“Avoiding Conflict”
There was a theme of avoidance that I immediately picked upped on in the story of Bartleby, The Scrivener. It's a theme that constantly showed up in my life. Growing up, my mother would get frustrated easily over the smallest thing, so I learned at an early age how to avoid conflict at all cost. Being agreeable made things easier. This was a philosophy I lived by until my early thirties, which is when I learned that my passiveness was rooted in my inability to deal with confrontation. The narrator too shared in my philosophy, “I am a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best. Hence, though I belong to a profession proverbially energetic and nervous, even to turbulence, at times, yet nothing of that sort have I ever suffered to invade my peace” (297). The author and I both avoided confrontation to make life less demanding. However, in reality, avoiding conflict, especially in the workplace simply means you accept the bad behavior of others as opposed to addressing it. Therefore, there must be another reason why a person avoids conflict.
My first serious job was with a title company, after working in the escrow business for seven years, I was promoted to branch manager. During my first two weeks of managing I had a co-worker who started constantly coming in late. This same co-worker was also someone I started to develop a friendship with outside of work. This made it hard for me to confront her, instead I would joke about her tardiness, hoping she would get the hint and start to come in on time. When my passive attempts failed, I went so far to tell her that other staff members had been complaining about her tardiness. For whatever reason, when this did not work, I took on the responsibility for her unprofessional behavior by not addressing it and going so far as to offer her a later start time. Likewise, we see that the two employees that the lawyer hired before Bartleby were unprofessional. No real manager would have tolerated their behavior, especially at a law office. For example, Turkey is an elderly man incapable of effectively performing his duties. In the afternoon he throws things on the floor out of frustration, makes numerous errors, and his behavior is inappropriate: “indeed, not only would he be reckless and sadly given to making blots in the afternoon, but some days he went further, and was rather noisy. At such times, too his face flamed with augmented blazonry, as if cannel coal had been heaped on anthracite. He made an unpleasant racket with his chair; spilled his sandbox; mending his pens, impatiently split them all to pieces, and threw them on the floor in a sudden passion” (298). I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that he would be drunk everyday after noon time, “though indeed, occasionally, I remonstrated with him. I did this very gently, however, because, through the civilest, nay, the blandest and most reverential of men in the morning, yet in the afternoon he was disposed, upon provocation, to be slightly rash with his tongue, in fact, insolent. However, for reasons not mentioned in the text the lawyer recognizes this as an issue but declines to address the issue head on. Instead of firing Turkey or demanding efficiency, he hires Nippers to pick up his slack. However, Nippers is an irritable man who is also useless during part of the day, “ the indigestion seemed betokened in an occasional nervous testiness and grinning irritability, causing the teeth to audibly grind together over mistakes committed in copying; unnecessary maledictions, hissed, rather than spoken, in the heat of business; and especially by a continual discontent with the height of the table where he worked” (299). Yet, he still has both employees on the clock and in the office for a full work day. The narrator reasoned that his employees inadequacies relieved each other like guards. Yet, this did not solve his problem and he is forced to hire yet another Scrivener. The lawyer's non-confrontational behavior could have led to Bartleby's insubordinate behavior by observing his co-workers unprofessional behavior and his boss' nonchalant response.
Bartleby within the first week of being employed refuses to do the work he was hired to do, “....with any other man I should have flown outright into a dreadful passion, scorned all further words, and thrust him ignominiously from my presence" (303). Yet, he does absolutely nothing. He admires, as well as despised Bartleby, "...there is something about Bartleby that not only strangely disarmed me, but in a wonderful manner touched and disconcerted me. I began to reason with him” (303). The narrator, again avoids confrontation. Like me, it appears that the lawyer put up with incompetent or insubordinate employees because he is not confident in his own abilities. All of the employees, regardless of their short comings have a certain confidence in being themselves. Bartleby's politely declines to do the work expected of him. The lawyer's admiration for Bartleby passive resistance could be rooted in the fact that as a manager he is always frustrated, indecisive, and weak-willed. The lawyer too is passive, however his passiveness causes him to be aggressive or a pushover. His lack of confidence causes him to turn to his other incompetent employees to tell him how to handle Bartleby. Nipper and Turkey, both were eager to deal with Bartleby's behavior. Yet, the narrator, after several attempts to compel Bartleby to do the work he was hired for, reconciled that “Bartleby’s steadiness, his freedom from all dissipation, his incessant industry ( except when he chose to throw himself into a standing revery behind his screen), his great stillness, his unalterableness of demeanor under all circumstances, made him a valuable acquisition” (306). The lawyer is trying to reason his refusal to address Bartleby’s resistance.
In the end, the narrator (lawyer) feels responsible for Bartleby’s fate, in the same way I felt responsible for working out my co-workers schedule, so she can be on time. Which by the way, it did not work. She continued to come into work late. The lawyer does not realize that his so-called ability to solve the behavior issues of his employees only created more problems.
The narrator gave reasons why he put up with the absurd weaknesses of his workers. He is a lawyer incapable of bettering himself due to his inability to confront his employees and address their conduct. His non-confrontational behavior created more issues for himself. He has a disorganized office, incompetent employees that he can’t bring himself to fire, which over the long haul creates more work for himself, and in the end was consumed with the fate of his employee. After reading reading the text, I now, more than ever understand the need to confront people and issues in a respectful way. Avoiding or making excuses only perpetuates the problem. My fear of confrontation had to do with me not wanting to hurt peoples feelings, damage relationships, and being proven wrong. Although, I believe this was the case with the lawyer, after analyzing the story, I was able to see that my inability to confront was a direct result of me not being confident in myself. I believe this was the case with the lawyer as well.
Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, The Scrivener” The Norton Anthology World Literature. Martin Puchner. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 296-321. Book.