Ugliness and Evil?

A recent study showed that physical attractiveness is negatively correlated to criminal behavior. In other words, the uglier a person is, the more likely he or she is to perform criminal behavior. I discovered this study quite a while ago on "The Right Questions," a radio show that used to be on Relevant Radio hosted by Sheila Liaugminas. Sheila's problem with the study seemed to be mostly her objection to the idea of the researcher’s comment that "people who are below-average attractive" are more likely to commit criminal behavior. She wondered why the researcher couldn't just come out and say "ugly." Sheila was also piqued by the idea of ugliness - who sets the standard of attractiveness and ugliness? Sheila asked some great questions, such as "How did the researchers collect their subjects?" and "Who were the subjects?" I would like to take an even deeper look at this study and others like it (this is actually a very old idea) from a Catholic perspective.

Now, to be fair to Sheila, the segment of her show this story appeared on was the "news language" segment, in which she focuses on the way people use language. I'm not criticizing her coverage of this story in any way. Nonetheless, I think it is important to take a closer look at studies like this and apply some Catholic moral thinking to it.

First, let’s take a look at the implication of the study. There are two ways to read such a correlation. Throughout history, ugliness had been paired with evil and beauty has been paired with goodness. I don’t think anyone has translated this analogy to real-life in such a way that anybody with a big nose and a wart is assumed to be evil. However, a student of mine took issue with Mel Gibson’s use of the ugly = evil motif. The student did not think it was fair to use children who looked mentally retarded to signify Judas’ demonic tormentors. Where does this motif come from? Its roots are in St. Augustine’s definition of evil: a distortion or a lack of a good that should be present. How does an artist show evil defined in such a way? The artist depicts someone who lacks normal human appearance – it’s not even necessarily lacking beauty, but rather a distortion of “normal” human appearance. Is this motif unfair to those who do have birth defects or who are judged to be “ugly” according to societal standards? Perhaps. Yet, I think the motif is instructive and powerful.

Where we need to be sure we do not make the mistake is to reverse the motif and use it as a real standard. If anything can be said about physical ugliness in the real world, it is simply that due to Original Sin the body fails to truthfully reflect the soul. In Heaven, we believe that our bodies will perfectly reflect the soul – the core of who we are.

I think Sheila Liaugminas may have mistaken the point of the study. Why would anybody even bother to institute such a study? My suspicion is that the study was meant to draw doubt on a jury by one’s peers. The point of the study was probably that people are unjustly judged based on their looks rather than on their true guilt or innocence. On one hand, if this is a true problem and if there is a true solution being offered, such a study could prove to be very valuable. Perhaps justice should truly be blind, and a jury should hear the evidence of a case without seeing the defendant.

On the other hand, there is a problematic line of thinking among modernists that tries to prove that no truth can ever be known for certain. Modernists see courts as part of the power structure that attempts to force its version of truth onto the populace. Modernists cast doubt on all claims to objective truth. This study may be doing that in the area of justice. Does justice really exist? Are people really found guilty based on objective evidence, or are we just slaves to subjective perceptions with no basis in an objective reality that probably doesn’t exist anyway?

There are many questions that I would need to ask about such a study in addition to the very good questions Sheila asked. My first question would be, what’s the point? Why was this study done in the first place? Next I would have to ask what cause – effect relationship was actually discovered by this study. A correlation doesn’t necessarily mean a cause-effect relationship exists. There could be a shared cause or the cause-effect relationship could be indirect. For example, is it possible that people who are considered ugly find it more difficult to make it in society because of a cultural prejudice, and are therefore more likely to be poor and are therefore more likely to commit crime. Finally, I would have to ask what conclusions the researchers would like us to draw about this study.

