The System

I have a very hard time reconciling my feelings about ‘the system’. Depending on the circumstance, I’ll either end up shaking my fist at it or vociferously defending it against all comers. On the one hand, I very much resent being pushed or even subtly nudged into thinking a certain way, and I make a habit of never fitting into anyone’s box. In ROTC we learn the Navy values, but values are values, whether the Navy endorses them or not.

On the other hand, I get very annoyed when people decide that all concerns of practicality should be subordinated to whatever high sentiment they’re currently attached to. We need to care about other people – great. But that doesn’t mean we need to trust everyone unequivocally. Perfect love may cast out fear, but that passage has nothing to do with security clearance – that requires a much more in-depth discussion.

As one of our girls in uniform, I’m very partial to the ‘shape up or ship out’ notion. That is, if you can’t accept the way we do things, you are welcome to leave with no hard feelings, but don’t stick around just to be a self-righteous pain. As the Little Red Hen taught us, you are welcome to reject the system, but if you do, you are no longer entitled to its benefits; that’s part of what you’re giving up. So before you leave, you had better think long and hard about what you are willing to accept and what you’re not.

Now, if I don’t like the way things are run, and people won’t let me fix the problems, my first instinct is to wash my hands of the matter and go on my merry way. But in most cases, that would be irresponsible of me; I care more about the organization or people involved than to take my ball and go home just because things didn’t go my way. Most things are not worth making a stink about, and for the greater good, I should accept the leadership’s decision and move on.

This is more complicated when we speak of democratic government, because every citizen has a political voice and is thus, even if in a small way, a part of the leadership. And if we are the leadership, of course we have the right and even the responsibility to disagree with the leadership’s decision. The key point here is that we are disagreeing in our capacity as leaders – that is, by using out political voice, by voting or raising awareness for a specific cause or petitioning or working for a referendum or etc. It is not disagreeing just to be disagreeable, without a specific goal in mind (as I’ve noted before).

We sometimes become so focused on fighting for causes that we forget we are really supposed to be fighting for people. Causes are nothing without people. If we boycott Israeli products in order to help the cause of Palestine, are we really helping Palestinians? Or are we only adding pressure to an already-tense situation? If we write angry editorials against the wealthy, are we really helping the poverty-stricken? Or should we perhaps turn to our own bankrolls instead? If we protest just to let people know we’re angry, are we really helping anyone? Or are we just sating our own need for emotional release? This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t work for the causes we think are important. Let’s just remember that we’re trying to make progress, not trouble.

But when is something more called for? When is it time to stand our ground and push back against the system? How much credibility does “doing what you believe in” give you to disagree and disrupt?

To explain this, I need to first say that in my view, there are two types of questions in the world: the black-and-white kind, and the gray kind. Questions of practicality, government, economics, and politics generally fall squarely in the gray area. Should you sleep with your sister? That’s easy: no, at least by traditional agreement. But should it be illegal? Should marrying your sister be allowed legally? These are more difficult questions, ones without clear-cut right answers. How much discord are they worth? I think oftentimes in these areas, we need to accept the system’s answer, because even if we disagree with it sometimes, it’s better than a system that everyone disregards the moment they disagree with it. That’s no system at all.

So when in the world do I refuse to accede? When I can’t. When the system tries to force me to do something in the black-and-white area, and there’s no third option, I say no. And when I say no, I can say it definitively, because I only say it when there’s no room for compromise. There’s no argument, no begging, bribing, or bullying, that can make me change my mind at this point. This is when “doing what I believe in” authorizes an individual to go against the system: not when the individual doesn’t like the system, but rather when that individual has claimed loyalty to something that takes priority over the system.

This method rules out the disturbing danger I discussed in my last post with regard to Captain America: Civil War – that is, the danger that we may disagree, to the point of killing, over something in the gray area, because sometimes gray areas like government and politics deal with life-and-death issues. It comes down to this. If you’re in a gray area, you don’t have the right to fight the system to the point of killing its agents, because the people you’re fighting are just doing their jobs – the military serves the Constitution, not the president. You don’t have the moral high ground. If you can’t yield, because you’re in a black-and-white area, and the system is trying to force you to do something wrong, then the system isn’t within its rights. So in either case, if people are getting killed over a specific conflict, at least one party must be in the wrong.

“Clockwork” by wwarby is licensed with CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/