Fear’s Veil: Decoding the Leadership Mystique


“You’re getting a detention for that,” were the scariest words we could hear between fifth grade and eighth grade. To avoid hearing that from a teacher, the principle, or any of the other authority figures who stalked the halls of my school, I walked straight lines, stood as straight as I could, and I didn’t respond to neighbors who whispered something funny that required a rejoinder. We were not only scared, we were terrified to the point of anxiety attacks when the teacher would give us the pre-detention eyeball. 

A detention required us to spend one half-hour after school. Thirty minutes. You might think that serving a mere thirty minutes after school would lead an overwhelming majority of us to think, “Hey, that wasn’t so bad after all.” No, it was so terrifying that some of us had nightmares about being caught in the act, the teacher writing out the detention, and the din of silence that followed with everyone staring, looking away, and staring again. Thinking back, it’s almost funny to think how powerful the culture of fear was, but we all knew it, and we all participated in it in our own individual ways. 

The tradition of forcing a student to stay after school, as a punishment for bad behavior was not new, or unique, to us. This punishment has probably been handed out for hundreds of years, the world over. It was also not unusual for us to fear getting in trouble in grade school, nor was it unprecedented that the kids in my grade school were absolutely terrified. This article isn’t about the silly effort of trying to suggest that our experience in grade school was worse than yours, better, or any different. We’re far more interested in the culture of fear that some institutions, such as my grade school, instituted to modify behavior.    

As scary as our principal was, and Mary Jane Meyer (aka Mrs. Meyer) was as scary, and as angry, as any individual I’ve met in all the decades sense. You might suggest that she thought she had to be to keep the hundreds of grade-school-aged kids in line.

“And if you just happened to catch her tending to her garden on some sunny day, she was probably a sweet, elderly woman.”

I just can’t picture it. I can’t picture her being gracious, warm, or even smiling. I’m sure she was quite pleasant to certain people, but I can’t picture it, and I don’t think any of my fellow students who attended this grade school during her reign of terror could either.  

Mrs. Meyer provided us a more tangible fear of God, and she was the wizard behind the curtain who orchestrated the culture of fear we knew. If we messed around in class, our teacher might scold us. If that wasn’t enough, she could threaten and/or give us a detention. That was enough for an overwhelming majority of us, but there were a few, and aren’t there always a few, for whom that wasn’t enough. For them, there was the ever-present threat of being sent to Mrs. Meyer’s office. That was enough for just about everyone else.

As scary as she was, however, Mrs. Meyer couldn’t have created the level of fear we knew on her own. She delegated much of the responsibility to her teachers, but they couldn’t have terrified us to the degree that some of us had anxiety issues, and others had such horrible nightmares they couldn’t sleep at night. For that level of fear, the institution needed compliance, our compliance. It needed our participation, and our promulgation of the culture that suggested that getting a detention was the most awful thing that could ever happened to a human being. No matter what they did to establish this climate, it wouldn’t have been half as effective as it was if we didn’t participate and fortify it. We did that to ourselves.   

“Did you hear that Gretchen and Marla got detentions?” someone would say in conspiratorial whisper.

“No way! For what?” No matter what the conspiratorial whisperer said there, the gossip mill spun the threads out to ultimately characterize the alleged perpetrator as the most horrible person of the day, and they often had a difficult time recovering their reputation in the aftermath.

When we approached one of the pariahs to get their perspective on what happened, they usually broke down like a politician in the midst of a career-ending scandal. Some tried to maintain a strong façade, but most couldn’t. Their defense usually devolved to those scared, uncontrollable tears. We empathized, because we knew firsthand the idea that nothing this bad had ever happened to them before.

It was our fault that she felt that way, because when she’d walk down the aisle to receive her detention, she felt our eyes on her, and she heard our whispers. The minute she turned around, we’d turn away and go silent. When it came to defending herself against the mob, she’s lie, obfuscate, try to shift the blame, and try anything and everything she could to salvage her reputation. We empathized here too, because what else are you going to do? 

We did more damage to her than the teacher, the principal, or any of our other authority figures could to demonize her, the detention of the day. We did it to ourselves. We policed our own and promulgated the culture of fear that surrounded the detention.

The idea that we cultivated their culture of fear wasn’t apparent to me in the moment, of course, because I was too young to grasp such complicated concepts, but it was crystallized in the form of a transfer student named Billy Kifferly. I knew Billy Kifferly before he transferred to our school, he was a friend of a friend, so when he got a detention I was the emissary sent to find out what happened, and how he entered into our dominion of the damned.

