The politics of vengeance

In my former workplace, there were two large research groups that more or less intensely disliked each other and did everything they could to make life difficult for the other. I never knew the reason why, and over time I never got a good explanation. When I started working there, I worked for the person who was the head of the research institute at that time. My research group leader worked directly for him, and so we enjoyed a rather privileged status in the sense that the institute leader looked out for us and our interests. But he was not particularly friendly with the leader of the other large research group, and when that man eventually became institute leader, he placed his own people as heads of different groups and sections and expanded his reach and power. He also made life difficult for those who worked for the former institute leader. I never had particular problems with the new institute leader, even though I clashed a couple of times with the younger leaders who worked for him. Those clashes became a bit more frequent over time, especially when they involved encroachment into areas that they knew little to nothing about. In the end, it evolved into a battle for control, a battle that our side lost simply because we were no longer in power, and because the politics of vengeance became a dominant force in how our daily lives were run. Tit for tat. If one institute leader's employees had previously been pushed aside, frozen out or ignored when it came to important decision-making, the other institute leader made sure, via his lackeys, that the same treatment was dealt out to his opposition when he became the leader. The effect on our department was, as you can imagine, not beneficial. What started out as a diverse research institute with small but productive research groups was little more than a research monoverse headed by one of the lackeys when I left. That lackey had complete control. His attitude toward others was haughty; he was the best, so the rest could get lost, and he did his level best to get rid of the small but productive research groups, something that the former institute leader had not done. The younger people, on whom any research future depends, chose not to do research; they looked around and breathed in the hostile atmosphere and thought, why bother, when we can choose more lucrative jobs in the private sector? And why should they have chosen to do research at our institute, when the only real option was to work for him? Other leaders who looked at the loss of research in the department shook their heads and wondered why. I know why. The lackeys were in complete control, and they wasted no time in trying to get their (perceived) opponents (scientists they deemed useless) to quit by making their lives miserable, under the guise of 'increasing efficiency', 'saving money', and 'improving the kind of research that was done'. I was at meetings where several of my colleagues were publicly humiliated and told that they were slackers who were just taking up space and collecting their salaries. If the lackeys could have fired them immediately, they would have. Luckily, this country has rules in place prohibiting mass firings in the public sector. This type of behavior was still going on when I left my workplace. 

I should make the point that academic research science is far from a democracy and is headed by a number of leaders who brook no opposition. If you cross them or don't agree with them, you end up on their 'enemies list', slated for being pushed aside, frozen out or ignored when it comes to important decision-making and giving much-needed advice. You can believe it or not, but it's true. The tiny little microcosm of life where I used to work was merely representative of the larger world of government and politics. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to behaving badly and governing badly. Just google Machiavelli and you'll see how far back this goes. 

I'm reminded of my former workplace when I look at what is going on at the highest levels of US government. I'd like to tell you that the politics of vengeance is unique to the current administration, but it is not. Eliminating your (perceived) enemies in the name of victory and control becomes paramount to the types of leaders whose goal is to crush their opposition. The question is--who are the enemies of the current administration? All those who did not vote for him? All those who oppose him? All those who tried to undermine him and bring him down? If all of the above, that's going to be a mighty long list of people on whom to exact vengeance. And vengeance comes in all flavors--mocking, public humiliation, bullying, firing, demoting, shoving aside, freezing out. I've been privy to all of that kind of behavior in my former workplace. And I grieved the loss of a civilized workplace for several years after the lackeys took over. We are witnessing exactly this now in the US. And if this is the goal of power in the present administration, the country and its average ordinary citizens will suffer from the fallout. In a few years, there won't be much of a country left to govern. It will have been razed to the ground. Perhaps that is what his supporters want. But they destroy their own lives in the process. 

The politics of revenge (aka politics practiced by idiots)

This will be a short post, because I don't want to focus on negativity during the Christmas season. But it's also important to point out that we need a seismic shift in American politics away from revenge (tit for tat) politics and idiocy, toward balanced politics based on common sense, decency and intelligence. I wonder if that will ever happen, but God knows I'm hoping. Perhaps Santa will bear the latter down the chimneys of all of the politicians currently serving (I'm including a number of European politicians as well). 

How did we get here? I've asked that question many times. The great divide. The great disconnect. Why is it impossible for American politicians to meet somewhere in the middle without having apoplectic reactions on both sides? He said this, she said that, so I have to take revenge. Hasn't the American public gotten tired of being screamed at, lectured to, derided, insulted and otherwise treated badly by its politicians? Or do they just no longer care? Just asking. Because the current situation is likely to usher in someone who will take charge in a way that will no longer seem democratic. That person will crush all those who oppose him (or her). Think it can't happen? Think again. We are moving toward autocracy. I say wake up before it is too late.  

