Bacon 1 Loyalty: what do we need?

Humanity is messy and confusing and complex, but in literature, in history, and in life, one thing is clear. The forces that bind people together are arguably the most powerful and parts of culture and society. People need each other, and the loyalty we show each other, whether true or not, fulfills that need. However damaging the various types of loyalty are, it is a demand that must be appeased. When asked about loyalty, my mothers immediate thought was of a dog. A dog she claimed, as mans best friend, best encompasses the unfailing trust, confidence, and devotion that characterize true loyalty. When she amended her response and said that dogs were only loyal because they knew they were being fed, I began to wonder how much different dogs are from humans. After all, dont we all want something in return for taking a hit for someone? On the other hand, there is a significant difference between following someone around for scraps off the kitchen table and standing by a friend based on mutual affection and shared goals, with reward being the upshot but not the aim. Loyalty based on genuine need or selfish desire cannot be true loyalty, the former because it is not a choice and the later because it a choice for the wrong reasons. Conversely, forcing someone to declare their support for a cause cannot result in true faithfulness either, as that person needs to be able to make their own choice for their beliefs to be legitimate. Much of the popular conservative thought recorded in articles and journals through the recent decades took loyalty to religion and country as unquestionable and automatic, yet new movements in the 1970s offer evidence to the contrary (Wuthnow and Glock). Many American researchers have assiduously recorded and described the counterculture activities of the youth

Bacon 2 in America, especially noting the nontraditional religious paths many students have taken. With this, its demonstrated that most Americans find nontraditional religions strange enough to warrant writing analytical papers dozens of pages long and full of graphs which are, in the end of very little practical use. The older generation of Americans tends to be preoccupied with faith, though it is noted that the brighter [students] should be found in the ranks of the experimenters; that is, that nonconformists are considered more intelligent by the researchers (Wuthnow and Glock). Does this mean that individuals who remain loyal to their faith are less intelligent? The source was vague on qualifications for brighter, citing G.P.A.s and not much more, and it is difficult to define intelligence in that context. All in all, however, it can be assumed that students who experiment tend to think about their religions and loyalties in a more critical light than non-experimenters. This critical thinking may have been the crux of the sources arguments about brighter students. In any case, critical thinking and intelligent consideration, whatever the outcome, is a healthy and worthwhile exercise. On the other hand, loyalty based on mindless adherence to beliefs given by parents or church groups and not ones own thoughts can be neither spiritually healthy nor true loyalty. Throughout history, however, humans have demonstrated their ability to commit mass atrocities as a group of very loyal comrades, from the bloody chaos of the French Revolution to the lynching and terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan. A single uniting element of these occurrences, besides their wanton violence, is the identity of the perpetrators: a very tight-knit group that shares its loyalties and identities with nobody else, harshly punishing those of its group that show any signs of betrayal. A less extreme version of these events sometimes manifests in the very place people are supposed to be safe: hospitals. When nurses or other staff witness unethical or illegal behavior by doctors, they often feel that their hands are tied because the hospital will

Bacon 3 almost invariably side with its doctor, and the whistleblower on the crime will be punished (Curtin). In hospitals, as in companies, whistleblowers are often fired, targeted, and even persecuted (Lindblom). These individuals have loyalties to their families, whom they must support, their employers, who gave them a job, to their own conscience, and to the people who rely on them for quality service. Presuming one single loyalty in ethical matters such as these is narrow-minded and unfair. However, it can be concluded that employers assuming loyalty just through association or employment is unjustified. These nurses most likely feel the greatest loyalty to the people who they have devoted their professions to help and not to their corrupt bosses, even though tradition places their judgment above that of their employers, especially if the nurses and women and the doctors are men.. Loyalty for profit and within log-established prejudices is a powerful uniter, whether in companies, gangs, terrorist cells, or the black market. On the other hand, one of the reasons that the infamous, chaotic, destructive French Revolution was so jarring was the unquestionable strength of France and the unity of the French government (Barker). When the Huguenots were expelled, the Catholic Church and it the monarchy reaffirmed its power and the unity of the people became stronger; the link of loyalty to the crown and loyalty to faith is a strong one (Barker). With these bonds of religion, country, and order, hundreds of thousands of people found their identities. In that case, does loyalty show us who we are or what our loyalties have made us? Or are the two merely correlated, and do our loyalties, or did theirs, in the 16th and 17th centuries, stem from common faith, language, land, and heritage? When those bonds break, chaos reigns. Is, then, unexamined loyalty a positive force, in helping to maintain order and a sense of self in plague-ridden and war-torn medieval Europe? Or is it better to decide individually who we support? Ones answer depends on ones outlook. One person could say, Is loyalty to self or loyalt y to the public peace and safety more important?