I asked him about it in the most empathetic manner a ten-year-old could. “… And it’s fine if you don’t want to tell me …” I added. I was fully prepared for his tears and/or the anguish that followed, and I had my shoulder all ready for him to cry on.

Not only did Billy not cry, or show any signs of fear of remorse, he told me all of the damning details of his detention, as if … as if they didn’t really matter. He didn’t try to wriggle out of it, or spread the blame. He said, “I did it. It was all my fault and all that, but it’s a half hour, so, big deal, right? I could do that standing on my head.”

That put me back a step. I couldn’t understand how he could be so blasé about it. As his only friend and confidant, I wanted to say, ‘Billy, you don’t understand,’ but Billy’s reaction to it informed me that there was something larger going on here that I didn’t understand. I didn’t get the fact that he was more accustomed to getting in trouble, or failing to meet the standards. He just got expelled from his prior school, so on that scale, a detention, or a half-hour after school, was nothing to him. I also didn’t understand that I was not only a part of the institutional culture of fear, but a promulgator of it

“It’s just a half-hour,” he said, and he was right, but ‘It’s so much more than that’ I wanted to say. I couldn’t back that up though, because I was too young to understand the nature of authority, rebellion, and Billy’s far too mature definition of the system-is-a-farce reaction. I knew Billy was the rebel, on some complicated level, I knew I’d become the standard bearer for the status quo if I said anything further.  

By not fearing the institutional hierarchy, and the elements that propped it up, Billy essentially informed me that the whole system was a farce. “Why should I fear spending a half-hour after school so much?” was essentially what he said. I thought of instructing him in our ways, but I was too young to understand the nature of our ways, and I was also far too immature to understand that we weren’t just ceding to authority, we were contributing to it.  

***

We can now all laugh at this kid, I call me, now. We’re sophisticated adults now with a more sophisticated understanding of authority, rebellion, and the balance of the two that forms a foundation that helps maintain a system, but when we look back at our naïve, immature understandings of an authoritarian world, we laugh. While we’re laughing, we should also take a look at how we sophisticated adults not only cede authority to authority figures in our lives now, we contribute to the underpinnings of their authority?

We call certain individuals in our culture authoritative experts, and we allow them to dictate their facts and opinions in a manner that changes the direction of our lives. “Why?” we ask rhetorically, “because they are more informed.” Are they? “Sure, they use the scientific method to arrive at dispassionate theories based on empirical data.” We learn from their research that there is “there is no conclusive evidence” for what we see and hear. How can that be? “After exhaustive research, the team at (fill in the blank) has determined that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that’s true.” We learn to accept what they say, until we develop a level of faith in their point of view, their expertise, and their authority on the issue. We learn to accept their values through their lens. Are they right? “They’re experts, what are you asking here?”

Analysts call the dynamic of subjects contributing to expert analysis and authoritative dictates the leadership mystique. We now have unspoken requirements of our leaders to which they must adhere. We require them to exhibit, display, and provide some semblance of leadership qualities to fortify the facade. What are these requirements? They vary, but anyone who knows anything about icebergs knows that 90% of an iceberg is underwater. It could be argued that we create 90% of the foundation of leadership mystique for us, and we contribute to it in our interactions with other, fellow subjects.

We see this at play in the workplace when someone everyone considered an oaf yesterday, receives a prominent promotion today, and we agree to their leadership qualities tomorrow, characteristics that we never saw previously. Our authority figures obviously saw something special in them, and that’s enough for us, for some of us, and the onus is on us to help others see, accept, and promulgate their authority tomorrow.

Coupled with our concessions and contributions to authority figures and their rules and punishments, is the inherent recognition that even if we disagree with all of the above, we can’t choose our leaders. We are subjects who are subjected to those who make the rules, and we don’t even know who to blame when those rules prove silly. We blame our supervisor for imposing a rule passed down by a manager; we blame the policeman for carrying out a silly law passed down by a state legislator or federal official. We blame the person who is in our face, enforcing the rules, because most of us don’t dig through the layers to find the person who is to blame for drawing up the rules/laws, and those who pass them. 

