Power and Strength

A long time ago, when I was still in the Army, I got to talking with some of my fellow officers, and we soon wound up discussing terrorism. Someone claimed that the Russians were extremely tough on terrorists, that (for example) if you commit a terrorist act they will go after you and your entire family.

I have absolutely no idea if this is true or not, but I brought it up because it captures certain... how should I put it?

Beliefs?

Misconceptions?

Glamorizations?

There's numerous subtext going on here, and some of the subtext has been going on for a looooong time.

There's the belief that brute force is a sign of strength, that we're too 'soft', 'effeminate', etc... and so there's a bit of admiration there, for those hard-a$$es willing to brutally harm entire families in pursuit of their goals. (I said this has been going on for a long time, 'cause I remember reading something on Roman history, and this perception that they were growing 'soft' and 'weak', and it was strange to realization the whole notion of that civilization weakens men has been around for a very long time. Ummm, that's not how it's really put, but I can't remember the exact wording right now and I don't want to stop writing in order to figure it out.)

Sort of like a common 'myth' I heard growing up, where 'tough on crime' people seemed to admire Middle Eastern governments where thieves could have a hand cut off.

The Russian one bothered me, though, because I do what I normally do. I think about what I'd think/feel/etc if I was in that position.

Let's say I was a relative of someone who joined a group intending to commit a terrorist act, and the Russians found out and punished the entire family. If that were my sister or brother, well, if they truly took it out on the family I'd probably be dead. So let's say it was a cousin, and the Russians arrested and/or killed my aunt, uncle, and two or three of my cousins.

I would probably be furious (and scared), because I'd know that four or five of those people were absolutely no threat, completely innocent. And given what I know of human behavior, 9/10 would probably be cowed enough to just keep their heads down and say nothing (even though they'd probably hate the perpetrators, the harsh response would keep them from taking too many risks)... but that tenth person?

That tenth person is going to be passionately motivated, they're going to hate, and they're going to be even more of a threat then whoever or whatever got caught up in revolutionary fervor in the first place.

(As usual, take this with a grain of salt. I have no hard and fast statistics on whether it's truly 1/10. It's just a rule of thumb used to make a point... )

In other words, that harsh show of power may temporarily solve a problem, but it sows the seeds for further problems somewhere down the line. It also sort of sucks you in, in that once you start responding like that the solution to further problems often appears to be even more brutality, which also breeds even more anger and resentment, and determined opposition, and so there's a constant undercurrent of unrest that just takes the right (or wrong) circumstances to break through.

Same thing with people's admiration for those lone rulers... kings, presidents, dictators, what-have-you. There's an appealing simplicity to being able to just say "make it so", and have everyone obey. Not that, historically, it ever really worked like that... kings always had to deal with factions (whether it's powerful nobles willing to take over at the slightest sign of weakness, or guilds, or whatever), but the myth and the glamour and the appeal is to be the person who has enough power that they can just speak a command and everyone will jump to make it happen.

I know from my own experiences leading people that it can get very exhausting trying to get people on board with whatever it is you're trying to do. It's hard to be patient when they have questions (and more questions, and more questions)... and, of course, some of them are just asking questions to drag things out so they don't have to go to work any sooner. But dealing with that is just part of the job, and if you don't like it... if you're tempted to just bulldoze over all of it, and take it as opposition (when many of them really do have legitimate questions, and will work harder/better if you answer them) then you probably shouldn't be in a leadership position, tbqh.

I understand how, especially in times of turmoil, people think a strong leader can somehow help provide some sort of stability. It's part of why it's no coincidence that Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the English Civil War (and the challenges/problems with that are something I covered a long time ago, so maybe I'll post a refresher some time in the future). It's also part of why Saddam Hussein's brutal rule starting looking better and better as the situation in Iraq degenerated further.

It goes hand in hand with the way people seem to have an entirely different standard by which they judge the movers and shakers of an era. I don't know how much of that is the whole "he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" sort of sentiment, vs how much is tied to the belief that 'good guys never win', wherein we think anyone trying to do the 'right' thing is going to lose to the bastards out there willing to play dirty.

I've been thinking a bit about that, actually. Thinking about Cardinal Richelieu, the famous French statesman. (Okay, and a clergyman... but this was back where it was common to encourage the sons who couldn't inherit to join the church, and often they gained political power... and from an outsider's perspective many seemed a bit more worldly than one would expect in today's day and age.)

He's the one who realized that a unified Germany could threaten French superiority on the continent, and played the political game 'well' in order to ensure his country dominated.

I say 'well', because after two bloody world wars France and Germany are now allies, and iirc Germany followed the French lead... though those sorts of things can always change at a moment's notice, and I'm not sure if that's currently true any more. Still, I have to wonder... could they have achieved that state sooner if Cardinal Richelieu hadn't been afraid, and had instead tried to encourage and develop Germany sooner? (And could we have avoided those two bloody world wars in the process?)

It's like... 'divide and conquer' is famous for a reason, and it's not an uncommon strategy when someone's afraid of the strength of another.

But... when I think of my own experiences, when I think of the things that give me warm feelings, a sense of loyalty, and the desire to work for someone...

