Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[Tgace]

Thinking we are better than anybody else and flaunting it is in bad taste. Those who truely are "superior people" dont have to prove anything and their "excellence" is something other people see in them vs. what they say about themselves. Much like how going on and on about how experienced we are, how many years of X we have done, how many books we have read, written and quoted and how everybody has to "prove" anything I disagree with (even dumb analogies) is in bad taste. Smacks of superiority complex.

Woof.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It's radically different to claim that a few are naturally superior--or superior through God's Will--and to mention a book now and then that anybody can go read. Especially considering that the high-falutin' tome I mentioned here was what? "Starship Troopers?"

And it's also different to argue ideas, or to look at history, vs. repeating back the old right-wing fantasy--anybody who sees the world differently from me must have a superiority complex, or personal neuroses. Sorry--your fantasy, not mine.

 

[heretic888]

How about watching people? if you are in a crowded room and yell FIRE!!! I can bet a majority will "flock" to the exits. Some will instinctively know where to go, others that may be confused will follow them. Still others will see where the fire is and try to put it out or help the people evacuate. Nothing wrong with any of them.

Actually, most research on the matter would indicate such things are a result moreso of the social circumstances moreso than any supposed, pe-existing internal dispositions (or "natures", if you want). Its social psychology at its finest.

In all likelihood, the people that try and put the fire out or help others have either (a) had experience in similar situations, or (b) have had special training to prepare them for such situations. In no way does this make the unprepared any more or less "sheepish" than them, nor does it mean they have an intrinsicially different "nature" or "personality".

Of course, another principle in social psychology could be brought up here: the fundamental attribution error. It is our collective tendency to attribute our own negative actions (be they "immoral", "cowardly", or "weak") to external circumstances, while we attribute others' negative actions to internal dispositions (i.e., "the terrorists do what they do just because they're 'evil', not because they've been living in constant fear and mind-raping poverty for generations").

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I wrote, "hierarchical," religions. Zen Buddhism doesn't see it this way; most Christianities do. And the whole notion of having a few, proud sheepdogs implies that they are superior to the herd. It's inherent in the image.

At this point, we could also bring up the Mahayana Buddhist notion of the Bodhisattva's Vow --- namely, that the Bodhisattva absolutely, utterly, completely refuses to accept the bliss of Nirvana (in contrast to the detached Arhat) unless all sentient beings, without exception, can also share and partake of the Liberation.

In fact, it goes even further: the reason the Bodhisattva cannot accept Nirvana under such conditions is because he (or she) experiences the suffering of others as his (or her) own suffering. "What you have done to the least of my brothers" or some such...

Although, for all you Bible-heads listening, there are also ready parallels to this idea in the New Testament. From that wacky gnostic Paul, no less.

Laterz.

 

[Flatlander]

I wrote, "hierarchical," religions. Zen Buddhism doesn't see it this way; most Christianities do. And the whole notion of having a few, proud sheepdogs implies that they are superior to the herd. It's inherent in the image.

Superior, or able? Desiring to control, or socially conscious? You're projecting.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Am I really.

"Since all men aren't equally ready to meet violence when it comes, a select few of us volunteer to meet violence for them. BUT, it is vitally important for those of us who take that responsibility to remember that the vast majority of people out there are the sheep we serve..."


"All men aren't equally ready...a select few of us...take that responsibility."

 

[Tgace]

"Since all men aren't equally ready to meet violence when it comes, a select few of us volunteer to meet violence for them. "



Is that statement false on its face?...many people do call 911 to have somebody else face the danger. Its the smart thing to do. However many people will also take a beating, shooting or stabbing and then blame the police for not being there to protect them...those are the "sheep".

 

[Tgace]

Did nobody read this part...

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa." This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Or, we could skip all the animal crap and go with Edmund K. Parker's statement that the first consideration of combat is acceptance.

The sheepy thing is a bad analogy--it's not good writing, and it carries along with it a wide range of problems.

Incidentally, I tend to believe that democracy is preferable to elitist notions, however well-intended.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmm....

