When my mother, aged 85, had a fall and was taken to hospital, it quickly became clear that she would not be able, any longer, to manage living by herself, but would need to go into a nursing home and receive, for quite some time, if not indefinitely, extensive nursing care. So I had to try to arrange that, and it meant finding a Home with a room available, and one in which she could receive nursing care. Not easy, but I eventually found one with a vacant appropriate room in the total care area. The next step was to quickly (before the room was taken by someone else) get approval from the government Department of Aged Care, or Health, or Community Services or something, I forget. That is I had to fill in a form setting out her medical condition and so on to request that she get a total care package, and this had to be witnessed. Witnessed, easy. Her regular doctor (visiting her regularly in hospital as her GP) was required as one signatory, and there had to be a second witness of my signature. Second one? Well, let’s make sure there will be no question, get the Senior Nurse Manager, responsible for her care in the ward she was in to add her signature. Had to wait to catch both of them while visiting/on duty, but eventually, done and dusted. Off I set in my car for the some 2 hour drive to the head office of the Department concerned with nursing homes. Found it, walked confidently up to counter, stood in queue, anxious to get back before end of business hours in order to register at the Nursing Home. And reached the counter to find … well, let’s call him Mr B. B for …. let’s say Bureaucrat.
There were several reasons why Mr B was the boss of me now. First he was behind the counter in his familiar space with his gang, and I was outside. Rather like storming a castle really. Second, I had already had a couple of weeks of desperately trying to sort out my mother’s affairs, while staying on the other side of the continent from my own family. I was tired, anxious, and had driven two hours to get to these battlements, sorry, counter, desperate to get the nursing home arranged. He was warm, rested, well fed, at home, and had absolutely no emotional capital invested in my form or mother at all. And, finally, and most importantly, he had absolute power over me. I had to get his approval in order to move my mother into the nursing home. There was no other pathway, no other bridge over the ravine, and he was guarding the bridge. The power balance was really unbalance – he was all-powerful, I was vulnerable and totally dependent on him.
So he took my pitiful little form almost as if he was handling it with tongs and cast a gloomy eye over it. Page 1 ok, it seemed, his face gloomier, page 2 yeees, probably, page 3 and we were on the home straight, nothing could go wrong now, only page 4 with our signatures to go. And that was where he got me. ‘Ah, doctor, yes, but who is this other one?” Then he picked up his guide book, found the page, and began going through the list. All sorts of people were on there, all kinds of occupations, and if I had found, for example, a real estate agent who didn’t know my mother or anything about her but did have a pen I would have been home free. “No, he said, no ‘Senior Nurse Manager’”. “You are kidding” I said, “what do you mean?” “That isn’t one of the approved occupations for signing this form to witness your signature and your mother’s condition”. I went into the routine, told him the situation, begged him to reconsider. Big mistake, I was even more vulnerable now, and showing it. He went through his list again, his finger pausing at each one, saying the title, like a person who is not able to read very well. “No, ‘Senior Nurse Manager’ not there, can’t accept this form”, he said triumphantly, handing it back to me, “Next”.
And that was that. I drove back the two hours arriving too late to do anything else. Next morning got another copy of form, filled it in again, got the doctor to sign it again, and managed to find someone else on the approved list (a Pharmacist, if I remember correctly, who had no idea who any of us were). Headed back on the two hour drive, stood in queue, reached the counter, handed form to the same fellow, now triumphant and showing it. Thought of saying something but could see no point, and feared that he might find another t uncrossed, an i undotted. Back in car, his signature on the approval form, back two hours to the nursing home that had the vacancy the previous day. Rushed through door, waving form to the chap in charge. “Oh”, he said, “sorry, that vacancy has been filled, what a pity you didn’t come in yesterday.”
A couple of days later there was an unexpected vacancy at another, much less appealing home, and I got her in. She was very unhappy to be in this less attractive place with a not very good room, but I was helpless. It was what it was, we were where we were. Six months later she had died, suddenly, of pneumonia. Cause and effect? Who knows.

