Triumph of Indolence

The Triumph of Indolence

Francisco C. Castro

What is “indolence”? We associate it with laziness. Indeed, it can mean this. But it has a deeper meaning which is “indifference to pain”. For example a student “takes pains” to study hard for an exam. An office worker “takes pains” to finish a project due very soon. Parents “take pains” to raise well their children.

Indolence refuses to do “pain taking” acts. This refusal is in the word “indolence” itself.

There is a poem, "Dolores, Our Lady of Pain" (by A.C. Swinburn). The name “Dolores” precisely indicates pain. So indolence etymologically has something of “in-dolor” to it: “no pain”.

Indolence is indifference to pain—the pain of making efforts, the pain of doing more than what one is doing now. It can also mean indifference to the pain of others. A parent who “takes pain” to raise well the children is also concerned about the possible pains that the children will face later. The parent is vigilant that the children will manage to face the pains of their own lives.

Indolence is not interested in the pain of self-effort nor in the pain of others. This is why we associate it with laziness. In laziness there is no “pains taking”. Laziness is just taking it easy without considering the consequences.

When there is responsibility, the indolent will choose the easier path—the path without “taking pain”. If and when possible, the indolent prefers little or no responsibility in order to take it easy.

Indolence seems harmless in very ordinary affairs. But when it is an attitude that reaches social-political proportions, indolence can be very dangerous. When a person of official standing is indolent, for example, his or her work is affected. Very likely, the whole group with which the indolent works is affected.

An indolent society will not feel the need to pursue the veracity and objectivity of its questions and suspicions. To inquire really needs pains to be objective. Consider accusing someone. To prove his or her guilt requires a lot of effort. It is easier to reverse the situation by first assuming guilt and leaving the burden of proving innocence on the shoulders of the accused. Judge the accused guilty and let the accused struggle to disprove. This is easier for the indolent. Trial by publicity, for example, is such a strategy. Let media bloat the allegation; then let the accused struggle to debunk.

Indolence becomes “callousness”. One lives in the futility of a darkened imagination because of indolence or “callousness”. The indolent is “callous” both to self and to others. These two—my pain and the pain of others—are inter-related. We might grieve over the pain of someone else as we sympathize with his or her pain. The ability to respond (responsibility) to the other person’s pains is awakened, it is asked to operate and function. Indolence, however, resists and refuses this responsibility.

Some ethical standards would require responsibility of never treating a person as a means. This responsibility requires effort. It assures that at any point of dealings, the other person’s rights and dignity must be recognized. Even if the person is suspected of wrong doing, never must we violate his or her rights and dignity.

The indolent finds that this is asking too much. The indolent will prefer the easier path by assuming that the end justifies the means. If the dignity and rights of accused are respected, it will require efforts to be objectively clean with accusations. So the indolent will seek the end by doing any means possible, even at the cost of human rights violation. This is callousness. The indolent, resisting the “pains taking” objective verification of suspicion will short cut the process. “Torture” is not excluded then. It does not matter for the indolent that there is a disrespect of the human dignity of the accused. What is important is that, hopefully, in the end the suspicion is made true.

We can have a society of indolence. We can have a society in which many people stay callous in the comfort of “public opinion” based on gossip. We can have a society where many people will not feel the need to inquire beyond propaganda and publicity. It might already be asking them too much to check their information and to review their opinions.

To prefer taking it the easy way while indifferent to the pain of exerting effort to be better informed and morally decisive is to be indolent. It is a moral choice. No, indolence is not gullibility. To be gullible is more of the condition one is in. To be indolent is to choose indolence. It is to opt to be indifferent to the pain of those suspected and accused even to the point of stepping on the human dignity of and torturing the suspected and accused.