Amy Grossberg went into labor just after midnight. She was in her freshman dorm room at the University of Delaware, in pain and terrified. She couldn’t go to the hospital. Only 18, she had spent the last nine month hiding her pregnancy from her well-to-do parents, perhaps afraid to shatter their suburb-perfect image of their lovely, artistic daughter. So she called the baby’s father, Brian Peterson Jr., also 18, at his college in Gettysburg, Pa. He arrived three hours later in his black Toyota Celica, took her to a nearby Comfort Inn motel and paid $52 for Room 220. What happened next is equal part mystery and tragedy. Police say a healthy baby boy – 20 inches long; 6 pounds, 2 ounces – was born toward morning. Brian told the authorities that he put the child in a plastic bag and deposited him in the motel Dumpster. The students returned to their colleges – stopping at a carwash, perhaps to clean up the Celica’s interior – and hoped that their gilded, carefree lives would go on as if nothing had happened. But something had. The next day, police say, they found the infant – shaken to death and with his skull and brain crushed. Amy and Brian were charged with murder. If they’re convicted, the Delaware attorney general says she will ask for the death penalty.
Such grisly crimes aren’t entirely uncommon. Last week a cleaning woman at a movie theater in New York’s Long Island found an hours- old boy asphyxiated in a toilet. FBI statistics show that 207 children younger than a week were murdered in 1994, a 92 percent increase since 1973. There is a pattern to these deaths. The parents are usually young and poor; the mother frequently acts alone. But Grossberg and Peterson don’t fit the profile, which is one reason their families – and suburban parents around the country – are so shaken. Both Grossberg and Peterson come from wealthy, stable homes. Friends describe them as “good” kids. They had access to abortion clinics, adoption agencies and counseling to handle an unwanted child. “They were two wealthy kids who had so many options in life,” Constantine Maroulis, a Grossberg family friend, told Newsweek. Seeking out an abortion, or putting the baby up for adoption, perhaps seemed too risky to the teens: their families could somehow find out. The fear that this child would cost Grossberg and Peterson their privileged lives – and disappoint the people who had made their comfortable worlds possible – may have led the too-young parents into a spiral of fatal decisions.
They met at Ramapo Regional High School in Franklin Lakes, N.J., an affluent suburb of golf courses and million-dollar houses 20 miles northwest of New York City. Theirs was a classic teenage courtship – the proms, the glowing yearbook photos – in a town where everything was above average. She excelled at art and French. He was a jock: captain of the golf team, cocaptain of the soccer squad. Both kids grew up in new- money suburban manses and drove their own cars (hers was a white Cherokee). Grossberg’s father owns a large furniture business; her mother is an interior designer. Peterson’s mother and stepfather run a successful video-rental business. Walking the halls at Ramapo, the popular couple seemed an ideal match. “It was probably about as serious as teenage relationship gets,” Amy Lucibello, who worked for a summer with Grossberg at the Market Basket gourmet-food store, told Newsweek.
When they left for college late last summer, Grossberg was six months pregnant. Peterson made the three-hour trip from Gettysburg College to Delaware every other weekend; she visited him once. Though Grossberg – who is just over five feet tall and wears size – 1 pants – somehow managed to hide her pregnancy from friends and family at home, she made no secret of her condition at school. “She wore tight shirts – she didn’t hide it,” says Seth Chorba, 18, who lived on the same floor of Thompson Hall as Grossberg. “Nobody approached her because we kind of respected her privacy.” Students who met them at both schools say Grossberg and Peterson seemed perfectly well adjusted. There are no reports of missed classes or other signs of stress. The only potential trouble came when Grossberg’s mother, Sonye, said she planned to go to Delaware for homecoming last month. Her daughter told her she’d be away visiting friends. Perhaps Amy – in her eighth month of pregnancy – couldn’t face her.
When her water broke in her dorm at about 12:45 a.m. on Nov. 12, Grossberg apparently wasn’t sure what was happening. According to police reports, she called Peterson and said “her stomach was bothering her and she might be in labor.” After he picked her up, they drove past several cheap motels along the highway before deciding on the Comfort Inn. They checked in at 3:10 a.m. About an hour later, Grossberg gave birth. Around 5 a.m., they checked out and returned to her dorm room, where the couple slept for a few hours before Peterson drove back to Gettysburg. The only evidence left of their ordeal lay wrapped in a gray plastic bag in the Dumpster behind the motel.
They almost got away with it. Grossberg’s dormmates didn’t notice anything about her demeanor or body that indicated she had given birth. “There was really no change. It was the same Amy,” Chorba says. But later that day, at about 5 a.m., Grossberg began to complain of stomach pain and slumped to the floor of her dorm. She had turned very pale and blood was seeping into her pants. Her roommate went running down the hall for help. Someone called an ambulance. When Grossberg arrived at Christiana Hospital in Wilmington, doctors discovered that the baby’s placenta had not passed through her uterus during delivery, which caused complications. She finally broke down and told doctors about the motel birth – and her boyfriend’s role in disposing of the baby. Police in Delaware and Pennsylvania began to investigate. They found damp and bloody sheets, clothes and sanitary napkins in Amy’s room.
By then, Peterson had also begun to snap. Just hours after returning to his Gettysburg campus, he confided to a student-residence counselor that he had helped his girlfriend give birth and they had “gotten rid” of the child, according to police. Investigators found a bag of bloody sheets in his dorm as well. In his car was a receipt from the White Glove Car Wash stamped with the time 11:28 a.m., about seven hours after the baby was born. Pennsylvania officials held Peterson on misdemeanor charges of concealing the death of a baby, but they were forced to release him because the alleged crime occurred in another state and they had no evidence to hold him. Peterson promptly disappeared.
