No, this is not about the song
It’s about how comfortable we are about where we seem to find ourselves—or others choose to situate us—on the various ranges or scales that we use to describe and measure our appearance, behavior, popularity, feelings, skills, etc.
Here’s a notorious example: skin color—classifying people on a range from Black to White (which actually is a range from dark to light).
Nobody is at either extreme. Nobody’s skin is 100% black or dark, and nobody’s skin is 100% light or white.
We all may know many so-called “black” people who are paler than some so-called “white” people, and many so-called “white” people who are darker than some so-called “black” people.
When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides skin color—physiognomy, dress, behavior, ethnic origins, family, social status, education, wealth, etc.
Just think about what we’re trying to get at—and how confusing it gets— when we classify people on the “conservative-liberal” range, or the “young-old” range, or the “smart-dumb” range, or the “weak-strong” range, or the “good-bad” range, or the “rich-poor” range.
Whatever range we’re using to describe ourselves or another, there’s one common factor to them all: nobody is at the extreme of any range; no one is 100% anything!
In other words, we all have and may display to some extent a bit of both: I may be fairly liberal about somethings and conservative about others, know a lot about somethings and little about others.
And, of course, as we change and develop, our position on any of these ranges shifts, more towards one extreme or the other—sort of like the way the mercury moves one way or the other in a thermometer.
Here’s another contemporary example: sexuality—classifying people on a range from heterosexual to homosexual.
Nobody is 100% at either extreme—or exactly in the middle (e.g.. “bisexual”). Nobody is only and exclusively attracted to others of the opposite sex and never, ever attracted to the other—and vice-versa.
When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides sexual attraction and/or behavior—physiognomy, dress, mores, cultural standards, affects, etc.
With this range, there are key factors which strongly influence our reactions and judgements—our standards of morality and, or based on, our religious formation.
A strong influence in the shaping of standards of morality and religious formation until fairly recent times, especially in Western societies, is sometimes identified as Jansenism (based on the writings of a 17th century theologian, Cornelius Jansen).
This movement, rooted in Augustinian theology, emphasized original sin, the fundamental sinfulness of the human condition, and the need for divine grace. It inspired a very rigorous moral theology, especially in sexual matters.
For example, I can remember being taught as a child in catechism class that the sixth commandment (about adultery) forbade, under penalty of mortal sin, “impure” thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions.
I was terrified by what, in retrospect, I later realized were bad religious teachings.
A moral to all this: be aware of the range of views regarding most matters and beware of believing your judgement about the right point on any range is the only legitimate, unbiased one. (Alas, we’re not infallible!)
23 May 2021