Denis Dragunsky about contemporary relations of the “bottom” and “top”
Julia Strikingly Strizhkina. “Anger”
One of my friends, the line Manager (in the strict sense: he has subordinates who have subordinates), told the following story. Recently came to him the chief of a small Department and made a rather strange statement. Of the four points.
First, he said that the work in his Department to pieces roslagen, no one wants to work.
Secondly, he does a lot more than do his colleagues on the same level, and his work is much more important.
Thirdly, it has recently been loaded with new responsibilities and he just gets tired, he just one day will not stand, will break, already health not that!
Fourthly, he secretly reported that NN, the chief of a neighboring Department, is gone not because the new place pays more, but because here in our company, it just rode and it’s awful atmosphere.
Saying about the atmosphere, he got up, frowned, said goodbye and left the room.
— And what did he want? — asked my friend. — Because he did not suggested, not asked, not demanded! Not a word said about the possible reorganization of his Department. Not said that it is right to take another, higher position. Not even asked about the salary increase, since he is being forced to process. Not required to save him from unnecessary work, because it don’t pay… What was it? What did he want?
— Free psychological relief? I asked. — That is a little bit hysterical?
— Hardly. Like a grown man. Yes and we have the psychologist’s office — free, by the way.
— I also initially thought so, — said my friend. But some unfinished blackmail, without exact demands and real threats. That is not blackmail at all.
“Right,” I said. Maybe he decided to leave? Like in the movies, to break into the Cabinet, to say: “the fuck are you, the boss, and firm your shit!” and Bang on the table.
— And where is this statement? Nothing of the sort. Works, worked… What was it?
<iframe id=”AdFox_iframe_800628″ frameborder=”0″ width=”1″ height=”1″></iframe>
I’ve been thinking, and here is what I understand. This person “told the truth in the eye.”
Such actions were in use during the Soviet era. “Tell the truth” or “aloud to Express what I (the boss) think”. This was considered an act of great civil courage.
It was unique in itself. No matter what people wanted actually. The main thing is to speak. It’s possible that people wanted to tell the whole truth. And that’s it. Is it not enough?
However, it seems to me that “speaking the truth in the eye” — not just in someone’s eyes, and the bright eyes of the authorities is a peculiar legacy of serfdom. More precisely, serf lawlessness. The heritage of the feudal caste society, when the “lower classes” could not affect the behavior of the top echelon. Was no state-legal basis. No fair laws that protect the poor and weak, no independent judiciary, no Parliament, no free elections. The poor masses have to appeal to the conscience of his master.
“Sin, you, sir! Left me without the feeding with small detishkami! And the house fell apart completely, and the cow fell, Oh, sin, sir!” We can add: “Oh, sir! And after all we die!” — that is to recall God’s judgment. Like that soft spiritual blackmail.
Telling the whole truth, man was nahabedian hat, turned and left. And to think and act was a gentleman.
And quite often — although not always — a gentleman in thought and act. Because these were his guys, and they needed him, unlike Chichikov, in the form of living souls. The serfdom or servage — you know.
Probably so or nearly so was my friend — not a feudal landlord, and modest mid-level executives, who came with his reproach is not a serf a man, and his subordinate, the chief of the grass-roots level. But the tradition prevails.
Economists-institutionalists call this “path dependency”, i.e. dependence on old rut, repeating old mistakes.
Perhaps this man was waiting for his boss that he will propose a reorganization of the division, will enhance it in post, increase wages, will be exempt from extra duties, and at the same time will take steps to improve the atmosphere in the team.
Here it is “a statement of the whole truth in the eye” — and in service, in politics and even in family and sexual relationships is just letting the bosses, the government or partner at a grave duty “to do something!”
What exactly can you do?
Like what? You’re a gentleman, head, power! You husband and father (or wife and mother, no matter who first realized, and the reproaches) — so you think! Do something that I liked!
Go gloomy conversation.
I, as you know (who knows, maybe to read a couple of my columns here, “Газете.Ru”), not the biggest fan of our current government. To put it mildly. However, some points in opposition to me too — and also, to put it mildly — surprised.
Its global vagueness here.