Meanwhile, police in Delaware had discovered the baby’s corpse. An autopsy completed a few days later showed that he had died of “multiple skull fractures, with injury to the brain, blunt-force head trauma and shaking,” according to the official report. As she was released after five days in the hospital, police arrested Grossberg – looking pale and eerie in a hooded sweat shirt – and charged her with first-degree murder. The Delaware attorney general, M. Jane Brady, announced that because the victim was younger than 14, the state planned to seek the death penalty against both teens.
Facing the prospect of death, Peterson went deeper into hiding. As the FBI led a national manhunt and New York tabloids screamed HOW COULD THEY?, friends defended the couple. “She was the sweetest girl you ever met. It’s like Barbie getting busted,” Maroulis said. Peterson’s lawyer, Joseph Hurley, said his client wasn’t fleeing; he was in seclusion with his mother, Barbara Zuchowski. True, the family had considered sending him abroad. “How can I give my only born child to the state to die?” Hurley reported Zuchowski as saying. With Feds searching everywhere, the family realized Peterson would have to give in.
The night before surrendering, Peterson and his family moved to an undisclosed hotel in the Wilmington area. The fugitive spent the evening praying, Hurley said. At 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Hurley, Peterson and his parents drove to a Wilmington street corned two blocks from the local FBI office. The blue-eyed teen wore a baseball cap, blue jeans, T shirt – not a rich boy’s jacket and tie. Worried about death threats, Peterson wore a bulletproof vest – a loan from the FBI. As the family moved slowly through a mass of pushing, shouting reporters, Peterson’s mother clung to his arm. She sobbed as someone yelled, “Baby killer!” Arriving at the courthouse, she wailed, “I want to go with him!” Inside, Peterson said just one word – “yes” – as the judge asked him to confirm his name. Hurley offered his client’s plea just as Grossberg’s lawyer did: “We take the position that he did not murder.”
The defense is still plotting strategy. One possible argument is that the youths crushed their baby’s skull while trying to deliver him. That could still get a manslaughter conviction, but it avoids the death penalty. With a grand jury expected to convene this week, defense lawyers haven’t decided whether they will seek separate trials, though Hurley started to point the finger at Grossberg last week. “I think her concerns are the major thing that led them to where they ended up,” he said. “She was totally concerned with not letting Mom find out.”
Both sides will no doubt try to appeal to the jury’s emotions. Were these rich kids who callously killed so they could continue to lead worry- free lives? Or can their lawyers put their youth and upbringing in a sympathetic light? John Daley, 20, a childhood friend of Peterson’s, says, “There’s lot of pressure in a neighborhood like that to be the perfect princess. She must have built up in her mind how terrible it would be if her mother found out, how everybody would look down at her. Image is everything.” Now Grossberg and Peterson must confront something far more terrifying than humiliation: the prospect of death row.
(8350)
TEXT 25. WITH BILLIONS TO SPEND, A BIG MARKET
FOR US BUSINESS
Young people are playing a broad and powerful role in America's economic life.
From the purchase of the first layette to the rental fee for that graduation gown, parents are spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Just as soon as they are old enough young people in growing numbers are out earning money for themselves. By the latest count, about one half of all 16 through 21-year-old Americans are working. They start modestly, serving as baby-sitters, cutting lawns, or doing other odd jobs.
By the time they are 16 or so, many youths are looking elsewhere. Most end up in low-paying jobs that require few skills and little experience. Among boys aged 16 to 21, for instance, the largest number work as laborers, equipment operators, or as service workers. Girls most frequently work in office jobs, as typists or receptionists, or take jobs as waitresses, as maids or in other service roles.
Today, there is a chronic shortage of such jobs for young people. For nonwhite youths, the situation is worse. Low wages and unemployment are a serious problem for the children of the poor, who often work because they have to.
Harrington B., research director at the Joint Center for Political Studies, estimates that earnings of children in poor families can amount to as much as 8 per cent of total family income. Says Mr. B.: "We are going to have to find a social policy that does not trap poor teenagers in a vicious cycle where they are forced to work because their families are poor when, in fact, they ought to be in school."
No matter the reason for taking jobs, youths end each week with pockets full of cash. Some of the young save their money for college or for major purchases. But most spend it without a budget plan. That makes youngsters ripe for impulse buying, and a promising market for businessmen. The billions that young people spend in stores and restaurants each year make them the biggest customers for many firms. Youth-marketing consultant George W. S. says: "Young people are marketing's liquid asset If you've got something that catches their fancy, they'll buy it. If you have the right idea, they'll move very quickly."
Mr. S. points out that teenagers, mostly girls, buy about half of the 500 million dollars' worth of shampoo—often herbal, scented or other special brands—sold yearly in this country. Girls buy as much as a quarter of all cosmetics sold in stores.
About 60 per cent of the audio equipment sold in America is bought by young men between the ages of 15 and 24. And the record industry sells most of its output to teens. Such lucrative markets can mean big profits for some companies.
(2230)
TEXT 26. DOUBLE JEOPARDY: TO BE BLACK AND FEMALE
In attempting to analyze the situation of the black woman in America, one crashes abruptly into a solid wall of grave misconceptions, outright distortions of fact and defensive attitudes on the part of many. In keeping with its goal of destroying the black race's will to resist its subjugation, capitalism found it necessary to create a situation where it was impossible for the black man to find meaningful or productive employment. More often than not, he couldn't find work of any kind. The black woman likewise was manipulated by the system, economically exploited and physically assaulted. She could often find work in the white man's kitchen, however, and sometimes became the sole breadwinner of the family.
