COLUMN: Apathy is not all bad

From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizar," Fall '96 From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizar," Fall '96 Even the Taoists knewFrom Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizar," Fall '96 Even the Taoists knewfiddling with public policyFrom Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizar," Fall '96 Even the Taoists knewfiddling with public policydoes more harm than good.From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizar," Fall '96 Even the Taoists knewfiddling with public policydoes more harm than good. As the sun descends gracefully over the urban blemish that is West Philadelphia, I can't help but revel in Penn's wondrous ambiance. After being away three semesters, I have a newfound respect and love for this University. Penn's student body displays an array of qualities too vast to completely enumerate in the tiny portion of this newspaper that is my humble domain. In addition to being diverse, bright, creative and hard-working, Penn kids also tend to be boisterously social. However, the trait I admire most amongst my peers is the wholesome and wholehearted abandon with which they launch themselves into being comfortably apathetic. (Let me warn you now, gentle reader, that this is not going to be a clever, ironic, satirical piece about disaffected students. I genuinely think apathy adds to the richness of our idyllic life at Penn.) It has become de rigueur these days to think of apathy as a social ill, like alcoholism or the popularity of Oprah Winfrey. I attribute this misconception to the Western cultural bias that activism is preferable to passivism, and that one must be defined by actions rather than by state. This perspective has allowed us to forget that often, apathy and its associated passivity can serve us better than any concerted action. The value of apathy is not a new concept. Lao Tzu, the progenitor of Taoism, used to exhort his disciples to "take no action." Even Epictetus (a Westerner!) praised the virtues of apathetic existence. The old Stoic would brag to his friends about how if his wife and kids were killed, he wouldn't give a damn. He would have done well in West Philly. As students, we are often berated for being apathetic. Our parents' generation, hyped-up on flowers, cheap marijuana and the possibility of doing a few rounds with the Viet Cong, still prides itself on the activism of its youth. I'm glad my peers are less hot-headed, and disdain running about like "fiery Tybalt" in an attempt to change the world for change's sake. We are more realistic and more rational, and we are aware that action is not necessarily a productive thing. Sometimes it's best to just let things happen as they may, without trying to interfere. Furthermore, it is often not worth the energy for an individual to attempt to impact larger events, particularly since this impact will not necessarily be beneficial. Our leaders, however, have still not gotten the message. Republican presidents, while professing to champion smaller government, could not resist tinkering with policy during each and every year of their reign. One would think that after the first eight years they would have gotten it pretty much right. The Democrats are no better. Of course, the constant impetus for politicians to dream up new proposals stems from the activist desire to "do something, anything." On the rare occasion that princes sought his advice, Lao Tzu would say "govern a large state as you would cook a small fish -- lightly." (This was the extent of the man's political activism.) He recognized that the temptation to fiddle with public policy often generates more harm than good. It's often better to have an apathetic society rather than one where everyone tries to get involved and leave his or her mark. I like to think Penn is such a society. However, even on campus, some people still haven't yet discovered the value of apathy. Members of the Undergraduate Assembly often protest that student apathy is to blame for the current pathetic state of events. On the contrary, it is the tiny activist minority that creates problems. In a representative democracy, the tyranny of the apathetic majority should prevail. Apathy is the will of the people, as my straw poll ("Do you give a rat's ass about the UA?") suggests. Bureaucratic organizations are, to paraphrase William Burroughs, like viruses. Every virus needs a host in order to survive. An organization that seeks to represent people who don't wish to avail themselves of such a privilege will naturally attempt to stay alive by exhorting them to mend their ways. My suggestion to members of the UA is that they cease this farce of pretending to represent anyone, and just organize themselves as a lobby group called People Who Want Student Government On Their Resumes. Penn students, in their blissfully apathetic state, don't need activists running around trying to get things done. In the end, it's useful to remember the story of the philosopher Diogenes. One day, Alexander the Great asked him if there was anything in the empire he wanted, vowing to do all in his power to satisfy the wise man. Diogenes could have asked for anything: for the poor to be clothed, for the slaves to be freed? Instead, he looked up at the Emperor of the World and said, "Get out of the way, you're blocking my sun!" You've got to love him.