I'd have to agree with Robert on this one, in that the whole "sheep" analogy is just really bad writing and almost assuredly prone to the interpretations that many of this thread have given it.

I mean, fer crissakes, when you're calling the majority of the population --- including a substantial number of very well-educated, intelligent, independent-minded folks --- "sheep", what the hell do you expect?? :idunno:

Although, I can also see where Tgace is coming from, and perhaps Robert is exaggerating the analogy somewhat. "Projection" in this context, however, is far too strong of an accusation.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

I think both sides are taking the analogy to an unintended extreme...for petes sake who really believes people are animals? He's just trying to make a simplified point about denial and duty. And as his audience is typically LE and military, of course its slanted towards them. Should he be saying "hey you guys are overpaid, rights trampeling, self-important pawns of the capitalistic power-elite....thats all, have a nice day."?? :idunno:

Some just refuse to find a valid point at all costs.

 

[Cruentus]

Um....

1. As I mentioned before, incidentally or not this is a SPEECH, not a writing piece.

2. Again to reiterate the point I made before, the speaker expressed that as human beings we have the choice to be a certian way. In no way does this imply, then, that being "sheep" is biological.

3. The analogy IS intended in part to piss off the sheep. To piss them off into being more safety/defense minded, and more supportive of those who keep us safe for a living. Let's face it, the large majority of people out there do not think of their own safety or defense, or of the safety or defense of those around them, and they rely on others to keep them safe. This is a sad but true fact.

4. Just because certian groups or people might use the analogy to justify wierd right-wingisms, that doesn't mean that this was the speakers intent, or that it is a bad analogy. Nor does this mean that the analogy implies police state, elitism, stalinism, facism, or any other claims that seem to be based off personal baggage.

 

[arnisandyz]

Or, we could skip all the animal crap and go with Edmund K. Parker's statement that the first consideration of combat is acceptance.

The sheepy thing is a bad analogy--it's not good writing, and it carries along with it a wide range of problems.

Incidentally, I tend to believe that democracy is preferable to elitist notions, however well-intended.

As a speech, if it gets people to listen its sucessful. Some people are more likely to retain a piece of information when they can relate it to something they know or that is well known. Sheep have been known to follow, it IS well known the duties of the sheepdog. My 5 year old knows this. From reading your posts and getting a feel for your writing style I would bet that a majority of high school students (for example) would retain the analogy of the sheep/sheepdog over your social dogma. If you took a control group and let a professional speaker/presenter address the crowd and then let a person who studies the social sciences present thier thesis to them, I can almost guarantee more people will follow the professional speaker. I’m not saying that you are not intellegent, as your writing does show that, but in that, you loose touch of the reader (you use some mighty big words I don’t understand). Its all about communication, you can be the most gifted scientist in the world, but if you don’t know how to convey your ideas, nobody will know about it, or care to hear it.

 

[arnisandyz]

Think about your teachers in college or high school. Which ones were most influental to you, the ones who hit a chord, knew how to relate to you and got you involved or the ones who rattled off lectures like a text book? In this guy's speech he pushed the right buttons to get people to notice, whether they agree or not. People are more aware afterwards, and I think that was the main purpose of his writing, not to win awards, and not to be documented as social literature.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hitler, of course, gave one king-hell of a speech.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Hitler, of course, gave one king-hell of a speech.

So did Martin Luther King Jr. So what?

 

[rmcrobertson]

The previous arguments were that what was being implied didn't matter, because all that really counted was delivering an effective speech.

 

[arnisandyz]

The previous arguments were that what was being implied didn't matter, because all that really counted was delivering an effective speech.

Nobody said what was being implied didn't matter, if it didn't matter it wouldn't have been an effective speech. (This was in response to you refering to the piece as 'bad writing"). The analogy is simply a vehicle to take the audience to where the speaker wants them to go.

There are different components to a speech and recognizing your audience is one of them. You can' simply state facts, cite work, and present your case. Many times the audience needs to be led (bahahah) or taken somewhere. The best speakers, writers have a captivating personality.
Sometimes this can overcome a flawed position.