America has defined the roles to which each individual should subscribe. It has defined "manhood" in terms of its own interests and "femininity" likewise. An individual who has a good job, makes a lot of money and drives a Cadillac is a real "man", and conversely, an individual who is lacking in these "qualities" is less of a man. The advertising media in this country continuously inform the American male of his need for indispensable signs of his virility—the brand of cigarettes that cowboys prefer, the whiskey that has a masculine tang or the label that athletes wear.
The ideal model that is projected for a woman is to be surrounded by hypocritical homage and estranged from all real work, spending idle hours primping and preening. But a woman who stays at home caring for children and the house often leads an extremely sterile existence. She must lead her entire life as a satellite to her mate. He goes out into society and brings back a little piece of the world for her. His interests and his understanding of the world become her own and she cannot develop herself as an individual, having been reduced to a biological function. This kind of woman leads a parasitic existence that can aptly be described as "legalized prostitution".
Furthermore, it is idle dreaming to think of black women simply caring for their homes and children like the middle-class white model. Black women were never afforded such phony luxuries. Though we have been browbeaten with this white image, the reality of the degrading and dehumanizing jobs that were relegated to us quickly dissipated this mirage of womanhood.
The black woman in America can justly be described as a "slave of a slave". Since the black man in America was reduced to abject oppression, the black woman had no protector and was used, and is still being used in some cases, as the scapegoat for the evils that this horrendous system has perpetrated on black men. Her physical image has been maliciously maligned; she has been sexually molested and abused by the white colonizer; she has suffered the worst kind of economic exploitation, having been forced to serve as the white woman's maid and as wet nurse for white offspring while her own children were, more often than not starving and neglected. It is the depth of degradation to be socially manipulated, physically raped, used to undermine your own household, and to be powerless to reverse this situation.
There are also some black women who feel that there is no more productive role in life than having and raising children. Some young women who have never had to maintain a household or to accept the confinement which this entails, tend to romanticize the role of housewife and mother. Black women who have had to endure this function are less apt to have such utopian visions. Those who portray in an intellectual manner how great and rewarding this role will be, and who feel that the most important thing that they can contribute to the black nation is children, are doing themselves a great injustice.
We live in a highly industrialized society, and every member of the black nation must be as academically and technologically developed as possible. We need competent teachers, doctors, nurses, electronics experts, chemists, biologists, physicists, political scientists, and so on. Black women sitting at home reading bedtime stories to their children are just not going to make it.
Capitalism finds it expedient to reduce women to a state of enslavement. They often serve as a scapegoat for the evils of this system. Men may be cruelly exploited and subjected to all sorts of dehumanizing tactics on the part of the ruling class, but at least they're not women.
Women also represent a surplus labor supply, the control of which is absolutely necessary to the profitable functioning of this system. Women are systematically exploited by the system. They are paid less for the same work that men do, and jobs that are specifically relegated to women are low-paying and without the possibility of advancement.
Those industries which employ mainly black women are the most exploitative. Domestic and hospital workers are good examples of this oppression, as are the garment workers in New York City. The International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) whose overwhelming membership consists of black and Puerto Rican women has a leadership that is nearly all lily white and male. This leadership has been working in collusion with the ruling class and has completely sold its soul to the corporate structure.
To add insult to injury, the ILGWU has invested heavily in business enterprises in racist, apartheid South Africa—with union funds. Not only does this bought-off leadership contribute to our continued exploitation in this country by not truly representing the best interests of its membership, but it audaciously uses funds that black and Puerto Rican women have provided to support the economy of a vicious government that is engaged in the economic rape and murder of black people in Africa.
The entire labor movement in the United States has suffered as a result of the super-exploitation of black workers and women. The unions have historically been racist and chauvinist. They have upheld racism in this country and have failed to fight the white skin privileges of white workers.
This racist, chauvinist and manipulative use of black workers and women, especially black women, has been a severe cancer on the American labor scene. It therefore becomes essential to realize that the exploitation of black people works to everyone's disadvantage and that the liberation of the group is a stepping stone to the liberation of all oppressed people in this country and around the world.
Perhaps the most outlandish act of oppression in modern times is the campaign to promote sterilization of non-white women in an attempt to maintain the population and power imbalance between the white haves and the non-white have-nots.
These tactics are but another example of the many devious schemes that the ruling class йlite attempts to perpetrate on the black population in order to keep itself in control. A massive campaign for so-called "birth control" is presently being promoted in black communities in the United States. However, what the authorities in charge of these programs refer to as "birth control" is in fact nothing but a method of surgical genocide.
Sterilization clinics are cropping up around the country in the black and Puerto Rican communities. These so-called "Maternity Clinics", specifically outfitted to purge black women and men of their reproductive possibilities, are appearing more and more in hospitals and clinics across the country.
A number of organizations have been formed to popularize the idea of sterilization, such as The Association for Voluntary Sterilization and The Human Betterment (!!!?), Association for Voluntary Sterilization, Inc., which has its headquarters in New York City. Threatened with the cut-off of relief funds, some black welfare women have forced to accept this sterilization procedure in exchange for a continuation of welfare benefits.
Much has been written about the white women's liberation movement in the United States, and the question arises whether there are any parallels between this struggle and the movement on the part of black women for total emancipation.
The white women's movement is far from being monolithic. In fact, some groups come to the incorrect conclusion that their oppression is due simply to male chauvinism. They therefore have an extremely anti-male tone. Black people are engaged in a life and death struggle and the main emphasis of black women must be to combat the racist exploitation of black people. While it is true that male chauvinism has become institutionalized in American society, one must always look for the main enemy—the fundamental cause of the condition of females.
Another major differentiation is that the white women's liberation movement is basically middle class. Very few of these women suffer the extreme economic exploitation that most black women are subjected to day by day. This is the factor that is most crucial for us. It is not an intellectual persecution alone, it is not an intellectual outburst for us; it is quite real. White women have got to deal with the problems that the black masses deal with, for their problems in reality are one and the same.
If the white groups do not realize that the reasons for their condition lie in the system and not simply that men get a vicarious pleasure out of "consuming their bodies for exploitative reasons" (this reasoning seems to be quite prevalent in certain white women's groups), then we cannot unite with them around common grievances or even discuss these groups in a serious manner because they're completely irrelevant to the black struggle.
(8040)
TEXT 27. WORKING NINE TO FIVE
What a way to make a living! The daily grind of modern business affects us all - but what really goes on
Behind the office door?
TYPES OF BOSSES
DESPOTIC BOSSES
Depressive, uneasy. The most common type of tyrannical boss. A hypochondriac with clear feminine traits. He walks into the office without talking to anyone, shuts himself in his room, playing games with patience on his computer in an attempt to calm himself down somehow. This doesn’t usually last long. The depression is suddenly replaced by an elated mood: the boss begins to fuss, and brilliant ideas come to him one after another. He calls a meeting, promotes a manager to a middle rank, and discusses his idea to reform several departments, and invites a team of business consultants. The employees aren’t surprised - they’re already used to their boss’ tricks, and blame his strange habits on his personal life and love of stimulants. He is indeed uneasy - he is the submissive one in the family, and only whiskey can pacify his personal complexes. He sometimes looks scruffy - even though things aren’t going too badly in the company. He is an unusually suspicious and touchy person. He is used to acting elusively and on the quiet, and provoking people. “I think we need to act like this. And what do you think? But do you know what that will lead to? To total ruin!” Sometimes his unhealthy tendency to see things going on below the surface helps business very much. He never takes a single risky step! It is difficult to get on with the “uneasy” boss - he doesn’t say what he really thinks, suspects everyone and doubts himself. And just when his behaviour seems to be planned down to the last detail, he will inevitably play a dirty trick. There’s no doubt about it.
The Beast. He seems to follow Nietzshe’s advice: “You must live dangerously! ”He gives his co-workers tasks that he knows are impossible - and after the disaster swears at everyone. He often has attacks of meaningless rage: he makes a mountain out of a molehill and reduces himself and everyone around him to madness. So the Beast cannot stand rivals - and it never occurs to him that he could be wrong. “Who are you to open your mouth while I’m talking”, he says, using the familiar form of address with everyone around him in the old Soviet style. Indeed, he is the master, and everyone feels it immediately - in revenge, everyone has long turned the boss into the object of everyone’s laughter, like the physics teacher at school. Unlike other tyrants - the hypochondriac Uneasy and the choleric Borgia - the Beast is a more mentally stable type. His anger comes from his hot blood. He calms down quickly. He doesn’t remember anything afterwards, as if he had been in a coma. And working for a Beast boss is much easier - half an hour of screaming, when it’s better to stare silently at your socks, letting the tirade flow past your ears. Afterwards, you can have a whole day of calm work.
Borgia. A true king of diversions. He has subconsciously armed himself with the methods of the famous poisoner Borgia, the morals of Prince Svyatopolk I Yaropolkovich, and the behaviour of emperor Caracalla. The most dangerous type of boss. He is “of a cruel and bloodthirsty nature” like Svyatopolk, who twice seized the princely throne, and was infamous for murdering his cousins Boris and Gleb. He is charming like Caracalla, who cried in public at the bloody Colliseum. This didn’t stop him from later outdoing Tiberius and Sulla by poisoning all his accomplices (who got on his nerves), and, with an innocent look, beginning a series of endless bloody revenges until his own violent death. Borgia will never admit to any dislike for anyone - with a smile he will fire the most ambitious employees who irritate his self-love. It is pointless to inquire about the real state of affairs. “Victor Ivanovich, what complaints do you have about me?” “Where did you get that idea? Perhaps you should rest - you don’t look very good”, Borgia answers sympathetically. And at the morning meeting, nothing the absence of this person, he raises the issue of avoiding work. It may be that he really thinks that a team works better this way. But it seems more likely that it is due to the nervous suspiciousness of the boss, who behaves as if a coalition with its own leader had formed against him. Borgia is always smooth-shaven, likes cold citrus-smelling perfume, and looks after his nails. The only way to survive in his company is not to show off. Be a grey cardinal - let the other employees excitedly whisper on the side. Any day now, Borgia will fire everyone. But perhaps the grey cardinal will remain.
LIBERAL WESTERNISERS
The idea of the Eurasian and special nature of Russia has existed in the public mind for some time. In his philosophical letters of 1836, Chaadaev wrote: ”One of the saddest features of our peculiar civilisation is that we are still discovering truths that have long since been commonplace in other countries...” The westerniser boss secretly agrees with this, but doesn’t want to resign himself to it. In the traditions of Russian westernisation, he believes in the indivisibility of human civilisation and progress. The word “distinctiveness” is a swear word in his dictionary. He thinks the special nature of the Russian character is a myth invented by idlers to justify their slovenliness. The westerniser boss is always smart, correctly dressed, his shoes and tie are flawless, as is his English. He talks to people courteously, but is rather cold and judges things from a business point of view. He doesn’t scream at his employees, doesn’t use the familiar form of address and doesn’t go into hysterics in their presence. But he also has his weaknesses. In his desire to be a part of world progress, he doesn’t hide his life of consulate receptions and international conferences. He likes to fly to Brussels or the Hague, take part in business management seminars, and doesn’t regard any expenses connected with this as being excessive. After another visit to Europe, the Westerniser boss feels more keenly the essence of the dispute in world views between Russia and the rest of the world, and usually becomes depressed. Here, his employees come to the rescue. They show him their respect and devotion as best they can - quite in the spirit of the Slavonophiles’ philosophy of mutual help and communal support.
