RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Responsibility without Authority: An "Incredible" Injustice

Tuesday
January 25, 2005

Responsibility without Authority: An "Incredible" Injustice by JJ Tuan

There is one scene in the movie "The Incredibles" that caught my eye. It isn't one of the action sequences, nor is it a climatic heroic confrontation. Without giving too much of the movie away, it's a rather inconspicuous scene when Mrs. Incredible leaves her preteen son and daughter, Dash and Violet, in a cave befor... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (30 messages)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:22am

Good article.

That film is becoming quite a resource around here :-)

It is interesting to see that when responsibility is delegated to the older child that they have no authority.

However, if the children were to get into an argument while the parents were there, the older child usually has no qualms about slapping the younger child around the chops!!!

It seems that a child like Violet could legitimately tell her Mother that if she is to be held responsible for the younger sibling's actions then she must be able to assert her authority with force too. Otherwise she will not take on the task.

Ideally if all teachers in a school could unite together and make the same demand, then parents would have no choice but to allow it if they wished to continue sending their child there. They could also make the parents sign a contract with the school to that effect.

Unfortunately, in today's prevalent "victim culture" society that could never happen.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 1/25, 4:25am)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:14am

Great article - Violet ought not to have been placed in charge at all, and both would then be responsible for their own conduct.

Regarding the problem of unruly students, I remember at secondary school (high school) mathematics lessons in particular would consistently be disrupted by the behaviour of a small number of students, pretty much the same individuals each time. Those students basically had no wish to be in those classes, but had to be due to the compulsory nature of the education system. The result was to make life harder for those of us who decided we might as well try to learn stuff while we were there. The solution is to get rid of compulsory education, then if students come to class and are deliberately disruptive they can quite simply be removed from class.

MH

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:48am

Ultimately, the injustice is that a person should never be held accountable for actions of someone else's.

It is interesting to see that when responsibility is delegated to the older child that they have no authority.

Great article - Violet ought not to have been placed in charge at all, and both would then be responsible for their own conduct.

You guys all think that Objectivism is against babysitting???

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:49am

Deleted

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:55am

Shayne,

You guys all think that Objectivism is against babysitting???

No, but I think it would be wrong ascribing blame to the babysitter where the fault is entirely the child's.

MH

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:36pm

No, but I think it would be wrong ascribing blame to the babysitter where the fault is entirely the child's.

You said that "Violet ought not to have been placed in charge at all." I.e., she should not have been the babysitter. Now you seem to be saying that we can call her "babysitter", but if the child does anything wrong she should not be blamed. I.e., she's in the role of watching over the child - but isn't to be held responsible for anything the child does while under her care.

By the way, I think the movie is a terrible example from which to draw these kinds of examples - a little kid with super-hero powers is not comparable to any normal kid, however rambunctious. If you want to make points about babysitting, fine, but let's not use science fiction characters from which to draw the examples. If you wish to criticize the movie only, fine, but then let's make it clear that none of the points apply to real-life babysitting (of course if we do that then I wonder what the point of the article was in the first place).

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:49pm

Ms Tuan, or JJ, or whatever you prefer to be called, this is a very insightful article. I love it when I find something completely original to me- it is rare, and this is one of those moments.

Thank you,
David
(Edited by David Bertelsen on 1/25, 12:51pm)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:11pm

I think we should also bear in mind that Violet was not a very assertive character, at least until later in the film when she grows some balls (figuratively). If she wanted to, she could have created a force field to prevent Dash from running off, but instead she makes an appeal to authority, i.e. "But Mom said . . ."

Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the mother delegating the task to her daughter, especially if she wants to teach the daughter about the concept of responsibility. In the military, we often delegate authority with the understanding that you cannot delegate responsibility. For example, a battalion commander can task one of his officers to be in charge of requisitioning enough supplies for an operation, but if it is later discovered there weren't enough supplies, the blame will still fall squarely on the battalion commander's shoulders. I think the same principle applies in the case of, yes, an animated science fiction movie about superheroes.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 1/25, 1:28pm)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:16am

There is another way of doing this. The privatisation of the school system, which has been done on mediocre level up to now. Those schools could then ask the parents to sign a mutual agreement, that the school will do what it deems necessary, as long as certain human rights are not violated (such as not using physical power (there are other ways to do it, like detention and so forth)). If the child is unruly, the teacher also needs the power to reject this pupil.

Often the problem does not only lie with the helplessness of the teachers, but also with the delusional deception of the parent's perception of their own child. Just let it call "parent's love". This love often leads to subjectivizing objective facts, thus making them better than they are in reality, changing vice to virtue.
Today, parents always see their children in the victim role, because sometimes they don't even spend the time necessary with their young ones to observe it or the mistrust their teachers.
There should be more honest reports on their children that could open the parents eyes.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:32am

Does compulsory education also mean that you have to send your children to school? If yes, the abolishment is a difficult thing, ain't it?

How many people (especially religious groups) would stop sending their children to schools, because they tell you things that are real in this world and lack the faith-thingy?

