A Cross-Examination of Authority

I understand it has been a while since we have independently discussed Native Son, so please bear with me! #throwback

Everywhere he looks, Bigger is being reminded of how he is expected to act or told how he should be acting - not only in his interactions, but also in the media - which, in combination with his belligerent personality, makes his eventual act of rebellion almost too necessary. I would like to bring to a light a certain study conducted by the University of Virginia that was mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell’s “David and Goliath”*. The study focuses on a scenario involving an elementary school teacher named "Stella". In this scenario, Stella's students are in complete chaos; entirely unengaged by her instructions, some are even doing cartwheels. At first glance, we may make the assumption that these children are instinctively immature, or that they come from a troubled background with little respect for authority or discipline. Only later does it become apparent that none of these factors are in play, that in fact the children’s behavior is a result of the teacher, who makes no attempt to understand the opinions and interests of her pupils but nonetheless disciplines them wholly; their disobedience is a response to her arbitrary display of authority. On several occasions, students who take initiative in learning (e.g. doing homework in class) are admonished by the teacher for “not following directions”. The long-term effect is that rather than help restore an appreciation for rules, the experience has provoked frustration and bitterness in the students, who were not given the opportunity to have any say in their punishment.

According to Gladwell, there are three fundamental constituents to the principle of legitimacy: “First of all, the people who are asked to obey authority have to feel like they have a voice -- that if they speak up, they will be heard. Second, the law has to be predictable. There has to be a reasonable expectation that the rules tomorrow are going to be roughly the same as the rules today. And third, the authority has to be fair. It can’t treat one group differently from another.” One can easily draw a corollary between this experiment and the disposition of Bigger Thomas. From day one, Bigger has been told who he is and who he can’t be. His lofty dreams of becoming a pilot are immediately dashed, and he knows what people will think of him and what will happen to him if he, a black boy is caught in the presence of an inebriated white girl. His feelings and beliefs hold no importance in a world where the most generous of Caucasians think ping pong tables will save the ghetto. The book very clearly sets up a naturalistic setting: almost every decision Bigger makes is an indirect reaction to authority, which has made sure that all consequences are in black and white, pun intended. Granted, Bigger Thomas is not an elementary school student, the consequences are noticeably inconsistent, completely contradicting the principle of legitimacy. “...the authority has to be fair. It can’t treat one group differently from another.” Before Bigger steps into the Dalton home, before he even meets Mary Dalton, the odds are against him.

*I’m usually a fan of Malcolm Gladwell books, but in this particular case, I found his writing to be relatively disjointed, so I would not recommend this book. (That doesn’t make the source I cited any less credible.)