I have long been mystified by the human tendency to negate, in public, practices that we embrace in private. Why would someone vociferously condemn in public practices in which he engages in private? Preachers seem to be most guilty of this kind of behaviour, which I have classified oxymoronically as: positive negation.

Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that those who engage in positive negation do so in order to deflect attention from themselves. Conventional wisdom is that we can remove or reduce suspicion through vigorous public denials of what we do in private. Many are convinced that this is an effective way of covering their tracks. However, there are those who have historically questioned the efficacy of such an approach, arguing that too vigorous a defence of one’s innocence is often sign of guilt and can draw unnecessary scrutiny.

Through the years politicians, preachers and entertainers have continued to berate, publicly, practices in which they have engaged privately. History is replete with pastors who have railed against adultery and homosexuality while actively engaging in the practices they publicly proscribe. Jimmy Swaggart is but one preacher who has become famous for his unsolicited public repudiation of his private behaviour.

We have also seen persons, particularly recording artistes, who have been caught engaging in sexual acts which they have publicly condemned. Many will contend that lying to cover one’s indiscretions is often seen in a worse light than the original transgression one is seeking to hide. Bill Clinton was impeached, not because he had an inappropriate affair with Monica Lewinsky, but because he lied about it — or so his detractors claimed.

However, I have asked myself whether there is a less sinister reason for those who deny in public what they espouse in private. I have concluded that the desire to atone could well be at the heart of this behaviour. Yes, there are those who are unable to bring themselves to a full confession, wanting to continue enjoying the benefits of consuming the forbidden fruit while having the psychic satisfaction of condemning it. This is almost like having the best of both worlds, and is not much different from having one’s cake and eating it with the added bonus of not gaining any weight, according Dr Leachim Semaj. It is this need to have it both ways that gives rise to positive negation.

The recent brouhaha surrounding the alleged sexual indiscretions of Bill Cosby has certainly forced me to examine my notions of positive negation. Cosby has earned the ire of segments of the African-American community, who thought that his message on race seemed to suggest that racism was not to be blamed for the ills faced by the people of his own colour. According to this school of thought, Cosby and his position on race did not seem to countenance the role which slavery and other efforts at disenfranchisement played in the disempowerment of those of African ancestry. A central theme of Cosby’s message to the African-American community is the need for a sense of personal responsibility.

He has scolded black parents for not paying sufficient attention to the needs of their children. Implicit in this trope is that sexual irresponsibility contributes significantly to the economic and social plight of black people. It is this aspect of Cosby’s analysis that many of his detractors are finding to be most troubling. They are contending that Cosby did not heed his own message of sexual responsibility, and is therefore a hypocrite.

My position — assuming that the allegations against Cosby are true — is that the great comedian could have been engaging in positive negation, and his making searing public pronouncements on the matter was his way of grappling with his demons and seeking atonement. Those who celebrate Cosby’s fall find his apparent fall from grace particularly appealing because of what they deem to be his smug and self-righteous manner.

On another note, there are those who would want to suggest that these charges against Cosby — which we should state have not been proven in a court of law — should obviate whatever positive contribution he has made to society. It is important to remember that bad messengers can be the bearers of good tidings, while the reverse can be true as well.

The Cosby Show was groundbreaking because it gave blacks an opportunity to see themselves beyond the projects. There is much that blacks have ceded because they deem them to be “white”. I am too familiar with many African-Americans who would not play the violin or tennis because those activities are “white”. Cosby, with his Dr Heathcliff Huxtable character, helped in great measure to change that perception. If there is a dissonance between the images of Dr Huxtable and Bill Cosby, my advice would be that we do not throw the affable doctor over the cliff. Bill Cosby should be made to face the music, though, if he is in fact guilty of the charges levelled against him.

cpamckenzie@gmail.com