Have you ever watched a hockey game in which one
player drove his stick into the groin of an opponent without attracting notice
of an official followed immediately by that “victim’s” slash of the perpetrator
prompting a referee whistle and an immediate penalty?
Retaliation, reprisal, any act of pay-back, and
revenge is so prevalent that many of the initial acts go under-reported and
clearly under-remembered given the disproportionality of the reprisal. On the
global political stage, Al Qaeda terrorizes New York on 9-11 (that’s 2001) and
retaliatory wars continue to this day, June 21, 2019. Eighteen years of
retaliation, with the accumulated loss of human lives numbering 500,000 (Iraq
and Afghanistan) could well be considered disproportionate to the initial
event.
Retaliatory acts, especially committed by those
charged with public trust and accountability, often far exceed the proportions
of the precipitating event. While we can agree that revenge seems to be part of
our human hard wiring, it does seem significant that the representatives of
“order” are inordinately enmeshed in excessive force, limited if any due
process, and manipulation of the ‘facts’ in their pursuit of their own
innocence.
Police screaming at a mother and her children,
ordering them out of their vehicle by shouting vulgar and demeaning words and
thereby terrorizing a four-year-old child, because that child had “taken” a
doll from the shelves of an adjacent store, is just one of many recent examples
of retaliatory police abuse. Of course, the mother and her family are black and
statistics prove blacks are far more frequent targets of law enforcement
retaliation than whites in the U.S.
Similarly, employer retaliation for worker
whistle-blowing, now ranks at the top of the list of frequent legal cases in workplace law. We have a culture, formerly
demonstrated to be dominated by the warrior/victim conflict between men/women,
now characterized by an additional application of this archetypal conflict: employer
as warrior versus worker as victim. Similarly, the warrior archetype is readily
and appropriately applied to the Republican Senate majority, retaliating
against the bottom layers of the economic, cultural, racial and educated
demographics.
Retaliation, too, can be inferred from the results of
the 2016 presidential election, in which angry white men, mostly without
university educations, put the current president in office. What were these men
retaliating against?
The short answer includes the erosion of jobs, income,
dignity and political status resulting from the amorphous multi-headed monster
including: high tech, tax policies that incentivize moving jobs off-shore for
slave wages, freedom from environmental protections and the absence of labour
rights and responsibilities. Probably also implicit in their vote is their own
unleashed racism, following the two-term presidency of the first black
president. (See: Malcolm Gladwell’s moral licensing: after doing something
virtuous and boosting our own self-image, we let ourselves indulge in more
unseemly ones) It can be argued that this moral licensing is just another form
of retaliation, given license, by a one-time “act of virtue.”
Iran is now complicit in complex acts of retaliation
against the U.S. withdrawal from the Nuclear Accord and the imposition of
muscular sanctions by firing on two oil tankers and shooting down an American
$100M drone in the Strait of Hormuz. And, predictably, prompted by Iranian
retaliation, the U.S. is now actively engaged in further retaliation to
“counter” the retaliation by the Iranians.
Just this week, the Republican Senate voted to block
the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, the president’s geopolitical ally, in
retaliation for the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Kashoggi by the Saudi
leaders. That act of murder itself is
arguably another act of retaliation for the criticism of the Saudi regime by
one of the regime’s most vocal critics, in a highly respected American daily,
the Washington Post.
Retaliation begets retaliation… begets retaliation…
begets retaliation…..in both the political and the personal realms of our
lives. In spite of the demise of the Soviet Union, the Cold War “enemy” status
continues unabated in the U.S. with respect to the Kremlin, incubating the
“Mueller Report” into “foreign interference in the presidential election of
2016…leading to the indictment of Russian operatives, the imprisonment of trump
campaign officials and the continuing investigation of the potential commitment
of “high crimes and misdemeanours” (Impeachment Inquiry) on the part of the
occupant of the Oval Office.
Politics as currently practiced particularly in the
U.S. has become a melodramatic series of
retaliations, tragically leading to the erosion of the American “leadership”
mantle in sustaining the world order of the last three quarters of a century.
Considered as a restrained response to an offensive
act, reprisal finds unlimited expressions in the political, the corporate and
the legal world. Generally, there is a buffer of “judges” or objective actors
between the two opponents, rendering limited actions more feasible, more likely
and, of course, more preferred.
On the personal level, however, revenge is a much more
subjective, impassioned and direct “act” perpetrated by an individual who
considers his/her reputation, honour, dignity, respect and even perhaps safety
to have been infringed. Obviously, the higher the level of emotions, the
greater the likelihood of acts of revenge. And when these acts occur under an
umbrella of an organization, or a public law enforcement, when the intense
emotional cauldron encounters the “official” establishment, there is an
collision of models: the legal and the personal.