LADY BOSS
The only thing that distinguishes the Lady boss is her daily desire to prove to the politically incorrect world that she is no worse than her male rivals. In the worst case scenario, the office has an atmosphere of a nursery - where the employees exist in a state of rigid demands, unremitting control and rather hysterical care.
(5570)
TYPES OF EMPLOYEES
CAREERISTS AND INTRIGUISTS
The Greaser. This specimen has a sickly-sweet smile and a love of multiple diminutive forms of address such as “Zhenechka!”, “Irinochka!” It seems the Greaser could choke on his own syrup. Everyone can see how horrible the Greaser is, but few can withstand his sticky compliments: he has a clever tongue. It seems he can tell someone for hours how wonderful they are. He flatters openly and is not ashamed of it, explaining his position innocently: ”I’d rather be liked than hated”. In fact, the Greaser has his own plans, which are worthy of Machiavelli. Flattering people as much as possible, distracting everyone from reality and his own action, the Greaser works extremely single-mindedly. But, strangely enough, it has an effect. In a few weeks, he’s already one of the boss’ favourites, and has a company car and mobile phone. And generally he does very well for himself. This is why the Greaser is 100% certain of his own tactics - and he doesn’t stop greasing up to people until he reaches the heights he aspires to. The fact he was recently quite openly called an “asslicker” in the office doesn’t worry him. He’s successful, and he has the best suit in the office. Sudden success doesn’t cloud the Greaser’s reason: he continues to spy and tell on everyone to the boss. It’s hard to fight against him. The only way is to try to bring him out in to the open - perhaps by gaining his trust, using his methods. Sit with him in a bar for a while, and when he starts being honest, secretly record the truth on a Dictaphone and play it back to the boss.
The Aggressor. Probably a latent sadist. He keeps the whole office in a state of fear, and looks at the boss as though he were intending to fire him himself. Indeed, the Aggressor is always blunt with the boss: it’s hard to understand how they became friends. The key to this person’s anger is far back in childhood, when his father used to punish this future threat to the office. This was how he developed a Chekhovian “resistance to the environment”, and particular durability in any dangerous situations. The Aggressor is extremely versatile, and can always turn something to his own benefit, even if he was wrong. If he’s late, he tells everyone: ”Professionals always come last”. And everyone stops complaining: arguing with the Aggressor is pointless: he can produce all sorts of dirt on his opponent in response. Especially as he has somehow been able to form an image of himself as a perfect worker who is irreplaceable among the boss’ employees. Only an experienced Diplomat can deal with the Aggressor. He can easily create an office intrigue that the Aggressor falls into and is unable to escape untainted. His career advancement is stopped dead for a while.
The Diplomat. This man has a constant managerial smile, and a open look. Trust is the feeling that the Diplomat immediately inspires in the people around him. And he knows how to make use of this. Meanwhile, the boss adores hem: the Diplomat is delegated to the most important discussions, where the contract is on the verge of being dissolved. The cunning employee can deal with it: using everything at his command: natural charm and a brilliant ability to bluff. A modern Mr Perfect. He is industrious, to a point. When required, he can flatter or be cruel. He seems to see right through everyone, and in his suitcase he keeps a book on psychology; Jung’s Human Types and an American brochure The Key to Success: Know Your Own Self. It seems the Diplomat has no weak spots. In fact, he is by nature a formalist and is used to thinking in stereotypes. This can ruin him at the most vital moment. He thinks he has foreseen and calculated everything, just like Raskolnikov, and suddenly nature takes its own. He will mistakenly take a Greaser for an Executive. And he will behave like a complete idiot with a dangerous rival.
THE EXECUTIVE
The grey workaholic mouse doesn’t have any complaints, is always on time. But doesn’t exactly shine with talent and intelligence. Everyone in the office, down to the cleaning staff, consider him a nobody, or their personal secretary. “Marinochka, are you going to get some tea? Be a dear and pour us some too, if you don’t mind”. The executive doesn’t find anything difficult - he is naturally kind. And generally he gets the most finicky and uninteresting work. He will never be promoted or get a raise. On the other hand, what does he expect? This modern Prince Myshkin is devoid of initiatives and ideas. he works according to the principle “Leave me alone!” so he can finish his work as soon as possible to run home and watch the Brigada cop series on TV.
Pointless. There are representatives of this type in every office. Usually, the Pointless employee can be distinguished from other employees by his high level of civic activity. His voice can be heard everywhere. He suddenly appears in various corners of the office - but always far from his workplace. The concentrated energy of the Pointless employee is always directed to consciously unattainable goals. His concern about what is happening in the office is especially acute and accompanied by mild hysterics. If sales are falling in the advertising department, Pointless will suggest unexpected solutions: publish a magazine, create a fan club, repaint the office a more psychologically correct colour. If the toilet breaks down, he’ll stand behind the plumber and gave him advice. The level of efficiency of Pointless cannot be determined. Even his boss wouldn’t dare to try to measure the productiveness of his efforts. One thing is clear: the work effort of this person and the noise he makes exceeds any kind of result. Nevertheless, no one’s in a hurry to get rid of Pointless. He is often even one of the boss’ favourites. There are several reasons. Firstly, Pointless is not potentially dangerous, his intrigues and minor sabotage only cause the office veterans to smile condescendingly. And he is also indispensable at office gatherings and parties - an inappropriate remark or sudden emotional outburst by Pointless has a stunning effect and can always defuse the situation. It may be that Pointless chooses the role of jester deliberately. History has shown many times that sly buffoons live longer under despotic rulers than other good citizens.
