As time goes by, I find I have a greater and greater appreciation for the uses of subtlety. I’m not the only one and I’ve had some powerful teachers along the way.
The first was Mohandas Gandhi, who held that unjust laws must be disobeyed. In return for breaking those laws, the British governors of India incarcerated Gandhi for years at a stretch, demonstrating that they understood nothing of subtlety. In fact, so out of proportion to Gandhi’s actions were the British reactions that they assisted Gandhi in his cause and hastened the day of Indian independence.
Now flash forward twenty years to America during the Vietnam war. The penalty for resisting the draft was a maximum of five years in jail and a $10,000 fine. Instead of discouraging draft resistance, I think the lack of subtlety by the government encouraged disobedience. For every year the war continued, more young men resisted the draft, fewer were charged and even fewer were convicted. By 1973, the draft itself had been cancelled. Once again, government brought out the iron hand, but missed its target and wound up slapping itself instead.
By 1980, when draft registration was reinstated the government was getting wise. Once again the maximum penalty for failure to register was five years in jail and a $10,000 fine. But this time there was an added clause: proof of registration for the draft was required for all federally-guaranteed college loans and job-assistance programs. Now you might ask what college loans and job assistance has to do with the draft, but you might as well ask what China’s human rights record has to do with its status as a most favored trading nation. The answer is the same; the government will link issues when it suits its purpose and refuse to link issues when that suits its purpose.
The point about subtlety is this: by 1980, the federal government had learned it can be more effective to put a pebble in someone’s shoe than a millstone around his neck. I was 19 in the summer of 1980, and needed federally-guaranteed loans or I’d have to drop out of college. It was one thing to go before a judge and possibly to jail for one’s beliefs, it was another to diminish your career options. I swallowed my pride and registered.
But this is not all history, the uses of subtlety are well-studied and in action today. Just a few weeks ago, I was reading yet another report about brutal conditions for workers making shoes for Nike in Asian factories. In response, Nike called the report “erroneous” and again trotted out their own study, which was prepared for them by former UN Ambassador Andrew Young. Mr. Young, who was himself at one time a civil rights activist and student of Gandhi’s methods, said, “the workers were eating at least two meals a day on the job and making what I was told were subsistence wages within those cultures.”
Do you hear the subtle shift? Twenty years ago, American employers in non-industrial nations claimed they were paying the top wages in the area, raising the standard of living and helping the nation develop. Now, Americans are no longer there in person, but only represented by a local subcontractor and where we once claimed to improve the quality of life we now have two meals a day and a subsistence wage.
The Uses of Subtlety
As time goes by, I find I have a greater and greater appreciation for the uses of subtlety. I’m not the only one and I’ve had some powerful teachers along the way.
The first was Mohandas Gandhi, who held that unjust laws must be disobeyed. In return for breaking those laws, the British governors of India incarcerated Gandhi for years at a stretch, demonstrating that they understood nothing of subtlety. In fact, so out of proportion to Gandhi’s actions were the British reactions that they assisted Gandhi in his cause and hastened the day of Indian independence.
Now flash forward twenty years to America during the Vietnam war. The penalty for resisting the draft was a maximum of five years in jail and a $10,000 fine. Instead of discouraging draft resistance, I think the lack of subtlety by the government encouraged disobedience. For every year the war continued, more young men resisted the draft, fewer were charged and even fewer were convicted. By 1973, the draft itself had been cancelled. Once again, government brought out the iron hand, but missed its target and wound up slapping itself instead.
By 1980, when draft registration was reinstated the government was getting wise. Once again the maximum penalty for failure to register was five years in jail and a $10,000 fine. But this time there was an added clause: proof of registration for the draft was required for all federally-guaranteed college loans and job-assistance programs. Now you might ask what college loans and job assistance has to do with the draft, but you might as well ask what China’s human rights record has to do with its status as a most favored trading nation. The answer is the same; the government will link issues when it suits its purpose and refuse to link issues when that suits its purpose.
The point about subtlety is this: by 1980, the federal government had learned it can be more effective to put a pebble in someone’s shoe than a millstone around his neck. I was 19 in the summer of 1980, and needed federally-guaranteed loans or I’d have to drop out of college. It was one thing to go before a judge and possibly to jail for one’s beliefs, it was another to diminish your career options. I swallowed my pride and registered.
But this is not all history, the uses of subtlety are well-studied and in action today. Just a few weeks ago, I was reading yet another report about brutal conditions for workers making shoes for Nike in Asian factories. In response, Nike called the report “erroneous” and again trotted out their own study, which was prepared for them by former UN Ambassador Andrew Young. Mr. Young, who was himself at one time a civil rights activist and student of Gandhi’s methods, said, “the workers were eating at least two meals a day on the job and making what I was told were subsistence wages within those cultures.”
Do you hear the subtle shift? Twenty years ago, American employers in non-industrial nations claimed they were paying the top wages in the area, raising the standard of living and helping the nation develop. Now, Americans are no longer there in person, but only represented by a local subcontractor and where we once claimed to improve the quality of life we now have two meals a day and a subsistence wage.
Beware the uses of subtlety.