Our city police forces across the nation are on the defensive. Videos are popping up everywhere exposing what appears to be systemic police brutality: the use of excessive force and seemingly indefensible shootings of unarmed young black men stopped for minor offenses.
Citizens are protesting, wanting justice and demanding change and accountability. This is only right. But what do we mean by “accountability”?
There are two ways the word is used. One is negative, the other is appropriately positive.
The negative manner in the way the word “accountable” is used is a subtle way of saying: we want to control the person(s) being held accountable. We want to monitor them in such a way that we can catch them and pounce on them when they are caught doing wrong or committing grave mistakes. It is a “gotcha” attitude—“Ah, ha, we gotcha now! You’re going down!!” (Ironically not unlike the mentality of abusive police officers who shoot down unarmed black men.)
This kind of “accountability” is just another form of abusive power to search and attack with the intent to catch in order to oust and condemn. It says, “You are being watched, and if you make one slip-up, do anything wrong, we’re coming after you and we will destroy you.” It puts one on the defensive and makes one distrust the power and authority that holds the “accountability” strings.
The positive meaning of accountability is more like when a coach says to a trainee, “I’m here to help. I’m here so that you can do your best, so you will succeed. If you slip-up or fall-short, or even fail, I’m here to help get you back on your feet and improve, so that you can make progress and do better. I’m holding you accountable to the highest standards of good sportsmanship and development.”
The negative or oppressive use of the term accountability elicits a reaction of furtiveness, secretiveness, and the desire to avoid “being caught.” It results in a spirit of defensiveness, distrust, and evasiveness. The positive use of accountability invites engagement and welcomes scrutiny, eliciting transparency and cooperation. Hence, healthy positive “accountability” nurtures mutual engagement and reciprocated trust and transparency with welcomed constructive critique, resulting in practical development.
Here’s an example. Most church denominations encourage their congregations to conduct a congregational/pastoral review every few years. If the review is one-sided and seen as the congregation’s opportunity as a fault-finding session to cough-up all that is wrong with the pastor and to list all the pastor’s faults and failures, the evaluation quickly turns into an all out attack against the pastor with little positive redeeming or constructive dynamics. It becomes a kind of witch hunt for anyone who dislikes the pastor and wants to get rid of him/her.
On the other hand if the review is conducted in such a way that the intent is to both highlight the pastor’s strengths and maximize the good, as well as to strengthen his/her weaknesses and correct recurring mistakes (while at the same time also doing as much for the congregation itself), the accountability session results in a strengthening of the pastoral/congregational bond and adds momentum to a positive growing congregational dynamic. Note then that healthy accountability is really a two-way street and should be applied for the purpose of enhancing and growing or developing the subjects involved rather than simply used for attacking, denouncing, and demeaning those “being held accountable.”
Thus, as our communities demand more accountability of our police departments, let it be done so in a positive spirit with constructive intent—to enhance trust and encourage reciprocal engagement, and build a more positive relationship between the community and police. Neither side should be put on the defensive or be made to feel as if they are being watched so as to be pounced on, attacked, and “taken-out.”
Healthy positive accountability is relational, reciprocal, transparent, trust enhancing, and constructive. Its aim is to build-up and make better, never to attack and destroy, always seeking the good and the “betterment” of those being held accountable. That’s the kind of accountability that anyone in any profession should want to have and should be willing to invite.
No comments:
Post a Comment