Neatness: The Religion of the Rectal-Linear
January 31, 2008
For some years I have come to think of neatness as the Western version of Feng Shui. It is an ethic of lining things up and setting them in just the right way for the preservation of harmony. The similarity with Eastern superstition could not escape me, its arbitrary rituals seemed like ceremonial obeisance to some celestial denizen. While Chinese folk traditions are brimming with colorful language and portents of auspicious days and locations, the Western Feng Shui clearly lacked similar imagination and vitality. My comparison between the two philosophies derived solely from their shared emphasis on mystical knowledge of the proper way of things. There was an element of irony in thinking of neatness in this way, I could think of all the wise sages exhaustively sorting out every item in their possession.
For a time I was content with this cool, bemused, relatively indifferent stance towards the neat, but there was something about their ways and Western society’s widespread encouragement of such habits that continued to bother me. Not only did something strike me as fundamentally wrong about it, but I ceased to dismiss it as purely irrational and began considering the issue more closely.
In the professional environment, it is necessary to have a rigid structure to keep track of every order, plan around a just in time inventory, and make sure every cent of revenue is spent as prescribed. In the workplace a strict system of organization and cleanliness has a clear place and function. Adopting a philosophy of neatness is most effective in the corporate world, but inappropriate as a personal creed. When individuals adhere to such a method, they end up spending more time and energy maintaining their system than they could ever gain from it. Supporters of neatness often make claims about the time saved by organization without taking all the upkeep into account. Keeping everything placed perfectly straight, always in the same place, and spotlessly clean is a boon when a hundred people are using the same resource and sharing the burden of maintenance, but detrimental and pointless when there is one person. For an individual to maintain such a system is a constant thankless chore that brings joy to no one and which fails to achieve its declared objective of saving time. There is ultimately no clearly defined end goal or fulfillment, so it is hard to imagine that neat persons can feel much satisfaction with their labors. Furthermore, a neat person must be perpetually dissatisfied with all other human beings. When a system of organization defies reason, those who are not mind readers are hard pressed to conform to a neatnik’s imaginary kingdom of order. It is unsurprising then that such an eternal spring of dissatisfaction tends to spill from one life into others.
Most people are content to live and let live. They could care less how other people arrange their personal matters, less still about their personal spaces. One trait in common among neat people is that they believe themselves endowed with the right to waste the time and energy of others as well as their own for the sake of their philosophy. A messy person doesn’t care if his neighbor is neat. A neat neighbor probably experiences a significant rise in blood pressure every time they see the lawn next door getting too long for their taste. It seems characteristic of neatness to be aggressive, even invasive in nature. It is such patronization and presumptuousness that make the much praised proponents of cleanliness so often obnoxious. They behave in their informal, personal life as though they are still at the office and hold others, who desperately desire time away from work to similar standards. Their preferred style of living is contrary to the spontaneous nature of relaxed human beings and inevitably clashes with the personalities of almost everyone around them. The supposedly successful routines of rectal-linear persons are in fact anti-social and outright rude.
The behaviors of the neat send a message of contempt and dismissal to the rest of humanity. Both delicate and inflexible, their system is perfectly conceived for regular disruption at the slightest intervention of an outside force. The involvement of people is thus practically inimical to their way of life. They get upset at fellow human beings for so much as moving a single item out of place, a reaction that suggests they hold their arbitrary order in greater esteem than their guests, relatives, neighbors, and roommates. One must also consider the very fact that neat people like everything to be set perfectly straight, in perfect rows, in perfect order. The place they like for themselves and for others to live in is something that might be created by a machine. The rectal-linear in effect strive to erase all that is typically human from their vicinity. Organic materials, including people are unwelcome in their sterile environment. When a host is bent on eliminating any sign of their guest’s presence with all possible speed, the guest must begin to wonder if in fact he is welcome. It comes across as impersonal and dehumanizing when one treats people the same way they do their paperwork: something to be cleared out of the way. The rectal-linear find the irregularities and idiosyncracies of individuals to be fundamentally odious and
offensive. Any element that they cannot control to the utmost degree of precision rankles them to no end.
