I grew up hearing it repeated like some sort of intellectual mantra of sagacity, ‘the devil you know is better than the angel you do not know.’ I have repeated this phrase to myself a couple of times at decision crossroads and saying this sort of gave me the courage I needed to proceed with safety.
It wasn’t until recently, in a conversation with a friend, that I was forced to look at this differently. At first, this saying seems like it is offering safety, but the question is, safety from what? It seems to me that people are too comfortable with the devil.
So concretely, this advice, when used in the context of relationships, is to encourage the idea that the partner you know, even if not perfect and in some cases (more likely) even when toxic, may not be better than a potential new partner. If a situation is toxic and will not improve with your staying, why should you remain in the first place? new partner or not.
Secondly, it seems that this phrase is deeply rooted in fear of the unknown. It is giving, don’t step out because you don’t know if you will be safe, even when clearly you are already in the danger zone. I think if there is a choice between the devil and an angel, you should always embrace the possibility of an angel. This tolerance for the devil is something I cannot comprehend.
The next is ‘you always attract your kind’. I do not agree. First, it is not always the case; second, it conflicts with the saying ‘opposites attract’; and while I am aware that there is contextual usefulness to these sayings, it doesn’t change the fact that sometimes unfortunate things happen that you have absolutely no magnetism to deserve.
Take, for example, sexual assault, contrary to the thought of most rapist that ‘she was asking for it’. The decision to be a rapist has nothing to do with a woman’s lack of decency or otherwise, and there is no moral obligation on her part to be responsible for the value system of a rapist or abuser. Another instance is betrayal; I do not think this is something people attract; it is often just a reflection of the betrayer’s value system.
One of the worst ones yet, “men are polygamous by nature” is often brandished as an umbrella response to justify continued patriarchy rooted in no accountability and a devalued sense of morality. To be honest, even when I heard this as a teenager, I rebelled against the idea vehemently simply because I thought, where is the female equivalent of this justification for decadence and exploitation? Like the girls will be girls version of boys will be boys. What you often hear is girls mature faster than boys, which is often used as an umbrella for abuse and exploitation.
The rationale for deconstructing advice is simple: wrong filters may equate to wrong perception, which could in turn result in wrong decisions and opinion regurgitation.
For instance, accepting the advice that men are polygamous by nature and therefore largely unfaithful in a monogamous setting is to acquiesce to being disrespected in such a manner that you cannot even hold the perpetrator accountable. In short, you also gaslight yourself into believing that you do not deserve better or cannot demand better because it doesn’t exist.
Even good advice needs to be deconstructed because it may not fit your peculiarities. This is about taking ownership of your decisions by vetoing the source of information or input. This doesn’t mean you can’t make mistakes; it is about continuous improvement and review. It is about gatekeeping your data centre to ensure your data is not false or riddled with bias that may compromise your output.
In the end, even well-meaning advice may not be fitting. This has to do with the functionality of advice. In the sense that for a piece of advice to be fitting, there must be contextual relevance, taking into cognisance one’s peculiarities, experiences, and needs. More often than not, this is something that must be decided at an individual level.
People tend to project their fears and inadequacies when they give advice; this is not bad; it comes from experience and their fashion of reality. Which is why it is important to deconstruct each piece of advice to extract the very nucleus of functionality and relevance.
Xoxo,
Dcconoisseur
Connoisseur of Memories 