I'm Reviewing the Situation

In the last article, We’ve Been Framed, (See Archives) we examined how an individual’s frame of reference affects their worldview and how each of us makes decisions and the foundation for those decisions. In this article we will specifically look at a situationalist’s view of the world.

Fagan, in the award-winning musical, Oliver, faces a dilemma. As his criminal enterprise is breaking down and he is facing a threat from the notorious Bill Sikes as well as possible legal prosecution which would mean the gallows, he begins to review his situation in the song, I'm Reviewing the Situation. The song demonstrates how he vacillates from one position to the opposite finding it difficult to make the choice. Fagan lacks a consistent, concrete standard upon which to make his decision and his decision ultimately reflects his avaricious nature.

Such is the situationalist’s reality. The criteria for decision making are based on present circumstances. The pillars upon which they build their conclusions, upon which they make their decisions, are dependent upon what is currently happening. Their choices are as varied as the situations they confront daily. Sadly, and in most cases, the decision is made that best serves their preconceived needs and desires. It is generally reflective of fore-drawn conclusions.

In his book “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society” Farhad Manjoo claims: “Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.”

The true situationalist will declare that there are no absolutes. However, to claim that there are no absolutes is to state an absolute thus nullifying the stated position. Such inconsistency seemingly poses no difficulty for a true situationalist.

Out of this worldview comes the concept of moral relativism, a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups that hold to them. There are, in the mind of the situationalist, no consistent standards of right and wrong or good and bad. Not only is morality based on an individual’s personal perspective or desire and thereby, the situation in which they find themselves, truth itself becomes a relevant matter. Truth today is not necessarily truth tomorrow. To say that two things diametrically opposed to one another cannot both be true has no relevance since nothing is actually true to begin with. It is interesting to note that when an individual says there is no truth, they make themselves irrelevant. They invalidate their statement by their position.

I have had the opportunity in my professional career to work with some excellent administrators. I have also worked with some that weren’t so good. One of the most difficult superintendents that I worked with said to his administrative team during his first meeting with them that he based all of his decisions on the given situation. He made it clear that how he “ruled” on an issue one day was not necessarily the same way he would decide the next time a similar circumstance occurred. School policy, past practice, state law, nor student/parent handbooks would serve as the standard for decision making. How he personally interpreted the situation was his only standard. He reiterated his position to the entire school staff during the opening school in-service. To give this man credit, he was true to his word. Staff, students, and parents had no idea as to what the flavor of the day was when he was making a judgment. Needless to say, and being a believer that the standards of Board policy, etc. are to be consistently enforced regardless of the situation or the persons involved, I, along with most of the staff and parents, found it beyond difficult to work with this will-o’-the-wisp.

On the other hand, when I was an elementary school principal, a second grade student came to school with a pocket knife. He had used it that morning to cut the twine on bales of hay while doing his farm chores and forgot that it was in his pocket. When he realized what he had done he showed it to his teacher, explaining what had happened. The boy was sent to my office. School policy required the immediate suspension of a child if he had a weapon, including a knife. Ultimate ramification, due to this zero tolerance policy, could be the expulsion of the student. I had the student wait in the hallway while I spoke with my superintendent, a man who preceded my situationalist friend. This superintendent was an honorable man who believed, as did I, in consistent policy implementation. He concurred completely with my decision.

I brought the young man back into my office, told him to never bring a knife to school in the future, and sent him back to his classroom with a terrified look on his face. I then called his parents to let them know what had happened and told them that the knife was in my desk whenever they wanted to stop by and pick it up.

When I have used this illustration in the past, people have asked me how I could be an absolutist and situationally not make this student suffer the full consequences of the rules. My response is always this. I subjectively did what I thought was in the best interest of the student and did nothing that compromised the safety of the other people in the building. Even the best absolutist must at times take the situation into account.

Likewise, even the most ardent situationalist will believe in some absolutes. Driving off a three hundred foot cliff at seventy-five miles an hour will absolutely ruin your day. The situationalist will also believe that it is always and absolutely wrong for a murderer to kill them regardless of the murderer’s personal situation.

In the next article we will examine the positive and negative aspects of being an absolutist.