Beware! It's out there!

I’m sure you’ve seen it. That thing lurking on the edge of public consciousness. That thing that takes hold of selective bright young thinkers who push it on the public like street drugs. That thing that makes the smart speechless and the dumb captivated. That thing that grabs hold because there are some instances when it is true. Watch yourselves; it’s the return of the LITERALISTS! (cue the music: dunh dunh dunh DUNH!)

It seems now that literalists are everywhere. People that are otherwise bright, successful, jovial people are in the clutches of this pack of radical separatists. It is the sort of thing that should have made people laugh in 2000 when Bush campaigned on a “compassionate conservative” platform (for the record, this is an ironic statement, not just because conservatives aren’t by-and-large compassionate, but because the nature of conservatism is isolationist and separatist—it is hard to show compassion to a person when you are shutting the door on them).

You may be wondering ‘But Drew, what’s wrong with literalism? You take things literally a lot! Literalism isn’t evil!’ and you would be correct to think that. But that is the allure of literalism—it’s black-and-white, no-nonsense, overly-simplistic rationalizing. Literalism by itself (which is what I’m talking about here) is like trying to solve a crossword puzzle by only working on the Across questions or delivering mail to odd numbered houses on streets named after presidents. There are a multitude of true, appropriate, and rational responses to the world—suggesting that one stands above the others is ridiculous. Secondly, the fact that I sometimes use literalism says more about the quantity of other interpretive methods than it does about literalism. Lastly, literalism can’t be evil as an ideology, but it is often used to the exclusion of other things, which puts us all in danger.

The Constitution of the United States does not say anywhere that I can’t where blue. Nor does it say that I can. A rational, well-rounded person (as has nearly every Constitutional scholar agreed) would take this as a matter of free-speech—something in the Constitution. A literalist on the Supreme Court (four of the nine members of the Supreme Court think this way; that’s 44%) would ideologically be forced to confront that interpretation of free speech. As it is neither ‘speech,’ nor is it a color that denotes any specific inclination or expression, it could not be suggested that I am saying anything by wearing blue. If the government suddenly outlawed blue, a near majority of the Supreme Court would find ideological grounds to support that law, instead of declaring it unconstitutional.

This example is ridiculous, and we know that the four justices in mind (Scalia, Thomas, and Bush appointees Roberts and Alito) wouldn’t do that. But what if that same thinking is tested on murder cases, civil rights cases, and affirmative action cases? That’s going on now! And they’ve had the ‘swing’ justice side with them nearly every time.

Perhaps the scariest thing about literalists is not the tendency to see things as black and white or as us versus them, but that they can’t allow space in their paradigm for all of the other interpretive strategies. In Biblical Studies, Critical Thinking, Literary Studies, and virtually every liberal arts class, we are encouraged to test things out, try different methods, each one contributing to your interpretation of the outcome. Even complex mathematics gives way from narrow definitions and parameters (what is the square root of 4?) to strings of equations that encourage creative and bold new visions. Every subject encourages multiple strategies for success, which is a proven and successful approach. If you apply this approach to policy and initiatives, you see the same results. Abstinence Only sex education programs produce the highest birth rates, sexual activity, and rates of STDs while programs that explain the use of contraceptives and the varying issues relating to sexual activity, including biological, psychological, and sociological reveal the greatest success.

This rant hasn’t even gone near the church, where people go to war over this issue! But what is becoming increasingly obvious is that literalism is appealing, it is easy to understand, and is often the first method we use to test something. People seem to want that simplicity more than they want the truth: that our lives are paradoxical and ambiguous. We say things like ‘I prefer prime time TV,’ knowing that others will sort of get what we mean, but not precisely. A literalist would believe, therefore, that you like everything on during prime time or that you dislike everything on during the day. A rational person should deduce that you are less interested in soaps and game shows (the predominate daytime choices) as well as morning shows and evening news programs (the predominant respective options) than you are the scripted (and now “reality”) programming of prime time. It is also safe to suggest that you probably don’t like everything on, but that you are more likely to watch CSI than Days of Our Lives, regardless of your affection for the former. If I had said ‘I only watch prime time TV,’ then these suggestions may still hold, but it invites the other option that it isn’t interest that prevents your watching at other times, but opportunity.

The insidious nature of literalism is not that it causes a person to misread the situation (which it sometime does), but that fixes it within parameters and forces the individual to turn thoughts and suggestions into beliefs. If you reason it out (through these overly simplistic methods), then you must be right, regardless of the arguments used by others. The certitude with which you stand behind your new belief is unwavering. This makes you blind and deaf to the reality around you. Sound familiar?