Mowed by Machines

There are many people around us, who are used to taking others for granted. The situation may be worse if these people are holding some leadership roles. One of my friends had been taken for such royal ride by one of her superiors that there was very little that my friend could do; when the friend had gathered some courage to talk to the superior about how she felt being taken for a royal ride, the superior tried to pour out a bag full of reasons why she had to do that. Justifications, rationalizations and explanations, these are the tools of the trade with the people who wish to take people for granted, in order to impose their own authority felt among the subordinates.

There is a limit for everything, and the hoi poloi would not mind being taken for granted to a certain extent, but if they are to be considered the non-existent, then there is bound to be a revolt and unhappiness. Such a situation is sure to create uneasy feelings among friends, among superiors and their subordinates, between family members. Generally it is observed that it is only the people who feel they enjoy certain special privileges, that make sure they have to show off their powers which flow from the privileges. In a group, if there is one who exercises leadership role and does not take into consideration the sentiments and opinion of other members and makes a decision for others, it is sure to backfire at sometime or other.

A friend complained about a certain Principal of a school who had been notorious for autocracy. Very seldom had he consulted the other members of his team before he arrived at a vital decision affecting the interests of the students, staff, and the guardians of students. The decisions were most often unilateral, though luckily many of his decisions were based on sound judgment, and so there was no major disaster or confrontation. However, the other members of the staff and his own friends and companions began to avoid him, and treat him as an outcast because of his tendency to take people for granted.

Now behind this simple attitude of taking people for granted, or taking people for a ride, there is an unsaid declaration these people make for themselves: it is only these people who have the brains at right proportions so that they could decide for others, and even help people find answers to all the problems they face. There is also an implicit paternalistic attitude in them, which makes them treat all others as children. This is exactly what Transactional Analysis points to us as an unhealthy syndrome in some which can really create havoc to personal relationships. Many are the victims of such paternalistic attitude, and invariably everyone goes through such experiences.

It is a good thing to assert one’s due rights and privileges, and not allow others treat us as if we are the door-mat; but that demands a good amount of guts and courage. I know some big bosses, who cannot tolerate anyone question their decisions, and if the subordinates ever open their lips against their unilateral decisions, the bosses would make sure to ruin the future of these hapless victims. But I have seen some of my good friends dare to do exactly that and face the consequences, even if they are very harsh and unreasonable. This, I feel, is a wonderful thing to do, to be on the guard so that people are treated with due honor and dignity they are born, and not be treated as a paperweight!

Road to be Taken

[Initially conceived as a response to a mail, it is posted hoping it might help someone else too]. I feel you should not much worry about salary or about leave; ultimately what matters is you are able to do what is most required by your province, through your sister. But be open to what your Provincial may decide; in a sense you should be positively indifferent to both the options : to rejoin the school or to continue looking after prenovices. To worry about the leave or salary maybe missing the mark. After all, you have not joined to congregation to earn salary for the congregation.

It will be nice if you just leave the matter to your superiors; it is said that God speaks to us through our superiors (though I suspect it does not happen all the time!), and even if some of them have a bias towards one option rather than the other, leaving the decision to them makes us less anxious. What is most important is that I am not tilted towards one of the two options. If you are in favor of one of the options, and if that does not come through, then you are bound to be drowned in regret, angry with the superiors who made the decision, and ultimately half-hearted carrying out of the decision.

Ultimately I feel you can serve God through both the means, and you can be sure that both are valid means to that end for which you have been created, and joined the congregation. In the Spiritual Exercises, Ignatius of Loyola invites the exercitant to enter into the spirit of indifference to 'inordinate attachments' and he lists three illustrations : neither riches nor poverty, neither sickness nor health, neither short life nor long life, and tells that I am to choose the one which will better suit the end for which I am created. But that is not the end. He continues to exert the exercitant slowly though, to choose the tougher option of the two... to deliberately choose poverty, not only the spiritual poverty (indifferent to riches), but also to voluntarily choose privation.

It may be hard to find which is the tougher option in your case. But if you pause for a while and reflect for a while, you may be able to see for yourself which is the comparatively difficult thing for you to do of the two options. Your heart may be drawn towards one of the options, and there maybe a temptation to move towards it, and find more reasons to support your leaning towards it, even if it may not be the better option in the light of the need of your province or the greater common good. So, if you are able to find which of the two is the softer option, you can consciously and willingly distance yourself from it, and that may make you in a better mental and spiritual disposition to be open to what may better serve common good. About resigning the job, if you can better serve your congregation and people, why not? You should be happy to do it.

Today I pause for a while to spend a few minutes on the softer options that I am drawn to, and wish to become conscious of them. There is nothing wrong in liking one kind of job than another; I may like teaching in a school rather than looking after young girls and shaping their minds for a life-long journey. But it is important that I become aware of it, so that if I am asked to do the other job, which I may not like so much, I may give myself to do it whole heartedly. My happiness is not so much in doing what I very much like to do, but in carrying out the job that others may joyfully entrust to my care. And ultimately if I can give myself fully and unconditionally to the job I am assigned, I am sure to find God in it!