Such strategies don't make sense at all. There's a genuine joy in helping someone achieve their full potential, and most of the people who receive such support feel the same way. There's a sense of connection, and it tends to build trust, and loyalty, and other things.

And there's the flipside, the anger and resentment when that doesn't happen. When people seem afraid of your potential to outshine them, and so sabotage your attempts to succeed. Or the way people start thinking selfishly when they see you're doing so, the way so many people now are willing to hop jobs... as corporations have proven over and over again that they don't really care about you.

Some time ago, I read a book that discussed the Soviet Union's spying efforts... it might have been The Sword and the Shield? It's interesting, because it gave me the impression that the United States had been losing the spying war... over and over again the Soviets appeared to do a better job of finding our spies than we did theirs. And yet...

And yet, the Soviet Union is the one that fell apart.

In some ways, I think too much focus on brute strength makes a nation (or organization) somewhat brittle. After all, there's all sorts of different ways to show power. (I know, I know... people talk about 'soft' power all the time, and maybe they even have a definition for what they mean by it.)

A baby has power - whether it's humans, or kittens, or puppies, or any other young animal. Their helplessness, the larger head/eyes of childhood, all of these tend to make people want to help. And people will go above and beyond to help babies.

That person you admire, who's opinion you seek out? They have power... and if it's in a specific area, like advice on fixing your car or repairing a wall, they have expert power, though that power probably doesn't just come from expertise... you may know someone who's just as much of an expert who's an a-hole, and you'd only go to them as a last resort.

There's a lot more to building a strong nation than brute force... and part of what struck me about the Soviet attempts at spying was that they had a culture where people were afraid to stand out. If you stood out too much, you got into trouble... so better to pretend to be a little dumber, a little less capable. Be just like everyone else.

It's hard to measure what sort of impact that can have, of course, but I think any organization that has such toxic disincentives is going to be at a disadvantage against the organizations that nurture and celebrate talent.

I feel like this post switched gears rather rapidly, but I'm about done typing for the day, so I'll just summarize the main point -

Don't think that harsh brutality and/or a willingness to ignore social norms about what's 'good' necessarily means someone is strong, or even powerful.

Mentoring

https://hbr.org/2017/04/mentor-people-who-arent-like-you?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

How to Change the World - A Theory

Lunch-time edition:


I sometimes ponder the connection between the micro and macro levels.





That's a broad statement, but true.  What's the connection, for example, between your economic activity as on a small scale (microeconomics) and economic activity on a large scale (macroeconomics).  Or between physics at a size smaller than Planck's constant, versus Newtonian physics at the level we see every day?  The macro, after all, is made up of the micro (again...tiny grains of sand that add up to one big sand dune).






And I think of that, sometimes, as applied to changing the world.  You can try to change in broad brushstrokes.  Focus on getting mosquito nets, for example, to reduce the impact of malaria in Africa.  Or focus on a more micro level, like volunteering as a mentor with Big Brothers Big Sisters.






Why choose one over the other?  I can't help thinking that a mentorship program like BBBS is more...in depth.  When I think of how people change, its normally because of long term and daily interactions.  There's no silver bullet, no shortcuts.  True change comes from the type of involvement you have with your family and friends.  I believe that's one of the underlying reasons why research repeatedly shows that economic segregation is bad.  Bad for rich, bad for poor...bad in part because there are few role models of success for the poor when all they know is other poor people.  And there's a lack of understanding on the part of the rich, when their only experience with poverty is to come sweeping in with charity.






Having that level of interaction, that type of involvement, is slow.  Time consuming.  You can only help one person or one family at a time, because who has the energy (or capability) to have that kind of relationship with hundreds?  Big Brothers Big Sisters is a great program, yet they struggle to find enough mentors. 


Funny enough, it's also some of the most rewarding experiences available.  Being a Big Sister is a bit like being an aunt, or other caring relative.  All those studies on happiness discuss the importance of having a caring connection with the people around us.  Family.  Friends.  Mentors and mentees.  This is what makes life worth living...and yet so many people are too busy to support it, and would rather just give a donation. 






I do see the appeal of working on a large scale.  It can seem more satisfying, in that you can help so many more people all at once.  But there are dangers to that, as well.  It can be more impersonal.  De-humanizing.  I think some of the criticisms about foreign aid are, in part, because it's so bureaucratic.  Disempowering.  You don't get the sense that they care about you, as an individual.  Or that they are giving you a choice, a say in your own life.  It can come across as patronizing, an "I know better than you what will fix you (and boy, do you need fixing.)"


In my own life, I've travelled so much that I feel more connected to the macro (i.e. national politics, world events) than I do to my own personal micro (i.e. the events affecting the town I live in.  Or even my state.)  Yet all those national events - like our upcoming presidential election - are made up of any number of micro events.  The local political structure that tries to get out the vote.  The local politics and history that determine our voting districts.  I'm more likely to know the presidential candidates than the candidates running for my state representative, or mayor.


But I digress.  The point I was getting at is that in-depth, micro activities (if they have enough support) can lead to some truly amazing macro changes.  And that maybe, just maybe, it's better to focus on growing and nurturing those small changes instead of trying to make a sweeping big change.


Stay tuned for part II.