The Abberation of Sycophancy

Brian YS Wong August 01, 2024 22:26

I have written many a time on the phenomenon of sycophancy – that is, attempts by individuals to indulge in “insincere flattery” as a means of advancing their own interests.

In ancient Greece, the backlash towards the original “sycophants” originated in the general societal judgment and consternation towards those who would undertake frivolous complaints on hehalf of others – posing extortion or hindrance to victims of such sycophancy. These prototypical ‘sycophants’ were those who had skin and stake in the game, who benefited from leveraging their resources and status as citizens to partake as mercenaries in the sabotage of others – willing proxies and shilling puppets, if you will.

Whilst the term’s etymological roots can be traced to classical Athens, the eschewing of such insincerity and valuing of candour long predates the Athenian civilisation. Since the dawning of civilisation, honesty and integrity have been valourised and worshipped as key virtues: we want to raise our citizens to be upright, to speak the truth. As parents, we want our children to think freely, speak freely, and to speak the truth to power.

Yet sadly, reality does not oft meet expectations. Indeed, in the contemporary era, sycophancy has taken root in contexts ranging from polities and political conversations to business and corporate environs, from adulating supporters of cult-like start-up entrepreneurs through to followers of religious leaders. Fundamentally, sycophancy is a force that corrupts the truth – it cheapens our words, twists our discourses, and renders the public sphere little more than an area for megaphone projections of platitudes and vacuous bromides.

To critique it, however, we must first understand its enduring power. Why and how has sycophancy managed to manifest itself as an endemic and structural feature of systems around the world? There are several plausible explanations.

The first is the collective action logic. Consider the almost too-obvious-in-retrospect attempts to cover up and dismiss allegations and criticisms of Joe Biden’s being too frail to run for a second term – up until that fateful evening debate, many senior figures in the Democratic establishment had been adamant that Biden was the only candidate who could meaningfully take on Trump. Many had piled on praise that explicitly glossed over or implicitly omitted the physical and psychological deterioration exhibited by Biden – attributing his performance to circumstantial and incidental factors. Few dared act as the martyr to ‘break’ the dam, and thus the dam of pretense, however fragile it was, held.

It was only when the debate took place, the veneer was pierced, and the Democratic leadership was left with no choice but to apply active and even public pressure on Biden to quit. Sycophancy and denial had been the default response, for the individual costs of calling out and promulgating the truth were much higher (whether it be in terms of backlash from within the party, or the potential risk of enraging Biden as his associates) than those of staying mum and going along with the flow.
The second concerns the cheapness and cost-freeness of praise. As sad as it is, human psychology is hard-wired to prefer compliments – perhaps as tokens of recognition and appreciation. This applies particularly to insecure or vulnerable leaders, such as those who preside over systems with a dearth of clear checks and balances and institutional accountability. These leaders, such as Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, are highly prone to taking umbrage at even the slightest criticisms of their antics, behaviours, or actions. Sycophants – even if insincere and disingenuous – pose no threat or challenge to their egos. Indeed, sycophancy is rewarded, as an incentive for more positive, effusive praise, even if the praise is innately disconnected from reality and the truth. Sycophants are granted short-term boosts to their careers and wherewithal, whilst those they seek to flatter are by no means put off by the ‘cheapness’ of such words.

However inexpensive pleasant-speak is, it is, after all, pleasing to the ears. In contrast, honest criticism can be jarring on the ears.

The third and perhaps most fundamental rationale, is tied with the structurality of sycophancy. In some systems, individual sycophants end up disrupting the otherwise meritocratic systemic logics, introducing an anti-merit and pro-deadweight-loss element to their systemic culture. In other systems, individuals are raised as and transformed into sycophants. A mixture of bureaucratic inertia, risk-aversion, and institutional rituals that are predicated upon dogmatic doctrines, collectively foster a culture where lying is rewarded, and truth-telling is punished with the severest of consequences.

To fight sycophancy takes more than just a generic call to norms and veneration of the truth. It will take genuine systemic overhaul – reforms to incentives, motivations, and reward-punishment mechanisms – to ensure that individuals are empowered based on their capabilities, as opposed to their ability to conform with groupthink and outcompete one another in buttering up the powers that be.

Brian YS Wong

Assistant Professor, HKU