Between Man and Man (Pt II)

"You have to turn the sheep loose before you can start to herd them."

"Authority is easily abused. But authority can do good. It takes power to make the real changes needed in the world. A good person who is good at dealing with power can make the world a better place for everyone."

"Only thing that's on my mind is who's gonna run this town tonight."

The ironic thing about power is that everyone thinks they're good at managing it. Even me. But that doesn't mean that I'm actually good at managing it. Judgments about your own use of power are only valid when made by someone else.

Recently I was empanelled on a six-person jury in a trial for two civil offenses. In Our Fair State, only a five-person majority is required in order to convict in this situation. But we were asked to try for a unanimous verdict.

[Disclaimer: I'm going to grossly overdramatize my (internal monologue) here to make a point. Though this was not what was running through my mind at the time, the fact that I can think about it this way now indicates that similar knowledge/feelings may have existed in my subconscious at the time. I have nothing but respect for my fellow jurors, especially The Dissenter, who held out for two hours against the onslaught of my brilliant logic and dynamic personality. ;) ]

Once the jury was sequestered, our first task was to appoint a foreman. (Not It! Never be the face of authority.) So I quickly sized up the situation and nominated the person who turned out to be The Dissenter. He was quick, confident, and articulate, and there were no objections. Aside from me, he was probably the most dynamic person in the room. [What an ego, eh? ;) ]

Unfortunately, the first thing he wanted to talk about was something that the defense attorney had mentioned in his opening statement but never during the actual trial. Anything said in the opening or closing statements cannot be considered as evidence. (Silly sheep! Tricks are for kids!) Yours truly feels compelled to pipe up and stop this nonsense before it goes too far. He resists me. I persist. (Fight me! Do it! Bring it!)

[Disclaimer: I like to fight/compete/argue/debate with a worthy opponent. I can kick ass and take names, and I'm good at it. And I like it. Fear me.]

At this point, I realize that someone else (Me!) is going to have to take charge of this discussion, but not in an overt or disruptive way that destabilizes the group dynamic. The first move? Take control of the white board. [Did I mention that I once went to a literary costume ball as The Art of War?] Give everyone your visual of the situation. There were two offenses, each of which was comprised of two elements. We were all in agreement with the first element in each count, and after only a brief discussion, we were in agreement on the second element of the second count. I diagram this for us to reinforce a sense of accomplishment and unity, and to emphasize our point of disagreement - the second element of the first offense - in order to focus the discussion.

The wording of the second element of the first offense was deliberately vague, and as a result we had to come to an agreement not only as to what 'under the influence' and 'impaired' meant, but also whether or not the defendant had been demonstrably impaired. The evidence left enough room for argument on this point, though five of us rather quickly agreed that the defendant was impaired. The Dissenter held out at this point, not out of stubbornness, but because he actually wasn't sure.

And now we deliberated. And by 'we', I mean mostly him and me. (Bring it!) While we both got a little loud, we both heard each other's arguments and responded to the arguments rather than something else. [Nothing but respect for you, dude. Not many people can handle me when I get going. I won't presume to speak for you, but I enjoyed our deliberation.]

Eventually, with the help of the juror next to me, we finally convinced The Dissenter that the defendant had been impaired. I won't rehash all the arguments that were employed, except to say that they were brilliant! [Geez, squash the ego already!]

What's disturbing to me is that it was easy for me to take charge of that situation. And I did it because I thought I was the best-qualified, smartest, and most competent person in the room. [Damn, woman! How did your ego get that big?] I knew enough about human behavior and group dynamics to be able to manipulate the situation and do it. And I was relentless in applying every argument at my disposal to winning - er, convincing The Dissenter that I/we were right. And I liked it. And because the rest of the group was on the same side as me, I was perhaps more focused on convincing The Dissenter that he was wrong than I was on considering the fact that he might be right. [I still don't think he was right. I'm just saying...]

And for hours afterward I was still wound up in that weird way you get wound up after you've fought and won. This disturbed me more than anything - the intensity of the whole thing, and the fact that I liked it.

Almost everyone thinks that they'd be great at handling power. Hell, I'm sure a great many of us think that we're the 'most qualified' to have such power, whether in the workplace or in a group dynamic. But once you have a certain amount of effort invested in getting power or in obtaining a certain outcome, it becomes increasingly difficult to back down from your position. Not that you should want to, but that status and the ability to direct future actions are now attached to your actions, and attempting to hold your position/power may be more about your status than it is about doing the right thing. For some inexplicable reason, power feels good, and when you have it, it's hard to give it up.

In our culture we routinely elevate people to positions of celebrity/influence - in the realms of spirit and science, as well as other realms. We allow the media to build these people up to us as authorities who are worthy of respect, and we give it to them. [Journalists scare me.] We hand them power, without realizing that power changes a person, and there are very few people who can handle it well. Ironically, we also rely on the media to tell us when these authorities have over-stepped some perceived boundary in thought or conduct, and we allow the media to destroy our ability to trust or respect these same people.

An individual is always fallible. An idea may have merit (or not), but too often we choose to focus on the individual instead of his/her ideas. It's easier. It settles that need that most of us have to be dominated. It gives us someone to fight against. It's easier to set up and get excited about contests between man and man than it is to get excited about a contest purely between ideas. But the individual will always make mistakes, and we will cheer and move on. The individual is always fallible.

Rather than choosing between men in whom you will put your trust, choose between ideas. Choosing between ideas is much harder to do. You will want to use the easy cues of the personal charisma and charm of the individual in order to make judgments about his/her ideas, but personal attributes are misleading. And the individual may have an agenda. You are always better off doing the hard work of choosing between ideas, rather than choosing between individuals.