Excerpt from On Being a Shit: Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups in Everyday Life
Significance of the Lesser Statuses
The testing of the preliminary theory provided evidence that terms considered and then discarded in favor of shit actually have a place in the theory. The terms prick, schmuck, and weasel fit the statuses of those who fail at being shits. Which status enactors earn depends upon the nature of their cover-ups and upon the nature of their unkind deeds.
In addition, partway into the analysis, I realized that the actions of the coal mine owners and their governmental confederates fit the word bastard, when it is used to mean callousness and entitlement. The mean-spiritedness of their cover-ups and the nature of their unkind deeds entitled them to this status.
Beside those involved in the coal mining cover-ups, many other enactors succeeded at being bastards, the lawyer Laura and her confederates, Jamie the scriptwriter, Don who was Ella’s lover, and Nick who was Cara’s lover. Each was callous. They believed themselves to be entitled to act as they did and to reap the benefits of their actions. They did whatever it took to cover-up.
Alternate Statuses Depends Upon Enactors
The people they dumped on, however, refused to buy into their constructions of reality. The actions of recipients bring about failures at being shits, but the actions of enactors determine which alternative statuses they achieve. Many stories show this, such as Don’s and Ella’s. When Ella refused to buy into Don’s cover-ups,
Don’s behaviors at first entitled him to status of bastard, with his final achievement that of the lowly weasel, a satisfying finale for readers who saw through Don the whole time and who rooted for Ella to do the same.
Cara, stunned by Nick’s refusal to answer any more questions, realized Nick was not who she thought he was. As she worked toward a new understanding of Nick’s character, the harshness of his actions convinced her that she had come to the end of the road with him.
Without Cara’s buy-in, Nick’s status became that of bastard — callous, unrepentant, and unaccountable. The flowery birthday card was an indicator that he also could be clueless about the effects of his actions. Nick in this instance was a True Believer of the bastard type.
Evidence Supports A Hierarchy of Enactors
Earlier, I had speculated that the statuses of shit, bastard, prick, schmuck, and weasel form a hierarchy, where being a shit is the highest status that enactors can achieve and weasel the lowest. When I first proposed this status hierarchy, I was in the midst of testing the preliminary theory, which did not account for what to call persons who fail at being shits.
I now have evidence that supports this speculation. I found many instances where enactors succeeded when recipients had buy-in, and other instances where recipients resisted buy-in and enactors achieved other statuses. The status of bastard might be the most common, followed by prick, schmuck, and weasel. I also found that the statuses enactors achieved depended upon their own actions.
Although I identified few schmucks, I believe this is a matter of perspective. James Frey, in many ways, fits the definition of schmuck, as I believe many other enactors do, including Nick and Jamie. Karl Rove could well fit the category of schmuck, especially when he claims that other people made him do it.
Figure 1, which is on page 59 and also in the Appendix, arranges these statuses in a hierarchy. Shit is at the pinnacle, symbolizing what an accomplishment that status is. Following shit in order are bastard, prick, and schmuck. Weasel is at the bottom of the hierarchy, signifying the lowly status the term designates.
Further research may refine this status hierarchy or could even refute it. All research findings, no matter how derived, are subject to modification when scientists identify new evidence. That in fact is how science proceeds—from conjecture, to testing, to modification or refutation, and reformulation, as previously discussed.
Evidence Supports Variety in the Lesser Statuses
Earlier, I had also conjectured that the lesser statuses could come in the same varieties as those of shit. I now have evidence that supports this speculation. For example, at the end of Quentins, Don was a weasel of the Reactor type. Jamie was a schmuck and weasel who also may have been a True Believer as well as Reactor. Sophie and Bill achieved the status of bastard of the Reactor type. Karl Rove was a Clever Fox to the end, but he also may be a weasel, schmuck, and prick. Karl once again hits the jackpot.
Indeed, the testing of the preliminary theory shows that the addition of the terms bastard, prick, schmuck, and weasel fit those who fail at being shits. What’s more, each of these statuses can also be Reactors, True Believers, or Clever Foxes. Only they determine these outcomes.
Finally, the application of the preliminary theory to sto-ries shows that enactors indeed can shift between being Reactors, True Believers, and Clever Foxes. They can also succeed at being shits at some points, but then also find that when recipients refuse buy-in, their own actions relegate them to the ranks of bastard, prick, schmuck, and weasel. These ranks can change depending upon their own actions. Recipients have the power to dethrone them from being shits, but their own actions determine the statuses they achieve.
Showing posts with label Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
New Types of Cover-Up
Excerpts from On Being a Shit: Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups in Everyday Life
This study began with the identification of such cover-ups as humor, withholding information, minimization, prevarication, duplicity, shaming, blaming, and name-calling. In conducting the analysis, I identified additional cover-ups including indignation, mockery, gaslighting, silence, cut-offs, threats to abandon, “I can’t recall,” “Mistakes were made,” and “What do you expect?”
