In the past forty years we have embarked upon a culture in this country largely fuelled by the sexual revolution with the idea that sexual freedom is the highest enshrined constitutional right. Let us be honest and recognise that no man is a paragon of moral virtue and let us be realistic by acknowledging that those who fall victim to temptation should never be entirely disqualified from holding high office. But let us also recognise that infidelity is not a victimless crime, treachery is a betrayal word and where there is betrayal there is hurt.
Hornor reminds us that sex is everywhere. It permeates the movies and most television programmes and is readily available through the Internet. Hollywood is increasingly portraying sex outside of marriage as something perfectly natural and ordinary without highlighting the cost that is carried by cheated upon spouses and "throwaway" children. (1) Now some forty years into the “sexual revolution” that began in the 1960's many sociologists are increasingly concerned that not only is sexual promiscuity undermining the integrity of the family but it is also starting to shake the very foundations of the traditional community structure within the United Kingdom.
Adultery or infidelity is a betrayal that often leads to divorce and as any trip to the divorce courts will tell us this leads to anguish, anxiety and an increasing number of emotionally traumatized children. Childhood even within intact families is never trouble free. The fact that the most emotional structure in the child's life, the parent’s marriage, is terminated becomes forever embedded in that child's history. The claim that any crisis for the child is temporary and that children are often far happier post divorce is often a misguided notion, with the notable exception of high conflict relationships underpinned by regular acts of violence.
Yet even in these post feminist enlightened days of “gender equality” it should come as no surprise to observers of British Society that nine out of ten single parent households are headed up by lone females who have been deserted by male partners after they have fathered children. It therefore follows that nine out of ten single parent households do not have a male role model and this can have a significant effect particularly with regards to boys.
Rector points out that there is nothing glamorous about single motherhood even in the wealthiest and most educated of homes. For he claims that for the typical single mum even maintaining a mere functioning household is a Herculean task and in the overwhelming majority of cases single motherhood leads not to empowerment, but to the powerlessness of poverty and despair. He says, “Despite her best efforts the single parent cannot attend to all of her child's needs as quickly or as fully as she could if a husband assisted her. These factors tend to affect the mother's emotional attachment to her child and in turn reduce the child's lifelong capacity for emotional attachment to others and empathy for other” (2)
However, most ordinary people do not need to survey Social Science literature to know that a family life of affection, cohesion and parental involvement prevents delinquency. In particular they know instinctively that marital affection, marital self confidence and the fathers esteem for the mother are among the most critical elements in raising well-balanced children
Having identified this, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that many single parents do succeed, against long odds, in rearing successful, law abiding and well-balanced children. However this should not blind us to the overwhelming evidence that children in intact two parent families enjoy higher levels of affluence, do much better at school, succumb less from the temptation to commit crime or engage in drug taking and enjoy better physical and mental health.
So the question is at what stage and in what circumstances does a public official's "private life"- and more specifically, his sexual conduct-becomes relevant to his public life. Glass argues that what matters are facts, circumstances and context, as well as principles. For example she asserts that past indiscretion, followed by an authentic change in ways is vastly different from serial adultery. She poses the following question: "Was the affair marked by compulsiveness, carelessness and cruelty? Was there exploitation based on age and status? Did the affair involve a staff member? Did the person know his personal life would come under scrutiny and still decide to run the risk of an affair? These are factors to consider and weigh" (3)
Glass continues this theme and issues a warning when she claims that in some circumstances infidelity ought to be the subject of public concern. She maintains, "Infidelity can often reveal something important about a person's character and judgement, his trustworthiness and prudence" (4) No one disputes that public figures are entitled to a "private life" but if they exhibit certain characteristics or display an absence of judgement or restraint that is incompatible with their public office shouldn't the public have the right to know? In short are people ever really going to trust somebody who repeatedly indulges in excesses of immaturity evidenced by selfishness, lust and folly?
For there is nothing honourable and nothing worth defending the betrayal of the most intimate trust between a husband and a wife and a father and his children. Because if a man repeatedly betrays the people with whom he is most intimate and is so cavalier about his marriage vows can he really inspire confidence in the wider community? For surely it must follow that those who are concerned with the welfare of both individuals and society should disapprove of personal behaviour that undermines the foundation of the very community they purport to serve.
