For people living through the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the greatest puzzles is how people perceive the level of risk and right level of precautions so differently. The United States is a country founded on principles of liberty and self-determination. The government is structured to inhibit concentration of power. While people in many other countries fall in line when top-down directives come through, in the US this can backfire. Political polarization makes it even more difficult for people to take a unified path through ambiguous circumstances.
As the pandemic has raged on, people in the US are largely left to their own judgement on how far to go to avoid exposure and stopping the spread of the virus. Our news sources of choice influence the scientific opinions we hear — or don’t. And our personal circumstances constrain our options. The result is a high number of permutations of perspective on vaccination, masks, social distancing, and more.
The Atlantic recently compared the chaos to the Rashomon Effect, the way people perceive a situation differently based on their interpretation of events, influenced by their own interests.
The messiness of Omicron data—record-high cases! but much milder illness!—has deepened our COVID Rashomon, in which different communities are telling themselves different stories about what’s going on, and coming to different conclusions about how to lead their lives. That’s true even within populations that, a year ago, were united in their desire to take the pandemic seriously and were outraged by those who refused to do so.“WHY MORE AMERICANS ARE SAYING ‘VAXXED AND DONE’” BY DEREK THOMPSON IN THE ATLANTIC
The term Rashomon Effect comes from a 1950s Japanese movie that retells the story of a murder from the vantage point of multiple people. None of us forms our opinions in a vacuum. They are impacted by the information we are exposed to, our assumptions, and our experiences. The better we understand this, the more equipped we will be to listen and discern what they tell us.
The argument between King David and Joab, the commander of his army, after the war with Absalom, is an example of the Rashomon Effect. David gave Joab and the other leaders explicit orders not to harm his son, Absalom.
“The king commanded Joab, Abishai and Itami, ‘Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake.’ And all the troops heard the king giving orders concerning Absalom to each of the commanders.”2 SAMUEL 18:5
In spite of the young man’s betrayal, he was still his son, whom he loved.
During the battle, Absalom’s hair got caught in a tree when David’s men found him. Joab ordered a solder to kill him but the man refused because of David’s order. Nonetheless, Joab killed Absalom. The two men had a contentious relationship stemming back to when Absalom burned Joab’s fields in frustration when he wanted him to intervene in his relationship with his father. (2 Samuel 14:29-30)
David quickly won the war, but he was devastated to learn of his son’s death. (2 Samuel 18:33) Rather than marching home to the usual songs of victory, the soldiers turned to mourning and shame. Joab was furious with the king and rebuked him for humiliating the men who had saved his life and taking their sacrifice for granted. He urged David to go out and encourage the men so they would not defect. (2 Samuel 19:1-8)
David had the unenviable task of showing appreciation to men when his heart was shattered. Joab’s perspective was black and white: Absalom was the enemy and needed to die. But David was a grieving father. For years, he had refrained from meting out justice in his family, since he had received God’s mercy. And now, harsh judgment was dealt against his explicit orders.
If we were to speak with David and Joab, with the Rashomon Effect in mind, we would urge Joab to understand that this was not just any battle. It was a struggle between a father and son that could have ended in reconciliation and forgiveness. We would also warn David to be aware of the animosity between Joab and Absalom and his propensity toward vengeance.
Emotional maturity as a leader involves being perceptive about others’ motives and biases to avoid being blindsided. We can’t assume that people will “do the right thing” as we define it, when they have a strong gravitational pull in another direction. The best we can do is surface the issues before they become problems.