 

[FearlessFreep]

My assumption was simply that the author was exploring or explaining the relationship of those who don't/can't exercise power/violence in self-defense, those that prey upon the first group, and those that are willing/able to use violence in defense of the first group from the second group. In exploring the interaction of those three groups, the sheep/sheepdog/wolf metaphor was effective as an illustration, but only for the limited view of that relationship; those willing to use violence and those unwilling...for different reasons.

No metaphor should be taken beyond it's intended meaning. When MLKJr said "I believe that we as a people can get to the promised land", the 'promised land' was a metaphor drawing upon the Exdous story of God leading his people from slavery to freedom. People could clearly understand the illustration. Nobody took it that MLKjr was saying that black people were going to have to cross a desert, or wander around in the wilderness for 40 years, or eat manna three meals a day, or that blacks in America were God's Chosen People. The metaphor worked for it's intent, and it was a good metaphor.

In the case of willingness to use violence and how people, both willing and unwilling, view each other, the sheep/sheepdog/wolf metaphor works. You can disagree with the meaning of the metaphor, such as people both depend on and fear their protectors, but to object to the methporic language itself in terms of "people aren't sheep" is pretty silly because the authors intent for the metaphor was not to say that people really are sheep, anyway. The only point to the metaphor is "some people act like sheep when it comes to their willingess or ability to use violence against threats and thus need protectors, and some people act like sheepdogs as protectors." I mean, a sheepdog doesn't feel smugness or superiority over the sheep, it just does what it does. Similarly, the comparison of criminal to wolf breaks down at a point because a wolf breaks no moral or legal code in what it does. So if you expand the metaphor to far beyound it's intent, it breaks down, as all metaphors naturally do. If you want to object to the results of the metaphor and say "no, there are no sheep, everyone is physically and emotionally capable and ready to defend themselves against violence, so there are no need for 'protectors' (police or military, formal or informal) so there are no sheepdogs", that's fine, but most sheep have cuddly, fluffy, hair suitable for use in making clothing and while you might be able to say the same for people, I seriously doubt that was the intent of the metaphor

I can turn the same phrasing around: teenagers are like sheep, easily influenced and led by their peers; ad executives are like wolves, seeking to pray upon the sheep; consumer protection agencies are like sheepdogs protecting the sheep against threats they really don't understand or can withstand. To a certain level and only a certain level, the metaphor works as a way of framing the start of a conversation or and understanding. To take the metaphor beyond it's intent and the critique it on grounds it was not intended to deal is a waste of time.

It would be akin to objecting to MLKjr's speech by saying "It's not fair for us to roam around in the desert for forty years!". Well, probably not, but that wasn't the point of the metaphor, anyway.

The imagery in the speech works at illustrating an interlationship and interdependency and set of attitudes and responses. That's all it was intended to do and it did it effectively. Anything beyond that is the problem of the listener


Some days I'm the sheep, some days I'm the sheepdog..maybe some days I'm the wolf. I understand what the author was trying to say, and I see how it applies to me and the people around me.

I'm much more concerned if I look into the metaphor and think about wolves prentending to be sheepdos or sheepdogs becoming wolves than I am about taking affront to being called a sheep

 

[elder999]

Um....

1. As I mentioned before, incidentally or not this is a SPEECH, not a writing piece.

I'm not so sure about that-it is a chapter in Dr. Grossman's On Killing, without the mention of Columbine and 9/11, since it was first published in 1995. It may be in Loren Christensen's recent collection, Warriors: on Living with Courage, Discipline and Honor, or in their collaboration On Combat, both of which I haven't read yet.

Or it could be one of those internet things where somebody spiced up the original content and it started circulating.

Where'd you get the idea that it's a speech-I haven't found any attribution for it, other than the original which I've had for some time ;my lopng ago shrink ex-girlfriend loved it and insisted that I was a "sheepdog," which is only somewhat more flattering than wolf to me, and implies subservience to the sheep-just to put another spin on it.