BitterSweetLife

Recently, enlightened by my substitute-teaching experiences in North KC, I've become aware of a fascinating variation on the age-old theme of arrogance. The usual approach, adopted by a number of us, involves an overt swagger and the not-so-subliminal message, I'm all that. A thin (or nonexistent, as the case may be) veneer of playfulness disguises the dead-earnest nature of the assertion.

However, this tried and true approach to ego-expansion is being forsaken by many in our postmodern culture. These days, general ethical uncertainty is regarded as a virtue, and "tolerance" seems to imply that most forms of personal self-assertion are evil. An increasing number of people (showcased by my fairly transparent high school students) prefer a more nuanced approach to self-promotion, a more subtle approach to pride.

Call it "the new egotism." A self-induced air of confusion, fudging of ability and judgment, is becoming mainstream. It involves a kind of chronic self-doubt, resulting in the central tenet of our postmodern heritage--the certainty of uncertainty. Some refer to this as "tolerance."

And, in an ironic twist, this supposed lack of conviction and moral penetration qualifies one for a legitimacy and credence. Implicit in the new egotism is the idea that You should listen to me because I'm unsure, I'm not dogmatic, that is, I'm an authentically "open-minded" person.

Does moral uncertainty generate authority? Are the chronically confused our new top dogs? At least in the classroom microcosm, this new math seems to be at work.