Interestingly, during the conducting midterm, a couple of the female students were instructed to be less expressive. Normally, novice conductors need to work to shed inhibition, but these girls were telegraphing their panic and frustration to the ensemble. This, we learned, is a no-no. A conductor should communicate calm, unless the passage calls for a sense of panic, but even then it's more of a calm administration of panic. The prof's advice for us: if you begin to panic, as the leader of the ensemble you must conceal it. Then, for the non-english speaking students, he launched into an explanation of what it means to have a "poker face".
This is not a statement about women's fitness for leadership. But I did realize that, for all my loathing of my own emotional opacity, my personal poker face served me well for once. In relationships, this stoicism can be a curse, but perhaps it could be a benefit in directing an ensemble. During my turn, I was literally shaking, but apparently I hid it well enough. Surely you can imagine other leaders who are required to convey certain things that are not necessarily a true reflection of their own inner dialogue. Platoon leaders and quarterbacks come to mind.
But I can't help but feel like it's a double standard. Why is it wrong for me to lie to my friend about how I feel but it's ok to lie to my choir? Incidentally or not, most of the best choir directors I've known have had a manipulative streak in them. Not only do they know how to squeeze the best sound out of their group, but they also know how to lay on a good guilt trip. Sure, they might fudge the truth to make a point, but we all learn more and perform better after it's been made. So what's wrong with this? Doesn't the end justify the means? Does the director have an unspoken right to use whatever means necessary to make us better? Or by going along, haven't we have given them an unspoken green light to do so?
My romantic view of christian living has been based on the principled honesty of truth-tellers like Jesus and Paul and heart-on-sleeve songwriters like Bill Mallonee and Jeremy Post. As a result, I've come to revere a kind of unflinching transparency that constantly keeps all cards on the table and the other cheek turned and braced for any backlash. This kind of honesty does not ask questions like, "will this make them behave better?". Nor does it consider consequences.
Fair or not, this is my ideal of christian honesty. Honestly (pun intended) I have a hard time squaring it with the kind of selective truths that you offer up when you want people to do something. One example is the Great American Sports Cliche. I like to make fun of them, despite their power to motivate, because they carry so little truth. I mean, come on. If you really gave 110%, you'd be dead. But this might also be why I'm not a successful coach. On a personal note, I can recall one particular director making us feel like dirt for our lack of effort. Was it an act? Probably. Did it make us shape up? You bet. I wonder if teachers experience this sort of dilemma, when it seems that what they need to hear is not necessarily the truth. Also, we don't mind offering comfort by telling them that "everything is going to be ok" when in fact it is not, at least not in the way that they want it to.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not too principled to tell a lie. In fact, if I know it can't be verified, I'm quite good at it. But I sometimes have a hard time saying things I don't mean. Nice meeting you. Let's get together sometime. Maybe there is some answer for me in the phrase in love. Not in terms of being in it, but as a context for truth. But I don't think the scriptures mean for us to keep truth and love in balance, as if they are in contest with one another. Or are they?
Posted by aokie at July 5, 2005 02:48 PM | TrackBackabe, one thing that consistently impresses me about your bog (THE one thing) is the way you're able to squeeze out these sorts of ideas from seemingly simple tasks like flailing your arms about in the air while some people sing. don't get me wrong, i don't mean that conducting is easy, but it is a task that i normally consider void of philosophical, spiritual, and emotional meaning. i like the fact that you think beyond and beneath the basic task...
well done.
in addition, i will say that i have come to believe that there are times when withholding the entire truth is the most loving act. i think even paul and jesus did this to a degree by their use of parable, rhetoric, and figures of speech -- all devices to get at meaning without giving away everything (but none of which is LYING). i think that what was most important is not that they always told the truth, but that they always told the Truth and that they knew when, how, how much, and to whom to share the Truth. this seems especially important when i start worrying about whether i'm telling someone the truth about my feelings or thoughts, because the fact is i can't always be sure because the heart is deceptive, blah blah blah, but what i can always be sure of and what i can always feel confident in proclaiming is the Truth of the gospel. and that is the truth-telling i'm called to; not lying is a different arena, i think.
none of which is to excuse your stoicism, which is often just disguised cowardice/laziness.
i have more to say about this, but this is already getting out of hand, so one day when i start my own blog, i'll write about it.
in the meantime, write a comment back to me telling me about how i'm wrong. i always love that.
Very thoughtful post. Here's a question from someone who relates to you a bit. Is it possible that your policy of "transparency" is a way of justifying your lack of sensitivity to the feelings of others? You say blunt things, people get mad at you, you get frustrated, you say, "why can't people just be more honest?" just a thought.
Posted by: chris at July 7, 2005 10:43 PMerin, thank you for your thoughtful post, which was, as usual, all wrong. don't be offended; i'm just telling it like it is.
chris, i think i have more trouble being silent than i do offending people with the truth. i mean, the latter is a problem too, but usually i'm not offending with the truth as much with dumb jokes or just poorly chosen words. sadly. there's a reason i admire the truthtellers.
Posted by: abe at July 7, 2005 11:33 PMgreat post. i don't think i've ever struggled with stoicism, though i think i've struggled a lot with the other extreme. as a teacher, i've had to learn how to, for example, mask my amusement at misbehavior in class. while it's true that i'm amused, it's also true that the behavior is out of line and requires discipline. the same is true of conducting, or leading soldiers into battle or quarterbacking...while it's true you're scared, it's also true that the people awaiting leadership need guidance and inspiration. it's not lying to make that need a priority, i think. there are lots of layers of truth at work in any given scenario, seems like.
also, perhaps truth and love are not competing. there's also tact to consider. lots of people mistake tactlessness for honesty. and, also, i don't think transparency and opacity (opaqueness?) are virtues or vices, they're simply character traits.
Posted by: amy at July 7, 2005 11:45 PMI think Christ is a good example of the perfect balance of leading with love, and the pain of witholding, or cross bearing so to speak. Christ didn't reveal everything to his disciples all at once, they couldn't have handled it. He spoke in parables to help make things true to them. When he did speak plainly to anger the pharasees it was all with the greater plan in mind; when to push the anger buttons to move the perfect timing for his betrayal. If he were to really show the anger and frustration he must have had continually with his followers, no one would have survived. The incarnation itself is God's ultimate poker face- no? He loved us, and in that endured our company, and for a season "concealed" the truth about who he was and what the real state of our sin nature was. He gave his disciples what they needed at the time, with the greater purpose in mind. Isn't that what you do on Sunday when you don't feel like leading worship? You submit to serving irregardless of how you feel, or how the congregation feels. God gave you a good poker face for a reason ;). I wouldn't call leading with a poker face lieing, but more as bearing the common good for the greater purpose. In my experience, most groups know when they are bad; or when things sound bad. But when the conductor leads with steadfastness, their is a flash of hope, that there is a greater good in all this...more of what's already been stated I know...just getting my blog brain back from vacation. Peace.
Posted by: kathyj at July 13, 2005 07:58 AMthanks, amy and kathy. i especially liked what you said about layers of truth. that makes a lot of sense, although it makes you seem a little like a clintonian relativist.
Posted by: abe at July 13, 2005 07:02 PM