The residence of one who is neat is typically empty of personality; one could possibly wonder if anyone even lives there. A clean and tidy domicile is more of a barracks than a home. The vast majority of the space is empty and what items cannot be thrown out are stored away in specially designated boxes and drawers. Messy people, understand that the floor is the best storage place. Every available surface in fact is to covered with every conceivable item of use. This way, everything is out in the open and instantly accessible. No effort at all is spent systematizing; there’s no need when one makes full use of available space. An empty floor serves no function at all, it is simply undeveloped real estate. So long as one is able to walk across the room, there is no problem. The eight foot long journey has to become rather difficult before it merits thought, let alone effort.
A messy person never searches for dust and dirt. If it can’t be seen or smelled without actually looking for it, there are undoubtedly more important, more fulfilling uses for one’s time. If chasing dust is the best activity one can conceive of, it is necessary to seriously reflect upon one’s life. Besides, a little dust adds scent and character to things. Where would old books be without a little dust? The neat of course have no room or time for old books; they are thrown out with everything else that is not of immediate use. Messy people like to have miscellania on hand that can give ideas, inspiration, memories of times gone by. They understand that one cannot always predict what will be of use in the future. Ultimately, the messy approach entails both minimal effort and regrets. Possessions are cleaned up or thrown out only when there is a clear reason to do so. Cleaning brings joy to no one, it takes up time, it is never to be done for its own sake. The spontaneous, informal way actually is a system of organization, one that is flexible, varies widely from person to person, and requires minimal maintenance. It is thus far better suited to the needs of an individual.
Neatness, having no clear justification is ultimately practiced to for its own sake. The full absurdity of this condition becomes clear in certain instances of paradox: Rectal-linears go through great effort to see to it that their lawns are perfectly cut, trimmed, and manicured. A reasonable being would suppose that they would then enjoy the fruits of their labor by spending ample time out on the plot they worked so hard on. Perhaps they would go out to play horseshoes or set up tables and chairs for an outdoor picnic. Astoundingly, the contrary is true. The neat person avoids so much as touching the lawn and becomes absolutely livid if anyone so much as steps on this pristine piece of green. The neat person completely forgets that the very purpose of a lawn is to have a place to feel soil underneath one’s feet and have an area for recreation even in the city. There is also no reason that stepping on a lawn should inspire any great ire. One could walk on it all day without causing any damage at all. It’s grass. Such an instance demonstrates both the arbitrariness and petty spitefulness of the neat. For little more than groundless superstition they treat both themselves and others with a poor and miserly spirit. Rather than promoting neatness as correct conduct in Western civilization, neat people should be encouraged to seek counseling and instruction in basic social skills.
February 3, 2008 at 8:35 am
Does it strike you as odd that neatness around the world is considered somewhat of a virtue? There must be something to this if so many are actually attracted to it. These rituals only seem arbitrary to you because you do not understand their significance. Just as keeping a garden pristine sets out harmony for the eye, so does cleaning the home, for many.
As to the issue of the lawn, you have gone incredibly amiss here. If these people aren’t stepping on their front lawn themselves, then perhaps you should have taken a hint long ago that front lawns are purely decorative to many home owners. People may very well go onto their back lawns for the purpose you suggest. When people have a house they’ve blown a lot of money on, they often become proud of it and are insulted when someone mars the beauty they have worked so hard to attain and show off. If you understood the reasons behind the other side’s actions you would have credibility in this area, but your sweeping generalisations are too grossly unfair to be humourous, and your accusations of presumptuousness are entirely hypocritical.
Instead, I would suggest that you seek counselling and instruction in basic social skills as you clearly demonstrate that you cannot comprehend basic human nature at work here.