(5240)
OFFICE SITUATIONS
CORPORATE PARTIES
Corporate parties are difficult affairs. Firstly, there is usually no cause for celebration. The boss, however, wants to show that he is united with the team. And the employees have to spend several extra hours together, which doesn’t really please anyone. But what can you do? In their spirit and scenario, corporate parties can be divided into two categories: “Russian” parties and “Carnegie” parties.
The first type begin ceremoniously and strictly, then become wild, and always end unexpectedly. One employee can’t stand the tension and being so close to the boss, puffing over a plate of salad, and drinks himself insensible. One employee confesses to loving his colleagues, and breaks off mid-sentence to run to the dance floor. Male and female colleagues feel a sudden rush of vague interest for each other, and go somewhere to talk. Corporate presents, which are given out during such parties are usually lost in the process of the uncontrolled merriment.
“Carnegie” parties are held in the Western style. This style is not particularly close to the grand Russian tradition. So rituals seen in television serials and at receptions of Western corporations are strangely interbred with the habits of the Soviet office. Some employees come to the reception in cocktail party dresses and good suits, others come in ski sweaters. Some people try to make aphoristic toasts, others try to sing songs (at the very end). But usually, the tone of the party cannot be broken. Colleagues smile Hollywood smiles to each other and engage in polite conversation. People try to talk more and drink less. This ratio contradicts the formula of the Russian celebration. And by the middle of the evening, the faces of the employees resemble frozen masks, which makes the event seem more and more like something out of Hitchcock.
ASKING FOR A RAISE
This is unpleasant moment in any office. Employees who were calm and active only yesterday suddenly become anxious and depressed. Provocative conversations about the fact that rival companies pay more with a smaller workload dangerously flare up in different parts of the office and in the smoking areas. If there is someone in the company who recently got a tempting offer from a rival firm, the situation becomes explosive. No exhortations from the boss to work more and meet less can help. It seems that the virus of greed and money-grubbing infects everyone at once. No one wants to work for an idea, to go to eat shashlyk together happily and talk about the corporate spirit. The first way is in the traditions of international management, to gather all employees in the conference hall, and on a big white screen draw schemes demonstrating the ratio and interaction of different departments, with vector arrows indicating combined forces. The demonstration should be accompanied by detailed explanations. After several hours of a meeting like this, the excitement among employees will decrease, and it may seem that the audience is looking rather sleepy. Even the most obstinate employees will enjoy the end of this meeting more than a hypothetical wage increase. The second way is the traditional one: not to get into lengthy discussions, and to react to any questions with a toughening of production demands or the universal formula: “Unfortunately, the company doesn’t have such capabilities at the moment!” It is better not to ask what these capabilities are. To stabilise the situation and raise the fighting spirit, free lunches in the office are recommended.
LOVE AFFAIRS IN THE OFFICE
Things can’t be going to well in the office if an affair has started there. Henry Ford couldn’t stand this in his company, and other oligarchs also try to avoid it. Work is profaned and turned into a parody of a soap opera. Especially if a love affair in the office is kept secret (or so the participants think) and hidden from the eyes of fellow employees. In the office, lovers talk to each other coldly, and after work they leave separately and meet happily at a friend’s house. Girls are especially inspired by the romantic nature of the situation and attempt to inspire their usually-married partner. They cook lamb in sweet sauce for dinner, always eat by candlelight, trying to show what great housekeepers they are: “Not like your wife”. Their friends exploit all this with pleasure, constantly sighing, ”what a shame that I need to go home”. Generally, it’s the same thing you can see in Hollywood movies, except that the people around discuss the intrigue at work with enormous interest. Indeed, everyone is interested to see how things end. In open love affairs in the office, there is less secrecy. But more things happen - everyone notices how the lovers cuddle in the corner and give each other longing looks. This is a clear sign of an approaching wedding and subsequent resignation of one of the employees. A husband and wife in one office is something only the hardiest couples will agree to.
NEWCOMER IN THE OFFICE
An office Bermuda triangle. The most dangerous version is the new boss. No one knows anything about him, or how they should behave around him. Should they grease up to him? What if he is a liberal who knows how to assess the people around him and can’t stand shameless-flattery? Should one behave like a Diplomat? Perhaps the cunning Borgia will small a rat. Not to take any position at all is also no good: the boss may take a standoffish observation for indifferent freeloading. In this situation, any step is risky. A pro-Western boss may later turn out to be a typical Russian Despot. A depressive type may turn out to be a Beast. The second-in-command of the former boss has it worst of all: this is the person who will hold the front alone when the new boss comes. He will experience unpleasant innovations first hand, and then think about resigning. A new employee is another matter. First, the poor devil will be the object of lively interest in the office, just like a character on realty TV. And his image will constantly change, like a menu in a bad restaurant. Today he’s a Greaser, tomorrow he’s a Diplomat. The people around him try to exploit his unenviable position. Especially people with lots of complexes. And they won’t pass up the opportunity. Or they will answer some innocent question from him with the reply “It’s not your first day here! It’s already time you knew all these things yourself!” Of course, as long as the newcomer isn’t related to the boss.
LOCAL HEAD-HUNTING
This is usually a rare occurrence in the Russian office. Staff policies here are normally formed quite simply. You can gather good employees from your own friends and relatives! How to make them work is another question. Here the rule of the Western boss comes into play - if work is not coming together, you need to buy up a “valuable head” from your rivals. The strategic is infallible especially in the advertising business. Here a shrewd boss can actually know how much a good sales manager costs. Quite a lot, in fact. Ten times more than he got at his last job. And five times more than at his current job. Still, the bought-out person is boundlessly happy. It’s always pleasant to be notices. When he left his last job, the Beast boss promised him a raise and a paid holiday on the coast of the Indian Ocean. But he firmly answered no - out of principle. And now his ambitions are satisfied, even though his salary has only increased by $100, and the new boss is 500 times more picky than the last one.