Chances are pretty good that this study will fall into obscurity exactly because the researchers haven’t shown us why it is significant. I sure would like to know what is behind such a study, though.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas
See Also:
"The Ugly Face of Chrime" from the Washington Post
"Ugly Criminals" from Althouse

Who is to blame? Polemics vs Virtue

I have found that having an intelligent debate about the war in Iraq is nearly impossible. Any discussion is immediately overwhelmed by partisan polemics. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of fuzzy thinking and propaganda. However, once in a great while it is possible to find an intelligent dialogue that, if not reaching the perfection of objectivity, at least shows honesty in its biases.

One such article is in the winter 2005 issue of The Wilson Quarterly, one of the coolest secular scholarly publications on the market. The article is entitled “The Real World War IV” and is written by Andrew J. Bacevich. The theory that Bacevich forwards is that the war in Iraq is not a new conflict without precedent, but part of a greater ongoing conflict dating back to Jimmy Carter. Bacevich claims that this greater conflict is actually America’s fourth world war, the third being the Cold War. The main staging area of World War IV is the Middle East, and the main issue is American access to oil.

Now, oil is usually brought up as a motivation for the war in Iraq by political liberals who do not like George W Bush and believe that G.W. is more likely to go to war for oil because he has vested interest in the oil industry. I have to reveal some ignorance here, because I don’t understand this argument. You would think that someone in the American oil industry would not want foreign oil competing with American crude in a price war. Anyway, my first reaction to the claim that oil is the motivation for war is to write it off as a party line with no real foundation. However, this article got me thinking that perhaps there is some truth to the claim within a larger historical context that does not attempt to lay the blame at the feet of one man.

In fact, this was the point that President Jimmy Carter made before World War IV began. Seeing that American affluence meant a greater demand for energy, Carter warned that unbridled consumption of oil would lead America to dependence on foreign markets. Carter’s solution was to call American citizens to reduce their energy use, to restrict oil imports, to invest in alternative energy sources, to limit the use of oil by the nation’s utilities, and to promote public transportation. In short, Carter attempted to resurrect the ideal of Republican Virtue.

Bacevich does not use the term Republican Virtue. Nor does he explain its history. Republican Virtue is one of the ideals our Founding Fathers promoted for the health of our new nation soon after the American Revolution. It may come as a surprise, but to many of the Founding Fathers, “democracy” was a dirty word. If you doubt my word, read the Federalist Papers, and even many of the responses written by the “anti-federalists.” Since Democracy meant the direct rule of the common citizenry, it also meant a government and a society run by competing self-interests. The theory of democracy is that self-interest ensures a healthy state because everyone will look out for the well-being of the state for the sake of getting out of it what he or she wants. The democratic theory holds that self-interest will be kept from turning into tyranny by the competition of various factions, each fighting the others for the promotion of its own self-interest. In contrast, Republicanism held that the state is best run on behalf of the citizenry by those who are well educated, and who display the virtues that make a good leader. Citizens would choose government representatives, not based on party politics, but based on their judgment of a candidate’s virtues and qualifications. Republicanism demands self-sacrifice of its citizens at times. The ideal was that everyone would be looking out for the good of society, and would willingly sacrifice their own egocentric desires for the sake of the common good. The republican experiment did not go perfectly. There were many struggles and even some abuses of power. However, the ideal of self-sacrifice had obvious benefits to society. The republican experiment came crashing down with the election of President Andrew Jackson and the rise of the spoils system and the professional politician. By then, political parties had become entrenched and the balance of competing self-interests had replaced the ideal of self-sacrifice and self-denial.

