Linguistic Matters

Imagine if you will a certain dynamic.  Imagine the following pairs representing power relationships are engaged in in intense conversation:  a boss and a subordinate, a parent and a child, a prison guard and an inmate.  Now imagine that one person in the suggested pairs suddenly says emphatically: “I won’t argue with you!”  My question, which person in the pairs suggested can best be imagined saying—“I won’t argue with you?”  Clearly the answer is that the source of the statement is the wielder of power.  “I won’t argue with you” is a signal that further discussion won’t be allowed.  The use of the word “argue” is interesting in and of itself.  Cleary the suggestion is YOU are instigating an argument.  YOU are being unreasonable.  YOU are being petulant. YOU are being angry.  YOU are engaging in unacceptable behavior and I (using my authority) am going to stop it.  Perhaps from the subordinate’s point of view, he was engaged not in “argument” but in persuasion.  But “persuasion” is an appellation reserved for the top down, “argument” is adjudged when the disagreement comes from the bottom up.  Finally, take another phrase “Yes sir, whatever you say.”  Clearly this anticipated response can only come from the one with lesser power.  It is the response most preferred and cherished by the powerful.

Print Page

Today in Sunday School

We discussed the codependency of leaders and followers in the light of their mutual needs.  Leaders sometimes feel they need to appear to be outstanding and competent in every way—nearing perfection itself.  Likewise followers to sense they are in good hands sometimes need to feel they have outstanding and competent leaders in every way—nearing perfection itself. Thus in concert a fabricated leader image is created that resides on a pedestal, in a sense becomes an idol.  This image does not display normal human tendencies to make dumb mistakes, to feel emotions that are not admirable, to fail at tasks now and then.  In short, for mutual comfort, mutual delusion is indulged in.  This leads to the conclusion that we need not remember leaders in our prayers like we do for average mortals.  This leap from reality is not healthy for either follower or leader and needs to be avoided.  The scripture lesson was Hebrews 10:24 (NRSV) Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds.  Letting go of perfection idols is a good place to start.   We should always strive to be real. 

Another Upper Room lesson (3/3/11) by William Paulsell concluded: We may ask and expect God to act in spectacular ways, but spiritual maturity sees God at work in the ordinary, the mundane, and the routine aspects of our lives.  When we can see that, we can experience the new life that Christ brings.

Print Page

The Laws of Power (11)

My son Alton and I are reading Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power and sharing our responses to the readings.

Robert Greene’s 11th law of power is: Learn to Keep People Dependent on You.  To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted.  The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have.  Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear.  Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.

In the closing of the chapter Mr. Greene writes:  Better to place yourself in a position of mutual dependence…You will not have the unbearable pressure of being on top, and the master above you will in essence be your slave.  This seems to be the constant dream of this author, finding a means to control others to the point of slavery.  But Greene also recognizes that being too greedy for direct control can be disastrous.  Such all-out efforts to gain control are often counterproductive.  A lesson learned time and again is not so much that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that absolute power is always rendered short-lived and less than absolute through the actions of economic, political, and social forces beyond one’s control.  Mutual dependence and impinging constraints rather than complete independence and absolute freedom is virtually always the way things settle out in the end.  The dream of absolute control to the point of making others your slave is fully realized only in the fantasies of myopic self-interest.

Print Page

A Frank Letter to a Friend Recently Fired

(This letter assumes a longtime acquaintance exists.  In fact it does not.)  It was with sadness that I heard today you lost your job as an administrator in our city.  I have watched your career for many years, and yes I have been sometimes jealous of your high positions.  But when a person loses their job against their wishes, it is especially tough sometimes for those who have been most successful.  I remembered when we first met.  We needed each other then, for both of us wanted to make brotherhood of races work.  I never will forget that when we went places together, you seemed to know people wherever we went.  It was this time together in the early years that made me grow to love you like one of my own family—or maybe it was that I was part of your family.  In any case I want you to know that I will always cherish our friendship.  So it is now as a friend that I want to briefly discuss with you my view of present affairs.

It has long been a contention of mine that all people, without exception, want to feel special.  We want to feel special as individuals and as members of a larger group.  Many things can make a person feel special.  It can be who you know, what you’ve accomplished, the area of town lived in—just a million things.  In any case this need to feel special is a basic human need.  One way that people or a person can feel special is to be in the role of victim.  When a touch of prejudice is added, it quickly becomes highly emotional and, in my view, interferes with a clear perception of the facts.  Remember for a person to be a victim other people or things must be placed in the role of victimizer.  For every victim, there must be a victimizer.

One of your primary duties as a city administrator was, I think you will agree, to play the role of reconciler.  The ability to play this role was one of your major assets for the city.  Your mission was to reconcile different races, but also to reconcile divisions within the black neighborhoods.  It is in this context that I think you made a major mistake by attending the killer’s funeral and not the funeral of the policemen killed.  Of course whether or not I or nameless others attended the funeral didn’t matter.  But in your role as a principal reconciler at a critical time, it did matter.

Now a lot is up to you.  The hate mongers on both sides are trying to get up steam.  Each wants to feel special as a victim and demonize the other side as victimizer.  How, I ask you, can we make the unaligned majority feel special in the reconciliation of this matter?  I will be frank with you, it is a little tough seeing you as a victim.  You are a natural leader.  How will you lead?  What role now will you choose to continue in service to our city?  I remember the story of a boy who caught a little bird.  He clutched and concealed it in his hands. Soon, a man came by and the boy asked the man “Guess, is this bird I’m holding dead or alive?” The man somberly replied, “Son, the answer to that lies in your hands.”

So now, my friend, it is up to you.  How can you help achieve amenable diversity?  Undoubtedly different sides can each gather in towers of victimization and thus feel very special—again a basic human need. Or else they can meet and greet like we did so many years ago under the special banner of brotherhood.  I must relate that Kathy and I had dinner at Chili’s this evening and the racial mix of happy customers there kept reminding me of your news conference today with its undertone of victimization and polarization.  Of course, I can never “walk in your shoes” but I want you to know that a friend is waiting to see which way you lead—the easy way by becoming the commander of the victimization gospel where ready troops await to fall in line, or will you make people (and yourself also) feel special in more challenging and productive pursuits?

Print Page

Was Nelson Mandela Ever Not Free?

To my son:  Since you are in a state prison, I know you feel down at times.  But I would like to discuss with you another type of prison—spiritual prison.  One can be in this prison in or out of jail.  Likewise, one can be in state prison but still be spiritually free.  What are some of the characteristics of spiritual imprisonment?  At its most rudimentary level, it is manifested in a psychological defensiveness.  This defensiveness further leads to dishonesty and its consequential stress.  Every remark, every action needs to be calculated and viewed in the light of containment of a dark secret—the spiritually imprisoned do not feel good about themselves.  They feel their self-worth is under constant attack by the simple truth.  They sense their imperfections, but dare not admit them.  Sometimes they will be buttoned down and suspicious, others will express their frustration in anger.  In all cases, a degree of anger defines their lives. Anger joins defensiveness to shackle the human spirit.

Compare this to those who are spiritually free.  Rather than anger, their defining emotion is joy.  They are not afraid.  They have no difficulty in admitting mistakes and imperfections.  Honesty is their keynote.  They can laugh, even make fun of themselves.  Their sense of self-worth is beyond any threat by anyone.  Life about them flourishes.  Unlike the spiritually imprisoned, they focus on the task at hand or on others, not on themselves.  I have through the years seen your rising feelings of self-respect and worth.  Now is the time to call upon your inner resources.  Be a positive influence. Create something joyful and good today.  I know the box is confining and somewhat depressing—it was probably meant to be.  But let it also be your hermitage (your place apart).  Let it be your launch pad of spiritual liberty.

Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage;
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage;
If I have freedom in my love
And in my soul am free,
Angels alone, that soar above,
Enjoy such liberty.

--From: 238. To Althea from Prison

   by Richard Lovelace (1618–1658)

Print Page

Be Humble, Do the Numbers

A grave error often made is the assumption that people will understand our feelings and intuitions about a matter.  We assume that a strong conviction on our part passionately stated will be overwhelmingly persuasive.  We don’t want to go to the effort to do the numbers to validate (or invalidate) our feelings and intuitions.  Our belief that they are true should be sufficient, or so we believe.  We take offense that people don’t trust our judgment if they insist on evidence to back up our viewpoint.  It is unfortunate that there is a widespread belief that numbers don’t matter—that figures in any case can be bent and molded to support whatever side one is on.  Actually there are good figures that don’t lie.  But it takes humility to get off one’s high horse and to patiently do the drudge work that can be involved in research.  The two significant tasks of detail tracking and cogent numeric summarization are required.  Unless one supports their position with such hard evidence, it is quite valid that their strong conviction be dismissed as insufficient.  Of course, there can be the pleasant surprise that the math supports and strengthens one’s case; thus revealing that the initial reluctance to do the math may have been due in part to doubt regarding the real legitimacy of one’s position.

Print Page

Snitching vs. Throwing Under the Bus

Snitch is defined as: “inform on somebody: to tell somebody in authority about another person's wrongdoing.  (Friends don’t snitch on each other).”  Encarta Dictionary.

To throw (someone) under the bus is defined as a: “phrase meaning to sacrifice some other person, usually one who is undeserving or at least vulnerable and often a friend or ally, to make personal gain.”  Wikipedia.

Snitch includes the elements of telling authority about another person’s wrongdoing, whereas to throw someone under the bus includes the elements of, for personal gain, sacrificing another (often a friend or ally) who is undeserving or vulnerable.  In some communities there is a strong anti-snitching ethos.  Law enforcement in these cases is made difficult.  No one dare be considered a snitch.  In prison it is readily understood that snitches will often face retaliation from other inmates.  The primary enforcer of the anti-snitch ethos is intimidation and fear.  Throwing someone under the bus does not necessitate the elements of authority or wrongdoing.  Rather, it stems often from the desire not to be embarrassed by a personal blunder.  Rather than taking responsibility ourselves, we instead throw a vulnerable individual under the bus. This practice is for personal gain—it takes the blame or embarrassment off of us and places it on the one tossed under the bus. This practice can also, however, resemble snitching, but the occasion involved does not rise to the level of wrongdoing.  After a largely inconsequential false step, one is gratuitously identified as the source of the blunder. Often this is done to simultaneously put ourselves in a better light (for personal gain).

The term and expression, while at first glance appearing similar in meaning, are in fact quite different.  Nevertheless, as friendship serves to curtail snitching, it also is likely to be anticipated that any friendship will be strained by the habitual practice of throwing one another under the bus. A breach of loyalty is the common thread inherent in both concepts.

Print Page