I tell this story at some length because it seems to me, in a microcosm, symptomatic of a much larger problem. Everywhere we look around the world, and throughout recorded history, we have tens of thousands of events which seem, at first sight, unconnected. Trials proceed in the Hague of people responsible for cruel massacres in Bosnia and Ruanda; in Australia the child victims, stolen from their parents, of terrible treatment in children’s homes (both government and religious based) demand and get apologies from governments and church groups; Abu Ghraib prison, a place once used for torture by Saddam Hussein, is used for torture by Americans; in South America, military coups see men and boys shot, or flung alive from helicopters into the ocean, babies stolen from women; in Africa hands and arms are chopped off innocent civilians of the wrong tribal group; the Gestapo torture and kill Resistance prisoners; the Catholic church (and some other churches) try to cover up pedophile priests who have been raping altar boys for decades; private security firms guarding asylum seekers in mandatory detention in Australia inflict all sorts of major and minor cruelties; in various countries police are captured on CCTV tasering or pepper-spraying restrained prisoners over and over, or beating them to death in prison cells; and so it goes – the Stasi, the Khmer Rouge, the Romans, the British (in India, Northern Ireland, Kenya etc), Aztecs, Indonesians, South Africans, Soviet Union, America (native Americans, Vietnamese, Filipinos and so on), China (harvesting organs from executed prisoners, Tiananmen Square), Japanese, Spanish Inquisition, Israel (Palestinians), Burmese, they, and many others, have been at it in various ways for thousands of years. In Africa, South America, Asia, the Middle East, supposedly civilised European countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, have all treated native populations with unspeakable cruelty in hearts of darkness.
Usually each incident is treated as quite separate, explained by particular circumstances, or particular national characteristics, or explained by some particularly vicious leader. But whether they are the small scale cruel treatment of girls in a children’s home, or large scale atrocities of thousands of men working the Burmese railway, or shot in Bosnian fields, or sent off to die in Gulag Archipelagos, the cause it seems to me is the same, and all comes back to my Mr B. For some reason, buried evolutionarily deep, I suspect, within our psyche (if the behaviour of say rams towards a wounded ram, or birds towards a sickly member of a flock are an indication that its origins lie well back in evolutionary time), is a psychological switch that turns on when another human being is within our power to some degree.
We actually have psychological experiments on this human flaw. The two famous (and so devastating in their effects that they were and are still controversial) experiments were the Brown eyes/Blue eyes in the classroom one, and the press button to inflict pain one. Jane Elliott was the teacher who, to give children some idea of what racism was about, following the Martin Luther King assassination, divided her class into blue eyed and brown eyed groups and gave the latter absolute power over the former, then later reversed the power status of the two groups. The effects on the subordinate group were devastating, as was the astonishing willingness of the group arbitrarily given superior status to treat their classmates very badly. The related Milgram experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram, had students giving what they thought were greater and greater electric shocks, to the sound of screams, to another person who they were told had to be punished in order to learn some words. When told to go ahead by the instructor, students were willing generally to inflict more and more “pain” on the other person. You can read the details of both experiments on Wikipedia, but essentially both demonstrate that people are willing to treat people in their power with great cruelty, and are willing to be more and more cruel if told to be so by someone in authority over them.
It is not really, as Elliott and Milgram have shown us, really very far from my nasty little Mr B, to the bully in the school playground, to the Matron in the girl’s “reform school”, to the policeman with the taser, to the fellow who opens fire with an automatic rifle on a crowded cinema, to the Serbian general, to the commandant of Belsen. That is not to say we should just shrug our shoulders and say “human nature eh, what can you do?” It is to say that in establishing procedures, structures, hierarchies of power, we must do so with as many checks and balances as we can find, and then a few more (perhaps you lot could suggest some). No one should have absolute power, for it does indeed corrupt absolutely.
Dear David, the human condition, nicely put and seemingly damning of the human species. Have you ever read The Mantis Carol by Laurens Van Der Post, in it provides a model citation for ‘valour in the field of life’.
… badges of distinction for working to the rule of an impersonal age, but there is not a single order as yet for honouring men just for what they are within themselves.
And I find myself longing for an order whose investment would be introduced by some citation as this, inevitably heraldic in its language since it issues straight from the ancient unrest of the questing heart of man:
‘For valour in the field of life, distinguished conduct in the battle of being and steadfastness in defending its quality and texture against aberration and distortion by the prevailing hatred, malice and envy of our collective time ensuring thereby an example of how devotion to being for sheer being’s sake and pursuing it to its own end is the true glory of life on earth and the unique source of its renewal and increase of meaning and light in the darkness ahead.’
