A critical analysis by Stacy D.
Introduction
Have you ever worked with someone you just couldn’t stand?
An individual that no one seems to like?
That one person that seems to lacks the essential “soft skills” that are deemed absolutely necessary for others to have, but somehow they get a pass?
You know?
…An a**hole?
Based on the title, you could make the argument, “But, I don’t like people like that! They’re the worst!” Which, you wouldn’t be mistaken to feel that way. Personally, I don’t either. You and I have that in common. It just means that someone likes them, and quite possibly, the rest of us simply tolerate them.
These circumstances happen enough to inspire me to dance my fingers on a keyboard and put words on a screen as a means to articulate my feelings about the topic.
To put things into perspective, let’s first define what I mean by an “a**hole.”
If you’re feeling cheeky, do a Google search for “a**hole synonyms” — The entries are quite colorful. For my own purposes, I’ll encapsulate specifically what I mean when I say it.
a**hole (noun)
An intentionally contemptible person. Someone that is foolish, despicable, unlikeable, and generally lacks tact, emotional intelligence, social skills, and personal accountability. Most of the time, they choose to engage in abusive or harmful behaviors and refuse to have any introspection.
I want to be very clear: I am not saying that anyone that is incapable of tact or social skills is automatically an a**hole. That would assume that anyone with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) could be filed away as an a**hole, and that would be incredibly short-sighted and discriminatory. The keywords here are intentionally and choose.
Actually, being an a**hole is a choice. And, often, is by the a**hole’s own admission, seen as a positive or a personality trait that is somehow endearing.
Reader, you and I both know treating other people poorly is, in fact, not endearing. It’s quite the opposite really. So, why do so many people defend such behaviors?
A culture of excuses
Earlier this year, I was listening to a podcast. During which, I discovered that Stanley Kubrick, the famous director of The Shining (among various other titles), actively and openly abused his actresses, namely Shelley Duvall.
For example, Kubrick reportedly made Duvall’s life a “living nightmare” according to Duvall and her respective castmates of The Shining. Kubrick would break her down, force her to cry, yell at her, calling her useless, and would physically and mentally torture her under the guise of creative directing.
Curious, I began to research these instances and found a striking pattern amongst those in positions of power: They do bad things and get away with it.
During my search, I found that, Alfred Hitchcock, director of The Birds, stalked, manipulated, tortured, harassed, assaulted, and brought physical injury to actress Tippi Hedren for similar reasons.
When I would gaze upon the comments sections or dissections thereof, when available, I’d often see echoes of people standing up for these grotesque practices.
“He’s literally a genius. To put a limit on his directing style would be to put a limit on art.”
-Said a commenter when responding to someone speaking out against the welfare of the actors and animals during the shooting of The Birds.
“Those actresses knew what they signed up for. They knew they would have to work hard to make it. They shouldn’t complain.”
-Another commenter said in relation to Hedren nearly having her eye pecked out by a large bird tied to her costume during filming.
“Without that sort of crazy genius creativity we wouldn’t have these classics. Abuse? Hardly.”
-Someone scoffed while responding to an article about Duvall’s mistreatment during the production of The Shining.
Hopefully, you get the gist.
What we’re seeing is abuse being justified for the sake of creating “art.” When the excuses come rolling out, they act as a band-aid that can’t quite attach to a larger, gaping wound.
As you may have guessed, these sort of complaints aren’t limited to directors, that’s simply where my excursion started. Slowly, but surely, I trudged my ways into the slimy depths of the underbelly of outright abuse and a**holery.
This trend seemed the transcend any one profession and seemingly crept its way to the far reaches of every possible avenue, and with it, so did the excuses. The goal shifted from abuse for art to abuse for “running a successful business” or other like-minded statements.
Personally, as someone that has experienced domestic violence and abuse firsthand, it was an interesting parallel to see how the greater population treats victims of abuse and a**holery in what was supposed to be professional workplace scenarios. Often, but not always, the “victim” was a woman and the aggressor a man, much like domestic violence statistics have proven to show. In the times where the “victim” was a man, there was normally discussions mocking his “manlihood” or jokes about how his complaints make him “less of a man.” -This was true regardless of who the aggressor was.
Note: You may have noticed that I’m starting to somewhat use the terms a**hole and abuser interchangeably. And, well, maybe they are (or at least can be) very similar. Much like how every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.
Victim blaming is the result of society wanting to believe the world is just, and that bad things won’t happen to them, so it must be the fault of the person being victimized. Instead of placing the onus on the aggressor, many have a tendency to spin the needle in the wrong direction, categorizing those who suffer as the source of their own undoing.
Victim blaming is a type of attribution error that normally contains some level of self-serving bias from the onlooker. By blaming others and separating themselves from the problem, onlookers can protect their own self-esteem by shifting blame and assuming the affected is somehow weaker or less capable than themselves. Alternatively, they may associate the aggressor as more powerful than the victim for having caused the issue to begin with, and typecast the victim as someone that fell prey to a circumstance that they see as preventable. This is a trait of an individualistic culture, where the participants greatly value personal independence and often reject most forms of collectivism.
The United States is largely individualistic, and it’s no secret that a good portion of our populous associates aggression, abhorrence, and abusive tendencies with power. We are led to believe we have autonomy and independence, while electing local, state, and federal leaders to make decisions for us. The same is true of any corporate workplace when talking about C-Level Executives and the Board of Directors.
Studies have shown that there seems to be a correlation with sociopathic and/or psychopathic behaviors in corporate leadership. All too frequently, the aforementioned leaders care not for their team, but only for themselves. The brains of these selfish “go-getters” only spark to serve their own interests, proving they have little to no regard for the well-being of others. And, unfortunately, a lot of people find that to be admirable.
Many credit Steve Jobs for single-handedly founding Apple, one of the world’s largest and most popular tech companies. Though, his coworkers, family, and friends all attribute his success to being a relentless jerk that wasn’t afraid to cheat or steamroll others. (*Cough!* Wozniak *Cough!*)
The attraction to power
When I enrolled in Trauma Crisis Training to be a Domestic Violence Victim’s Advocate with the YWCA, I became very familiar with the Wheel of Power and Control.
The wheel contains “she” pronouns to describe the victim because 85% of domestic violence victims are women, but I do want to iterate that anyone can find themselves in an abusive relationship, regardless of gender, orientation, race, ability, or social status.
According to TheHotline.org, and practically every domestic violence coalition ever:
“Domestic violence stems from a desire to gain and maintain power and control over an intimate partner.”
What does it mean to be powerful?
By definition, to be powerful is outlined as:
- “Having the ability to control or influence people or things.”
- “Having a strong effect on someone or something.”
- “Having or producing a lot of physical strength or force.”
Every year, Forbes comes out with a list of the most powerful people in the world. The list changes from year to year, but the 4 key variables that make up power tend to stay the same:
- Control: The amount of people a person has influence over.
- Wealth: The amount of financial resources controlled by each person.
- Spread: The number of categories or spheres a person in powerful in.
- Usage: The ability of the person to use their power.
Ok, if I’m reading this correct, being powerful usually corresponds with how much money you have and how easy it is for you to control others. (This is also why 99% of domestic violence relationships involve financial abuse.)
Upon reading the bulleted lists above, hopefully, the first thought that came to your mind was: “What if they don’t want to be controlled?”
And, you’re right! There’s a huge question of both autonomy and consent that come into play in the discussion of control.
Consent doesn’t seem to be present in any abuser’s repertoire. Everyone else is seen as a means to an end and their thoughts and feelings take a backseat.
The concept of power and control has much prevalence in the field of domestic violence and sexual assault, but what about the workplace?
When certain members of society or influencers of a field of work have control over your life, it directly affects you and can go against your moral compass or your ability to provide informed consent, therefore, it creates a dilemma between the person in power and those that under their purview. The most common result of this is exploitation.
Some workers are directly opposed to this style of command, but others blindly abide, hoping they, too, one day, can become the one calling the shots. Under most circumstances, there exist very few punishments that prevent a**holes from acting they way they do, or loopholes exist that create an infinite gray area for them to act abhorrently.
In August of 1971, Stanford dabbled in the realm of experimental power and what the effects might be if one is given power under experimental circumstances.
The Standford Prison Experiment was born, and lasted a whopping 6 whole days. In the study, volunteers were assigned the role of a guard or prisoner, by the flip of a coin, in a mock prison, with the orchestrator acting as the superintendent.