The United States citizen lives in a Representative Republic that permits us to choose those we deem our authority figures. Yet, how many of us choose a representative of what we want to be as opposed to who we are. An overwhelming majority of us live within our means, and we’re quiet, unassuming types. We’re more like the character actor who quietly assumes the characteristics necessary for a role, but we prefer to vote charismatic game show hosts types into office. That guy looks like someone who would be fun to hang around. If that’s our choice for a leader in a Representative Republic, who are we? Who do we deify and assign leadership qualities to satisfy our role in the leadership mystique? How many of us assign such qualities to the manager of our local Wendy’s? We don’t, we hold them accountable for producing an inferior product.

Most of us don’t condemn representatives we charge with voting the way we would or the manner in which they spend our money. We direct our ire at those who don’t pay enough in taxes instead. We police our own. The governments can levy fines, put liens on our property, and take away our freedom if they determine that we didn’t pay enough taxes, but they cannot convince us to condemn our neighbor as a pariah for not paying what we deem enough. That’s our job, and we relish it.    

This article is not about the rebels or the figures of authority in our lives, though those would be interesting pieces. It’s about us, and our amenable and compliant ways of helping authority figures establish and maintain a level of authority in our lives. It’s about ceding elements of our lives to authoritative experts who sit behind a type writer telling us how to live our lives, raise our children, and go silent when they need us to just be quiet. 

In grade school, we were little kids who were easy to manipulate and cajole into carrying out institutional planks, but how many adults aid in the culture of fear of government edicts on paying “enough” taxes? We’re not half as concerned when our government officials spend our money in foolish ways, as we are the CEO of a company not paying what we deem enough in taxes. We not only cede authority to government officials. We contribute to it by condemning our neighbor for not paying enough.

As someone who has been on both sides of the paradigm, on a very, very minor scale, one thing I recognized when given an relatively insignificant level of authority was that my level of authority was not recognized or appreciated by my fellow authoritative figures. As a huge Letterman fan in the 80s, I’ve always found some inspiration in his idea that he was a bit of a joke. You can be king of the world, and he was in his own little way, but you’re still that goofy kid from the Midwest who had some really stupid notions about the world. His influence led me to consider myself a bit of a joke, and I saw the joke in everyone around me too, especially those in leadership positions. Everyone enjoys hearing that what they’re doing is important and substantial, and they don’t mind laughing at themselves, but they do no enjoy hearing that they’re kind of a joke too. When I learned to control my comedic impulses, and I ceded to their authority, they began to appreciate and contribute to my comparatively meager mystique. 

“It’s called reciprocity,” a friend of mine said, “I scratch your back, you feed my need!”

Turning the Other Cheek


“If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek,” is one of the most powerful, most ubiquitous quotes from Jesus of Nazareth. It has been quoted, paraphrased, and interpreted throughout my life, and for thousands of years prior to that. To say that the quote has been misinterpreted may be a misnomer, for as with all brilliant philosophical quotes of this nature, it’s open to subjective interpretation, relative to the person, time, and place. 

“What does it mean?” a young child asked his teacher. The teacher provided an answer that aligned with the interpretations of the day’s pacifist’s ideals. The child enjoyed that interpretation. He wanted peace. He wanted peace throughout the world, especially on the playground. He wanted to play the role of messenger for this interpretation to spread the word, but he knew his bullies. He knew that they were irrationally prone to violence in ways that a peacenik, like his teacher, either couldn’t or wouldn’t understand. He knew, as later crystallized in the movie The Dark Knight, “Some men just want to see things burn.” Asking bullies for peace, in such a manner, was simply unrealistic in the child’s world. 

The young child didn’t call his teacher out. He assumed his teacher knew more than he did, and he also didn’t want to be disrespectful. He was just frustrated that he didn’t think he could apply this answer to his situation. He thought she was smarter than him, and if she were in a similar situation, she would find a way to make it apply, but he couldn’t. He thought he wasn’t strong enough or confident enough. He also knew that providing her further detail of the situation, and the urgency he had for greater meaning, would result in a “If that continues, you come talk to me,” reply from the teacher. He didn’t want to hear that, because he knew that that would only result in more abuse at the hands of the bully, and scorn, and a possible ruination of his reputation. 

To add to his frustration, the child would see his teacher’s interpretation of the quote work on TV, and in the movies. He would read it in fairy tales and other books, but he knew that their solutions were all theoretical before he even knew what theoretical meant. Their theory was based on the idea that all kids were truly good kids, and that every bully was so reasonable they were open to reason. 

