UNCLE HERKIMER'S KORNER: ©1988
When I read an article that starts off with a definition for a word that is fairly common, I automatically assume that the author is about to attach some idiosyncratic meaning to the word and wishes to disguise his/her villainous assault on recognized meaning by hiding in the shadow of authority. But not me. Instead, I will simply give you the true meaning of this months subject: bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is that natural, evolutionary, Divinely Directed method of operation that inexorably develops when two or more people try to do three or more things. One common misconception about bureaucracies is that they have some malicious intent regarding those they are supposed to serve. 1984 is probably the ultimate expression of this viewpoint. But I think the real truth is much more ominous. Before getting to that, we need to look more closely at the bureaucratic processes.
For those employed in bureaucracies, the most difficult task is getting their ideas turned into action. The processes are so cumbersome that people are rarely capable of preserving their enthusiasm long enough to see their ideas become reality, or perhaps even to recognize their idea when some version of it does finally become operational. This debilitating frustration leads them to the most available source of power in the bureaucratic setting-- not the ability to get things done, but the ability to prevent or delay things from getting done. "You can't get on the committee review agenda until I sign off on the financial impact assessment." This slowing process is not so much designed to frustrate the general public (though of course it seems to be just that) as it is to exert at least indirect control on their status in the organization. Remember you are going to be there only for a brief period of time, the yo-yo at the next desk is going to be there twenty years. See for yourself how easy it is to get one member of an office to blame the problem you want them to solve on some other member or department in the bureaucracy.
Since they don't have real power, or even want it directly lest it be linked to responsibility in case/when things go wrong, they must exercise control covertly. "I really wish I could help you, but it is out of my hands. I just can't let it go on unless you...." The implication being that if it were up to them they would make it easy for you, but someone else in the organization won't let them. Sure. Actually, this process has a technical name. It is called Operating Under the Principles of Petty Retentiveness. Yeh, yeh, I know Freud described what might appear to be a similar concept, although he couched the idea in more scatological terminology, but any resemblance is purely consequential.
You see, if the particular clerk you are presenting your document (plaintive plea ?) to lets it go on with a cursory stamp, then he/she remains anonymous, but if they can require you to submit other forms or make revisions, then that nameless clerk becomes a real person. They have status. They can exert control over your behavior (more importantly exert control over the yo-yo at the next desk through you). But don't expect them to then act personably, their sudden personhood is more a transcendental state than a pragmatic fact.
Well of course all these retentive incidents accumulate rapidly, and in ways than are not designed to be part of the system, or accounted for by the system projections. As a result the entire system slows to a crawl, and slower, without a clear explanation for the slowdown in terms of system design. One can see clearly that in a metaphorical sort of way the malady that inevitably alters all bureaucracies is constipation. And therein is the more ominous implication I referred to earlier. Not only must we be persistently thwarted by this peristaltic paralysis, but then we realize that the poor bastards are probably doing the best they can. Now that's scary.
Need the future of human organization be painted so bleakly? Will the forces of entropy grind civilization to a halt? Yes. It's all over. Unless some cathartic element from outside the system exerts some unclogging effect on the process.
Buried under all the hoopla surrounding the recent summit between Regan and Gorbachev was the tiniest indication that Gorgbi understands the problem better than Ronnie. Glasnost got all the publicity, but that was just a red herring to get us arguing about whether it actually exists. The real gem is buried in the concept of perestroika. Within that term is the key we need to unlock our own system of government. Regardless of what you might have read elsewhere, the true translation of perestroika is Ex-Lax. Just what we need.
MensaMuse, Boulder, Colorado, Jim Moore
Back to the curator's desk.
