A short intermission from my ramblings about my Korean escapade......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly, the MBA course has somewhat inhibited my ability to post. I mean, if I can be writing on my blog, then I could also be going through my course readings, right (which I have not been)?
All the same, I have tried as best as I could to write about the goings-on in my life. What has really been reduced to a bare minimum, however, are pieces on my thoughts about issues and opinions about life.
I think it is fitting then, that my first such piece in a long while draws inspiration from my MBA Management and Organisation class, which is taught by a fantastic lecturer, Dr David Lehman.
We were going through a session on power, its application and its uses. The whole seminar had focused on how best to angle one's self to be in a position of power and how various people in a particular case study could better have played the situation to give themselves more bargaining power.
It was all very good, I thought, discerning the motives and motivations of the various protagonists. But at the back of my head was a gnawing thought, "Maybe the people did what they did, not playing or hammering their advantage home to the full, giving the other rival some breathing space, because it was the decent thing to do. Power is all very good, but what happened to goodness and compassion?"
And just like magic, as we approached the end of the class, when he presented the last few slides, Dr Lehman brought up a concluding question - is the unbridled use of power ethical? He then showed us some treatises on the role of Princes (those in power) by some of the greatest thinkers.
The first two deal with power on a higher societal or organisational scale...
“it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to lack one of the two... by having them and observing them, they are harmful; and by appearing to have them, they are useful, as it is to appear merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious.”Niccolo Machiavelli (“the prince”)
“[a prince] has three tasks. He must first establish the welfare of the community he rules; secondly, he must ensure that nothing undermines the well-being thus established; and thirdly, he must be at pains continually to extend this welfare.”St. Thomas Aquinas (“on princely government”)
Notice the contrast between the two? The first by Machiavelli seems to represent a somewhat scheming use of power where the ends justify the means. St Thomas Aquinas on the other hand advocated that the Prince's primary aim is to do good for his people (which was maybe why he was regarded as a Saint). It may not seem so at first glance but history has often recognised both men to have their countries' best interests at heart.
But it was Dr Lehman's third slide that hit home the most. It was an excerpt from The Little Prince by Antoine St Exupery...
"People have forgotten this truth but you must not forget. You become responsible, for ever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose.”The Fox (“the little prince")
My hair stood a little not only because I was rereading the words I had first seen more than a decade ago but also because of Dr Lehman's haunting question which followed that:-
Who Is Your Rose?For that caption and its attendant question clearly addressed the exercise of power on a more personal level. It reminded me that all of us, intentionally or unwittingly, exert power in our everyday lives and that the people most affected are those closest to us, those whose lives have, because of providence or human design, become inextricably intertwined with our own such that what and how we think and say and do matters a great deal to them. These are the people most susceptible and apt to be gratified, fulfilled, overjoyed or hurt, traumatized and devastated by our actions. They are our roses and to them, we are powerful people indeed.
To me, one's rose need not be a romantic interest (though the imagery is highly suggestive) but someone closely linked to one's self - a blood relation even. But I think the message is particularly powerful with regard to people who we have "tamed". These are people who have given up a piece of their emotional independence and freedom to be under our influence or thrall, whatever that degree may be. These are the ones who have, for whatever reason, chosen to allow us to affect how happy they are, how good a certain portion of their lives feel. Much like a stray but carefree kitten that we bring into our homes, we have tamed them and they trust us to be responsible towards them.
More than anything else, the passage hit home because it encapsulated in so few words what I wanted to say so mant times whenever I tried to articulate why I sometimes did the things I did - why I persisted when everything suggested it was better to let go, why I refuse to forget the memory and significance of events long gone, why I still care about so many things and people and their well-being even though circumstances have long changed.
I am lucky and grateful for all my roses throughout my life. Some I am still close to, others have moved on, letting the wind carry them on to greener pastures and different lands.
To all of you, please believe when I say that I have loved you all and will continue doing so, for you have added colour and dazzle and wonder to my life. You have filled it with many a vibrant bouquet, filled with petals of hope and hurt, misery and joy, your thorns piercing me and protecting me in equal measure, at different points of time. I have been privileged and these are experiences which I would not trade for anything in the world.
And I hope that at the end of the day, you will feel that I have been responsible for what I have tamed. And if you can, please be nice to me too, for you can be sure that, though it may not seem so to you, or may seem to you to be for only a fleeting moment, you have in your own special way been a part of my life, the memory of which will never die, no matter what happens. In that way, your own special way, you have tamed me too - forever.
