I have a theory that for most of us, it takes more conscious effort and purpose to be optimistic than to be pessimistic. I am confident that our animal drives are aimed at preserving our lives and our abilities to reproduce so they naturally aim at threats, which are, of course, negative. Therefore, it is often easier to raise alarm than communicate positive news or information. This point was amplified recently when I read a review of some book or other, one that really lifted me. One of the reviewers rather huffily pronounced the book a rather idealized picture of a religion or a people. The implication was that the book failed to deliver the real dirt and was therefore childish, or a poor source, or biased, or something inadequate.
As a teacher of teachers, I have been very aware of the importance of atmosphere, of emotional background. Without a smile or something clearly upbeat, a group can descend into bleak dullness, a desert without fun or greenery and therefore, without motivation or energy. The modern scientific world is focused on getting ALL the evidence, which must include the failures, the betrayals, the errors, the petty jealousies and the flaming ones. Modern journalism and the many types of media have learned to focus on the negatives, often in an attempt to sprinkle a little dirt into an account to increase its feel of realism and human-ness. So, I realized that modern professors in many disciplines are trained to spot the flaw, uncover the cover-up and deflate idealistic pictures wherever they are found.
From the audio version of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen to the very moving and memorable Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett, several works have emphasized for me that no life and no group of people is pure or without error or misdeed. Still, a one-sided portrait of just the positives or just the negatives is not without its uses. That onesidedness is the basis for our court proceedings, where one attorney tries to explain the good side and the other tries emphasizes the negative. So, I realize that Lincoln probably did somethings that I would disapprove and even my beloved grandmother. However, I draw the line at badmouthing a statement or a report or a portrait just because it is positive. To me, the opening section of Huston Smith's The World's Religions on Hinduism is heavenly language, constructed as some reviewers note, from the standpoint of a strong adherent of the religion -- understanding, sympathetic, touching, humane and intelligently in accord with human values. If that is idealistic, it is also valuable, and a bit rare in today's world.