Bacon 4 while the other asks Is the arguably awful status quo a good enough reason to keep your mind shut to other possibilities and opinions? Are you so dependent on an outdated and tyrannical system that you cant define for yourself who you are? The former opinion, reminiscent of the Enlightenment thinkers idealistically trying to prop up new Republican governments all over Europe, became more popular and widespread by the mid-19h Century, and eventually prevailed, though after a long and grueling struggle. As times change, so do definitions of identity and loyalty, and when the scale of this issue broadens enough, it turns to politics, which notoriously relies on party loyalties and prejudices (Jacobson). Some parties are so fixated on support that they require a loyalty oath, as a recent Republican Presidential Nominee did (10). The damaging effect of loyalty oaths, besides the obvious issue of forcing people to swear to things they do not necessarily believe, is that by getting a single, undisputed opinion, any other debates or views are cut off, crippling the democratic process by declaring one candidate or party or even system of government better than the other without leaving room for discussion. This cutting off of free will is neither healthy for a democratic society nor beneficial for individuals. Furthermore, in Shakespeares literature, loyalty stands out in two stunning displays of selfless devotion. Hamlets only friend Horatio stands by him throughout the entire mad plot, weathering Hamlets schemes, insanity, violence, and depression. Although Horatio is serving a prince, it is not for personal gain that he stands by Hamlet; he is a loyal friend who would rather help a friend in distress than side with Hamlets considerably more powerful uncle, Claudius, the new king and the rational choice. In turn, Hamlet stays loyal to his fathers memory, vowing to kill Claudius and clearly not caring about the consequences. An even more extreme version of this selflessness is in the form of Kent from King Lear who, despite being cruelly banished by his lifelong best friend, manages to sneak back into his service in disguise, provides his friend

Bacon 5 unflagging comfort and support in the hardest time of Lears life, and commits suicide when it is clear he can be of no more use to his friend and king. Contrasted with Regan and Gonerils fabricated words of love to their father for his money and property, Kents sacrifice is striking indeed. While the actions of Hamlet, Horatio, and Kent and driven by selfless love, the stark contrasts show up in people like Claudius, Regan, and Goneril: realistic, if slightly exaggerated characters all. As loyalty is explored through one of the greatest mind of the century, it is clear what an integral part of the human condition it truly is. Loyalty is a profoundly abstract yet ancient and deep-rooted concept. Loyalty between friends and loyalty for gain each appeal to two of humanitys deepest yet juxtaposed needs: love and profit. At the core of each issue, one thing is clear: people need each other. Survival, whether through monetary gain or through interpersonal connections and emotional fulfillment, is achieved by having people who will stand by you through thick and thin.

Works Cited 10 Loyalty Oath." State Legislatures: n. pag. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Barker, S. K. "'D'une plume de fer sur un papier d'acier': Faith, Nationalism and War in the Poetry of the First French War of Religion" ["'In a pen of iron on a steel paper': Faith,

Bacon 6 Nationalism and War in the Poetry of the First French War of Religion"]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language: n. pag. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Crosby, Richard Benjamin. "Argumentation and Advocacy." Oath rhetoric, political identity, and the case of Jon Huntsman: n. pag. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Curtin, Leah L. "When Nurses Speak Up, They Pay a Price." American Nurse Today 52.5 (2013): n. pag. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Dec. 2013 Gerken, Heather K. "Exit, voice, and disloyalty." Duke Law Journal: n. pag. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. Jacobson, Gary C. "Partisan polarization in American politics: a background paper." Presidential Studies Quarterly: n. pag. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. Lindblom, Lars. "Dissolving the Moral Dilemma of Whistleblowing." Journal of Business Ethics 46.4 (2007): 413-15. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. Wolfe, Alan. "On Loyalty." The Wilson Quarterly Fall 1997: 46-58. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. Wuthnow, Robert, and Charles Y. Glock. "Religious Loyalty, Defection, and Experimentation among College Youth." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Publication 12.2 (1973): 164+. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.