Besides this is a great article, because it summarizes the problems with anti-authoritarian school systems. And it is another example that even comic-films don't have to be for children only :)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:46pm

Byron Garcia wrote:

In the military, we often delegate authority with the understanding that you cannot delegate responsibility. For example, a battalion commander can task one of his officers to be in charge of requisitioning enough supplies for an operation, but if it is later discovered there weren't enough supplies, the blame will still fall squarely on the battalion commander's shoulders.

To the extent that this is really the way it works, it's wrong. The concept of justice applies just as well to the military as it does to civilians.

If the commander really did task the officer, and the officer did not follow through, then he should be reprimanded - i.e., held responsible. And if the commander gave an important job to someone with an inadequate track record to match it, then he should be reprimanded for that. Or if the commander should have followed up, but didn't, then he should be reprimanded for that.

Each should have authority and responsibility - just for different things or aspects.

I think the same principle applies in the case of, yes, an animated science fiction movie about superheroes.

The reason why I said this was a bad example was because of Dash's super-powers - he was not controllable by Violet, like a normal child would be by a babysitter (of course in fiction you can make anything up, such that Violet would have had time to cast a force field and control Dash).

Under normal circumstances a babysitter should be held responsible for most actions the child takes while under her care (obviously we could dream up exceptions). This is of course common sense.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:50pm

Shayne,

You said that "Violet ought not to have been placed in charge at all." I.e., she should not have been the babysitter. Now you seem to be saying that we can call her "babysitter", but if the child does anything wrong she should not be blamed. I.e., she's in the role of watching over the child - but isn't to be held responsible for anything the child does while under her care.

No sorry, I misunderstood you. I was referring to babysitters generally rather than Violet specifically - I'm not sure I'd really describe her as such.

Max,

By "compulsory education" I do mean children having to be sent to school. In an Objectivist society I would argue that education would be both privatised and non-compulsory.

MH

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:22pm

Great article, JJ.

Shayne, I see nothing wrong with using this movie as an example. The fact that they all had superpowers wasn't mentioned and wasn't critical. This is similar to a frequent argument that you should never use Rand's fiction to make a point, because it's fiction. But the point is that the principle is described by the fiction, not proven by it. You have to look to reality to see if it adds up. So what happens when one kid is told that they're responsible for the other kid's actions, but aren't authorized to discipline or punish the other? You have one person blamed for something they don't even have indirect control over. Force fields or super speed are not an integral part of the argument.

The ultimate question is what power does Violet (or anyone else in this situation) have? A normal girl could spank her little brother (unless of course her parents are Objectivists). She can't ground them or threaten to, that's the job of the parents who are going to hear two sides of the story when they get back. There are some tools to handle it, but what happens when the parent doesn't allow anyone but themselves to use them? She's left taking the blame for something she has no control over. Or as JJ mentioned, she can assume the authority and discipline the child, but she'll often be punished herself for that.

I've seen a similar farce where you get two roughly equal age/size teenage boys, and the parents leave one of them "in charge". What possible power does one have over the other? If badboy X decides to throw a party with 150 of his closest friends, what does goodboy Y do about it? Call his parents! He has no authority, and he's given the responsibility. What can you do in that situation? Nothing but try to get out of responsibility. Is it unjust to set up the most responsible child as the one to blame in case anything goes wrong? What kind of inducement is that for being responsible.

At the same time, what does it do to the child who's not in charge. What happens when the blame for your actions are diverted to someone else who can't interfere with you? What kind of encouragement is there? What happens when you tell a child that for the next three hours, anything they do will not be punished. Or worse, depending on their relationship to the older child, that the older child will be blamed for it? It's practically begging for it.

What I get from this article is that if you do have a babysitter, they need to have authority over the child. If you give them a fraction of the tools you use in order to maintain order, then you should expect order to break down. If when you return you punish the babysitter for something that is not their fault, you teach everyone that it's the kid who's in charge, not the babysitter.

Byron, if I understand you right, I don't quite like your analogy here...it's not how I read the article. You give an example of someone delegating a job, but retaining responsibility. That means it's ultimately his job, even if he tries to get someone else to do the work. He has to check up on it, etc. This would be entirely different if the battalion commander's boss delegated the job directly, and told the battalion commander that he can't interfere, but he'll be blamed for it. In your example, the battalion commander retains authority, right? He can delegate to someone else, probably discipline the first guy, or take care of it personally. It's because he has authority that he can still be regarded as having responsibility. Did I understand your example?

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:04pm

I do not understand why everyone is gushing over this article.

Regarding The Incredibles,

Violet has been given responsibility without authority.

Why is it assumed that Violet didn't have the authority? When the mom left Violet in charge that by implication gives her the authority - she just chose not to exercise it.

Regarding the rest of the article, I think its meaning is summed up by this statement:

Ultimately, the injustice is that a person should never be held accountable for actions of someone else's.

