|
 Peg's
Polemic
Every
month, philosopher Peg Tittle casts off the calm, measured and qualified
style of her profession to deliver her opinionated and impassioned
column, exclusively for the TPM philosophy café...
Number
37. The Political is Personal
About
twenty years ago, someone declared the personal to be political.
It's been a valuable insight. Many of us now routinely interpret
personal interaction politically: we try to understand the influence
of race, class, and gender; we try to determine the nature of the
power differentials.
I
suggest that the converse is an equally valuable insight: the political
is personal.
I
think we often imagine 'politics', broadly defined as 'decision-making
by those in power', to proceed according to carefully considered
principles and policies. Decisions are thought to be well-informed,
conscious choices. We may not agree with the decisions, but we recognize
them as decisions nonetheless.
I'd
like to suggest, however, that the outcomes are seldom 'by decision';
most of the time, they're 'by default'. From the local shop hiring
a secretary to the corporation hiring an advertising firm to the
government appointing a Supreme Court judge - it may appear that
resumes and recommendations are carefully considered and compared,
but I think more often it's just a matter of 'you go for who you
like.' It's 'the personal' that makes the difference.
That's
why interviews are so important. They're personal. Oh sure, the
masquerade is that the questions allow a finer appraisal of merit;
but those questions could be given to shortlisted applicants with
the request that a written response be submitted. The truth is the
interviewers are trying to figure out if they like you, if they
can get along with you, if they want you to be in the office with
them every day. It's personal, through and through.
Oh,
they may not know it; I dare say most people in positions of power
are not that conscious. In fact, they'll probably justify their
choice on grounds of merit. Perhaps the more honest will simply
admit they've 'got a good feeling about this one'. Which is why
it's less a decision, a deliberated choice, than it is a default,
a failure to act, a failure to deliberate.
(Perhaps
men in particular, having relegated the private, the personal, the
subjective, to women, cannot and will not see, let alone consider,
its role in their own behaviour. And if they deny the psychological
[individual], they must also deny the social [individuals in groups].
So they are ignorant of, and often derisive of, any mention of psychological
factors - that's too personal. They deny the self, the ego, the
pride that motivates them to obey orders without question, that
keeps them from 'backing down'. This in particular has serious consequences:
to live without the possibility of revision - no wonder they seldom
get it right.)
Consider
also the importance of networking - making 'friends', by any other
name. People know that's the way in - to offers, to opportunities.
People ask 'someone they know'; they don't advertise. And if you
aren't someone people know, you won't be asked. Knocking on the
door won't work - no one's there to hear you. Having a key won't
work - there's no lock. The door only opens from the inside. They
call you and when you show up, they'll be there to open the door
for you.
If
you think about it, this notion of 'the political is personal' makes
sense of a lot. The tennis court, the golf course, and the after-work
pub - we all know that's where the deals are made. Not literally,
of course: the contract to be signed is back at the office. And
often not even directly: the contract may not even be discussed;
it may not even exist yet. But if and when it does, it'll go to
good ole' Jack. We like Jack. We're personal with Jack.
That's
why Joan won't get the contract. Oh she's not excluded from the
Board room. She's not even excluded from the clubs anymore. But
still, a man and a woman can't 'just' be friends. They can't get
personal. (Well, they can, but only in a way that would exclude
her altogether.) Race and class are as high a hurdle to friendship.
And
if you think about it, this is a scary idea. Not just the cronyism
part of favour. Think of the other side: the foeism part of disfavour.
Maybe 'the government' makes cuts to 'education' because the Prime
Minister doesn't like the Minister of Education - they go way back
and there's no way he's going to increase funding, in fact, nah
nah, I'm gonna decrease your budget. Maybe President X really declares
war on Country Y because he doesn't much like President Y - maybe
President Y insulted him, and President X could've just resorted
to economic sanctions, but his ego is involved, this is personal!
(So
should we be voting for the most likeable person? Well maybe. If
the other guy likes our guy, he'll trade with us. And he won't come
over and kill us. Social skills is all. I suddenly understand the
value of PR, all those lunches and dinners I thought should've been
negotiation meetings. This doesn't necessarily preclude voting for
the smartest person, the most experienced person, or the person
with the most integrity. But it probably does. Think back - how
many friends did the smart kid have? And standing up for the right
thing, rocking the boat, seldom makes you a nice guy. So, next election,
who do we want? "Norm!")
.
Peg's
Polemic will next be updated mid April 2004
Previous
polemics
36.
35.
34.
33.
32.
31.
30.
29.
28.
27.
26.
25.
24.
23.
22.
21.
20.
19.
18.
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
|
