| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Poking a Pet Peeve | Main | Lunar Refractions: Breaking the Record, Breaking the Bank »

May 14, 2007

On Loyalty

Of all the qualities a person may possess, be they inherently positive or negative, a useful place may be made for all them except loyalty. Loyalty is a willful act made at the behest of a superior, an act whose only guaranty is continued subservience. Loyalty imposes the impression of honor on outwardly unyielding faith in a poor idea or person.

A banker in his 30s gets a job with a maverick investor. Many quiet meetings and transactions surround the maverick's method for picking investments. The banker is privy to many of these secrets and is well rewarded for his energetic and discreet compliance. He buys a stately house just out of the city. People say taxi and he thinks of a helicopter. A journalist discovers the method is grossly illegal. The banker stays on through the investigations; given his rewards he feels this is the just choice. His job has given him his possessions and blessed his resume; the maverick's reputation must be preserved within a larger narrative. 

Every weekend a mother and father visit their daughter at a juvenile detention center. The bus takes three hours. The wait at the detention center is twice as long. They spin great webs of contexts that make sense of her crime, but they do not ultimately stand by or try to justify the crime itself. Sometimes they are not let into the center. Sometimes they are let in and she is moody and unmanageable. They go to see their daughter every weekend. They love her.

Peter Gotti, older brother of John Gotti, was the last head from a long generation of the Gambino crime family. He did not rule long, indicted with several other made men, all elderly, hunched over and harassed by their bodies. At trial there were as many turncoats as there were defendants, old men as well, trading their testimony and the mafia's lifetime oath of loyalty, for however many less years in the cells for one cooperators are kept in for their own safety. Peter Gotti was found guilty, his appeal has been filed.

Zimbabwe. Burma. Any government from the 60s through the 80s whose leader had big dark glasses welded to his temples. All governments founded on loyalty, all corrupt and doomed. See the current American administration the comparison of which is no great stretch. One is to the others as stable, very rich America is to decidedly unstable, much poorer countries. Permanent war, the propagation of one party and the obfuscation of the press (worse states castrate the press, America's was emasculated into impotence, left making excuses, “I swear this never happened before.”) are wholly unintelligent from the point of view of good government, and all are acts typical of governments crammed with loyalists. 

Minority groups are often what would be called loyal amongst each other. But this is the affection that comes from shared experience, spread out concentrically, because the minority experience is generally an unstable and/or subservient one. They care for each other because others don't.

Two brother's sit in a bar, one drunk. They love each other very much, talk to each other every day. The drunk brother gets in a verbal altercation and a fight is inevitable. The sober brother steps in, punching the man his brother faces, hurting him. A regrettable act of love.

An old man dies. One granddaughter loved the man so much she charges money she will not be able to pay back anytime soon, flying from another country to attend the funeral. Another granddaughter, who loved him equally and lives in the same town as the funeral, cannot leave her house she is so devastated. Neither qualifies as loyal or not, both are acts born from love.

A soldier lies wounded in an Army hospital, alive in a manner of speaking, burned his body over and sort of breathing. In 2003 his brigade marched from the Kuwaiti border to Baghdad where for a week they drove up and down a highway celebrating, shooting wildly. The soldier went home and was brought back by the Army for another year, then another year and a last year the beginning of which a bomb exploded under him. Many explosions could have done the same, but he always missed their acquaintance through luck and the help of other soldiers. His troop contains many personalities, some of whom he likes, others less so. No reward, except the company of these personalities, exists equivalent to what the soldier has seen and had to do. He regrets that he is not with his troop now. His is the saddest, sorriest love of all.

Posted by Alex de Lucena at 08:21 AM | Permalink

Comments

This pretentious essay is ridiculously cynical and based on half-baked fictional scenarios that don't rise above the level of a trite novel.

Posted by: Edward Williams | May 14, 2007 1:06:25 PM

I think it is lovely!

Posted by: Abbas Raza | May 14, 2007 1:28:39 PM

Edward, is there any particularly constructive reason to make a comment such as yours? The maxim which ends in "Don't say anything at all" comes to mind.

Posted by: Justin Stanley | May 14, 2007 4:04:58 PM

isn't it a compelling way to make a couple simple points: war sucks. corruption kills.
cliches are cliches for a reason. if there's weakness of style or one feels their emotions are toyed with- well sobeit in the name of an end to the dastardly goings-on in the fertile crescent.

Posted by: zee beams | May 14, 2007 5:13:05 PM

Abbas--
We are in complete agreement for once---
That's scary
Scott

Posted by: Scott Ahlf | May 14, 2007 11:13:12 PM

The irony of loyalty as the commentators take sides.

Hmmm, and what is the most pathetic of all?

Posted by: J | May 15, 2007 11:01:31 AM

Some are good, some are cliched. Some are heartfelt and realistic. Others are blunt and wreak of undergraduate street politics - yes, the Bush administration is just like Burma - they might as well be twins!

Merely saying what I see.

DU

Posted by: The Mechanical Eye | May 15, 2007 1:06:14 PM

The pretension resides in the author couching his leading opinions (which practically everyone agrees with) under the theme of "loyalty", upon which totally general moral sentiment he makes a dumb attack. He then proceeds to make sporadic analogies that are striving and scattershot, and only randomly treat his "loyalty" theme. Just so it will seem thoughtful when he brings out his most powerful story, which anyway sounds like he copied it from somewhere. I am sorry this annoys me so much; it is the combination of sloppy thinking and stylistic bravado.

Posted by: Edward Williams | May 15, 2007 2:25:58 PM

One extreme is as bad as the next, the problem is our obsession with adopting extremes. I'd no more want to live in a world of no loyalty than I would one of blind loyalty. How does something even as common as a marriage or a business partnership work with zero loyalty?

How about recognizing a rational point at which you're loyal to those who have earned it and to your values, the values more so than the people if they betray them.

Posted by: Dan | May 17, 2007 2:28:40 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

Our Science Prize

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Hamid on Abandon all hope, ye who enter this thread

Rebekah on Only Philosophers Go to Hell

Adrian Morgan on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Ruchira on The 10 Things Economics Can Tell Us About Happiness

Ruchira on Just Herself

matt on Friday Poem

Stefan on Questioning Willusionism

Saba R. on Saadia Toor and "The State of Islam"

Faisal K. on Saadia Toor and "The State of Islam"

Raza on Questioning Willusionism

Anand Manikutty on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Sandra on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Raza on Questioning Willusionism

DAS on Questioning Willusionism

Raza on Turning Scientific Perplexity into Ordinary Statistical Uncertainty

DAS on Turning Scientific Perplexity into Ordinary Statistical Uncertainty

John Ballard on Turning Scientific Perplexity into Ordinary Statistical Uncertainty

Chris Gudmann on How Bad Is It?

Cormac O Rafferty on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Renideo on Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?

Renideo on Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?

ajith on Science is Not About Certainty: A Philosophy of Physics

Ralston McTodd on The 10 Things Economics Can Tell Us About Happiness

Julian De Freitas on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Julian De Freitas on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed