As we all know from brutal experience, the person who has the most nerve - or gall, or guts, or gumption or whatever - isn't always the one we most reliably depend on. Yes, there are some bold souls among us who do deliver exactly what they promise, and much more. And then there are those who boldly promise more than anyone else, and yet, somehow, deliver that much less. And yet for some reason - and seemingly against all odds - we may find ourselves giving these latter souls still more credence than anyone else. Sometimes even more responsibility. And authority. And even power. Why is not always clear. It may be that the bravado, the sheer audacity of their irresponsibility makes the areas in which they fail us seem that much less important. As in "Gosh, here I was thinking this was a pretty critical deadline; but could it be - given the sublime confidence and panache with which he's just blown it off - that it really wasn't so vital after all?"
That is why, more and more, it seems to me that the more a society commends and rewards arrogance - however undependable - the less patience, the less latitude and extenuation it's likely for have for those who are the opposite of arrogant, be they never so reliable. And even as it comes to rely on them more and more. Imagine a political, business and organizational culture that admires above all presumption, effrontery, chutzpah. I.e., a culture that, despite the, let us say?, repeated inferiority of your actions and your choices, consistently ratifies your sense of your own superiority (your intrinsic rightness or misunderstoodness or persecutedness or whatever). Such a social climate can hardly help but disrespect the opposite kind of person. And that no matter how much lip service it may pay to a sidelined and compartmentalized humility. In such a world there can be, in practice, no one more disliked and dismissed, no one more condescended to and despised than one who is modest and unpresuming; who is patient and prudent; who sees not just the ingeniousness but the problem in the solution, the impermanence in the victory, the question in the answer. Even as he consistently comes through for us, or "delivers the goods." And all, or mostly, because he lacks the imperturbable self-confidence of our arrogant hero.
God save us, then, from a state of affairs in which "reality" is, or is not, more or less exactly what the most arrogant among us, the most audacious and blithely dismissive think it is. And say it is. With the rest of us somehow going along with it, or even getting on board. Because after all, if their position wasn't "realistic," how could they have ever succeeded in convincing us? Or even conning us? And thereby "making it all happen"?
No comments:
Post a Comment