The young child took his dilemma to his mother, and his mother felt sorry for him. She offered him solutions, but as every boy knew most female advice doesn’t work on the playground. She knew it too, so she asked the father for advice, and the father said: “You walk up to him and punch him in the mouth!” The mother was aghast. She said, “He’s little. That kid’s probably twice his size.” The dad then muttered something about the rules of the jungle and said, “If you want to end it, you have to end it. If you don’t want to do that, don’t ask. Stay away from the kid … I don’t know.” 

Here, the young child stood at a crossroads in life. He was all alone in a defining moment, and he knew it. He favored the turn the other cheek philosophy for one reason: It would be less painful and less confrontational. Plus, in some ways, it appealed to the manner in which he thought the world should work. The world should be one that rejected violence. Violence never solved anything. That’s what they said on TV, in movies, and in all the fairy tales he had read throughout his life. Jesus said something along those lines, and so did Gandhi, but they didn’t say it where it mattered most in his world, and on the playground, in the jungle, as his dad put it.  

This kid tried everything at one point. He tried reasoning with the bully. He tried trading comments. He used every piece of advice he could gather, and at some point, it proved pointless.  

In the midst of these exchanges, the kid proved to be quick on his feet, intellectually, and he got the better of the bully. It was a shining moment for the boy, and he was proud, probably too proud. He wore his pride well, and contrary to the advice the kid sought, this infuriated the bully.  

His bully finally punched him, and it didn’t hurt as bad as the kid thought it would. The kid didn’t think at all, as a matter of fact, he struck back. Prior to this incident, he dreamed that when he finally struck the bully, it would be the haymaker heard throughout his world. It wasn’t. He wasn’t schooled in the art of fighting. He had never been in a fight before. His punch was ugly, sloppy, and ineffective.  

He heard the idea that most bullies don’t want to fight, they just want to bully, and the minute you stand up to them they’ll back down. They might even respect you more. They might pump an eyebrow at the subject of their ridicule and say, “Nice punch kid!” and walk away. That’s the way it worked in the ABC After School Specials, but that wasn’t the way it worked in his reality. 

The young child was called upon to engage in a protracted tussle that extended far beyond the single, exclamatory punch. It turned out to be this kid’s personal Karate Kid/Tom Cruise moment, except for the fact that he lost the fight. The bully, the kid knew, had two older brothers who loved to fight. They punched him all the time. The bully probably fought his brothers every day, and in the course of those daily bouts he developed a love of fighting.  

After his humiliating defeat, however, a funny thing happened. Even though the bully thoroughly enjoyed torturing the kid every day, and he obviously enjoyed beating on him in the bathroom that day would prove to be the last time the bully ever picked on him. The bully never said anything about the matter, and he never said anything regarding a new found respect for the kid. He just chose another antelope limping at the back of the pack.  

The kid expected some kind of renewed, progressive torture that centered around a comment such as, “How’s your face kid?” He expected some comments about the cuts on his face, the bruises, and a recount of that day’s activities. It came from all other quarters, but the bully did not join them. The abuse just ended without comment or further incidents.  

Did the kid learn that turn the other cheek was wrong, no, but he did learn one important lesson, you have to teach people how to treat you. 

The moment the kid shared with his bully might have been his Karate Kid/Tom Cruise moment, but it was not a Karate Kid/Tom Cruise movie. As if by baton, others took the bully’s lead, and the kid learned other rules of the jungle: confrontation is a constant, confrontation is relative, and confrontation is ever-changing. The kid had this notion that that one punch would be the punch heard ’round his world. He thought every other kid would hear of his exploits and realize you don’t mess around with him. He had this notion that once he faced down this, his greatest confrontation, he would be forever capable of handling future confrontations. It wasn’t true of course. Bolstered with confidence, he would face down some confrontations, but he would walk away from others. He would learn to regret those latter moments, for none of these confrontations ever ended until he dealt with them properly. All of the lessons learned from successes, and failures, would eventually culminate into an adult who could handle confrontations, but in his particular case, he never gained much by turning the other cheek 

The crucial point is that this child’s actions, and the lessons learned, are not a direct refutation of Jesus of Nazareth’s quote, but the interpretations and paraphrasing those teachers and intellectuals have spread in the centuries that followed. Another interpretation of this quote, that would’ve been quite helpful to this young man, is the following: 

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” – Matthew 5:38-42 

“At the time of Jesus’ teachings, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.”{1} 

{1}http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071209121037AARdG0I