Jimmy Carter’s attempt to resurrect Republican Virtue was a call for all of us to live out the ideals of self-control and justice. On page 44 of the Wilson Quarterly, Bacevich quotes President Carter: “ ‘There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice,’ he insisted, calling on citizens as ‘an act of patriotism’ to lower thermostats, observe the highway speed limit, use carpools and ‘part your car one extra day per week.’” Carter was not telling Americans to limit their affluence. He was simply telling us to curb our self-indulgence enough to keep America self-sufficient. Unfortunately, his plea fell on hostile ears. Americans had already gotten used to defining themselves in terms of unlimited pecuniary growth. Carter’s political enemies pounced on Carter’s words as narrow in vision and limiting of the American dream. Carter read the signs of the times a little too late. He changed his strategy midway through his presidential term, making the first moves to begin World War IV in order to secure for Americans the prosperity that they so desired. But he lost the next election anyway, and Ronald Reagan took up the cause of American opulence through the free flow of foreign oil into America.

I am not an apologist for George W. Bush. I do not believe that he is incapable of being wrong. However, I do not respect partisan polemics that fail to see the big picture. America’s greed for foreign oil is not a one-man problem. We Americans voted Republican Virtue out of our foreign policy in a perfect example of representative government. And we cannot escape the ultimate conclusion of republicanism and democracy both: the ultimate responsibility for our government’s choices lies squarely on our shoulders.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas

O.J. Simpson & Justice

Ok, so I'm a backissues reader. My wife cringes every time I subscribe to a new magazine or journal because it means that magazines will pile up only to slowly diminish during periods of vacation. I rarely get any publication read before the next issue arrives. I usually don't even get one opened before the next issue arrives.

So, today's commentary is in reaction to a story in U.S. News & World Report from June 14, 2004. On page 78 I found an open letter about the anniversary of the O.J. Simpson trial entitled "A case that may life forever" by Betsy Streisand. I didn't really take issue with the author's main ideas. However, my emotional hackels arose when I read a few specific lines.

Ms. Streisand quotes Earl Ofari Hutchinson: "If you were to poll people today, the results would be just what they were 10 years ago: Whites thought O.J. got away with murder. Blacks either thought he was framed or that he was guilty but they didn't care." Ms. Streisand follows up with a quote from Desiree Gill: "We all know he did it, but we're glad he got off. Finally a little justice for the underdog."

Apparently, the working definiton of justice according to these statements is: "to be judged innocent, even if one is guilty." Compare this definition to the classical definition of justice: "to give to each person what is due to him or her." If O.J. was guilty, justice would have been for him to pay restitution for his crime. Gill's quote might more accurately be: "Finally a little revenge for the underdog." Revenge and justice are not the same thing. Justice is balm for the wound. Revenge is poison.

Now, I am well aware of the racial injustices of our past. Our history is littered with court cases, such as the case for the murder of Emmett Till, in which white people who murdered black people were found innocent. It is also littered with cases in which black people were erroneously found guilty for murder or rape. These cases were travesties of justice because politics, perceptions, prejudices, and stereotypes replaced facts, reasoning, and honest search for the truth.

Is justice served just because the roles are reversed? Have we sacrificed one fundamental human good for the sake of another? Like Alan Paton says in his book Cry, the Beloved Country: "I am afraid that once the Whites finally learn to love, we will have learned to hate." Have we sacrificed justice for the sake of human dignity? We need to work for the recognition of human dignity for all people. However, if we sacrifice the virtues of our dignity we will find that in the end we also sacrifice our dignity.

The coup de gras to my emotional vulnerability was a quotation from Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. Ms. Streisand begins: "And with a criminal verdict in favor of O.J. and a civil one against him, the case also proved what lawyers have long known: 'that a trial is not a search for the turth,' says Dershowitz. A search for truth is exactly what a trial is supposed to be. In fact, the discipline of reasoning has its roots in law trials.

We need to start thinking again. While I never advocate the skeptic credo of "ask questions for the sake of the challenge," we definitely need to begin asking the right questions. What role does justice truly play in our legal system? Why is it not playing that role? How can we fix the system to ensure that it does?

Pessimists say that there is no way to change a system gone wrong. However, any system can be changed once we realize that the system is made up of individuals. Any change to a system must begin with a change of hearts and minds of the people that form the community. Let's apply our God-given intellect and reclaim true justice!

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas