Articles

THE SOCIAL EDGE INTERVIEW: AUTHOR ROBERT FULLER ON "SOMEBODIES AND NOBODIES"

by Gerry McCarthy

Robert Fuller taught physics at Columbia University in New York, where he co-authored Mathematics for Classical and Quantum Physics. He also served as president of Oberlin College, which he led through a series of educational reforms, many of which drew national attention.

      A contributor to Utne Reader and The Harvard Magazine, Fuller served for many years as a Board Chair of the nonprofit global corporation Internews, which promotes democracy and international understanding via free and independent media.

      His new book Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse Of Rank is published by New Society Publishers. Fuller has four children and lives in Berkeley, California, with his wife Claire Sheridan. I reached him by telephone.

Gerry McCarthy: In Somebodies and Nobodies you write that it's rankism that creates the specious divide between winners and losers at an early age and extinguishes ambition in many before they reach third grade. Later, you point out that: "We have become alert to the negative consequences of racism and sexism in education, but we are still largely oblivious to the costs exacted by abuse and discrimination based on rank. The reason schools fail to enlist students wholeheartedly in the vital enterprise of learning can be traced to the prevalence of this undiagnosed malady." We seem to be obsessed with standardized testing in education these days-and there is a heavy emphasis on "skills" too. But we don't hear the kind of concerns you're raising. Why is this? Is the subject taboo? Is it considered bad form?

Robert Fuller: It is considered bad form. The people who keep it that way are the people of high rank who sense --in any discussion of rank and its prerogatives-- a threat to their perks. They try to make it seem that even mentioning this is bad. And they'll shame anyone who tries to bring it up. I propose that we end that practice, and that we become just as comfortable bringing up questions of rank as we have at last become in discussing sexuality, and other formerly taboo topics. Race itself was formerly taboo for a long time. That had to do with people wanting the social consensus to stay fixed, because they're benefiting from the way things are. So there's a taboo on discussing these issues in the educational context, because there's a taboo on discussing them in society in general.

      Our schools are really mirrors of society. They're not the cutting-edge institutions we might hope for them to be. Rarely are they ahead of society. Usually they lag in their values.

GM: It's depressing to observe how rankism can be poisonous to personal relationships. You write that: "In personal relations, pulling rank takes the form of disrespect, disregard, disdain, `dissing,' berating, snobbism, insult and humiliation." In our fast-paced, materialistic, and gotta-keep-up culture we often fail to leave people with their dignity don't we?

RF: We certainly do. And we still feel at liberty to insult the dignity of other people. But notice how we white males are rather cautious about insulting the dignity of people of colour or females these days. That's because both these groups mounted successful movements that forced us to respect them as groups. However, blacks will tell you that although whites are circumspect about insulting their dignity --other blacks are not. Other blacks feel at liberty to insult the dignity of a black person.

GM: You offer specific examples in the book don't you?

RF: Yes. Often people who've been down (when they finally get up) do unto others what was done unto them on the way up. Rankism breeds more rankism. You can't cure rankism by being rankist. You can only cure it by preserving the dignity of the people you're trying to teach these principles to while they learn. Blacks and women will both tell you that the groups who are most disrespectful to them are often are their own kind --other blacks and women. Because the civil rights and women's movements have made us all circumspect about insulting the dignity of people from these two groups. I see no reason why we shouldn't extend these principles to everybody and every group. To protect the dignity of other individuals regardless of what racial, ethnic, or gender they belong to.

GM: At one point you say that rankism is the mother of all these negative "isms."

RF: Yes. Perhaps we ought to define rankism clearly at this point. Rankism is abuse and discrimination predicated on power differences that are inherent in rank. Hence the coinage "rankism." Rankism occurs within hierarchies when someone of greater power in the hierarchy insults the dignity or abuses someone of lower rank in that same hierarchy. So rankism occurs in families, schools, businesses, churches, the military and even among nations.

GM: These are personal relationships?

RF: Yes --they're all personal relationships, except the international ones. So you have the relationship of a professor to a student, a parent to a child, a corporate leader to a secretary, a general to a sergeant, a doctor to a nurse. In every hierarchy you have the possibility of abuse by the person with more power over the person with less power. When those abuses cross colour or gender lines we're pretty careful about them now. We've learned that we have to be --or we elicit the ire of the entire group to whom the victim belongs. Why can't we start a dignitarian movement to go along with the civil rights, women's and gay movements that protect the dignity of people with those particular traits? And extend these protections to people regardless of what race, gender, or sexual orientation they have.

GM: I was struck by your comments on political maturation in the book. You write that: "Political maturation goes hand in hand with changes in traditional patterns of domination and submission. Subjects simultaneously reject the paternalism of the authorities, dispense with their own complementary infantilism and victimhood, and assume the responsibilities of citizenship." I saw this as a significant point. By overcoming rank-based discrimination, we make it more difficult for demagogues --who play to our baser impulses-- to wield power over us don't we?

RF: As we become conscious of the way rank figures in these relationships, we get much more sensitive to demagoguery. We see it as paternalistic and reject it. We see it as manipulating us and trying to impress us with the power and swagger of this somebody who's exercising it (and who is trying to play upon our wounded pride, for example). It really results in a wholesale maturation of the electorate. They're much less vulnerable to demagoguery.

      You can view the whole Hitler phenomenon as Hitler playing to the wounded pride of the German people --especially the males among them-- who had been humiliated in the aftermath of their defeat in World War I. They were vulnerable to demagoguery and Hitler sensed this instinctively and offered a return route to somebodyhood. Initially, the Germans had a lot of military success. They felt like somebodies. They were astride the world very briefly, before it all came crashing down.

      We inoculate ourselves against demagoguery in so far as we become alert to these patterns of domination and submission --and reject the paternalism of authorities.

GM: I was interested in your writing on celebrity in the chapter "Deconstructing the Somebody Mystique." You write that: "By acting out their public roles while at the same time visibly suffering as ordinary people, celebrities --from rock stars to royalty-- exemplify the human predicament and, in doing so, minister to our spiritual needs." Can you talk to me a bit more about this --especially with the idea of celebrities ministering to our spiritual needs? We seem to have an inexhaustible interest in celebrities these days don't we?

RF: Yes, and I've been puzzled by this. Why do we care what Madonna had for breakfast? But there is validity to all this: everyone needs role models. I learned a lot from watching my own reactions to our former President Ronald Reagan. I didn't support his politics and I initially disdained him. But as I watched him over the years he was in office I saw how he had a common touch. It was actually endearing, even to people who despised his politics. Reagan's common touch came from him playing somebodies in the movies. But he knew he was just Ronnie Reagan. He knew he was just an actor. When he became President --which, in a way, is the best movie part of all-- he brought with him that instinctive common touch. It let people know that he knew he was just a regular guy at some level. That he was just temporarily playing the part of royalty for us. When politicians can do that with a wink and say: hey, I know I'm just like you --I just have to be in this job for now. We love them for that. Because that means they're not lording it over us. They're not being paternalistic. They're treating us as equals.

      Some politicians have that touch. Some do not. An example of one who did not is Margaret Thatcher. She always seemed rather haughty --at least to me. Yet Princess Diana was someone who seemed to have the common touch. She knew she was just a girl. Quite apart from their politics or everything else about them --we like people if they know we're the same as they are. That's how celebrities minister to our spiritual needs. Because it really helps us to see that we really aren't our role anymore than they are.

GM: A bit earlier in the book you write that: "The Somebody Mystique cements an unconscious rankist consensus. Dazzled by images of the rich and famous, we are distracted from the injustice of social inequities by infantile envy and longing." Many people suggest that social inequities increase (and often go unnoticed) because of civic laziness, political illiteracy and indifference. But you're saying something different aren't you? Is rankism really impeding us from creating social justice?

