Stephen Vasciannie CLEARLY, A camel is a horse made by a committee at a long meeting; but why, then, are we always so keen on committees and long meetings? And take it further: why do we always believe that majority views are correct, even when they pertain to things that do not interest the majority?
I suppose the answer to both questions is the same. Commit-tees with long meetings, and majority views given in ignorance, are, in some general sense, consistent with the democratic impulse. We believe that when a meeting has contemplated an issue, the result coming from that meeting, to the extent that it represents collective consensus, will be progressive; and, even if it is not progressive, it will have been properly arrived at.
Yet, on the face of things, there is sometimes an alternative perspective - for, plainly, there are some activities that require individual effort and initiative. For such cases, an excessive concern to find the median perspective, or to project 'groupthink' will often lead to confusion and inertia.
COMMITTEE COLUMN
Take the case of this column. I know that this column has never been penned by a committee (although postmodernist literary thinkers may have other views on that). To be sure, I try to be sensitive to feedback when it is, in my judgment, perceptive or useful in some other way. But, a committee would take an entire week, at very least, to put together 750 words of this and that. Similarly, at some stage we have to acknowledge that public opinion cannot write a weekly column. Of course, public opinion can prevent a column from being written, for, if I have no readers, then it would be extravagant (at the minimum) for my editor to keep me in his stables. Now suppose, for argument's sake, that my editor does an opinion poll and people say that I am too conservative in my views, or that my writing style is too highfalutin, should he take them on?
Perhaps he should, out of respect for the majority principle noted above, and because he wants to sell products that people will read. But, you know, he shouldn't get too carried away with this public opinion business. After all, the editor will have me among his columnists because, in his opinion, my writing is appropriate for what he wants the newspaper to project. So, he must have views on my writing, and must be prepared to accept or reject my writing on the basis of his views.
To reconsider, therefore, if most people say that my writing is not Gleanerific enough, this really should not hold much sway with my editor. He must judge this for himself because a dog may well be a fox created by opinion polls.
EFFICIENCY
This takes me to the more general question of efficiency in public affairs. Some years ago, I was a Research Fellow at a foreign university, and as a consequence, a member of one of the university's faculty boards. I attended my first meeting with great interest; after all, this was a meeting of some of the best minds at a serious university. Disappointment followed, for the Fellows argued around every point, and very little action followed from the meeting. I did not attend any more of these meetings, but I note that the university has since restructured itself to deal with competitive realities.
Sometimes, to be sure, meetings are helpful; but they must have a purpose. In political parties, and some other situations, the purpose of the meeting may well be the meeting itself: people can gather to let off steam, to reflect about angelic population on a pinhead, and generally to shoot the breeze, as this can build camaraderie. This kind of togetherness is useful; however, given that cousins and brothers-in-law have been known to compete passionately against each other, touchy-feely meetings do not always solve interpersonal differences.
Again, meetings can be helpful for information or training purposes. Without stretching myself, I can think of at least two banks that clearly require more meetings for training purposes. I can also think of a well-known team that might benefit from more meetings about the psychological aspects of cricket. From all indications, too, there could be more meetings at some schools on how to improve or even obtain CXC passes. But public opinion may suggest that I am being too cantankerous, and my 750th word is fast approaching, so I man gone.
Stephen Vasciannnie is a professor at the University of the West Indies and a consultant in the Attorney-General's chambers.