At the head of the first list of honours in a new year of man would appear: ‘Hans Taaibosch, Order of Being, First Class’.
Laurens Van Der Post
Hans is the Bushman who is central to this story and book.
Brilliant.
First off David, my condolences for the loss of your mother. I went through a similar experience (health-wise) with my own mother and it is heart wrenching to have to put up with the bureaucracy and bureaucrats as gov’t gets more and more involved in our health care. Hence, that is why I am so adamantly opposed to that and strongly support LESS gov’t in health care, education, charity or much of anything else.
Yes, this is the human condition from Serbia to Colorado to Australia. The inhumanity humans are capable of inflicting on others is, at times, appalling. Hence the reason I’ve been referring to the transformed human heart as the only real solution to the evil permeating this planet.
David, please also accept my condolences for your loss. Yes, I wonder about the cause and effect too. It may just have been the last straw for your mother, on top of losing her much valued independence.
Your article touched so many points for me, as I am sure you understand. I’ve been in that position, of one person wielding power over my life with no objective (I still believe) other than to beat me down and vilify my husband.
The cost is something we can never get back. I could feel your pain, standing at that counter. “Computer says no” – not a shred of humanity in Mr B. Probably NURSE was on the list, just not Senior Nurse Manager. I would not be at all surprised.
A response to this. While I can appreciate the use of Mr B as the anecdote around which to wrap a discussion of power and dominance, I would like to speak up for the Mr B.s of the world.
From your perspective, and the perspective of many people, Mr B. did indeed have the power and relished using it simply to be officious and feel powerful. However, in his shoes he probably feels he has no power, he likely had no leeway whatsoever to be understanding of the nature of changing job titles in the health-care industry – his superiors in some far off head office have that power, and they will be applying pressure on him if he does not follow their rule book. So yes, he has absolutely no emotional capital invested in my form or mother at all”, or at least very little, instead he has a very large amount of emotional capital invested in keeping the peace and the culture behind that counter
Now from his perspective, he possibly spend a great deal of his time trying to explain the rules by which he is bound, and often having others try to cajole or threaten him out of following those rules. This eventually (in my experience) leads to that morose ‘bureaucratic’ pencil-pusher stereotype. Too many years of trying to make a difference and find gaps in the system so you can acknowledge that a Senior Nurse Manager is an appropriate person to sign the form, and all the while getting active or passive push back on this. Eventually you stop caring.
So, the solution, in the anecdote you have presented, is not establishing procedures, structures, hierarchies of power, with as many checks and balances as we can find, as the problem is the was likely hedged in by too many checks and balances and rules and procedures. Instead the solution lies in acknowledging that some of those checks and balances need to be fuzzy and ways need to be found to give ‘street level bureaucrats’ (the term used in the academic literature on this phenomenon) to allow, and support, them to be emotionally vested in the community they work with.
This does not, of course, mean that those checks and balances are not required in situations of absolute power – I’m just not sure this anecdote encapsulates a situation in which Mr B. had absolute power. Although I am sorry that you had to go through this frustrating experience.
Krin
(Long time reader, first time commenter)
Krin, I acknowledge some Mr Bs will be in precisely the situation you describe, but others are not. In my case I know there ws no such situation, it was a power thing.
Hi, welcome to commenting at Watermelon and for your long thoughtful comment. Quite true that the more rigid you make a system the more power imbalance develops. That’s not what I meant by checks and balances, but rather the reduction of power invested in any one individual (in government or private enterprise, this has nothing to do with government per se as Eric believes). In the case of my anecdote for example the dreaded list just needed the addition of one line at the end “or other equivalent occupations”. In addition a structure of instant appeal would have helped, as would a team response to clients. Finally a management that nurtured a feeling among staff that the client’s family was of primary concern to be helped flexibly would also have helped.
Appreciated your comment Krin; “the problem is the was likely hedged in by too many checks and balances and rules and procedures.” It speaks to my point that the more gov’t you get involved doing what they have no business doing, the less compassion and/or efficiency.