(6220)
TEXT 28. WHY 65? THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY RETIREMENT
Each day of the year more than 4,000 Americans reach the age of sixty-five. On that day they are not older, either physically or mentally, than they were the day before, and most of them still think of themselves as "middle-aged". But in the literature of sociologists they have moved abruptly into a new category—"the aged". Henceforth they will be treated as "old" by both employers and governmental bureaucracies.
They can now be discharged without a hearing regardless of their health, vigor, intelligence, or alertness. It is not called "firing"—we prefer the euphemism "mandatory retirement"—but the result is the same: denial of the right to continue working at the job one knows best. And while earlier periods of unemployment were temporary, this one is permanent. The man or woman who reaches the age of sixty-five in good health suddenly realizes that he faces perhaps twenty years of unemployment—a period as long as infancy, childhood, and adolescence combined. And however much he may enjoy leisure and may have looked forward to vacations during his working years, he knows that this vacation is going to be much too long.
Most people never gave much thought to all this when they were younger. They just assumed that all people over sixty-five were eager to retire and wanted nothing more than the right to go fishing 365 days a year. But when they found themselves approaching sixty-five—without feeling particularly "aged" and while still enjoying their work — they began wondering who had decided that everyone became "old" at this fixed chronological age. Was the decision based on sound psychological, sociological, biological, or medical evidence that people over sixty-five must be placed in a separate category because they are no longer able to work? Was appropriate attention given to the widespread evidence of individual differences in the rate of aging?
The decision to base retirement on a fixed chronological age, applicable to a wide variety of jobs, both physical and intellectual, is of recent origin, dating back no further than the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935.
The choice of age sixty-five was made by a group of New Deal brain trusters who had been assigned the task of drafting a bill to be presented to Congress.
The decision was made at a time when 25 per cent of the labor force was unemployed, and hence it was desirable to remove older workers from competition for jobs.
At the time the age was selected it was assumed that the new pension plan to be called "Social Security" would apply primarily to industrial workers—not to those whose work was mental rather than physical. Teachers, for example, did not become eligible for Social Security until 1950, for other professions it was even later.
The people most immediately affected were not consulted: no effort was made to find out whether people wanted to retire at sixty-five, nor, it appears, were there any congressional hearings at which the choice of age sixty-five was discussed and debated.
The Social Security Act had the effect of establishing age sixty-five in the minds of employers and the general public as the one at which workers ought to retire. And when the program later was extended to cover teachers and other professionals, it gradually came to be a part of the conventional wisdom that they, too, should be forced to retire at sixty-five.
Retirement as we know it is found only in urbanized, industrialized societies that are under bureaucratic control. Industrialization, with its bondage to the clock, made it inconvenient to make the adjustment of hours appropriate for older workers. The assembly line made it difficult to provide work for those whose pace had slowed or who needed rest periods during the day. But prior to the Depression of the thirties, retirement, even of industrial workers, usually was on the basis of inability to perform on the job rather than on the basis of age alone.
Employers have supported mandatory retirement, and its extension to intellectual as well as to manual workers, for reasons of administrative convenience. Middle-aged executives, bureaucrats, and salaried professionals favor mandatory retirement for reasons related to their own advancement. Younger workers—if they think about it at all—favor mandatory retirement at sixty-five because, when one is young, it is difficult to believe that anyone so old can be competent or would want to work. Here the generation gap is not between adolescents and their parents—it is between the middle-aged and those over sixty-five, for it is clear that one's view of retirement changes as the time for it approaches. While younger people think an even lower retirement age would be desirable, some 86 per cent of those past sixty-five respond affirmatively to the statement "Nobody should be forced to retire because of age if he wants to continue working and still is able to do a good job."
The case against mandatory retirement on the basis of age rests upon the facts of differential aging, the differing effects of aging on various vocational skills, the waste of talent when men and women who still can do their work well are forced to disengage from the work they can do best, and the issue of human rights.
Although there is a considerable body of scientific data on the subject, one does not need such evidence to know that people do not suddenly become "aged" at sixty-five. They age gradually over a lifetime, some much more rapidly than others. It is a common observation that some individuals are "older", both physically and mentally, at sixty than others at seventy or eighty. There is also a growing body of evidence that those engaged in intellectual work age less rapidly than those whose activities are less stimulating. Consequently, those who engage in intellectual pursuits are able to carry on their work far beyond the age appropriate for the retirement of those engaged in physical labor. Retirement rules based on the Social Security age make no allowance for these differences.
Mandatory retirement results in an enormous waste of human talent. Nearly 40 per cent of the 20 million Americans now retired would prefer to be actively engaged in work that would allow them to contribute to the mainstream of society. Thus some 8 million individuals who could continue to be productive members of society are forced by present retirement rules to be non-productive. As the number of older people grows while the working-age population declines because of the present low birthrate, the demand for increases in Social Security and other pensions will place a heavy burden on younger workers.
The best solution to this problem would be widespread acceptance of a more flexible policy that would provide for gradual instead of complete and abrupt retirement. Most people over sixty-five, as well as many of fifty-five or sixty, would be happy to accept a reduced income in exchange for shorter hours, a lighter work load, and longer vacations—if it could be done without the loss of status and personal identity that results from complete disengagement from the work force.
