“Goody, Goody Two Shoes” – the perfect insult for anyone who wants to take someone down a notch. And not just anyone, but the type who seems to float through life on a wave of superior excellence. We all know someone – or at least we’ve come across them. But where does this expression come from, and what does it really say about our class divides and today’s constant struggle to be the most politically correct?
Kindness is very important
This is not a post against goodness, but even Jesus realized that true goodness must be built on humility. Jesus said that he would build his church on the stone that the builders rejected. A house is not stronger than the foundation on which it stands. Jesus also said: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7) Then no one cast a stone. For me, kindness is about taking care of each other and forgiving – not about judging others and believing that you are better than them.
Margery Meanwell only had one shoe
The history behind the expression is older than many people think. The History of Little Goody Two-Shoes published in England 1765 av John newbery, one of the first major publishers of children's literature. The main character, Margery Meanwell, is a poor orphan girl who only owns a single shoeWhen a rich man gives her a pair of complete shoes, she happily exclaims: "Goody, goody, I have two shoes!" (“Look, look, I have two shoes!”).
But the interesting thing is what happens next. Margery gets an education, becomes teacher, and finally she marries a rich widower. Her Diligence and virtue are rewarded, which was a typical moral message in 1700th century children's books. The original expression had nothing to do with complacency, but was a story about a little help from above, hard work and morality lead to success.
Later the meaning changed. From being an expression of having gained a better life situation, it instead became a swear word – a description of someone who is excessively pompous and morally impeccable.
The contest for moral superiority
It's not hard to see the parallels to today. We live in a time where both the right and the left are fighting for moral superiority. One side boasts about how non-PK they are, while the other scores points by rebuking everything and everyone. It's an entertaining spectacle, to say the least.
People do the best they can.
And in the middle of all this are ordinary people, those who barely have time to think about who has two shoes or none at all. Most of them are just happy if they get a little time to rest before the next workday begins. But when someone starts waving their "two shoes" and try to show how perfect, righteous, and privileged they are, then even the most patient person can lose patience.
Because who really has time to be so morally excellent? If you have time to worry about such things, then you probably have the privilege that makes it possible to escape the stress and struggle that many others live in. And that, my friends, is perhaps what makes "Goody, goody two shoes"-type so annoying.
Our social divides
So, is Goody Two Shoes just an old fairy tale expression, or does it say something deeper about today's society? Perhaps it reminds us that moral excellence is often a privilege for those who can afford it – and that the struggle to appear flawless can sometimes be more annoying than impressive.
Shall we all be Goody Two Shoes? Maybe not. Sometimes it's enough to wear a shoe, keep your head above water and laugh at the whole spectacleWe should perhaps remind ourselves of the original wording of the fairy tale, which was about the vulnerable needing financial support from society in order to have better outcomes in their lives.
So witty, funny and wise.
Is that true?
Henry Cöster, a theologian from Gothenburg, also pointed out that Jesus' battle with the Pharisees was about exactly this. The Pharisees were a sect that believed in perfect rules that must always be followed (of course, with condemnation of those who did not follow them), while Jesus claimed that no one is better off for it and that it is therefore quite unnecessary.
There is an English expression for this, prig, after a certain Dickens character. The English Wikipedia defines it as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prig
You shouldn't believe that everyone can do what you can do yourself, or that you can do what everyone else can, or that I or anyone else could have accomplished what we did without the help we received.
Unfortunately, the public arena is quite crowded with people who behave in this way. They go by the English term “woke” but there is also another, “prig”, after a Dickens character. You can read some pretty funny definitions of “prig” on the English Wikipedia.
I have written about it all on http://www.folkrorelser.org/texter/folklighet-mindre-moral.html, but there is a lot to be said for that. Not least that classic radical politics was dominated by interests, not by moralism. That is, disadvantaged majorities came together and demanded their rights, usually by exercising the power they had to withdraw their contribution to society if they were not treated sensibly. A fantastically much better way of conducting politics, I think, than the current moralizing.
Radical polemicists 125 years ago or so were mostly harsh on moralists. Read, for example, Strindberg's showdown with charity in the Red Room. Or read through a few years of joke magazines like Naggen or Röda rappet (the 1920s version). That tradition stood up well into the 60s with magazines like Mad which loved to rip off wiseguys and which, according to English Wikipedia, did much to inspire opponents of the Cold War at the time, e.g.
The moralizing, or moral positioning, in big politics becomes really nasty, where a group of power players can always easily point out another group as "Evil" - they obviously have a lot on their conscience - and therefore worth destroying. This easily leads to war, or for that matter, with our technological capabilities, to the downfall of human civilization.
So, warning against moralism, then!
Exactly! Goodness needs material conditions.
Not only that.
One of the founders of Alternative City, the psychotherapist Ralph Fidler (born around 1907), was always very careful to point out why moralism was harmful. You can't convince people that way. In the worst case, they back down completely and do the opposite of what you want just because being moralized is so disgusting.
Which we can see abundant examples of today when moralizing campaigns about everything have backfired with Trump and his anti-moralistic supporters. It's a completely natural development. The question is whether people draw the right conclusions from it.
Very wisely said!