nakedcapitalism | I have had a lifetime to think about why I acted (unsuccessfully) and so many others do not.
I remember once reading about inner city police corruption which
seems to come and go in cycles. The article proposed credibly that 90%
of policemen were essentially followers and would follow the existing
culture of their institutions. The key to eliminating corruption is in
the other 10%. People like me.
10% will act according to their own perception of right and wrong.
90% will imitate the culture that surrounds them. Those ten percent can
be as easily agents for bad as agents for good. I would not make the
claim that some of us are intrinsically good or bad. I have made many
bad choices in my life, despite appearing to make myself the hero of
this story. I could easily see myself as one of the mavericks who turned
a police force corrupt.
But even among the 10%, I think I am part of an even smaller group. I
think only 1% are fearless enough to buck the dominant culture. When a
police force goes bad, 9% are leading the bad behavior, and 1% are
trying to reverse it. Similarly, when a police force is good, 9% are
leading the good behavior, and 1% are trying to reverse it. Often the
key to protecting an institution is crushing people like me by
“hammering the nail that is sticking out.”
Throughout my life I have been the rare person trying to change the
culture wherever I go. Usually I am unsuccessful. When I am successful, I
sometimes do more harm than good. We should be glad there are not more
mavericks in the world. It would be anarchy. We should be glad that 90%
of people fundamentally work to protect their institutions, even if
those institutions are flawed.
Returning to the role of the enabler, let’s talk about Hillary and
Jim Jordan. Of course, both people are part of the 90%. Of course, the
Secretary of State, and a coach at a major university, have primary
responsibility to protect their institutions. Protecting the institution
is the very definition of those roles. Despite the significant power
that they could have used to thwart evil, doing so would have undermined
their primary roles. And like the Tuck Dean in my story, I am not even
convinced they had anywhere near enough insight (if any) to have taken
credible action.
In my case I may have done some good, even though it did not feel
like it at the time. Although the parents I approached vociferously
defended my father, I do know that my fathers’ access to him decreased,
and had the situation continued there was less likelihood of those
parents remaining enablers. I also know that word got back to my father,
and although we broke off any further relationship, he had to be aware
that people were watching him.
Years later I discovered that there was open communication amongst
our family about my fathers’ predation, which surprised me. I always
thought it remained a hidden secret. Maybe my actions had something to
do with this. The life lesson for me is that speaking out is effective
for would-be enablers despite the violent push-back and self-doubt. It
sets the tone for everyone else in your system.
0 comments:
Post a Comment