When four years ago I had meetings in connection with the election, it suddenly seemed to me that the only requirement was realistic — tolerance opposition to the TV.
Not as whipping boys in political talk shows, and in the form of its own — albeit short, though not in Prime-time, though not on the most important, but still on “terrestrial” TV shows. Where the opposition could clearly, slowly, not shouting a slogan a three-second, trying to outvoice a professional tenor and soprano coprophagy, namely, that calmly and in detail to tell the audience their thoughts, their program, their vision of the future of Russia.
Funny to say, I even wrote an article about it (maybe, and now it hangs on the website of “Novaya Gazeta”). But friends and acquaintances told me that the claim “completely unrealistic.” Probably. Even the most likely. With 99% probability that the authorities wouldn’t have let the opposition to terrestrial networks. However, to refuse would have been difficult, and here’s why. This refusal would have discredited the policy of the government is stronger than the violation of election law.
Since we are not talking about the recount, not on new elections and certainly not that “the regime must go” — o Lord my God,
where did you see the regime left in response to the statement that it needs to go?
Don’t worry, gentlemen, nobody demands your resignation! We respect the Constitution. We respect the election results, despite all the issues with the cleanliness of the procedure. But we doubt that Russian life must be constructed on the principle of “winner takes all”. All, always and everywhere only the winner (although he did not get 100% of the votes) is wrong, and it violates the established in the people the conception of justice.
Anyway we are talking about the very small — only about allocating a small patch of the lush garden of the Russian television, according to the constitutional principles of freedom of the press… And I’m sorry that this requirement was not stated then.
To demand that the authorities refused the authorities — so, spontaneous, completely voluntary to surrender to it, as gamblers say, “come, reduce,” and would abandon all its prerogatives and guarantees, is, goes, really. And demand (okay, ask convincingly) airtime on the urban channels, respectively, recruited to the percentage of votes — this is unreal…
Absolutely feudal expectation that the government, having heard a discordant voice: “Sin, sir! After all, we die!” — she will repent and all will arrange itself to greater celebration of democratic ideals. “Never ask, especially those who…” — and further on the immortal text. Don’t ask! But some recriminations, reproaches, “the whole truth right in the eye” — not hurt. Perhaps those rich and powerful, ashamed, usagestats.
Due to the massive offering of flowers at the tomb of Stalin I came across one interesting argument. “These people on Stalin’s spit. This is the newest form of the Russian protest! 80% of Russians are dissatisfied anti-national policy of the government. They in this manner give a sign”.
How strange! If 80% of Russians are dissatisfied with the regime, they, under the Constitution, a long time possess a simple and reliable method to submit an unloved power to put a tick in the ballot is not where you want power, and in some other box. But this is obviously scary. Suddenly the boss tells him to take a picture of the Bulletin? Or inside the urn sits a special person, watching to see who as voted? And then still figure out how I want…
So it is better to incur carnations to Stalin, and Putin, looking from the Kremlin, he will understand that you need to do for people.
I don’t believe in those tall tales that supposedly modern Stalinists so cunning, is too metaphorical manner protest against the policies of government. However, it is significant that this invention appeared.
Stanislavski said: “Play angry man — look at it good features and play them.” So I repeat: “Read or listen to his political opponent and in General, from your point of view, man’s evil and stupid — look where he’s right.”
I really don’t like the statements of Mr. Zorkin and Mr. Mikhalkov about serfdom, but increasingly I think it’s really kind of, pardon the expression, a clamp. The relationship of the powerless man and the Almighty master has permeated the political reality. And it’s not the gentleman, in man.
Case in an old peasant’s habit to speak vaguely and immediately move to higher value-existential level.
Russian tramp, as we were taught in school, it is world happiness. That power was bitterly ashamed of herself and left, securing the transitional period, giving the keys to the nuclear suitcase and Bank safes.
While the question is about the simple things and the earth. On the agenda in the field of construction of civil society. Something on the level of the courtyard beautification committees, groups of quality control selling cream, school boards, supervision of libraries, etc., etc. But it’s small and boring, you know. Much more fun in one thousand times aloud to say whatever we think about power.
The truth in the eye!
And a gentleman would understand, invent and make. Or — not will. He’s a gentleman.