By His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of Australia

THE PUBLIC IMAGE

By His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of Australia

The perceptive person has alwaysbeen able to distinguish between what is ‘private’ andwhat is ‘public’. That does not mean,however, that he has sought to apply in his life‘two measures and two standards’ – somethingwhich would have constituted a moral ‘schizophrenia’and hypocrisy. On the contrary, withthe distinction into ‘private’ and ‘public’, theprudent person – who in advance respects himself,as well as others – has always sought tosecure, as far as possible, a necessary ‘balance’in his private environment and decency in hissocial life.

Just how important the distinction towhich we refer is, can be readily understoodfrom the following thoughts.The ‘private life’, that is the ‘personaldatum’ of each individual, is respectedand inviolate only in the judgement of thosewho are in a position to evaluate the unique andentirely individualistic circumstances of thehuman person, as well as his immediate familyenvironment.

On the contrary, in the publicsphere, two very serious ‘insults’, if not injustices,are inevitably perpetrated against theunrepeatable, unique human person. Firstly,all are silently equalized in advance, as if theywere matchsticks. Secondly, it is overlooked orignored that not all have the same natural orcultivated readiness to see and to evaluatetheir fellow human in the context of his or hersingularity without probing into or even beingscandalized by the particularities of each person.

Those who do not possess the maturityor the good will to appreciate the thoughtswe have expounded above and to acknowledgethe need for a distinction between private andpublic, means that they fail to recognize thesacredness of the human person in one’sabsolute ‘nakedness’. In other words, what oneis from birth, and not what one later becomesor is thought to be or appears to becomeexternally.

And whoever cannot or does notwant to accept such obvious truths concerningour common human nature and our commonhuman adventure (‘do not exalt anyone beforethe end’!) («ìçäÝíá ðñï ôïõ ôÝëïõ ìáêÜñéæå»), obviously has not comprehendedother more simple and basic truths about themystery of life. One such truth, perhaps themost fundamental, is that the worth and honourof a person is not determined by or dependentupon that which he or she ‘desires’ or‘thinks’ or ‘does’.

Foremost, what is alwaysvalid for the human person is that he or she,from birth, is an ‘icon of God’. Who – be heintelligent and educated, or naïve and uneducated– cannot see and acknowledge that thebeing and essence of each human are notdetermined decisively by one’s self, nor areprejudged to an absolute degree by the genesinherited from one’s parents? Here, God theCreator has the first and final word.

If the above could be viewed as anintroduction to the moral dilemma created bythe distinction between private and public,then we have the basic presuppositions tounderstand how important this distinction is foreach of us in light of any moral problemregarding our private or social lives.

In days gone by, when it was said:“in-house, not in public” – «ôá åí ïßêù ìçåí äÞìù» - (do not expose to the public viewthe internal matters of your household), it isevident that they wished to protect their privatecircumstances and lives from the needlesscomments of outsiders. The succinctness withwhich this proverbial saying was formulated,without providing explanations and withoutdeclaring the conditions that have elevated it toa wise adage, allow us to deduce its real meaning.We can, therefore, say with certainty thatwe do not detect in it any trace of ‘unsociability’or arrogance or ‘snobbishness’. We wouldhave even less right to suspect here even a traceof ‘agoraphobia’ (the opposite of ‘claustrophobia’).

In any event, the ancient Greekswere always renowned as the par excellencepeople of the ‘agora’ (the market place) andfor public oration in the market place(‘agorevein’) which is, by nature, the firstdeposit of democracy!Thus, after all this, we must acceptthat the epigrammatic saying for the protectionof what is private, rather expresses a self-respectwhich does not allow the person toleave himself exposed to the public view withoutreason.

Simultaneously, however, we seethat in this same self-respect is contained ahidden, withheld respect for others whom noone should burden with his own issues andproblems.

This self-respect, therefore, andmutual respect which we observe, clearlyproclaim a praiseworthy dual sense of worth(‘axio-prepeia’) – the worth (‘axia’) which isdue (prepei) to us and the worth which is dueto others. Precisely this sense of dual dignity isexpressed in a verse of the Greek national poetKostis Palamas (let us not forget that this yearmarks the 60th anniversary since his death!)which beseeches: ‘don’t abandon your painhere…’.

