlement to oppress grows exponentially.

Giving one’s loyalty indiscriminately, through strict obeisance, what we might call a lose/win scenario, encourages and allows the powerful to prey on the weak.

Loyally blind individuals are on the losing end of the lose/win scenario every time.

But why would someone choose to be on the losing end of a relationship or interaction?

Blind loyalty is often, but not always, a codependent way one protects themselves from alienation, criticism, danger, and from existential crisis.

Blind loyalty is a lopsided act of offering one’s allegiance to causes or people whose trustworthiness is waning or non-existent. It is, in many ways, a codependent survival tactic, but not a successful one.

Doling out blind loyalty, especially to those who have proven time and time again they are unworthy of it because they cannot be trusted, will not perpetuate survival because it is the exact recipe for demise and destruction.

Giving one’s sovereignty over to those who are willing to exploit it will only encourage and empower the greedy to consume more.

Blind Loyalty—Case Study

Due to the civil unrest and the constant political disputes that are exponentially expanding the divide between party systems across democratic governments both in and out of America, I thought it would be interesting to use some of the current issues with regards to political discord to illustrate the problems associated with blind loyalty, in particular.

Certainly, politics is only one way humans exhibit blind loyalty. However, because it is such a hot topic, hot in the sense that it is both constantly in one’s face and heated emotionally, it covers the bases of illustrating blind loyalty in action.

Blind Political Loyalty

Example I—Moral Contortion

One example I’ve observed over the last few years, especially with regards to political and similar controversial subjects, is a desperate need humans exhibit for blind loyalty to cause or group culture.

Despite the contradictory direction a particular cause or culture’s morality or agenda may take over time, individuals will choose, most often, to remain blindly loyal and will conform to the negative changes, rather than leave the cause or group for a new or different one that is in alignment with their own consistent values and beliefs.

I’ve watched countless podcasts with individuals discussing this phenomenon in their own lives as members of this or that political party.

Whether conservative or liberal, or other, many find themselves feeling pressure to remain loyal to the shifting demands of the political party they have been affiliated with for many years.

When confronted with major, and often negative, changes to their political party’s agenda, instead of taking a step back from party affiliation or allying themselves to a new party or ideal that serves their interests fully, they will change their own expectations and beliefs to align with their current political party’s agenda and demands.

Even when the political party one has espoused themselves to for many years engages in a completely different agenda and purpose that is in every way contrary to its original mission and professed dogma, because one feels a sense of honor in loyalty to party or cause, or fear of alienation from friends, and even family, one will contort and swallow whatever is necessary, even amidst the most extraordinary deviations and distortions.

To remain blindly loyal, one will either quickly contort one’s own beliefs to fit inside the new box of the party’s shifting values or they will sit in silence, afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled as the enemy.

For example, I have personally witnessed those who profess to be against all forms of sexual promiscuity, twist and contort their values to support and condone political leaders whose sexual indiscrimination is in every way contrary to the constituents’ moral beliefs.

Instead of formally and publicly denouncing the political leader’s behavior as contrary to their desires for someone representing them through political party or office, because of their loyalty to party and political tradition, they will mollify themselves and look for ways of excusing the political figure’s behavior in both private and public.

Not only will humans change their morals and values to remain loyal to those who have betrayed them, but they will transform and contort those morals and values to include what they previously abhorred.

Example II—Turning A Blind Eye

Another example that comes to mind is the individual who chooses to avoid any information that may criticize or censure their party’s favorite policies or candidate, even when they—their favorites—are under heavy scrutiny and the charges laid at their door are appalling.

Rather than looking at the claims against their party’s policies or candidates objectively, individuals will choose to remain blind to the faults of their political favorites and will continue to support them, even when their appalling crimes have been confirmed.

Like an ostrich hides its head in the sand, so too will blindly loyal party members either completely deny the claims and vilify those who made them, or they will excuse the bad behavior and ethical ineptitude of those they have chosen to represent them.

They would rather turn a blind eye, either to save face or hang on to the last shred of hope that their loyalty will be rewarded, then hold their favorites publicly accountable.

Example III—Vilifying the So-Called Enemy

The final example is that of vilifying the opponents while putting one’s favorites on pedestals of greatness.