Some Noteworthy Cover-Ups
Heather’s boyfriend was a master gaslighter. His slights of hand, mockery, and minimization led to his questioning of Heather’s values. How important is a coffee grinder? What really matters? He activated her hot buttons. Heather was undone. She could not match wits with this Clever Fox.
Acting hurt and innocent and then walking out in indignation are other tactics the preliminary theory did not anticipate. Don exemplified this when he chastised Ella for asking him if he still slept with his wife. He delivered the knockout blow when he stomped out of the house, with Ella running after him pleading for forgiveness. False hurt, indignation, attacking the other, threats of abandonment—cover-ups indeed. They work.
Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales used many variations of these tactics, which helped them to succeed at getting what they wanted for a long time, but in the end, they both resigned from office after months of pressure from many quarters to do so.
Cover-Ups as Protean
Cover-ups, like unkind deeds, are protean, meaning they continually change shape. Just when you think you have heard them all, creative enactors come up with new ones. For example, days before this book was going to press, I discovered a variation called “I want it both ways.”
Allen Raymond, a consultant for the Republican Party, served three months in a federal prison for jamming the phone lines of the Democratic get-out-the vote effort in the 2002 New Hampshire elections. On contract with the New Hampshire Republican party, Allen claimed that an executive of the Republican National Committee (RNC) asked him to jam the phone lines and someone from the New Hampshire Republican party gave him the phone numbers.
The executive was convicted in a lower court and acquitted on appeal. The RNC paid for his defense, but not for Allen’s. Allen said the Committee defended the other man because they “wanted him to keep his yap shut” about who was responsible for the dirty trick.
Allen pled guilty. He told the judge, “Your Honor, I did a bad thing. While what I did was outside my character. I take full responsibility for my actions.” Allen’s lawyer made an argument that Allen was not responsible. He said in court, “This was not Allen Raymond’s idea.” It was the RNC executive’s idea. The judge answered, “What about a personal moral compass?”
Bitter about the Committee’s failure to defend him, Allen complained that the Committee “not only threw me under the bus but then blamed me for getting run over.” With this statement and the statement of his attorney, Allen undermined his own declaration of full responsibility.
Allen did not keep his “yap” shut. In 2008, he published a book called How to Rig an Election. Like Bill in regard to Sophie, Allen may be motivated by revenge. On the other hand, if he contributes to electoral reform, he is doing a great service.
This study began with the identification of such cover-ups as humor, withholding information, minimization, prevarication, duplicity, shaming, blaming, and name-calling. In conducting the analysis, I identified additional cover-ups including indignation, mockery, gaslighting, silence, cut-offs, threats to abandon, “I can’t recall,” “Mistakes were made,” and “What do you expect?”
Some Noteworthy Cover-Ups
Heather’s boyfriend was a master gaslighter. His slights of hand, mockery, and minimization led to his questioning of Heather’s values. How important is a coffee grinder? What really matters? He activated her hot buttons. Heather was undone. She could not match wits with this Clever Fox.
Acting hurt and innocent and then walking out in indignation are other tactics the preliminary theory did not anticipate. Don exemplified this when he chastised Ella for asking him if he still slept with his wife. He delivered the knockout blow when he stomped out of the house, with Ella running after him pleading for forgiveness. False hurt, indignation, attacking the other, threats of abandonment—cover-ups indeed. They work.
Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales used many variations of these tactics, which helped them to succeed at getting what they wanted for a long time, but in the end, they both resigned from office after months of pressure from many quarters to do so.
Cover-Ups as Protean
Cover-ups, like unkind deeds, are protean, meaning they continually change shape. Just when you think you have heard them all, creative enactors come up with new ones. For example, days before this book was going to press, I discovered a variation called “I want it both ways.”
Allen Raymond, a consultant for the Republican Party, served three months in a federal prison for jamming the phone lines of the Democratic get-out-the vote effort in the 2002 New Hampshire elections. On contract with the New Hampshire Republican party, Allen claimed that an executive of the Republican National Committee (RNC) asked him to jam the phone lines and someone from the New Hampshire Republican party gave him the phone numbers.
The executive was convicted in a lower court and acquitted on appeal. The RNC paid for his defense, but not for Allen’s. Allen said the Committee defended the other man because they “wanted him to keep his yap shut” about who was responsible for the dirty trick.
Allen pled guilty. He told the judge, “Your Honor, I did a bad thing. While what I did was outside my character. I take full responsibility for my actions.” Allen’s lawyer made an argument that Allen was not responsible. He said in court, “This was not Allen Raymond’s idea.” It was the RNC executive’s idea. The judge answered, “What about a personal moral compass?”
Bitter about the Committee’s failure to defend him, Allen complained that the Committee “not only threw me under the bus but then blamed me for getting run over.” With this statement and the statement of his attorney, Allen undermined his own declaration of full responsibility.
Allen did not keep his “yap” shut. In 2008, he published a book called How to Rig an Election. Like Bill in regard to Sophie, Allen may be motivated by revenge. On the other hand, if he contributes to electoral reform, he is doing a great service.
Billy Pittman's Near Perfect Apology
Commentary on Accountability
Apologies have several characteristics: the wrong-doer makes a full account of the unkind deeds, takes responsi-bility for the unkind deeds, listens to the thoughts and feelings of persons they hurt, acknowledges the hurt the unkind deeds have caused, and seeks to make amends. If the person who is wronged does not want to make amends, the now repentant wrong-doer accepts this and goes on with life.
Billy Pittman, a football player for the Longhorns at the University of Texas, provided an almost perfect example of an apology. Pittman had broken NCAA rules when he borrowed a friend’s car during the summer of 2007. He said, “I’m really sorry. It was an honest mistake, and I’ll do everything I can to make up for it.”
What would have made the apology perfect would have been “I made a mistake. I’m really sorry. I’d do everything I can to make up for it.” Then, of course, he has to mend his ways and make up for it. Saying it was an honest mistake was just a little bit of self-justification.
The University’s Response
Borrowing the car threatened Billy’s status as an amateur athlete. The athletic department and the University of Texas held him accountable. The coach suspended him for three games. The University voluntarily reported the rule violation to the college athletic association, the NCAA.
Billy was on the spot. If he had not taken responsibility and apologized, he would have lost his place on the football team, his reputation would have been damaged, and he might have lost his chance for a professional football career. In some ways, he had few choices. Billy was a quick learner. He knew what he had to do.
The University was exemplary in its response to Billy‘s wrong-doing. The University and NCAA provided clear guidance to Billy on what he had to do to salvage his reputation and to keep on playing football.
Some Enactors Refuse Accountability
Unlike Billy, some enactors ignore pressure and refuse to acknowledge their unkind deeds. They choose instead to fabricate a string of cover-ups. Don, discussed in the chapter called Drama in Dublin, is an example. Even being arrested and hauled away by Dublin guards did not prompt him to acknowledge his unkind deeds and cover-ups.
When there is no pressure to reform and no apparent reward to do so, some enactors never admit they have acted like shits. Heather’s boyfriend, for example, had no other pressure than that which Heather exerted. He may even have had encouragement for his unkind deeds and cover-ups with his bar buddies. He never gave in. Heather did. This story is in the chapter called The Case of the Missing Coffee Grinder.
Nick only had pressure from Cara to contend with and apparently no conscience to prick him into accountability. Cara cut off contact with him while stating she would be available if he would come clean. He refused. This story is in the chapter called When a Man Wants Two Women.
Apologies have several characteristics: the wrong-doer makes a full account of the unkind deeds, takes responsi-bility for the unkind deeds, listens to the thoughts and feelings of persons they hurt, acknowledges the hurt the unkind deeds have caused, and seeks to make amends. If the person who is wronged does not want to make amends, the now repentant wrong-doer accepts this and goes on with life.
Billy Pittman, a football player for the Longhorns at the University of Texas, provided an almost perfect example of an apology. Pittman had broken NCAA rules when he borrowed a friend’s car during the summer of 2007. He said, “I’m really sorry. It was an honest mistake, and I’ll do everything I can to make up for it.”
What would have made the apology perfect would have been “I made a mistake. I’m really sorry. I’d do everything I can to make up for it.” Then, of course, he has to mend his ways and make up for it. Saying it was an honest mistake was just a little bit of self-justification.
The University’s Response
Borrowing the car threatened Billy’s status as an amateur athlete. The athletic department and the University of Texas held him accountable. The coach suspended him for three games. The University voluntarily reported the rule violation to the college athletic association, the NCAA.
Billy was on the spot. If he had not taken responsibility and apologized, he would have lost his place on the football team, his reputation would have been damaged, and he might have lost his chance for a professional football career. In some ways, he had few choices. Billy was a quick learner. He knew what he had to do.
The University was exemplary in its response to Billy‘s wrong-doing. The University and NCAA provided clear guidance to Billy on what he had to do to salvage his reputation and to keep on playing football.
Some Enactors Refuse Accountability
Unlike Billy, some enactors ignore pressure and refuse to acknowledge their unkind deeds. They choose instead to fabricate a string of cover-ups. Don, discussed in the chapter called Drama in Dublin, is an example. Even being arrested and hauled away by Dublin guards did not prompt him to acknowledge his unkind deeds and cover-ups.
When there is no pressure to reform and no apparent reward to do so, some enactors never admit they have acted like shits. Heather’s boyfriend, for example, had no other pressure than that which Heather exerted. He may even have had encouragement for his unkind deeds and cover-ups with his bar buddies. He never gave in. Heather did. This story is in the chapter called The Case of the Missing Coffee Grinder.
Nick only had pressure from Cara to contend with and apparently no conscience to prick him into accountability. Cara cut off contact with him while stating she would be available if he would come clean. He refused. This story is in the chapter called When a Man Wants Two Women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