February 3, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Does it strike you as odd that neatness around the world is considered somewhat of a virtue? There must be something to this if so many are actually attracted to it.
There may be something it, but popularity alone does not make something great. Otherwise all the songs on the top 25 list would always be spectacular. Are most people actually attracted to neatness or are they merely doing what their culture expects of them? Is neatness really as popular as you would believe?
As for the arbitrary rituals, I make this comparison because neatness fails at its objective of saving time and arranges items in one’s space in a fashion contrary to both nature and human nature. Your argument that neat people find harmony in cleaning seems a good one at first glance. Certainly there are people that take a certain aesthetic pleasure in having a clean space. In comparing neatness to Feng Shui, I already implied that neat people do indeed have a sense of harmony. However, their system is in a constant state of decay and demands persistent upkeep. The moment a neatnik finishes cleaning, things will start to fall out of place again, especially if there is exposure to people(including the neatnik) and the elements. A neat person is rather like one who builds an elaborate sand castle and then becomes furious when the tide comes in. When the tide recedes, they build a new castle exactly identical to its predecessor only to become furious at the sea when the tide rises once more. That the neat have a sense of harmony was never the question, I’m more interested in examining whether they seek harmony in the best of places. The pleasure of neatness is short-lived and the anguish and anxiety great. Hence, I stand by my original thesis that rigid, uncompromising personal organization brings joy to none.
Odd that you mention neatness ‘around the world’ when I was writing primarily about Western ideas.
I mention in my article an ‘element of irony’ in comparing neatness to Eastern philosophies which tend to have an altogether different concept of harmony. Daoism and Zen Buddhism in particular, celebrate transience and derive a sense of harmony from appreciation of that which is passing and never again to be seen in exactly the same form. A Western neatnik, creates something delicate and transient but constantly fights to make it permanent, unable to gracefully let it pass.
As for lawns: They are a perfect example because they require a lot of effort and are exposed to people, animals, and the elements. As a decoration the perfect lawn may be pleasing, but the frustrations are bound to predominate. Not only are the home owner’s demands for a rigid harmony unreasonable in the ever-changing world, but they fail even to put the land they worked so hard on to any use that promotes the happiness of humanity. Clearly neat homeowners are proud of their lawns, the question is: should they be?
I have never known a lawn to be affected in any way by being walked on. In fact the grass in public parks looks just as healthy to me as the grass in a perfectly manicured lawn. In fact it looks healthier because it’s not trimmed down almost to the roots. Therefore, getting mad at someone merely for stepping on the lawn is arbitrary and based on no more than groundless superstition. I suppose stepping on someone’s grass could be construed as violation of private property, but when a neatnik comes out to shout at the eight year old from next door about property rights, they come across as stingy and poor in spirit even if they are within the letter of the law.
As you pointed out, a neat person strongly feels that the mere presence of a person ‘mars the beauty’ of their domain. Your observation contributes nicely to my point that neatness is intrinsically hostile to humanity, or any other agent of change. This is hardly what I consider a healthy approach, and therefore I recommend counseling and improved social skills. Is there something illogical in advocating better social skills for people who exhibit persistent anti-social behavior? Furthermore, what have I not understood about neat people’s reasons? I know they have their reasons and it seems we more or less agree on what they are. The question under examination is whether they are valid reasons.
As for unfairness and hypocrisy, I see a problem and am addressing it. If neat people followed a slightly less than efficient lifestyle, I probably wouldn’t even notice. What merits this last post is the fact that neat people tend to invade the lives of others and feel justified in pressing their beliefs on those who disagree with them. This sort of behavior is both presumptuous and unfair. Furthermore, such conduct is generally accepted as a virtue in Western civilization. How is it hypocritical to address a problem that is infrequently recognized to its full magnitude and bring it to the attention of others? Is writing criticisms on my personal blog somehow similarly invasive? By what means am I forcing my beliefs on those who disagree with me?
