The Four Impolite Topics: a guide to our humanity
In polite conversation, it is said that one does not talk about four topics – sex, money, religion and politics.
Of course, that makes life very difficult if your area of interest, study or even occupation is in one of these areas – in my case, I’ve studied sociology (which covers sex and money), politics, applied theology (which covers religion).
Having studied those areas, I’ve needed to have several conversations in all four forbidden areas, which gives me a special appreciation for why these are forbidden topics. It’s axiomatic that usually people will yield to the person who works in the area (try correcting a doctor or a tradesman!), but when it comes to politics, philosophy and religion, suddenly they’re pope, Plato and president – particularly frustrating to those who have studied the areas and know that neither party is any of those!
Even so, it is my assertion that while this makes for polite conversation, it doesn’t create friendships (and certainly not in this day and age). At a fundamental level, all of these areas address fundamental aspects of what it means to be human.
I’ll explain that individually.
Our sexuality is considered to be a fundamental part of who we are – to the extent that if a person has what is sometimes referred to as an ‘alternative lifestyle’, this is viewed as an insurmountable obstacle to being part of a traditional religion – as if we aren’t human unless we’re engaged in the sexual relationship of our desire.
Our monetary situation is seen by many as a mark of how much we’re worth. One of the unfortunate aspects of capitalism is that it is very easy to reduce a person to their paycheck – a human life can be worth $30,000. Instinctively, we know that this is not true – a person has worth because they are a person, rather than because they are a worker – but it is easy to fall into this trap.
Aristotle once put forward that ‘man is a political animal’. Democracy, particularly the parliamentary democracy that most western countries are using as their political system, can be very frustrating because the drive of people to be in control of their lives and the promise of democracy that this is so is set against the opposing drive of other people in society to also be in control of their lives – ultimately, it means that people are in total control of their lives and the society around them for, at most, four year blocks.
I’ve made no secret about my belief that each person has a God-shaped hole in their life that can be attempted to filled by other means, but this simply doesn’t work. I’ve seen so many times that people will refuse to include God as a necessary part of their life, but will inevitably end up deifying something else in their life – anything from a principle (which can sound noble) to a all-too-fallible role model to a self-destructive habit of some description. It can be very sad to see, but ultimately one needs to accept that freedom is God-given and must be respected at all costs.
At a fundamental level, the rules of polite society are designed to ensure peace and a lack of raised voices or, really, strong emotions. But they serve to shield ourselves, and others, from the glory that is our humanity.
Hello Andrew I wrote a related post last week.
http://andypotter.org/node/73
It has been my experience that the level of “forbiddeness” is culturally dependant.
The level can be culturally dependant, yes. Even the topics can be culturally dependant – some cultures will ask what your financial value is as a conversation starter.
But these are, nonetheless, useful guideposts – particularly for countries in the west, where money is considered an extension of one’s person (perhaps thanks, in part, are due to John Locke), but even putting financial value aside, politics and religion (and, usually, sex) cut at the heart of who a person is, both in the present and in the future.