We’ve seen this behavior clearly in the last few years here in America. The hate and overt criticism that has been spewed from both conservatives and liberals against past and current presidents, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, has been an ironic display of hypocritical self-righteousness, the likes of which our country has never seen.

Both men stand on either side of the fray accused of awful crimes against humanity. Yet, blindly loyal activists and constituents refuse to see them both for what they are, two peas in a pod of selfish narcissism; the one bawdily making a spectacle and the other self-righteously and cowardly hiding behind his incompetence.

The masses follow their nonsensical example by perpetuating and intensifying the debate. They play into the hands of their puppet masters, guffawing, booing, and rolling their eyes on cue.

What has been the constituents’ reward for offering blind loyalty, trust, and devotion to criminals who give nothing in return?

An economy that is in rapid decline, elitism, civil unrest, divisiveness, and a political circus that rewards the powerful and preys on the weak.

Accepting Imperfection Is Not Blindness

Certainly, when considering the broader picture, especially with regards to political participation, humans accept the fact that perfection does not exist and one must choose from groups of imperfect humans to lead and represent their causes and countries.

It is also true that there are good, worthy individuals within any political party or system who seek to earn one’s true loyalty and respect, and who do so, despite their being imperfect.

In a political sense, one will always be voting for and subscribing to imperfect people and scenarios. That is to be expected, and that is why reserving one’s loyalty for those worthy of it is the point here.

Yet, culturally, we recognize that there are levels of imperfection we are often having to choose between, some of which are certainly better than others.

The phrase, “choosing the lesser of two evils," is often uttered in acknowledgement of the fact that one has lesser or inferior options than one wishes they had. Yet, they still work to choose the best option available.

The Varieties of Imperfection

However, there is a difference between accepting the imperfections in humankind and human institutions, and blind loyalty.

Blind loyalty does not require give and take, and therefore it creates a massive imbalance on the scale of good to bad or noble to dastardly forms of imperfection, because willful blindness makes it easier to pretend that the basest and most untrustworthy candidates are the noblest and best.

Blind loyalists will excuse the abhorrent behavior of their favorites on grounds that those they champion are only human.

As individuals, we have the capacity to differentiate between levels of human imperfection and political or moral agendas.

There are good and decent imperfect people and there are crass, evil, and wholly self-serving imperfect people, as well as everything in between.

But how can one know the difference?

By their actions and words. Yet, blind loyalty can make this distinction extremely difficult.

Humans reveal their particular level of imperfection all the time. Their behavior, their speech, their affiliations, all give away their real character.

As voters, it is our responsibility to understand the nature and character of the imperfect people we trust with our loyalty.

Instead, quite often, humans will use social or political organizations to tell them who to vote for, not based on character, experience, and worthiness, but based on loyalty to cause and party.

Certainly, there are many instances where we have to look past the imperfections of humans in order to participate in the election process.

As Christians often profess, “one can love the sinner and hate the sin”.

Yet, often, especially in political venues, one feels that they must be loyal to the political leader’s behavior, their party affiliations, as well as the office they represent, equally, making the saying more like this, “one must love the sin, as much as the sinner”.

In my mind, one’s behavior and one’s elected office are not the same thing, especially with regards to loyalty.

One can be imperfect and still have integrity. One can be imperfect and be a base and immoral Brutus.

It’s important to know the difference.

Conscientious Loyalty—The Opposite of Blindness

One will always vote for imperfect people to represent them in political office, because all human’s are imperfect. The only choice available is to vote for imperfect humans.

Yet, when looking for a political leader that will represent one’s personal values and ethics, those that one personally chooses to live by, it is NOT best to make decisions based on political party, policy, or group culture alone.

For myself, political party, especially in this day and age, is the last thing I weigh and measure as a legitimate reason to cast my vote, as the values and agendas of all party’s seem to be shifting faster than I can prudently evaluate or support.

However, it is always wise to consider the scope and arc of the political party a particular candidate is choosing to ally themselves with, as their abilities to be effective in their office often rely on their political affiliations and relationships.