Finally, you make the vast assumption that my disagreement with the philosophy of neatness constitutes a lack of comprehension of basic human nature. I spent a goodly amount of my post writing about how neatness, with its mechanization and lack of spontaneity is markedly inhuman in nature. I would guess that neatness is more related to Western culture than any fundamental human impulse. I would remind that concepts of what constitutes harmony and beauty vary across the world. Therefore, it cannot be a product of basic human nature. As I understand it, human nature in matters of personal organization is reflected in the spontaneous informal systems that are different for each individual. What is best for each person is that which works best with their basic nature and the ever-changing world around them.
February 4, 2008 at 2:31 am
Wow. I’m really just flattered you spent this much time and effort to counter my small fry argument. For somebody who accuses people of wasting time cleaning…
Anywho, maintaining neatness does follow a pattern, and despite your claims of comprehension, you still insist on its arbitrary nature. The human eye is known to be attracted by empty space, and for some people, namely the workaholics and neatniks as you have pointed out, an organised home is easy to ‘navigate’, if you will. However, these are not the norm of society. Most people will clean up regularly for social events, mind you or just to keep the house clean and make it feel like home to them. You may find messy conditions more pleasing, but don’t so presumtuous as to say this goes against human nature.
February 4, 2008 at 10:23 pm
My arguments are invalid because they are too long for your taste? Please explain.
I’ve never denied that neat people follow a pattern, but rather one that has no logical justifications and is therefore arbitrary.
The human eye is attracted to empty space? By this you mean everyone’s eyes? Some people’s eyes? I thought the human eye was attracted by things like vivid colors, sharp contrasts, sudden motion, and unusual textures. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my response, we already agree that neat people like seeing neat, empty spaces.
You now make the statement that neat people are not the norm. I may have had some success in persuading you if this is a change from your previous stance that neatness is accepted everywhere and that a great many people are attracted to it.
You make the claim that most people clean up every now and then? I agree! I have no problem with this. It is when neatness is pursued for its own sake that troubles tend to arise. In fact, much of the reason for most people to clean by your own admission: to satisfy the expectations of their guests rather than their own sense of equilibrium.
I never made the claim that neatness is against human nature. This would be preposterous since there are obviously people who are neat. I did say that neatness is not part of basic human nature. I took this to mean the most instinctual and well, basic human impulses. To be basic, a certain practice by my definition must be universal. Western concepts of harmony through neatness do not satisfy this criteria.
You believe your argument was a small fry? How sad that you think so. You don’t believe you deserved a thorough response? Cheer up! You got more than you deserved!
As for time wasting, you are the one who believed it worthwhile to start a discussion unsolicited on someone’s private blog. A close match with your criteria for time wasting. I believe quite the contrary, in fact I would try to dissuade you from such a position.
February 1, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“As for time wasting, you are the one who believed it worthwhile to start a discussion unsolicited on someone’s private blog.”
Um, your blog is definitely not private. A random Google search brought me here. And I have to ask, why do you care so much how other people maintain their own homes? And why is it any of your business?
February 2, 2009 at 8:27 pm
By private, I mean to say it is an individual endeavor not that of an organization or a company. Substitute the word ‘personal’ if it makes you feel better. Consider: a private jet may be seen by hundreds of people as it taxis down the runway. It is ‘private’ only in the sense that it is owned by an individual. You misinterpret my words.
It is my business because: the neat dictate the accepted standard by which society functions. As a participant in society, I cannot avoid this standard of conduct becoming part of my life and therefore my business.
On the other hand, one can easily avoid my blog if one so wishes.
I care because one should look at the way a society does things and ask
-Is it the best or even a good way to solve the problem at hand?
-How might it be done properly/better?
In the case of neatness, I see a system that is impersonal, wasteful, dehumanizing, and intrusive. It is a problem; it is a philosophy that figures into the lives of all members of Western civilization.