*****
One of the matters that has been disturbing
and of grave concern to me throughout my life is the suborning by the business
world of military aggression - or at least the language of military aggression.
(I
find the use of military-style language, concepts, and expectations in civilian [which includes
business!] life utterly offensive, and belittling, demeaning and trivialising
of genuine matters of life and death.)
In part, this has often reflected the predominance
of macho jerks (a small sub-group of
males – and some females), but it has also come about in part because of a
phenomenon I have struggled to describe – in recent years, I tend to describe
it as part of a life cycle of being human, which – to simplify – is along the
lines of adoring obedience as a young child, rebelliousness as a teenager, establishing
oneself as an “independent” (of family)
adult in the 20s, then demonstrating in the 30s (sometimes into the 40s) that one knows and excels at “the rules of
society”, then often family or “family of choice” (i.e., friends) in the 40s / 50s, with a few – not enough – moving into
more reflective and even spiritual aspects of life in their 60s and onwards.
On that disturbing über-conformity of the
30s, maybe some people lie to themselves that they’re demonstrating their “skill”
with the “rules of the game”, or using
the rules for their own advantage, when they are in fact being used and actively strengthening
the malicious grip that “the rules” have on people – the sadistic power they
hold over the lives and wellbeing of individual human beings, a power that
includes perpetuating or strengthening sexism (especially in the context of military styled aggressiveness in
business, which is anathema to many women and men).
Work on matters such as domestic violence
has reduced the language of military-style aggression in the business in the
last couple of decades (in previous
decades, such reductions have sometimes occurred as a result of campaigns
against war), but the problem I’m seeing in many people in their 30s and
40s remains, and is looking for another expression – which is a problem, as it often
enables backlashes and social backsliding, including the 80s as a “decade of
greed” after the superficial (I use that
word as too many of the hypocritical, deceitful and manipulative pseudo-hippies
are now in boardrooms) hope of spirituality of the 60s and 70s (but not
the neoliberal / über-conservative movements of the last decade or so – that is
an entirely different set of problems).
I’ve now come across something else which
gives me another perspective on this problem.
I’m reading Timothy Snyder’s
book ”On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons
from the Twentieth Century” (pub. Vintage Publishing, 2017, ISBN
978-1847924889 [Amazon]
), which is exactly what the title says: lessons from recent history sowing
how to resist tyranny.
The first chapter is titled “Do not obey in
advance”, and begins with the following:
“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.
In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive
government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen
who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”
Another quote from that chapter which I
included here
is:
“The anticipatory obedience of Austrians in March 1938
taught the high Nazi leadership what was possible. . . . In 1941, when Germany
invaded the Soviet Union, the SS took the initiative to devise the methods of
mass killing without orders to do so. They guessed what their superiors wanted
and demonstrated what was possible. It was far more than Hitler had thought.”
Quite a sobering thought.
I also consider now, having read that chapter
of Mr Snyder’s book, that it is a significant part of the problem I am
struggling to analyse and describe.
An example may help to illustrate this: the
“expectation” to be on call beyond normal working hours as mobile phones spread
and became ubiquitous.
I first came across this “expectation” when
someone – slightly older than the age bracket I am writing of – claimed it was
accepted as current practice. Now, in actual fact, this was a substantial
change to working conditions, akin to adding extra hours without any payment or discussion – and in this nation (including at that time), such
changes could only be made by mutual agreement.
Now, there are also issues around fear of
losing one’s job if one doesn’t go along with this (which is coercion –or, if you prefer a blunter term, bullying),
and questions about customer expectations (which
have become extreme and unreasonable, and cause and perpetuate worker abuse in
many industries), but the key point I am making here is that the expectation
of extended availability was informal, not formal. Someone came
up with the idea that it would be required, and thus
started behaving as if it was required – which is the anticipatory
compliance of the first chapter of Mr Snyder’s book.
That is the sort of behaviour that
concerns me in too many people in their 30s and 40s.
(By
the way, I mostly still refuse to have extended availability [except for
specific circumstances – e.g., genuine, not manufactured deadlines, and genuine
emergencies, which do happen from time to time when providing utilities [e.g.,
pipe bursts, treatment plant odours, etc] and am p****d off with unions,
including mine, for having had their own little “anticipatory compliance” on
this issue, which has been so incredibly damaging to the life and wellbeing of
workers and their families.)
There are a couple of other chapters in Mr
Snyder’s book with useful lessons on this troubling behaviour ( Chapters Four {“Take responsibility for
the face of the world”] and Five [“Remember professional ethics”], and
there may be others when I finish reading the book, but I’ll leave this where
it is for now.