This simply isn't true. The truth is - one shouldn't be held accountable for matters beyond one's control. But when a babysitter is watching a child, that child's actions are, for the most part, within the babysitter's control. Yes, there are actions the child can take that the babysitter can't control, and then the babysitter would be expected to take consequent actions to correct the child's course of action, and those *are* within the babysitter's control. E.g., if the child darts into the street unexpectedly, then the babysitter shouldn't necessarily be held accountable, but if the child keeps doing it and the babysitter doesn't physically constrain the child, then the babysitter is accountable for those actions of the child.

Joe:

I wasn't precise about my point that science fiction isn't a good source of examples. I agree that it can be. In principle science fiction can introduce elements that make the examples irrelevant, and I thought it did with Dash but you're right, it doesn't. It's like my example of a child unexpectedly darting into the road - if Dash uses his superpowers to get away then she shouldn't be held accountable.

I've seen a similar farce where you get two roughly equal age/size teenage boys, and the parents leave one of them "in charge". What possible power does one have over the other?

Obviously if one of the boys is rotten, then being in charge of him is meaningless and good parents would be smart enough not to set things up that way. But if they're both good kids then it's not. Physical power has nothing to do with it, the parent has temporarily given one boy the authority and if both kids are good both will respect it. So you're off the mark here. Or do you want to argue that a situation with a single mother of small stature with a teenage boy is a "farce"?

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:35pm

Max said: Does compulsory education also mean that you have to send your children to school? If yes, the abolishment is a difficult thing, ain't it?
How many people (especially religious groups) would stop sending their children to schools, because they tell you things that are real in this world and lack the faith-thingy?

I am not sure what you meant because of your wording, but that is probably because English is a second language to you (I am not trying to be critical, just that I can't always be sure of what someone means when the language is slightly off). My interpretation is that you are saying if we abolished public schools, we would still require people to send their children to (a) school - that would indeed be impossible. Some people would not, others would choose a religious school, others could learn at home with their own materials and access to the internet. It would be their decisions, their money, whatever they want to do or the child or young adult chooses, without force being used.

Oh, and old people might not have to sell their house because they can't afford school tax for other people's children.

Also, the religious schools are in many cases better than nearby public schools, and remember most religions are not "born again Creationism" believers, those are actually a minority.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:00pm

Marcus, Matt, Joe,

Glad you like the article.

David,

You can call me JJ. Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate them very much.

Shayne,

What kind of authority does Violet have? Admittedly, she could have forcibly held down Dash the whole time, which is the first method of assuming authority in order to be responsible that I mentioned. Do you think their mom would be happy to see her son pinned down(or physically confined in other ways) and probably crying, upon her return?

You say that in the case of two boys, putting one boy in charge would work if both kids are good. But don't you see that, regardless of how good the boys are to begin with, having one of them be responsible without authority actively encourages reckless behavior on the part of the other? The flaw is inherent in the setup of the situation.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:15pm

What kind of authority does Violet have? Admittedly, she could have forcibly held down Dash the whole time, which is the first method of assuming authority in order to be responsible that I mentioned. Do you think their mom would be happy to see her son pinned down(or physically confined in other ways) and probably crying, upon her return?

From the context provided in the movie, I don't really know what Violet's mom would have preferred. In a real situation the babysitter should be informed of how to deal with a kid that characteristically acts in certain bad ways.

You say that in the case of two boys, putting one boy in charge would work if both kids are good.

It could work even if they both weren't good, but it would depend on the range of bad behavior and whether the other boy could implement similar constraints the parents do. Obviously the parents should give him the authority to do so if they leave him in charge.

I'll also note that a really bad kid might not be manageable even by his parents, so it's hardly relevant that in principle kids can be really bad.

But don't you see that, regardless of how good the boys are to begin with, having one of them be responsible without authority actively encourages reckless behavior on the part of the other? The flaw is inherent in the setup of the situation.

Yes, of course if you're going to make someone responsible for a child, he should be authorized from the parent to do various things as consequences. Nowhere did I argue that one should have responsibility without authority or power. On the contrary, I argued that Violet did have implied authorization to deal with Dash.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:39pm

Great article, JJ!

There was an episode of the Simpsons that had a similar theme; Lisa is asked to babysit for Bart, and as any fan of the show knows, that was not a good idea. Lisa does not have the authority to keep Bart in line (hell, the parents can't keep him in line) and when he creates trouble, she is held responsible for it. No win situation.

I find the same problem in the workplace. As a night supervisor, I was responsible for cashiers and money. The problem was that the day supervisor (and my immediate supervisor) let the rules slide, so the employees would either not listen to me or give me attitude. But if something went wrong, I would be responsible. It was so bad in one place that I left! But in the current situation, the store manager recognized what was going on and actually promoted me. Point is, I had the responsibility but no authority, and it sucked! I know how poor Violet felt.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 6:43am

JJ, hello.

You are right on the money with this argument. In the U.S.(and other countries are following suit) the situation has reached critical mass. We have created an environment of increasing responsibility, and decreasing authority. The system thinks it is serving children and families, but it is doing exactly the opposite.

John

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 7:41am

Joe,

Upon reflection, it is not a perfect analogy, for the reason you mentioned (the commander retains authority).