Although a policy of phased retirement would cause some initial inconvenience to employers, there is ample precedent for it in other countries where it works well. Such a policy does much to reduce the severity of "retirement shock"—a psychological trauma well known to millions of older men and women even though younger people are unaware of its existence. It would contribute to the physical and mental health of the older generation while making better use of the special talents that come with maturity.
Voluntary retirement, with adequate pensions, is socially desirable and economically feasible. But mandatory retirement, when based on age alone, is unjust, unnecessary, and wasteful of human talent. It is a system designed by the young, for the convenience of the young, and imposed on older people without regard to their rights or their wishes. It will take time for the American people to become aware of this injustice.
(6760)
NOTES:
1. The Social Security Act – a bill that established the age of sixty-five as the one for mandatory retirement;
2. New Deal – a new course of economic and social development initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 30’s to promote US economy hit by the Depression.
TEXT 29. WHO SAYS WHO IS MAD?
(from “Mindwatching” by David Rosenhan)
Rosenhan wondered what would happen if a number of entirely sane people attempted to gain admission to a mental hospital by pretending to have one of the symptoms of insanity. Would these sane individuals be classified as insane? If they were admitted to the mental hospital, would the staff realize that a mistake had been made?
The answers to these and other questions were obtained in a study in which eight normal people, five men and three women, attempted to gain admission to twelve difference psychiatric hospitals. They consisted of a young psychology graduate, a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, three psychologists, a painter, and a housewife. The twelve psychiatric hospitals were located in five different states on the East and the West Coasts of America. They also varied considerably, ranging from relatively new to old and shabby, and from good staff-patient ratios to severe under-staffing.
Each of the eight participants phoned the hospital asking for an appointment. Upon arrival at the admissions office, each of them complained of hearing voices (these voices were often unclear, but appeared to be saying ‘empty’, ‘hollow’, and ‘thud’; they sounded unfamiliar but were of the same sex as the participant).
The only important elements of deception were the claims about hearing voices and falsification of the participant’s names and occupations; the significant events in each participant’s life were described as they actually happened. All of these sane people were judged to be insane, and all of them were admitted to hospital, apparently on the basis of their hallucinations. One of them was diagnosed as suffering from manic-depressive psychosis; the others were diagnosed as schizophrenic.
As soon as these pseudo-patients had been admitted to the psychiatric ward, they stopped simulating sings of abnormality, although several experienced a brief period of nervousness and anxiety, because they felt they would immediately be exposed as frauds, which would be highly embarrassing.
While they were in the psychiatric ward, the pseudo-patients indicated that they were fine and no longer experienced any symptoms. In general, they behaved in a friendly and co-operative way. The only unusual aspect of their behaviour was that they spent a fair amount of time writing down their observations about the ward, its patients, and the staff. To begin with, these notes were written secretly, but as it gradually became clear that no one took much notice, the note-taking was done quite openly.
The hierarchical structure of the various psychiatric hospitals was such that those of greater professional status had the least to do with their patients (and pseudo-patients). The average daily contract of the pseudo-patients with psychiatrists, psychologists, and doctors was 6.8 minutes. In view of this general lack of careful observation by those in authority, it is not surprising that the pseudo-patients were not released very quickly. The actual length of hospitalization ranged from 7 to 52 days, with 19 days being the average.
The fact that all the pseudo-patients were released within a few weeks of admission may suggest that the psychiatric staff discovered that the pseudo-patients had been sane all the time. However, this was not the case. All the pseudo-patients were discharged with a diagnosis of ‘schizophrenia in remission’, indicating that the deception had not been detected.
Interestingly, several of the real patients became suspicious about the pseudo-patients. The first three pseudo-patients were placed in wards containing a total of 118 patients, 35 of whom voiced their doubts. They said things like, ‘You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist, or a professor. You’re checking up on the hospital.’ However most of them were reassured by the pseudo-patients’ insistence that they had been sick before they came into hospital, though they felt fine once they had been admitted. Nevertheless a few of the bona-fide patients continued to voice the opinion that the pseudo-patients were sane.
If we accept these finding at face value, they suggest the distinction between the sane and the insane is so blurred that it is entirely possible for the sane to be mistaken for the insane, at least by psychiatrists. Rosnhan wondered whether he could show the opposite effect, namely the insane being regarded as sane. He used as his testing ground a research and teaching hospital. The staff there had heard about the study just described, and had informed Rosenhan that they would not have proved so gullible.
The first thing that Rosenhan did was to tell the staff of this hospital that one or more pseudo-patients would attempt to gain admission at some time during the following three months. Each member of staff was asked to observe all patients who presented themselves for admission or in the ward and say whether they thought they were pseudo-patients or genuine patients.
Judgements were obtained on a total of 193 patients admitted for psychiatric treatment. Forty-one genuine patients were judged with great confidence to be pseudo-patients by at least one member of staff. Nineteen patients were suspected of being frauds by one of the psychiatrists and another member of staff. In fact, none of Rosenhan’s pseudo-patients sought admittance during this time. Apparently, then, mental hospital staff do sometimes think that people committed to their care are sane.
Rosenhan’s main conclusion, which is tremendously important if it is true, was as follows: ‘It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals.’ Part of the problem may be that, under normal circumstances, doctors and psychiatrists are more inclined to call a healthy person sick than a sick person healthy. It is obviously dangerous for a doctor to fail to take appropriate action when a sick person asks for treatment. A psychiatrists who refuses to hospitalize someone who has suspicious symptoms and asks to be hospitalized may face legal action if the patient subsequently commits suicide or murder, so it is natural for him to err on the side of caution.
(5190)
TEXT 30. ON THE BRINK OF TRANQUILLITY