However, beyond the psychologicalneeds (for balance and social dignity) whichimpose the distinction into private and public,there is also the spiritual and moral dimensionof the subject we are examining. Christtouched upon this dimension epigrammaticallyin his counsel ‘do not let your left hand knowwhat your right is doing’ (Mth. 6:3). This concernsthe essential introversion which isrequired by the ‘unselfish’ acts of prayer andfasting (these usually go hand-in-hand) andespecially by the exercise of ‘charity’.It is noteworthy that on the basis ofprayer and fasting – parallel to the admonitionof Christ for complete isolation in one’s privatequarters (see Mth. 6:6) – there also developedquite naturally the practice of common prayerand fasting in the Church temple, as a form ofpublic worship, without this being interpretedas a deviation. In the case of charity, however,whatsoever publicity here leads to the undoingof the sacred purpose. The central aim, in anyevent, to avoid formalism, hypocrisy and whateverelse, in the guise of a self-satisfying Pharisaism,might possibly do harm to the ‘doer’, orscandalize the ‘observer’.

In this way, any activity engaged in‘to be seen by people’ (Mth. 23:5) harms notonly the show-off, but also the intelligent andsensitive observers who are in a position to‘notice’ the ‘ulterior motive’ of each activityand to be scandalized. It is quite characteristicthat Christ said “woe to the person by whomthe offence comes” (Mth. 18:7), without sayingsomething similar about ‘sin’, though Heknew only too well that sin is prevalent everywhere,regardless to what degree. Perhaps thereason for such a distinction is the fact that ourpersonal sin damages primarily our own self,yet when we scandalize others, especially theweaker ones, by our sinful public image then,as the people say most vividly, we ‘endangerothers along with ourselves’.

If the public image of every citizenmust be decent, so as not to harm himself primarilywhen judged by others, then this appliesever so more to those who hold public office,since they are continually in the public eye,exposed to criticism from all. For this reason,the Leader in any sphere of life is obliged topay attention continually to his public image.In contrast to actors and other professionals inshow business generally, he does this not todeceive the throngs with virtues which he doesnot possess, but so as not to set a bad example.And, unfortunately, we know how easily andindiscriminately the masses readily emulatetheir Leader, precisely in those ‘idioms’ whichthey should never do so (e.g. autocracy/ subservience,materialism/ populism, narcissism/self-abasement, pseudo-piety/ impiety, etc).

Further to what we have said thus farabout the importance placed upon individualsand social entities regarding the care andrespect to be exercised toward their privateand public image, we must still underlinesome details out of which could developunforeseen serious and dangerous misconceptions.

In the first instance there exists thedanger that an individual might not be concernedwith protecting his ‘private image’ frominquisitive and dangerous eyes, believingindeed that such unconcern constitutes ‘sincerity’,therefore virtue. Such an oblivious attitude,however, does not merely demonstratesmall-mindedness and vulgar primitivism.

More so it reveals a ruthlessness of dual direction(not only against himself but also againstothers) but above all it demonstrates an unacceptableconfusion of criteria. For this reasonit has been said quite correctly and descriptivelythat ‘in the lounge, one does not display thetoilet of the house in order to appear sincere,nor does hiding it in an inconspicuous placemean hypocrisy’!

Yet another wholesale misunderstandingoccurs sometimes even with spiritualpeople as concerns their public image whichthey disregard provocatively but also leavethemselves open to the misinterpretation that,with methods altogether farfetched, they areattempting to impose ‘the dissolution and erasure’[of their image].

Of course, the well-known exampleof the ‘fools for Christ’ always constitutes asoul-stirring case of self-humiliation and selflessness.However, who could exclude the possibilitythat for many sensitive and sometimesunbelieving townsmen such an attitude mightscandalize – instead of setting them aright – bypresenting what might appear to them an antisocialattitude and stance?

In closing our speculation with referenceto the private and the public image weshould add that what has been stated abovebecomes even more dramatic when applied toan entire national whole or to an entire country.And unfortunately, at this very hour, our distantyet unforgettable motherland of Greece which,following her entry into the European Unioncould have been an exemplary nation, not onlyin the Balkans but also in the broader environmentof civilized Europe, appears not to be presentingthe best public image which we rightlywould have expected.

That it is now being stated entirelywithout reservation and in such a cynical mannerthat the forthcoming national elections ofMarch 7th will be directed exclusively by theodd ethos of Greece’s current unrestrained‘media-directed’ format (whilst everywherethere are accusations of disgraceful collusionby politicians with financial interests of thecountry), means that, by sleight of hand and‘overnight’, fundamental principles of traditionalparliamentarianism, as all the civilizedworld has understood them until this day, havealready crumpled. The irresponsible masseswho are following this ‘puppet show’ so mesmerised,instead of being concerned for andfearful of the unforeseeable developments, to agreat extent are chuckling for the time beingwith delirious enthusiasm.

Let us hope that there will not prevailhere the tragic condemnation foretold by theloud-speaking Prophet Jeremiah when he said:“…you have fattened your hearts as in a day ofslaughter” (James 5:5, see Jer. 26:21).

This Article was published in the Greek Australian newspaper

TO VEMA February 2004UBLIC