Instead of choosing to be loyal to a fault to a party who’s interests may or may not represent one’s own interests and values over time, one should instead choose to look at every aspect of the policies, and more especially, the candidates in question: their individual character, their experience, their capacity to represent one’s country globally, their previous policies (if such exist), their non-political and political affiliations, and the alignment between their potential agendas and one’s own desires both for themselves and their country at large.

By making these distinctions, one can avoid being led by party or other cultural or causal biases that force one to contort themselves into loyal expressions to totalitarian regimes, like our American democratic two-party system has become.

Rather, one should try and maintain their sovereign ability to choose which candidate best represents them and their beliefs without party bias, instead of accepting some diluted, agenda-driven, self-perpetuating group decision that neither represents nor cares to represent what their constituents believe or desire, even when said constituents have given party or cause one’s unrewarded loyalty.

Although I am not alone in making these types of distinctions, I am aghast at how many voters cannot separate the party from the candidate, and vice versa, or themselves from the party long enough to question whether or not their loyalties are being rewarded by those they choose to support or affiliate themselves with.

One should consider all possibilities—conservative, liberal, and other—before making a decision, because the more options that exist the more likely one will find policies or candidates that represent their values and desires, and one is less likely to help perpetuate dynastic control by those least worthy of holding office.

One may argue that the system does not support such fickleness, that in order for one’s vote to count one must choose to play the political game through allying oneself to factional representation.

However, I would argue that playing the game is simply perpetuating the myth that blind loyalty—accepting whatever one is given and expecting them to relish it to show one’s devotion, even when one is given a plate of poop to scarf down—is the real problem at hand: a subversively compelled blind loyalty that simply insights further totalitarianism on every end of the spectrum.

Sovereignty, critically thinking for oneself outside of social and cultural constructs, presents its own challenges, especially when one is young and inexperienced.

Yet, despite the difficulties that using sovereign loyalty and judgement can present, I find I am much happier with the outcome of my own decisions when I remove unnecessary loyalty-blinders, the best I can, and make my decisions individually, skeptically, and based on true loyalty to those worthy of it, not a counterfeit version of it.

The Case Against Blind Loyalty

Blind loyalty is a contortionist act, asking much more of the giver than of the receiver.

Where one gives their absolute and blind loyalty to cause or group, they cannot expect it in return, because blind loyalty promotes dis-empowerment of the giver and totalitarianism in the receiver, regardless of one’s affiliations.

It teaches the receiver they can do no wrong, that they are above accountability, and that they are unconditionally entitled to the giver’s devotion.

This phenomenon is seen in blindly loyal parent/child relationships, marital relationships, religious and cult-like fervor, political allegiance, teacher/student relationships, and a myriad of other equally lopsided cultural structures.

Where one is willing to contort and change themselves without expectation, trust, or respect, one will always lose.

Blind loyalty is one-sided, absolute, and most often goes unrewarded.

Blind loyalty imposes heavy demands and an insistence that people change themselves in incredible ways to conform to what they are loyal to, even if those changes go against their own moral or ethical structures and do not produce results that reward them for their sacrifice.

Conclusion

Loyalty, as I mentioned previously, is not a fault. It is a virtue.

Boundless good can come from loyalty to positive, purposeful, and productive causes and social or cultural groups.

However, true loyalty requires trust to exist between those offering it and those receiving it, for it to be worthwhile. Loyalty relies on mutual respect to engender and maintain it.

In my experience, much of our political system, among many other human organizations, require a type of blind or lopsided loyalty, as they are unwilling to make any kind of promises to uphold their end of the loyalty bargain.

Loyalty is not some totalitarian ethic. It is the trust given and received in a relationship between two or more entities. Without the trust of give and take, loyalty cannot and does not exist.

Blind loyalty, then, is a one-sided, lose/win, oppressive Ponzi scheme, and no more.

Politics is simply one example of how humans fall prey to the power structures of blind loyalty. There are so many others, most of which do not fall within a political construct, but which I will have to address another day.

Make a careful assessment of the institutions, cultural groups, and belief systems you give your loyalty to, and clarify what loyalty, if any, you are receiving in return for your support, activism, or money before you begin building lose/win relationships of so-called trust.

Whether religious, secular, political, familial, or cultural, where you choose to give your loyal participation can either empower your sovereignty and individual right to choose, or it take it away. So, choose wisely.

Share this post