It is not surprising, for example, that town and city
law enforcement officials literally hate to get a call from a “domestic
violence” occurrence. These are all “he-said-she-said” incidents, perhaps
stretched over weeks, months or even years. Ferreting out the core issues, the
motives and the concomitant charges is a task worthy of the most highly trained
‘sherlock holmes’ investigators. He retaliates because she has been unfaithful
or precisely vice-versa. She retaliates because he has been fired, or persists
in drinking, or gambling, or an addiction to video games.
And once again, when the personal and the
organizational intersect, for example when the personal relationships that
inevitably arise inside an organizational environment then all “systems” of order
and hierarchical administration seem to wilt. Not incidentally, their
inevitability is assured by human nature, and is not and will not be retrained
by their banishment. In fact, it is both reasonable and credible to posit that
the “rules” banishing personal relationships inside organizations, including
those based on mutual consent are a perverse provocation of the continuing
incidence of these relationships. The argument for those rules usually takes
the form of a “power imbalance” based on the implicit trust in the “authority”
figure and the implicit “inferiority” of the other party. What the rules do not
wish to acknowledge is the legitimacy of authentic, responsible and
comprehensible relationships between consenting adults (of both genders, and of
same genders) within an administrative, hierarchical structure, between those
charged with responsibility and those as colleagues, clients, students,
co-workers.
Naturally, the adult-child model appropriately
recognizes the innocence and the responsibility of the adult to “protect” the
child in all circumstances from any hint of inappropriate behaviour on the part
of the adults. However, to extend that adult-child model to the adult-adult
world, especially when it addresses the adult male-adult female encounter is a
stretch too far. That stretch assumes that, by nature, the female is “weaker” and more “vulnerable” and
the male, by definition is “stronger” and more “dominant.” Nothing could be
more divorced from both the facts and the healthy implications of the future
ideal of equality of the genders.
To posit that all females are “inferior” in any
supervisor (male)-supervisee (female) relationship, (the reverse is also true)
is simply unwarranted. Adult females are every bit as competent, responsible
and integrous to make authentic decisions around the implications of any human
relationship as are any men. Similarly, adult males, even in positions of
responsibility are also competent, responsible and integrous to enter into
relationships with their female colleagues, regardless of the apparent “power
imbalance.”
It could well be worthwhile to require a measure of
disclosure to the organization of the existence and/or termination of such
relationships within organizations. However, both the secrecy and the presumption
of “weakness” stereotypically of the worker to the supervisor, regardless of
the gender of each render a perpetuation of both the curtailment of integrity
and the presumption of a gender inequality that does not comport with the
authentic equality of men and women, irrespective of their hierarchical and
organizational status.
So, adults who consent to relationships, cannot and
must not be permitted, by law or by cultural convention, to resort to reprisals
for their decisions even if those relationships are terminated, irrespective of
the agent of the termination. It is long past time when, for example our
culture accepted the profound truth that a termination of a relationship
(whether married or common law, between same or different genders) is not
“caused” by the “third party”. The dissolving relationship was dissolving long
before the “third party” arrived. The “dumped” party’s invariable penchant for
retaliation has to be regarded not as either normal or acceptable, but as
tragic and self-sabotaging. Like the referee who missed that “shot to the
groin” and caught the victim’s retaliatory slash, the cultural response needs
to shift its focus from the retaliatory act to the initial act.
In the case of the broken relationship, the act (s) of
retaliation by the dumped party must be given barely token acknowledgement and
certainly not respect and honour by those in authority. Such retaliation has to
be considered under the rubric of the motive, rendered toothless, unless and
until it constitutes physical or fiscal harm and then it has to be prosecuted
for its legal, ethical contraventions.
We have to take significant steps to transform our
perceptions of those who commit acts that we consider illegal, immoral and
unethical. To start with a finite and highly defined “charge” rather than a
lens of tolerance, compassion, empathy and a diligent exploration of the
background of the “hurt” that has been experienced by the person in question is
a cultural act of sabotage. In fact, such a perspective breeds additional
empowerment of a disproportionate “authority”…and social and cultural “super
ego” as an embodiment of deep and debilitating social and cultural fear.
It is precisely that deep-seated and debilitating fear
that is at the root of the social and cultural and political power imbalance in
the macro, mega, meta and historic landscape of the human narrative. Fear of
the loss of control, itself, resides in almost if not all, public decisions,
public legislation, social and cultural norms and clearly religious morality
and ethics.
This starting place is not only unsustainable; it is a
threat to civilization. Rather than enculturating a society of open and
responsible and self-respecting selves, so that we are also open and
responsible and respecting of the “others” who share the planet, we are
incubating a cauldron of distrust, disrespect, dishonour and presumed
abuse..and then growing an army of “thought” and “action” and relationship
police to keep things in order.
And how is that
working for us?