Having lost Gandalf, the Fellowship flees from Moria to safer ground. They enter Lothlorien (from which this chapter takes its title) where Aragorn, who has taken on the role of leading the Fellowship, says they will be welcome. But they are then captured by several Elves, who tell them that they are trespassing on their land, and though they've heard of the Fellowship and their Quest, they are still very wary of trusting outsiders. They will take the Fellowship to "Our Lord and Lady," where their fate will be decided. It sounds surprisingly grim, given that the Elves are supposed to be on the same side as the Fellowship. "Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him."
The Elves are especially wary of Gimli. "A dwarf! That is not well. We have not had dealings with the Dwarves since the Dark Days. They are not permitted in our land." Frodo insists that since Gimli was chosen by Elrond, that he should be trusted. After a conversation amongst themselves, the Elves relent, but "he must go blindfolded through Lothlorien."
When Gimli hears of this, he staunchly refuses. There is an argument. "I will go forward free, or I will go back and seek my own land, where I am known to be true of word." Finally, Aragorn intercedes, "It is hard upon the Dwarf to be thus singled out. We will all be blindfold."
Here Aragorn displays an excellent model of leadership. He understands the Elves' predicament, even as he disagrees with it. They are secretive and wary. He can't just say "Seriously guys - trust us." If they would be persuaded so easily, they wouldn't need to be persuaded at all. But, Aragorn also understands Gimli's objections. Gimli feels he has earned a reputation of trustworthiness. He has no desire to let the Elves label him otherwise.
So Aragorn comes up with a compromise. If Gimli needs to be blindfold because he's seen as an outsider, then let everyone be blindfold, since they are all outsiders (Even Legolas, who while an Elf is not from Lothlorien). Everyone agrees to this (though Legolas protests briefly).
Aragorn could have tried demanding that Gimli simply "take one for the team." How many of us have, in similar situations, said that? Someone has the get the short end of the stick, right?
Why is that? Well, the short end of the stick represents a reality that cannot be enhanced. Sometimes there just isn't enough to go around. But why not just cut down the longer ends of the stick? You can't divide 23 evenly between four people. Someone will only get 5 while everyone else gets 6. But why not everyone get 5 and just leave the other 3? It doesn't even matter what the number represents (Food, Art Supplies, Tax Dollars). Why must one person suffer while everyone else gets what they can? Wouldn't it be more reasonable, and promote better group relations, if a larger part of the group sacrificed something on behalf of the rest? Isn't that what a graduated income tax is about? Why tell some to suck it up (promoting inequality while causing resentment) than tell others to sacrifice their extra portion (promoting equality while causing resentment)? If resentment is inevitable, you might as well promote a good value while you do it.
The next time we're in a situation where things cannot be divided equally, and it looks as though someone is going to be singled out, rather than justify that person's inequality, we should think of how to prevent it. If everyone needs X, and there are not enough of X to around evenly, then do we really need to take every available X? Why not distribute evenly what we can, and leave the rest as a token of group unity. Only the most selfish of companions would resent it. Even Legolas, eventually, understands the need for everyone to be blindfold.
The Fellowship has many miles to go. So does our team, whether it's a professional team or group of friends. Group harmony should always come before material gain.
Actually, not quite. Because I would also advise against "taking one for the team" personally. While you may not plan for it to cause resentment, eventually you might want someone else to take part of the burden. Even if not - even if you are saintly enough to always take the lesser portion - you may cause resentment among those who think you're being too pious or too altruistic. Are those good objections? No - but why bring them upon your self (and your group)? What you're losing in material gain you're making up for in spiritual gain. You get to feel good about your self-sacrifice, but the message your companions may receive is "I don't need these things - but you all do." Again, this only builds resentment in others, and puts yourself above them, promoting inequality. So allow me to rephrase:
Group harmony should always come before personal gain, be it material or spiritual.
No comments:
Post a Comment