Yet despite this, in many instances, respective organisations are now seemingly more tolerant of dishonourable and selfish conduct and seek to excuse the behaviour of senior colleagues by attempting to compartmentalize the different spheres of their lives with the tired excuse that they are “entitled to a private life” Kettle sees it differently and is not convinced by people who try to draw a distinction between their public face and their private lives, when he says, “The awkward truth is that the way people live their private lives does tell us things that can help us make judgements about them as public people (5)
For, undoubtedly, the ultimate test of ethics is whether we are willing to stand firm when it is not in our self-interest to do so. Lorenz reminds us “Integrity means being the same person inside and out, all the time, whether in pubic or private. It means keeping our commitments accepting our responsibilities and being fair with everyone. (6)
The inescapable truth is that the conduct of senior people in public life can and often does have profound public consequences. This, unfortunately, is all- too- familiar territory in today's anything-goes culture, where sexual promiscuity is too often treated as just another lifestyle choice with little risk of adverse consequences. It is this mindset that has helped to undermine the social fabric of contemporary Britain.
The human sexual impulse is so powerful that societies have found it necessary to establish standards of sexual behaviour to protect the vital relationships that help communities to flourish. But it now seems that selfish instincts are breaking free of these civilized restraints, which several generations, over many centuries of experience, have determined were essential to the maintenance of civil order.)
With regard to workplace liaisons Grossman points out that sexual favouritism in the workplace “creates a hostile working environment in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees is that the way to get ahead is by engaging in sexual conduct with the management” (7) Rayner also cautions that leaders should guard themselves against “impressionable women with low self-esteem who see power as the ultimate aphrodisiac.” (8)
Yet, even in this deeply non-judgmental age it seems we are plummeting to new depths and we are seemingly prepared to tolerate discreditable conduct from individuals who bring their organisations into disrepute. However a growing number now believe that those who seek the rewards of high office, yet fail to understand the boundaries of such office, help to undermine confidence in our institutions by corroding both the values and standards that are essential in a civilised society.
Is it therefore unrealistic to expect that those who aspire towards the highest public offices in the land act both ethically and with the greatest degree of integrity in all parts of their lives? For those that seek the most powerful positions in society and those who can influence change in the lives of others through public service, must realise that there is a moral threshold, which, if crossed, will inextricably damage their credibility as a leader
For what is clear that sexualising a working environment can poison it for anyone who wants to be accepted as an equal as extra marital affairs involve much deceit both inside and outside the home. It corrodes good behaviour as one untruth leads to another. Powerful men with personal secretaries and official drivers cannot easily conduct such dalliances without misleading colleagues or making them accomplices. Bennett also asks us to spare a thought for other women who must continue to work alongside such philanderers and who may fear that they are constantly being sized up as the next conquest, “gazing on their cleavage and speculating on the kind of underwear that might be supporting it” (9) The reputation of a philanderer precedes him.
References
1. Hornor, Luke. Society's Slide into Sexual Immorality
Web retrieval dated August 2005.
2. Rector, Robert, Policy Analyst for 'The Heritage' quoted in Critical Issues, volume 1 issue 2, Family Values Test (September 2005
3. Glass, Shirley 'Shattered Vows: Getting Beyond Betrayal'. Psychology Today, July/August 1998.
4. Ibid. 97.
5. Kettle. M “Private Lives Really Matter” The Guardian, 30th November 2004.
6. Lorenz A “The Essence of Integrity” from Ethics Today (Ca). 2004
7. Grossman, Joanna. Find Law Columnist. CNN Special, Friday 29 July 2005.
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/29/arossman. workplace/
8. Rayner, G. The Daily Mail (UK) dated 28 April 2006
9. Bennett, C. The Guardian (UK), 'Misconduct is a Very Public Matter' dated 4 May 2006.
10. The Sarge’s Desktop. The view from the end of the corridor. Posted Wednesday 11th February, 2009. Retrieved from http://ukpolicesergeant.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html
No comments:
Post a Comment