Reflections on revenge

A strange topic to reflect upon, you might think. But after reading Gullburet (The Golden Cage) by Camilla Läckberg (a Swedish crime novelist), I had to weigh in with some of my thoughts and feelings about it. The book itself is lightweight; I wouldn’t give it more than C+, so I won’t exactly recommend it as an interesting crime story. It’s more of an adolescent fantasy about a thirty-something woman who takes revenge on the husband who has wronged her. Her childhood included a violent father, an abused mother, and a brother who committed suicide. Of course the husband who has wronged  her is a standard archetypal role model for real bad boy sociopathic behaviour, including narcissism, physical and psychological abuse of others, betrayal, pathological lying, manipulation, sex addiction, rape, and paedophilia. The list is long. While he (and his cronies who are just like him) engage in all this bad behaviour, they run billion dollar companies, drink the best liquor and wines, eat at the best restaurants, and dress in designer clothes. They live in huge homes in Stockholm overlooking the water that are furnished with designer furniture, drive the most expensive cars money can buy, and have housekeepers and nannies to take care of the houses and children to whom they are mostly indifferent. It’s all for show, including the wives and children, who are also dressed in designer clothes and who must live up to a certain standard. Hence the title, The Golden Cage; women trapped in loveless marriages gilded with all the money they can think of. Why would anyone want to leave such a cage? But of course we know that such men use women and use them up, divorce them, and replace them with younger versions whom they will treat in much the same way as the ex-wives they have kicked to the curb, so there is no safety or stability in the gilded cage. I guess all this happens more frequently in the world of the rich. I for one could not identify with most of the main characters in the book, nor would I want to. I did not identify with the main character Faye whose husband betrays her and kicks her to the curb, because she is also a sociopath who is not averse to murdering others if that is what it takes to rid her path of obstacles on her way toward achievement of the goals she has set for herself. It’s a strange book, but it did put me on the path of reflection about what revenge is and how others deal with being wronged. Faye does get her revenge on her husband and destroys his life, but I had to wonder why she bothered. It all seemed a bit much to me. Moving on from him would have been enough, but then there wouldn’t have been a book to write.

Revenge is “the action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands” (Oxford online dictionary). I remember the expression ‘Revenge is a dish best eaten cold’. It implies a cool and calculating reaction to those who have treated you badly—that you should plan your revenge coldly and carefully. I can understand this approach, rather than screaming, ranting and raving toward the perpetrator who has victimized you. Hot anger is much less preferable to cold revenge. Hot anger shows the perpetrator that he or she has gotten to you, gotten under your skin, and that gives him or her power over you. Much better to play it cool and to plan revenge carefully, if that is your thing. In that way, you retain your power over yourself and the situation, and you keep the others around you guessing.

But what if revenge is not your thing? Most people who have been wronged don’t take revenge on those who have hurt them, not in big ways anyway. Most spouses who have experienced betrayal,  unfaithfulness, and/or abuse choose divorce (however messy) in order to be able to go on with their lives in a peaceful and stable way and to protect children if children are involved. Most people who have been wronged simply want to escape those who have wronged them, just want to get away from them and never see them again, or want to have as little as possible to do with them. They may achieve this, or they may not; their lives may continue to be difficult, but I’m betting that for most of them, just being free of those who have wronged them is worth gold.

Our Christian faith encourages us to forgive those who have sinned against us, who have wronged us. We are often told to ‘forgive and forget’. One of the things I reflected on today was that it is one thing to forgive a transgression against us; with time, the intensity of the hurt fades and we are able to go on with our lives. It is said that ‘time heals all wounds’, and that is mostly true. But it is not true that we forget those wounds, despite what the expression says. It is very difficult to forget the hurt done to one, even if we suppress it and go on about our daily lives. In any case, forgiveness is a choice, a decision, an active process, to pardon another person who has wronged us, even if that person has not asked for forgiveness, or perhaps, in spite of that fact. But we often cannot forget the wrong done us, even if we forgive it. The person who has wronged us knows this, knows that the wronged person will forever go around with the memory of who that person is and how they wronged them (a snapshot in time), despite the fact that the transgressor may have evolved or changed into a better person. In other words, true revenge, life’s revenge, is the reality that in the minds of many wronged people, the person who sinned against them will forever be ‘that bad person who hurt them’. That has got to sting. The person or persons who wronged them will not have a clean slate with those they have wronged; they will retain the identity of 'bad person', especially if there is no longer contact with them. The memories of the transgressions will always be there, under the surface. I know several betrayed women who forgave their husbands’ infidelities and consented to live further with them. But ask them if they managed to forget the bad behaviour, and the answer is no. They live with these men by setting aside the hurt and not talking about it as a couple. The men have apologized. But their wives no longer trust them as they once did. Thus these women have ended up with the power to forgive and to forget, but the inability to forget is a type of natural revenge that seals the fate of the transgressor. It locks the transgressors into an identity that they cannot shed, and they end up subjugated to the power of those they have wronged in a kind of penance. That type of power, if wielded correctly, is not necessarily a bad thing since it keeps people on their toes and on their good behaviour. But it does limit freedom. I sometimes wonder if it is possible to rebuild trust once it has been destroyed; I don't have any simple answers.

We are asked to be like Christ, who suffered humiliation, torture and finally death on a cross. He asked for forgiveness for those who wronged him. But it is hard to be like Christ. We can try, and we should try, but no one can force us to forgive another before we are ready. No one can tell us to forget the wrong done us before we are ready. We cannot forgive and forget overnight, and those who think we should do so are fools, or they are people who have never experienced the difficulty of being hurt and trying to forgive. Forgiveness is a process that can take many years; forgetting may or may not occur—it is impossible to predict. It is completely normal to wish that bad things would happen to bad people who have wronged us (this rarely happens and if it does, there is no superstition involved). It is completely normal to hope that ‘time wounds all heels’. It is completely normal to smile inwardly when we see a bad person get his or her comeuppance. My point is that this is usually enough 'revenge' for most wronged people; they don’t need to envision elaborate revenge fantasies and actualize those fantasies; they don't need to take down those who have wronged them. In some cases, the transgressors destroy themselves, in other cases, time and life take care of them, especially if they haven’t learned from their bad behaviour and continue on their destructive paths. Many bad people grow old and end up alone and lonely. I have watched the rise and fall of a few bad people, and it’s hard to feel sorry for them, especially knowing how they treated other people. But if they want forgiveness, they need to prove that they have changed and evolved; they need to earn the forgiveness of those they have wronged. They can start by truly apologizing, making amends, and changing their behaviour for good.That is the only way back.