Sans Fig Leaf
w
"Conversely"
27 February, 2004
It has been observed that the opposite of a profound truth is often another profound truth. I have only recently begun to realize that the opposite of a bad idea is also, often, a bad idea.
For example, I recently ran across a request for advice. A young woman had told the guy she had been dating for a couple of years that she planned to call their relationship quits on a specific date (a few months in the future), because she felt their relationship wasn't going anywhere. Boyfriend bought ring, proposed marriage, moved in. A few months later, boyfriend confessed that he proposed in a panic at losing her, and thought they should postpone the actual wedding until they were both certain this was the right thing. Young woman's dilemma: how does will she know in the future how to spot a guy who would "betray her" this way?
There are plenty of bad ideas active in this situation. The not-so- passive-aggressive threat that the young woman laid on her guy, to begin with. Come on, really, "Just wanted you to know, for your information, I'm willing to keep dating you, letting you take me to dinner and so forth, for the next four months, but because I don't think you're serious enough about the relationship, at the end of that time we're quits." Is there anyone who doesn't hear that as, "If you want to keep me, you have to prove it, and soon!" The next bad idea is the notion that a proposal made under duress is valid proof of the seriousness of his intentions. Then, when the guy recognizes that he made the proposal under duress, and wants to talk about it, she incorrectly thinks of that as a betrayal. Wrong, betrayal would be for him to realize his mistake, but not bring it to her attention, and start making plans to skip out without any discussion or consultation.
It's possible that he's just gotten cold feet. It's even possible that he proposed fully intending to change the terms later, but we can't assume that from the evidence before us. And even if it is true, the whole duress thing at least means that they're both hurling stones from similar glass houses.
A proposal of marriage does not prove "utter devotion." Conversely, a postponement or withdrawal of a proposal does not prove "utter betrayal."
More troubling is the tendency of people to react to bad situations by adopting extreme policies to make certain the bad thing never happens again. For example, years ago I was one of the people discussing and finalizing the bylaws for a new organization, a lesbian and gay chorus. The chorus had been formed, in part, as an alternative for another organization that was going through a painful implosion. The "refugees" of the other chorus felt that there were several fundamental flaws in that group's structure that caused the problems.
One of those perceived flaws was that one of the most persuasive members of the governing board was also the significant other of the conductor. Therefore, some of the refugees wanted the by-laws to prohibit partners of anyone already serving in some capacity in the organization from being on the board or serving on committees. When someone asked what, exactly, would constitute being a partner, it was suggested that any sort of dating or "seeing each other" relationship could potentially disqualify a candidate. It was suggested that if such a relationship developed or was discovered after the fact, that a meeting of the entire membership should be convened to vote on whether the situation required the removal of one or both persons.
This solution, if it had been allowed to go forward, would have been worse than the cure. Someone would have had to be constantly watching for possibly flirtatious behavior between committee members and such. The organization would have been forced to hold all-member meetings practically every week. It would have been impossible for the organization to get anything done, because folks would constantly be leaving or forcibly removed everytime someone acted on the thought, "hey, that guy I've been sitting next to all quarter seems like a nice guy. I wonder if he likes sushi?"
The solution was reached by misunderstanding the problem, then leaping to the conclusion that doing the opposite would solve the problem. The problem wasn't that one board member had a conflict of interest, the problem was that there were no processes in place to balance conflicts of interest.
Assuming the conflict of interest was the problem. A single board member can't derail an entire organization on his or her own. It takes other problems and some complacency on the part of people not making trouble. I wasn't part of the previous organization, but I can infer there were many other problems. The fact that a number of refugees thought that it was reasonable to have a blanket ban on board and committee members being romantically involved, is clear evidence of that.
When something bad happens to us, it's important that we look at the big picture, and identify all the contributing factors. Not just the most obvious or the first one that comes to mind. We also have to remember that none of us can predict the future. It simply isn't possible to prevent every problem. Trying to do so usually creates worse troubles than those we fear.