On Suspicion and Indolence

A Reflection on Suspicion and Indolence

Francisco C. Castro

It is possible that a society takes the cause of suspicion as already real even if the cause is still imagined or at best yet without evidence. What we suspect is already true even if it is just a suspicion.

What is, first of all, suspicion? We can try the root meaning—from specere—which is “to look at”. Someone is suspicious because he/she is someone to look at. Hard evidence is not yet available, we still have to inquire. But suspicion has something attractive in it. Why? One root meaning of suspicion is the root meaning of “scope”. “Scope” implies to look at something or someone with an aim, a purpose. We have an aim in looking at that person whom we suspect. Suspicion, therefore, is not just a cool and relaxed “looking at someone”. When we are suspicious of someone we “look at him/her secretly”, and possibly “distrustfully.” We spy on that person.

“Spy” and “scope” and “suspicion” have a common root meaning. To suspect someone is to look at that person with the aim of spying on him/her. Remember there is no evidence yet of what the suspicion is all about. Up until now, everything said about the person is still imagined. There is a distance with which we can reach the person and that distance is bridged not by hard evidence but by imagination.

What is the aim of suspicion?

• One possible response is to draw out evidence. We watch and we wait, hoping for proof and hard evidence that will corroborate our initial impression of the person. In this case, we rely on what will manifest—a “revelation”. This requires patience and, in some instances, “research” and some effort to know objectively. This stands on the principle that the other person, because he/she is still a suspect, cannot be judged without evidence. Judgment is suspended until evidence is given.
• Another possibility is to already give an accent of reality to what is imagined. We “look at” someone intently not necessarily to extract evidence but to make real what we imagine to be real even if it is not yet real. Here, there is a “leap of faith” involved. Even without the availability of hard evidence, we jump into believing the suspicion to be true already. Evidence can be taken to be a mere corollary. We already believe in spite of the absence of evidence.

Suddenly, I begin to think of the word “indolence”. Suspicion can be an act of indolence when we rest satisfied with belief without need for evidence. Indolence implies insensitivity to pain. In indolence we are free from the dolor, the pain of effort. Hence in-dolor. There is even the absence of “grieving” over pain. There is no “taking pains”.

In the Christian tradition, indolence can be “callousness”. To be indolent is to be “callous”. One must not live in the futility of imagination darkened in understanding (and alienated from the life of God), says Saint Paul in his letter to the Ephesians,…because of indolence or “callousness” (see Ep.4/19). Indolence can be exempting myself from my pain and also exempting myself from considering the pains of others. I am “callous” both to myself 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/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.

How does this tie up with suspicion? Suspicion is resting on imagination in the absence of evidence. There is pain—dolor—in the effort to gather evidence. It can be tedious. There is also the responsibility for justice—and this is concern over the pain of the suspected person. In suspicion we are worried about the pain of the suspected person—what is he/she going through and what “healing” might he/she need?

When indolence steps in, suspicion stops at the comfort of simply making the imagination real. Belief is assumed in the absence of evidence and there is no more need for the “revelation” of evidence. The suspicious person exempts himself/herself from the pain—dolor—of effort to know evidence. The suspicious person exempts himself/herself also from the pain—the dolor—of the suspected. Instead of gathering evidence, the indolent “tortures” the suspected person. Instead of researching for evidence, the indolent person pre-judges the suspect even to the point of propagandizing the prejudice.

Now we might find a whole social behavior that builds itself on suspicions of all sorts—in the absence of evidence. It becomes a society of propaganda from all sides and people start believing intently on their bloated imagination. Then, that behavior starts to turn to “torture” in the hope that vindictiveness over the suspected is achieved. It can happen on all sides.

St. Paul terminates his verse on indolence. The indolent—or the “callous”—“ have handed themselves over to licentiousness for the practice of every kind of impurity to excess” (Eph4/19). In this situation, we cease treating each other as “brother or sister”. In the next verse, St. Paul writes: “That is not how you learned Christ” (4/20).