Several “prisoners” left mid-experiment almost immediately because the perceived power of the “guards” quickly turned violent. Immediately, the “guards” subjected the “prisoners” to psychological torture, physical abuse, among other various forms of authoritarian policing.
The short-lived experiment was regarded as inconclusive, but did shed some light to the cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.
It is assumed that because one is in a position of authority, that they are good and just and must have accomplished a lot of great deeds to be where they’re at. However, that is yet another logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam, or, the “Appeal to Authority.” This relates to how people, at large, tend to assume that because an authority thinks or says something, it must therefore be true. People in positions of power are often given the benefit of the doubt for simply being where they are at.
When you’re in charge, you can make the rules, and when you make the rules you can establish your own immunity to those rules. Several prisons and police municipalities have been recently under fire for similar actions.
According to Harvard, the general public tends to follow “powerful” people and idolize them because they believe that they may be entitled to power transference through loyalty or proximity. According to the Harvard Business review:
At its best, transference is the emotional glue that binds people to a leader. Employees in the grip of positive transference see their leader as better than they really are- smarter, nicer, and more charismatic. They tend to give that person the benefit of the doubt and take on more risk at their request than they otherwise would.
The article also mentions that a good leader does not play into the idealized version of themselves. Meaning, they remain humble, grounded, and aware of their impact and influence. The ideal leader doesn’t treat their role as something that makes them better than others, but what is considered ideal and what is reality are two terribly different things.
The common result of idolizing others perceived as powerful is that the followers tend to project their own ideas, morals, and fabricate a relationship unto the person they’re admiring. This is called parasocial interaction. Typically, parasocial interaction outlines how viewers relate to figures in the media, but it can also translate to relationships that are close in proximity, but still have some level of cognitive dissonance or an organizational hierarchy disparity between two parties.
If someone were to ask you, “What do you define as being successful?” what would you say? Most equate success as “being famous”, “having a large following”, “has a higher standard of living than their peers”, and such other definitions, according to Axios. There are some disparities in the perception of success, but ultimately, they closely align with Forbes’ “What does it mean to be powerful?” criteria.
By that measure:
Success = Power
It’s no secret that many associate power with the ability to do what you want, when you want, and how you want despite the consequences. Because, to put it plainly, if you’re powerful, you have a tendency to be immune from most consequences.
With that in mind:
Power = Freedom from Consequences
In summary
- A**holes act in ways they think will get them to success “faster.”
- A**holes, and society at large in individualistic cultures, see power as an equivalent to success. Power means the ability to influence and control others, while remaining free from consequences of those actions.
- Power comes from the ability to control others and usually involves some form of exploitation in order to gain influence or financial leverage.
- Since a**holes, by definition, are inept of empathy, they largely don’t care what they do to others, so long as they benefit.
- In most cases, the a**hole controls the narrative and is able to paint their targets as weak or inferior.
- Onlookers will skirt the blame and point the finger to the victim of the a**hole’s terror as a means of self-preservation and personal differentiation.
- Such onlookers are willing to make excuses for the a**hole and protect their image because they believe that being an a**hole is integral to the process of creating good work and/or want what the a**hole has. This both encourages and justifies the behavior.
- By having the support of a culture that is inherently flawed and seeking power, a**holes are allowed to thrive and flourish.
The reason that a**holes largely get away with what they do is because their actions, under the individualistic nature of the United States, are seen as powerful, or power-adjacent. Our entire history has been comprised of toothpicks, bubblegum, and paperclips fastened together to form a very nuanced, yet flawed consummate of what makes someone “successful.” And, by that extension, we’ve historically allowed these traits to flourish and prosper. The way of the a**hole is normalized to some degree and it’s allowed to remain a part of the status quo because it works.
By works, I mean, it works in the sense that it gets you what you want, but at the expense of others. Those that lack empathy and collectivism will have no problem exploiting their fellow humans to fulfill what they believe can make them powerful. And, if their following is strong enough, they can also use those followers to assist in submitting others that oppose them into silence so they can continue along their way without the hurdles of compassion or empathy to stand in their way.
A**holes are very good at protecting the power structures and defense measures they’ve so expertly designed for themselves.
With that, the a**hole two cubicles down from you will step on you to get that promotion without a second thought because they value power and freedom from consequences over genuine human connection.
Depending on your own definition of success, that might make them less successful than you because you might be basing your perception on ethics, integrity, and helping others reach a common goal.
