SO MANY, SO FEW
[A friend recommended Baltasar Gracian's The Art of Worldly Wisdom. Gracian was a Spanish scholar of the 17th century who set forth a series of maxims for ethical action. He also wrote A Pocket Mirror for Heroes, another source of food for my thinking. This column was inspired by A Pocket Mirror for Heroes.]
One of Gracian's essays reads, in its entirety, "A huge crowd, few people." I've thought about this and the multiple meanings one could attach to it. I've concluded that he means that crowds take on a personality of their own, that the people in a crowd lose their individuality and function solely as part of the crowd. Literally, in a crowd there are few people because the relevant person is the crowd. Is that a good or a bad thing?
Looked at another way, do we want to be individuals with our own thoughts, desires, needs, wants, our own personalities, or do we want to be a faceless part of a group, existing only to serve the group? To my mind, the answer is clear. To exist, we must exist as individuals. We can be part of a group, we can participate in attaining group goals, we can help people as part of a group, but we can't subordinate our individuality to the group. To the extent the group requires us to cease to be individuals, we must leave the group. I cite the mobs we have seen engage in such vicious, destructive behavior as examples of group action and group thinking gone wrong.
This is a continuing practical problem. Almost every group has members who look for "team players", for those who will ignore their own personalities for the benefit of the group, as defined by the leaders of the group. These people reject any change in group goals or ways of doing things, sometimes to aggrandize themselves, sometimes in a sincere belief that they know best, sometimes because the group wouldn't function without such leadership. Whatever the reason, we have to ignore them and make up our own minds. We must be allowed to set our own rules for ourselves, set our own limits, do what's right for ourselves. In fact, I would reverse the thinking of those who seek team players. If the group doesn't serve my needs, I don't want to be part of the group.
Even groups with the most benign or laudatory goals can fall victim to this defect. Even groups sincerely trying to do good can reject the thinking of anyone who disagrees with the prevailing way of thinking. The desire of an individual to do good through the group can repress ideas that would help the group, advance its goals more effectively, perhaps do good in more areas.
Fortunately, the problem is to some degree self-correcting. The groups that are the problem will soon reject the individualists. But what of those who want to be acting as individuals and for whatever reason subordinate their desires to the will of the group? What of those who are pressured into following the will of the group, whether by social pressure or outright intimidation? The only advice I can offer is try to avoid such groups and, should you become a part of such a group, withdraw as soon as possible. I recognize that it takes awhile to recognize the group and that sometimes the longer we remain a part of such a group the harder it is to withdraw. The only cure is to think about our own goals and act accordingly. We may temporarily lose the social support of a group but we'll be better in the long term.
5-20-02
[My shoulder continues to improve. This week will be the doctor's examination to decide whether I'm ready for more activity. I'm hoping he'll say I am but that I could still use more therapy. I'll keep you posted.]
Home Page 2002 Archives 2001 Archives 2000 Archives 1999 Archives