Arse-Kissing By Any Other Name

Arse-kissing

Brown-nosing

Chair-sniffing

Pandering

Greasing-up

Blowing smoke up their butt

Flattering

Ego-waxing

Sycophancy. We've all seen or partaken of the behaviour these gerunds signify.

Some of us have received it.

What is Sycophancy? What is it, really?

It's seeking the favour of someone, for some personal good outcome, by denigrating oneself or another in comparison, or by exgerrating on, or falesly attributing to, the object's character, reputation, decision, view or acheivement, whilst seeming to believe in their statement whether believed or not.

It can be issue-specific and therefore temporary, or it can be the consistent state of the relationship.

For witnesses, or even the subject and object, it can create a feeling of sickness or disgust.

It is a complex system of lies and withholding of the truth:

- hiding the real goal of the behaviour
- lying about some or all of the statement made
- hiding the true opinion the subject has of the object
- it attempts to hide the closely-held strategic intent of the performer
- it presumes a level of superiority in the object that may not be real
- it distracts from an honest development of the issue previously being discussed
- it reflects some now exposed view or character of the performer

For witnesses, there may be a strong compulsion to call it out.

Those performing the behaviour are often mocked or reprimanded.

It is often easily recognisable, making it a risky exercise clearly worthy to perform and thus the goal must be high-value and worth the risk.

The behaviour is contrasted against praise, diplomacy, tact, admiration, commendation, where a hidden personal good is not sought, but that of a goal to some common interest whereby a strength or positive aspect is identified.

If it be shown that this former behaviour of sycophancy is harmful for no common good, then rational discussion is demanded in order it can be mitigated or annihilated.

The executioners of such mitigation or annihilation, as always in the war against wankers and idiots,  can only be those with courage and vision.

So, is it harmful, to what extent, and is it then justified?

Sycophancy, or arse-licking, is a behaviour that seeks to gain an unfair advantage, by achieving a status of being favoured amongst a group.

Thus, the first harm is that sycophancy that achieves its goal is unfair. Instead of favour by merit, there is favour by fraud.

The harms consequential of unfairness, such as getting a head start in a race etc, should not need to be enumerated, as anyone who has witnessed such unfairness can attest.

If it is accepted that unfairness should be mitigated, brought back to balance, wherever it is found, then one must also accept that sycophancy be treated the same.

Extent cannot be a property of unfairness, as all degrees of unfairness have the same value: a little unfairness is in need of rebalance, just as a large unfairness.

Then, is the harm of unfairness from sycophancy justified?

In extreme cases, where lives are in danger, such as between Nazi German POW staff and their Jewish prisoners. Here, sycophancy is justified where a person's life is decided by the behaviour.

However, outside such extremes, as feigning sycophancy to preserve life, in the conduct of everyday modern Western life, there is no justification.

What other harm avails itself?

Sycophancy attributes traits and reckonings of such high calibre to a person, whom has them not.

This falsity causes in all members involded further harmful falsities:

The object of sycophancy is encouraged that their judgment is indeed accurate, good, correct, and may continue an erroneous course of actions on that basis.

Further, witnesses to the sycophancy, having been equally fooled, themselves continue a course of action inspired by the object that is also just as erroneous.

It is assumed for sake of argument that wrongly inspired courses of action are likely to lead to harmful conclusions. QED.

A third harm, may be argued in general, being the standard harm caused by all manner of deception when such is fundamental within a group of people working together for a common goal.

When an organisation of people is infiltrated by institutional deception, such as sycophancy, a culture will develop naturally that has at its root the covering of truths. It is assumed such a fundamental framework based on deception is likely to become toxic and undermine the goals personal and communal of that organisation.

A fourth harm relates to respect and reputation. The witnessing of sycophancy, where it is thinly veiled, has a proportional effect on the respect and reputation of both subject and object.

For savvy witnesses, the respect and reputation of both parties plummets, albeit by different means.

The gullable recipient of sycophancy has their personal value diminshed for being so blind, vane and naive.

The sycophant has their value diminished in the eyes of their peers witnessing, by their having used fraud and deception to successfully compete against them. Further, it is obvious to such peers that the sycophant intends to compete with them and acheive a favour or advantage over them, by immoral and anti-social means.

The sycophant has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of their peers, unashamedly, unapologetically.

Further harm is consequent from the suspicion amongst peers that the sycophant may be colluding with one or more of them, thus creating a sense of mistrust and the consequent harms that follow such in any group proclaiming to work together for the common good.

A final harm is the opinion now held by the subject of sycophancy, of the peers against the sycophant. Favour is relative, so the favour of the sycophant having been won, requires the favour of the remaining peers to be relatively diminished, along with their advice and counsel.

Thus far, We have shown the harms created by sycophancy. They are deep and wide, they are self-perpetuating and self-justifying. To this extent, the sycophant must be stopped.

But how?

Calling out behaviour is risky.

Evidence will be required. Yet the sycophant only succeeds after ensuring that evidence is unattainable.

The annihilation of sycophancy can only be acheived by the object valuing the views of many against a favoured one.

The value of a group can only be achieved by the group itself developing its value in the eyes of the object.

Once this is attained, a class action calling out the sycophant will be treated with respect by the object, who is likely to second-guess the sycophant from then on.

Best of luck!