As the dust settles from the Super Bowl half-time striptease, let me go on record as saying I like what Janet Jackson did. I also appreciate what she revealed.
Now–before you write me off–let me tell you “the rest of the story.”
C.S. Lewis once wrote: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” In Lewis’ mind, the Christian story is true not just because of its historical veracity, but because it offers the best explanation of life as we experience it. Now the trick in all of this is to observe how people act when they don’t have time to think about it. You learn the most about “real life” in the unedited moments.
Which brings me to the Super Bowl half-time show. It seems to me that what Janet Jackson did in the unedited moment is best understood in the light of the Christian story (notice I didn’t say what Justin did. I’m talking about Janet’s unedited reaction). And what was it that Janet did?
She immediately covered her exposed breast.
Without thinking about it, Janet Jackson “knew” she had crossed some sort of line. And this is exactly what the Christian story predicts will happen. God made the body to be enjoyed–it is inherently good (including a woman’s breasts). But due to the fall of humankind, our bodies and human sexuality are not only corrupted–the whole issue of breasts and bottoms became a bit convoluted. While still inherently good, God clothed Adam and Eve with a measure of modesty. I don’t know all that this means, but it does seem to indicate there are appropriate–and inappropriate–times and places for exposing and celebrating our human bodies.
Now, if you watch MTV, you’d think the idea of modesty was extinct. The writers, performers, and producers basically tell the story of our bodies as being one of titillation, scintillation, and abandonment with no shame. But MTV is packaged and produced–it is edited. If Janet really believed the “MTV story” is true, she would have never covered her breast after Justin’s unexpected “revelation.” She would have instead let it hang out. But Janet didn’t have time to think about all that. In the unedited moment, she “revealed” more than her right bosom–she pointed to the Christian story as being the most truthful. It’s the best explanation of how life really works its way out.
So I like what Janet Jackson did. I don’t delight in the overall spectacle, but I do appreciate what she revealed. What do you think?
This week, Parmalat (the stricken Italian food firm) admitted that it had lied about a previous lie. Parmalat now owes 14.3 billion euros (or $18 billion) its auditors say—almost eight times what the company claimed when it went bust in December. Former managers had lied about the firm’s performance for years. This new “discovery” comes almost exactly a month after the discovery of a document purporting to show some $6 billion held in a Bank of America account by a Cayman Islands subsidiary of Parmalat was a forgery. The culture of Parmalat—slowly but surely—practiced lying as a way to keep the business going. Why does this happen?
If you go back in history—starting with Daniel Goleman, then Reinhold Niebuhr, and finally going back many millennia to the prophet Jeremiah—you’ll find some fascinating common threads.
Dr. Daniel Goleman (Vital Lies, Simple Truths) believes that large organizations regularly practice what he dubbed “the vital lie.” It’s a self-deception motivated by our need to avoid anxiety-provoking thoughts. Goleman believes businesses and large organizations—even families and churches—selectively look for data and information that supports what we think we already know. The rest is jettisoned. We come to see lying as vital to keep the program going.
Goleman was interviewed by Bill Moyers for a 1989 PBS series (”The Truth About Lies”) that examined the Bay of Pigs and the shuttle Challenger disasters. In 1963, President Kennedy desperately wanted to overthrow Castro, ordering the Bay of Pigs invasion (and ignoring CIA information indicating Castro’s forces outnumbered the invaders by 140:1 and that the Cuban people would not rise up in rebellion and join America’s invasion force). The result was a national humiliation. Afterward, JFK said, “How could I be so stupid?” The Challenger disaster followed the same script. NASA was under pressure to prove that the shuttle program was a success. Morton-Thiokol (the sole supplier of booster rockets for the shuttle—a $1,000,000,000 contract) recommended that the Challenger mission be postponed (the O-ring seals lost elasticity in freezing temperatures.) NASA was vehement that “the Challenger should fly” and “searched” for reasons to launch. They found them and—73 seconds after launching—seven astronauts died.
Phil Burgess, our Managing Director at TCI, reminded me that Goleman’s concept of “the vital lie” is parallel to Reinhold Niebuhr’s ideas in Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932). Niebuhr believed individuals are motivated by an ethic of love, but institutions are motivated by utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number of people). For example, NASA believed if they scrubbed the launch, Congressional funding (and employment for many) and would be in peril. Lying became vital—even though those closest to the situation didn’t see it that way.
But Niebuhr and Goleman are actually borrowing their ideas from the prophet Jeremiah. His lifelong assignment was to tell the nation Judah: The emperor has no clothes. Judah thought everything was peachy—they were “God’s people” and enjoyed a good king (an anomaly—most of Judah’s kings were corrupt). But Jeremiah saw this as “the vital lie.” They were kidding themselves to keep the program going. Blind to their own duplicity, Jeremiah wrote: “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick, who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
I believe Goleman, Niebuhr, and Jeremiah understand what is going on. It does seem that—the more successful and larger our companies and civic institutions—the more susceptible we are to practicing “the vital lie” in order to keep the program going. What do you think?
