Defining Fake Kindness

The extent and prevalence of an innate human affinity for kindness has been a religious and philosophical preoccupation for a very long time [1]. But despite its importance in day-to-day language and sense-making, the concept of kindness has remained somewhat peripheral in academic debates [4, 5]. At the social and ethnological level, the focus has instead generally been on somewhat related concepts such as reciprocity and altruism. At the individual level, some validated scales and instruments exist [5, 6] but again, the concept hasn’t been attracting a huge level of attention. Without any ambition to summarize existing knowledge on the concept, for the purpose of our argument we propose that kindness can be split into two components. One is behavioural and the other teleological as it deals with finalities and intents.
We define behavioural kindness as including all that one can observe from the outside: Ways of looking at others and listening to them, the tone and voice used, the language, the overall body posture. From an ethological point of view, behavioural kindness could be defined as the sum of all human readable signs of non-aggression. In addition to this first level, there certainly are also cultural and social components that go beyond the ethological and relate to social structuring [2]. Outside signs of non-aggression will vary throughout time, places, and culture. However, the main point we want to make regarding this first component of kindness is that it does not go beyond appearances. In itself it doesn’t achieve whatever outcomes kindness can accomplish.
Teleological kindness, on the other hand, includes all the values and intentions that support and guide kind actions. It concerns itself with the why and what of kindness. Aristotle’s Rhetoric is often quoted for this definition of kindness mainly framed around selflessness: “Kindness – under the influence of which a man is said to ’be kind’ – may be defined as helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped. ” [7] In the same text, Aristotle then proceeds to specify that selflessness is central to the notion of kindness as helping others in the context of a reciprocal exchange or with selfish motivations does not qualify. Similar ideas can be found in many philosophical and religious perspectives. For example, Maimonides emphasizes that giving to those in need without knowing to whom one gives and when the recipient doesn’t know who gave belongs to the higher levels of kindness. In the same way, the centrality of selflessness and of a generic trust in humankind remains central in contemporary definitions. “Real kindness is an exchange with essentially unpredictable consequences. It is a risk precisely because it mingles our needs and desires with the needs and desires of others, in a way that so-called self-interest never can. ”[1]. In our view, how selfless one needs to be in order to be kind is an open question. One could argue that the neutral point might be non-maleficence and that anything on the helpful side of it qualifies as kindness. This question is especially important when it comes to professional expectations. We believe that once kindness is defined as selflessness, it probably can’t be part of one’s job description. But, for many professionals, non-malevolence (for example expressed as primum non nocere ) is a central expectation.
The main point we want to make, however, is about the distinction between the behavioural and teleological components of kindness. For reasons we will explore, some people adopt the behavioural components of kindness without having any teleological interest in being kind. As we will argue in more detail below, in such cases, behavioural kindness should be understood as a social tool aimed at modifying the behaviour of others. Interestingly, when Paley [8] discusses compassion in the context of nursing, he makes a distinction between two components of the concept. He suggests that compassion is both a behaviour – defined here as actual actions that are compassionate – and a motivation – the intent to be compassionate – and that one component does not imply the other. Paley’s components of compassion are quite different from ours when defining kindness, but they connect to the same principle that behaviours and intents should not be presumed to be easily inferred one from the other. In the same way, the dissociation of behavioural and teleological components of kindness is what we describe here as “fake kindness” .
The level of dissociation is also meaningful in itself. Some displays of fake kindness will push the behavioural signs to lengths that are almost caricatural. The voice will be oddly unctuous, the tone will be kept to extreme non-assertiveness, the smile will be rigidly kept on. Overdone behavioural signs of kindness are, in our experience, correlated with the extent to which the content or implications of the statements are actually harmful to others.
In popular culture, one well-known example of a caricatural dissociation between the behavioural and teleological components of kindness would be the fictional character of Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter novels. Under Umbridge’s lavish girlishness, unctuous manners and smiles, lies a mildly sadistic person and one of the book’s most-despised villains. Another fictional character that embodies the concept of fake kindness with blood-curling realism would be Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Ratched is a stern but soft-spoken character always acting like she is concerned by the wellbeing of the patients under her care and acting in their best interests. However, as the movie unfolds, it becomes obvious that this pretence and her motherly concerns are artifices to impose her ruthless and tyrannical rule on everyone. In recent public events, many commenters have also used the term fake kindness to describe the approach of Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer of British Columbia during the Covid-19 pandemic. Dr. Henry’s trademark “be kind” motto, smiles and soft voice were instrumental to her successes in her role notwithstanding the fact many, like the provincial Human Rights Commissioner, expressed deep concerns about the ultimate impact of her decisions.
It might also be worth emphasizing that fake kindness isn’t really an effort at deception. In most situations, the agents involved will rapidly decode that there is a silent whip cracking behind the unctuous voice. In that sense, fake kindness is different from hypocrisy – or what Beard [9] describes as performative kindness – as everyone involved is likely aware that no sincere efforts at selflessness exist.