authority
The Mr. Hicks series, Hair, tells the story of a boy who rebels against haircut regulations by getting his head shaved. The Headmaster flips out and sentences him to severe, protracted punishment. Other boys demonstrate their support for the culprit. They are eventually punished, too. A central theme: is it right to rebel against authority, to hold it to a standard of “reasonableness”? The story basically says: No. You don’t get to pick and choose which rules you like, but you are bound to follow them all.
These stories are more severe than I really like, but they did make me long for the kind of post-whacking soreness that lasts for days. That’s by-the-by. What I like in the series is the firm and unapologetic assertion of authority. On the one hand, the Headmaster is choleric, loses control, and goes way overboard with punishment. On the other hand, the discipline master – himself calm – asserts that the boys’ disobedience is indeed wrong. When challenged: “But it’s just a haircut,” he replies, “Oh, but is it?” He understands and shines a light on the undercurrent: of course the kid had his hair cut to spite the Headmaster, whom he loathed. It isn’t about a haircut for any of them, but about the question of whether or not they should submit to the Headmaster’s rules, or only submit to the ones they judge satisfactory. The story says: Submit to all of them.
And suddenly, this rather extreme M/m story became for me a metaphor for submission to the love and the will of God, which has been a fairly unappealing theme in the book I’m reading about Lent. The attitude in this school is peculiarly English, I think. In America we have more tradition for challenging and rebelling against authority (despotism!) if authority proves unfit to govern (in the eyes of the governed). In fact, there’s a sense of duty to search for injustice and challenge it, especially today. There’s also an obligation for authority to be “reasonable,” i.e. democratically acceptable. But are private schools democracies (even in the USA)? They aren’t on mmsa anyway! Clearly they can be democratically inclined, and many (esp. secondary schools) try hard to involve students in governance. But, because schools are 1) in loco parentis; and 2) there to educate, they can never, I argue, be honestly democratic.
Contrast with the grotesque example of the Hampshire water authority that consulted the population (after supplying them with informational pamphlets) on whether to add fluoride to the water supply. There was a legal obligation to consult the population, but not to abide by its wishes. Result: 72% said no fluoride, but they got it anyway. So, it’s at best a pseudo-democracy, and at worst a cynical hypocrisy. Would it be better to say, We don’t consult the population because we are in charge and we know best, thank you. People would still be angry over the water, but at least it would be an honest representation of the relationship between people and water authority. They’d all be spared the hypocrisy and illusion. I think a lot of schools today, especially progressive ones, are confused about their own authority and what it means. As a result, they are more like the Hampshire water authority than they realize. All of which makes me yearn for the clarity Mr. Hicks’s adults provide, if not exactly for their level of tgi.








