Where I work, we have a union and a collective bargaining agreement with management. To this I say, "Great, hooray for collective bargaining"! Once, after I had been working here for a few years, my union local's leadership decided to promote a campaign whereby every member was given a copy of the national collective bargaining agreement, in the form of a small paperback book. The language contained therein was simple to read and understand. There were certain rules in the contract that management and workers were compelled to follow or else they would be in violation of the agreement. For a lay worker using the contract agreement book to monitor management compliance, though, it was an exercise in futility. For no matter how clear the language in the agreement was on any particular item, what really ruled the day was the long trail of "letters of understanding", based on real cases that formally interpreted the rules and ultimately governed their implementation. And these "letters", extraneous to the actual collective bargaining agreement, were only readily available to union officers and stewards, not the rank and file.
Similarly, I often see representatives and senators openly flaunting a little book containing the United States Constitution, as if by doing this it gives them a moral edge over their colleagues. Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV) has been the most notorious for doing this. But, as with the collective bargaining agreement, the Constitution's language may be simple and clear while its interpretation and ultimate application is murky and strewn with a mind-boggling trail of court interpretations. My personal experience with a Constitutional history course at UF introduced me to how murky and muddy the waters of interpretation can be.
And then there is the Bible (or Koran, etc.). I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen a preacher waving this book around on stage, claiming its absolute literal truth and urging listeners to read it for spiritual enlightenment. But such a preacher would in reality be horrified if people were to simply read the Bible, apply the message they personally derived from it, and then go forth with their lives. After all, that would put him (or her) out of a job, for the task of the clergy is to "interpret" scripture in such a way that furthers the church's (and preacher's) agenda. So it's apparently not enough to read the Bible/Torah/Koran/etc. and arrive at our own conclusions; it has to be interpreted for us by the "experts" for us to be enlightened as to its "true" meaning.
I am personally sick of people waving around books like the Constitution, the Bible, or even my collective bargaining agreement. On one hand, they are doing this to gain an edge over others by appearing to be more principled. On the other hand, these documents, albeit important, are only the starting points, not the final products that are reflected in real world application. They are important as foundations in their respective areas, but it is deceptive to pretend that their interpretations are anything but complex, inconsistent, and convoluted. And sometimes motivated by special interest agendas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment