Loyalty to whom?

[Oak Tree 15]

In the original thread, there was the question of whether a Scout should be loyal to their CO. I tend to agree that no such loyalty is really expected.

 

Other places, people have suggested that a troop should be loyal to its council and attend the council summer camp, while others believe no such loyalty should be expected.

 

So, to whom should you be loyal?

 

The Boy Scout handbook says you should give loyalty to those whom loyalty is due, which is no answer at all. I find loyalty to be a hard concept to institutionalize - when should you be loyal, and when are you OK supporting someone else? Loyalty implies giving preferential treatment to someone or some group.

 

People use "loyalty" as a club sometimes - "You should be loyal to us!" But should you, automatically? Or does loyalty have to be earned?

 

I might say I'm a loyal fan of the Steelers, even though they didn't do much to earn it last night. Would it really be disloyal of me to change my supported team at some point in my life?

 

Do I owe my employer any loyalty? Or am I free to jump ship at the first opportunity without being disloyal?

 

Obviously I should be loyal to anyone that I've sworn allegiance to (the military, for example). But other than those cases, who am I really expected to be loyal to? My church? My troop? My CO? My district? My council? My high-school friends? My employer? My co-workers in this country? My co-workers in other countries (how does loyalty affect my support of off-shoring)? My neighbors? My town? My state (is there any principled reason around loyalty why I should buy from local farmers instead of farmers somewhere else)? My nation? (if so, how do you feel about people who become naturalized citizens - are they being disloyal to their home country)?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Now that's an interestin' question, ain't it.

 

Loyalty is an important thing, I reckon. After all, Dante put the disloyal, traitorous fellows on the very bottom of the 9th circle of hell, eh?

 

Who were they disloyal to? One might say God and the state. But that circle of hell wasn't reserved for abstractions, eh? It was for those who showed personal disloyalty. There's perhaps a lesson there. Loyalty is owed to the persons who give you service, love, or kindness. Especially if that service, love, or kindness is beyond your due.

 

So if your nation has provided you service, established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, provided for the common defense and promoted the general welfare, securing thereby your liberty, then perhaps yeh owe them your loyalty. But if your country is ruled by a fellow who usurped the presidency and is trying to pass it off to his son while yeh live in increased uncertainty and poverty, then perhaps no loyalty is due.

 

Then there's a different notion of loyalty that comes with agency. If I agree to take on a client, then my agreement binds me to loyalty to do my best for that client. Some aspects of that loyalty, like some types of confidentiality, bind me even beyond any formal relationship. That's not a personal loyalty, but rather a professional one. As an employee, I reckon we each owe professional loyalty in terms of our service to our employer, and I think in turn employers owe a measure of loyalty to their employees.

 

If you agree to be a unit scouter, then you are an agent for the Chartered Organization and yeh owe them loyalty in that role. You agree to be a responsible agent in promoting their goals. Similarly, if you agree to be a district or council scouter, you agree to do your duty in those roles. That's not the same as personal loyalty, but it is a form of loyalty. Now, you might also owe a personal loyalty to the CO as a unit scouter, if you are a member of that church or a friend of the IH.

 

I don't think in most cases you owe loyalty to those from whom you purchase a product, despite all the rhetoric around being loyal customers and all that. Those are just business transactions, except perhaps in the case of the business owner who goes "above and beyond the call" who might merit some sense of loyalty by a customer.

 

So I don't think there's any duty of loyalty of a scout or unit scouter to the council or BSA. BSA membership and charters are a purchased service, like a commercial transaction. Only the extent to which a council or the BSA goes above and beyond the call (perhaps the council that provides the camperships to the large single-parent family) merits loyalty on the part who receive that kindness.

 

Should one be loyal to the Scouting Movement? That's interestin'. Perhaps, to the extent each of us have pledged ourselves to it. I think it falls more to kindness and friendliness. I'd welcome a fellow scouter with open arms, but then why shouldn't I be welcoming other strangers with open arms, too?

 

Just some random musings.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

I tend to agree with the basic ideas Beavah presented. To me loyalty is similar to trustworthiness in where they both originate. They both begin with personal honesty and in this I mean the internal honesty and fidelity to one's own ideals. Loyalty follows nicely as being loyal to those same ideals. Without these personal qualities (as well as those ideals) all aspects of honesty and loyalty with respect to interactions with other people are in question.

[Lisabob 13]

With regard to the question of loyalty to one's CO: well, I suppose it depends a great deal on the nature of the relationship with that CO.

 

In my experience with scouting, I've seen very few COs who had any sort of clue (or, frankly, who seemed to care) about the units they nominally sponsored. I know that's not reality everywhere, but it certainly is reality in lots of places.

 

When the CO does nothing more than sign the paper once a year, doesn't even really meet the standard in the charter agreement, doesn't even know who the unit's leaders are (let alone, help select them), doesn't want to know about the unit's problems (one got annoyed when a problem occurred and threatened to just drop the unit, rather than becoming involved on any level), won't participate or attend any unit activities - even the celebrations - isn't supportive of the program, sees the unit as a nuisance, or uses the unit simply as a fundraiser for the CO, etc. - then why would people expect much loyalty from the youth in the program to the CO?

 

Heck, if the parents and boys do not even know who their CO is, loyalty is not even on the table for discussion.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Excellent post by Beavah.

 

 

 

The issue of loyalty within Scouting is an interesting one.

 

When a Scout or family voluntarily JOINS a program, I think they should understand that it's an organization of volunteers and they should expect to contribute to the welfare of the unit when they can.

 

But Scouts and families are free to shop around among Scout units for one that suits their purposes. So until one joins a unit, I think it's unreasonable to demand or expect people to join a particular one.

 

On the other hand, good Scouts might choose to join a weak program in order to help improve and build it up. That would be a gift by a generous person.

 

As to loyalties or expectations to support the council or district, it's appropriate to exercise some judgment. If someone has unhappy experiences with the council or district, I wouldn't be surprised if people chose not to do much to support those organizations.

 

But Scouting needs good councils and districts to function effectively. Generally speaking I think units and unit leaders should support districts and councils as part of the Scouting program.

 

But mostly people make their own decisions about such things. I'll be pitching the Friends of Scouting Campaign to the Cub Pack for which I'm Commissioner in a couple of weeks. I've been a Commissioner for that unit since 2004 when I helped it get started again after it collapsed.

 

I'm well known among Cub Scouts and parents since I recruited most of them through school visits and helping with activities over the years.

 

I usually get a pretty good level of donations from the Pack, but usually don't meet the donation level suggested by the council. People donate what they can afford and what they choose to contribute. I make the appeal and people decide for themselves.

 

If we have done a good job of selling Scouting values to boys and families, and the district and council have been demonstrating good Scouting values, I don't think we have much to worry about in the "loyalty" department.

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

"This above all- to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

 

Some things, like respect, loyalty and love are only worth anything if they are given freely.

No one can or should be forced or feel forced to be loyal.

There is a difference between true loyalty and obligation.

My first loyalty is of course to myself.

I'm aware that sounds, maybe a little strange and very selfish. But for me I have to believe and have faith in the people and groups that I'm going to be loyal to and for.

At times my faith can be tested and I come away feeling not as loyal as maybe I once was.

I think that each of us has our own definition of loyalty.

I understand how a player on a team can be loyal to the team, but because the team is always changing, I find it hard to grasp how a fan can see his following them as loyalty.

As an employee I feel that in many ways that I'm obligated to go to work. If I won a great deal of money? I'm not sure if I would continue to keep going to work. That doesn't stop or prevent me from being a faithful, trustworthy and caring employee.

With regard to Scouts and Scouting. I hope that over the years I have remained loyal to the ideals of Scouting, even though at times others, sometimes the people at the top have in my eyes let me down.

Eamonn.

[CalicoPenn 729]

"The Boy Scout handbook says you should give loyalty to those whom loyalty is due, which is no answer at all."

 

I disagree - I think it's just the right answer. It's the BSA telling you that you know who you should be loyal to and don't need some outsider to tell you who you should be loyal to. It's another example of the BSA giving non-guidance guidance.

 

I think you have to interpret it for yourself - and not interpret it for others. I think it suggests that you respect other people's viewpoint on who to be loyal to, even if you disagree.

 

For me, it means being loyal to the people that are loyal to you.

[Oak Tree 15]

"The Boy Scout handbook says you should give loyalty to those whom loyalty is due, which is no answer at all."

 

I disagree - I think it's just the right answer.

 

Well, it's certainly not wrong :-) It's true, by definition, but it doesn't provide any actual guidance as to whom you should be loyal to.

 

For me, it means being loyal to the people that are loyal to you.

 

I think that's right, and it's in sync with Beavah's definition, which I really like, since it captures my instinctive understanding of where my loyalty lies:

Loyalty is owed to the persons who give you service, love, or kindness. Especially if that service, love, or kindness is beyond your due.

 

Hence normally, parents give lots of service, love, and kindness - more than their children earn. And thus I will be loyal to my parents. But if my parents didn't do those things (or even actively harmed me), then perhaps they don't deserve my loyalty.

 

This meets Lisabob's test of when a CO might deserve some loyalty.

 

This also explains some of the discrepancies between viewpoints. Some council level volunteers will view themselves as giving service to troops and as volunteers, they believe the service is beyond what any troop is "due" - and therefore those volunteers will think that the troops should also support the council. But the troop views the arrangement as a commercial transaction and doesn't think they owe any loyalty.

 

The exceptional disloyalty of the ninth level of hell isn't just for those who have an absence of loyalty, but those who actively harm people who have shown them love, service, and kindness, and possibly those who have even given their word and are also therefore not trustworthy, either.

 

Eamonn's obligation is similar to Beavah's agency (professional loyalty) or my sworn alleigiance - and this really ties back to the trustworthiness that packsaddle mentions and is certainly in play any time that you state you will be loyal to a group. And while I know the term "loyalty" can apply to this, it's more the personal loyalty that I'm thinking of.

 

And Eamonn, when fans are loyal to a team, what they are really being loyal to seems to be laundry. Black and gold, baby!

[Eamonn 61]

Oak Tree

I enjoy soccer. Living in the part of London that I did, I was very fortunate to be close to both Chelsea and Fulham football clubs. Chelsea was back at that time a First Division team and poor old Fulham was at times a third or fourth division team.

When one team was playing at home the other played away, so every Saturday there was a game and it didn't cost a lot to attend.

Fulham played by the river next door to Bishop's Park which had the Palace of the Bishop of London inside its walls.

It was a public park and the Fulham Cub Scouts played inter-pack soccer games at the same time as Fulham were playing. Sometimes Fulham played so badly that it seemed half the supporters would turn their back on the game to watch the Cub Scouts play.

When I first moved Stateside, I worked in Pittsburgh and of course most people claimed to be Steelers Fans.

I had a real hard time comprehending that so many people who had never been to a game could be fans.

Years went by and a pal of mine invited me to go with him to a Monday night Steelers game.

This was back at Three Rivers Stadium.

It was a very cold November night.

We arrived and started climbing and kept climbing.

My back was against the the very top wall of the stadium.

The wind was coming off the river.

I was nearly frozen!

The players looked like matchstick-men.

The game kept stopping in order for the TV stations to make a few dollars.

My pal had two seats in this ice box and was /is a season ticket holder.

To sit through that season after season?

Maybe is some kind of loyalty.

Ea.

[SSScout 1616]

Eammon: That is known as "cognitive dissonance", where a really poor, or dumb choice, or bad result is justified by the "owner" as a really good choice because of 'loyalty' or 'future' possibilities, or trying to convince others that the poor choice is a good choice for them too, thus 'sharing' the agony and diluting it somehow..." At the top of the coleseum stands, 40mph zero dgree wind in your face: Repeat after me: "I have season tickets and you don't, I have season tickets and you don't..."

A Chicago Cub fan might understand your Steeler fan friend's belief system.

A dad or mom might loyaly come to hear their son or daughter scrape a bow across the violin strings at their recital, thus justifying the months (?years?) of lessons. Maybe a future Heivitz, maybe not. But that's loyalty. I know I'll be proud of my son's accomplishments, even allowing for the years of whippings to get him there. ;-)

I had a boss who was truly surprised that his employees had no desire to stay late or volunteer for O/T. He could not make the connection between his treatment of the crew and their feelings of not being 'appreciated' in their efforts. I nominated a man for a compliment for an action the man performed. Record a compliment for THAT? The boss responded that the man was "just doing what he was expected to do", and denied the compliment. This boss was like that. Loyalty? I could not name anyone in the office that was sorry to see him promoted sideways to another site. Loyalty is more earned and deserved. It can not be merely expected.

[JMHawkins 15]

I've been thinking about loyalty a lot lately myself, so this is a timely discussion for me anyway. It occured to me that one of the problems we're having in the US at least is a, well, odd sense of loyalty among many of our upper crust. Trying not to veer into I&P forum territory, I think we have a lot of "leaders" (in business, politics, everywhere) who prefer loyalty to abstract concepts over loyalty to fellow human beings.

 

Which is awfully convenient for them. If you're loyal to some abstract concept, who exactly will notice when you're disloyal? Abstract concepts never look you in the eye and say "I'm dissapointed in you, you let me down." It's fashionable in some ciricles to be a "citizen of the world" but thinking of loyalty makes me wonder if that's a statement of principles or an excuse to sell out your neighbors.

 

There are certainly many worthwhile abstract concepts that deserve the loyalty of decent men and women. But I'm starting to wonder if loyalty to those concepts is stable without an association of like-minded people who also pledge loyalty to one another.

[Jeffrey H 25]

The concept of Loyalty is keeping your commitments to those you have made promises or made a pledge. Trustworthiness overlaps into this idea.

 

"To those whom loyalty is due" - these are the people that we make promises to and pledge to keep those promises. They may or may not earn or deserve our loyalty, but that does not matter. We remain loyal to our commitments.

 

 

 

[Alabama Scouter 14]

The OP was asking about loyalty to his Councils summer camps. Imagine if you will, no troops in a council attending the local camps. How long would those camps survive? When they close, what are you left with? I'm a believer in supporting my local council, but also giving my scouts a different view by attending out of council camps every 2 or 3 years. Some troops in my area send the NSP to the local camp, and the older scouts to High Adventure camps or other out of council camps. We don't have the number of leaders to do that yet, but may consider that down the road. Loyalty is earned. Our camps have been good, and have listened to us and made improvements. They've done well, and we'll be back. (and we'll travel, too!)