RF: It's even stronger than that. Rankism is social injustice. Just like racism was a type of social injustice. Rankism is the abuse of power as inherent in rank. It goes to the essence of social injustice which always comes out of abuses of power. I'm trying to define a very broad category here: any action by a person or a group that compromises the dignity of another person or group --that's what we feel as social injustice. And that's what we despise. That's what we organize against with others who are similar victims. We organize to overcome social injustice. We've done it over and over again throughout human history. Most recently in the twentieth century blacks in America and elsewhere overcame social injustice. Women and gays have overcome social injustice. People with disabilities have done it too. It always liberates the rest of us when one group manages to force us to see how they're being suppressed. I marvel at the acquiescence of the working poor to the chronic indignities that they suffer in our system today. I'm looking forward to the day when there's a dignitarian movement they put together. It's a movement that would fight for their equal dignity. That's going to translate into some very concrete political programs like a living wage, universal health care and equal educational opportunities for everybody.

GM: Toward the end of the book, you write that: "If they are to work together constructively, liberals must learn to recognize the value of rank as an indicator of excellence, and conservatives must be more principled about limiting the reach of rank to its proper sphere. Doing this is not easy, but it's the essence of nonpartisanship." There has been concern in Canada and the U.S. about the concentration of power in the hands of political leaders (like the President and Prime Minister) for some time. But attempts at reforms invariably fail. However, what you're suggesting strikes me as a way out of this problem. Do you see any signs that liberals and conservatives are awakening to what you're talking about?

RF: I've just been all over the U.S. and Canada (particularly British Columbia) and I'll be going to Ontario this fall. Everywhere people are responding very strongly to these ideas. They're responding to the idea that we need to overcome rankism as a path to social justice. Also: that the difference between liberals and conservatives has more to do with their relationship to rank than anything else. Liberals instinctively question rank and its prerogatives. They want to see rank reigned in. They question authorities. On the other hand, conservatives tend to place their faith in authority and sometimes overlook its abuses --at least initially. But we need both. We cannot do without rank. We still need authority, and yet we need to be very careful about how the power the authorities hold is used. If we could just focus on which powers a given rank should have, and which it should not have --and what are the correct and incorrect uses of those powers-- then liberals and conservatives can re-engage in a very constructive conversation.

GM: Toward the end of the book you write about the "The Nobody Manifesto" and specifically talk about people securing equal dignity. But it's not always easy to take a stand against those who exploit, insult, belittle and degrade us without unleashing the same sort of thing is it?

RF: It's extremely dangerous to be an uppity nobody --just as it used to be dangerous to be an uppity black or female. Individuals get creamed when they protest. They use to lose their lives. Now they lose their jobs. The best thing to do is to proceed with caution. Look around for allies. Always respect the dignity of your oppressor. You can't get anywhere if you insult his or her dignity in trying to gain your own. Start with yourself. We're our own best watchdogs. We're all victims of rankism. We're all guilty of rankism. We've all nominated somebody for nobodyhood. Since we're all once and future nobodies ourselves this makes no sense. It makes more sense to protect others dignity as if it were our own. It's a kind of version of The Golden Rule, but a practical one. You can watch yourself. Then begin to see when you insult someone's dignity --even if it's a waitress or a toll collector. Or someone who doesn't have power compared to you. You can watch yourself, catch yourself, apologize and proceed. Gradually you get better at it. When we start protecting others dignity --even we nobodies-- the somebodies will be forced to protect ours.

GM: You admitted when you first started your book you didn't expect to wind up writing about The Golden Rule did you?

RF. No. I don't come from a religious background, and I was kind of shocked when I noticed that you couldn't get rid of rankism with more rankism. You have to protect the dignity of your oppressors to be effective. So there was something I recognized that bore a relationship to The Golden Rule. And I thought: how interesting.

Gerry McCarthy is Editor of The Social Edge.

Those interested in more information on Robert Fuller's ideas can go to www.breakingranks.net and www.dignitarians.org.