Light and Small Towns

There seems to be something about the distinction between darkness and light. Some activities flourish only in darkness, other activities flourish best in the light.

When 'we' lived predominantly in small communities (this is the figurative 'we' of our American heritage) everybody seemed to know everything about everyone else. The close-knit social fabric was supplemented by gossip channels to ensure that very few things remained secret or hidden. As our society moved from small-town America to more urban living, isolation and anonymity increased, gossip channels were interrupted and consequently more and more of people's lives fell out of public view. With anonymity came an increase in "acts of darkness" - or an increase in those activities that would be shameful if detected or widely known, an increase in actions shameful if seen, but that seemed to be alright if the identity of the doer were not known.

We have all seen the caricatured versions of hooded or masked groups of vigilantes or thugs; those who think that by shielding their identity they can get away with acts that would be unacceptable to society. Acts of darkness flourish when the doer thinks they are not known.

This is a bit like the attendees at masked balls of a bygone era. The masks conferred a sort of ambiguity about who the actor might be - and so actions at masked balls became more ribald and provocative. As long as there was plausible deniability about the identity of a person at the ball, the doer might "get away" with things that society might otherwise reject.

The larger our cities become, and the more anonymous we become, the greater the risk that we will act as if our actions are all done in the cover of darkness. In the anonymity of being a faceless New York commuter we lack friendliness - we become abrupt in our dealings with others. When our friends and spouses don't see us, we even say exactly what we think, regardless of how rude or inappropriate.

As we consider some of the scandals that have recently brought down celebrated people (e.g., Eason Jordan), we find that it is their actions that they 'think' are private that ultimately do them in. It is, as well, their actions attempting to keep those acts 'under wraps' that compound their problems. As Michelle Malkin asks of Eason Jordan:

What about the videotape? Will he ask the World Economic Forum to release the tape to help clear the air and remove the unfair tarnish?

Our friend Eason was destroyed, in part, by his refusal to shed light on his actions. Ask Richard Nixon..., a cover-up only compounds problems. It is when we allow a part of us to develop that cannot stand the light of day that we really get into destructive trouble.

Sure, we all have our faults, but it is not our faults per se that usually destroy us. They may hold us back, but they don't usually rip apart our career and bring ruin. No, destruction more often comes from a combination of things. If we allow a part of our persona to develop in the dark, a part that only flourishes in darkness, then we enhance the likelihood that light is our enemy. If we have 'dark' secrets that haunt our lives then we become enemies of light. We become the adversary of scrutiny, the target of the small-town gossip, of the investigative journalist, of the rabid bloggers. We become enemies to all those forces that bring light to otherwise dark acts.

Aksel Sandemose wrote a great novel about life in a small Swedish city. Everyone knew almost everything about everyone else. This created a law, the "Jantelavn" or the informal law of Jante, that, among other things stated that "We know you, we know where you grew up and who you are." This 'law,' on one hand, makes certain that no one gets "too big for their britches" - but at the same time it reminds us that others are always watching.

Our best defense against destruction by light is to keep in check the development of our character. If we notice that parts of our lives need to remain hidden for us to be comfortable, then we are probably doing things that we ought not.

Rather than attempting to keep signficant parts of our lives free from scrutiny, we should concentrate more on changing our nature. We should clean up the soiled spots of our character and of our lives - not just rely on darkness to hide the unsightly blemishes.

Light and small-town scrutiny are really stimuli for improving our nature. If we can live so that we bear investigation, so that we can stand the heat of light shined on all that we do, then we have employed the best defense against destruction. We can say, "Bring on the light... I am not ashamed."

Destruction by light is only a threat to those with a dark nature. Too bad Eason - you really needed to go.