It's not gay if you don't make eye contact.

The idiom refers to the false denial of desire for something sought but not attainable. However, in recent times it is applied to all denials of desire. For example, my decision to remain miserable in my job instead of accept a seemingly better offer attracted an allegation of 'sour grapes' from my family. If I decide that I don't want a flat screen LCD, people form the automatic assumption that I: a) can't afford it, b) deny my desire as a result; sour grapes.

 

Modern applications of 'sour grapes' fail to examine whether the denial of desire is indeed false. I believe that society has been trained to view all desire as basically good. Aspiration and the fulfillment of our ambitions - no matter how pedestrian - is what keeps our economies going. If we think positively, we will attract what we want.

 

Above lies the hidden paradox with new-thought positive attraction theory. If we can not, for whatever reason, attain our desires then it follows that we never really wanted it in the first place, and that therefore denial of the desire is true. Modern 'sour grapes' also fails to account for the circumstance in which the fox, having gotten far closer to the grapes than we have, saw that they were indeed sour. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

 

Wikipedia has a very good brief on the idiom and its source fable, 'The Fox and the Grapes'.

This saying asserts the notion that you have to give up something, or do something, in order to get something. The assumption is that both breaking (action) and omelettes (result) are good. We ignore that inaction is also a positive act, i.e. we can choose to do nothing, and that inaction may in fact lead to a better result.

 

Somehow the world - possibly through the Protestant work ethic - views results gained through positive inaction to be less valuable than those gained through action. So someone who waited patiently until the right time to invest is viewed as a slacker compared to an 'on-the-edge' day trader who is always closing deals and counting margins. Don't believe me? Try explaining this to my (Wesleyan) aunties.

 

The maxim that success is due to "Time in the market, not timing the market." has been used by financial advisers to spur us to pour our hard earned eggs into the basket we call a market, notwithstanding that since 2007 it has been a scrambled mess. And when our omelette comes back smaller than we expect, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "You have to break a few eggs," as if action intrinsically justifies failure.

 

Action is bravery. Inaction is cowardice. This erroneous notion also marginalises those of us who would, instead of omelettes, rather wait for chickens.