I would sum up Omer's main thesis as this: The old Authority consisted of a zero-sum game of honor -- if a subordinate impinged on the honor of an authority figure, all the weight of the system would be immediately and automatically brought to bear on the miscreant in order to bring back the 'balance'. Though some may be nostalgic and wish to return to this simplicity, the wheel cannot be turned back. The way forward is the New Authority.
The New Authority is non-monolithic but has several typical features:
- Parental / Authority figure supervision: in any case that problematic behaviour is suspected, closer supervision should be implemented. Public areas such as school yards, hallways, and bathrooms need to be patrolled by authority figures to show that control has not been ceded to bullies.
- 'Strike when the iron is cold' -- authority should avoid head-on conflict, but should only notify the offender that the unacceptable behaviour has been taken note of, and the response will come after due consideration.
- Gather support and allies -- authority gains its moral force from social consensus. So when there is a conflict, the authority figure needs to prepare by gathering allies; other teachers, parents, neighbors. Then the offender is invited to a meeting where instead of a head-on confrontation between two parties, there is a circle meeting.
- Responsibility and Restitution: After the offended party presents her version of the event, the offender is given an opportunity take responsibility and to suggest how to 'fix' what had been done. If after a 15 minute period of silence no suggestions are forthcoming, the circle may suggest remedial measures that the offender can adopt. Support for the offender in implementing the restitutive actions is also important.
- Transparency: in direct contrast with the old Authority which owed explanations to no-one (a Man's home is his castle, a Teacher's classroom is his territory), the actions of new authority figures gain power via their communal support. Secretly spying on children's activities puts the authority figure in a bind, since she can't admit to the source of her knowledge of the negative activities, whereas open supervision, while it may overstep accepted boundaries of privacy, is above-board and eventually accepted as a manifestation of caring.
I have two main practical problems with these ideas:
- The book deals mostly with extreme situations in the Home, School and Community. I am missing the link to what happens before the extreme situation. My general impression is that the answer would be 'modulate your level of [Parental] Supervision', but it is not that clear to me. As Omer shows in the first section, boundaries are a pre-requisite for a healthy psyche, yet his book deals mostly with how to deal with escalated conflicts, not how to go about setting boundaries in such a way that conflict is (hopefully) avoided altogether, or how it can be dealt with at early stages without calling relatives and friends to play 'good cop' to your 'bad cop'.
- Statistically the amount of time spent in the home by parents is, as far as I know, continually getting smaller. This approach requires both more time in general, and concerted effort (social networking) to implement the actions required in the extreme situations. Without an economic revolution that will free parents to work less and be home more, I don't think this approach will ever take off in more than a middle class niche. Even the middle class niche is doubtful when you take into consideration the level of social cohesion the approach requires.
On the disturbing side, I felt an undercurrent of 'social tyranny'. It is true that physical violence is avoided, but social pressure can also be violence, even if not physical. This was especially true for the scripted responses, such as the advice that if the offender objects, tries to make excuses, blame others, etc', the circle is to stand firm and not argue, but just restate the 'facts'. I can't help but imagine a scenario where someone has been unjustly accused, and the accuser has gathered supporters and allies who then back them up, and the accused finds herself 'stonewalled' into accepting guilt. It reminds me of this scene from Cory Doctorow's "Eastern Standard Tribe" where the protoganist has been committed for observation and tries to explain the situation to the doctor:
...I was doing Tribal work in London, serving the Eastern Standard Agenda, working with a couple of Tribesmen, well, one Tribesman and my girlfriend, who I thought was unaffiliated. Turns out, though, that they’re both double agents. They sold out to the Pacific Daylight Tribe, lameass phonies out in LA, slick Silicon Valley bizdev sharks, pseudo hipsters in San Franscarcity. Once I threatened to expose them, they set me up, had me thrown in here.”...Though implementing the new authority seems more moral than the old one, in fact it could support any Ethic that a group of people decide to socially pressure for. For instance, the Ultra-O could use it to force their children to conform to the norms of their society. Imagine a young ultra-O gay person coming out of the closet slowly, going to the local 'Open House', being trailed and observed by a group of his Father's friends. They could be completely non-violent, yet still have a completely chilling effect on both his freedom and the freedom of other youngsters.The doctor acted as if he hadn’t heard me. “That’s just fascinating, Art. Thank you for sharing that. Now, here’s a question I’d like you to think about, and maybe you can tell us the answer tomorrow: What are the ways that your friends—the ones you say betrayed you—used to show you how much they respected you and liked you? Think hard about this. I think you’ll be surprised by the conclusions you come to.”
