The art of ruling

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Harry Day

Rules exist for a reason. Without rules there would be chaos. Without rules there would be no sport, no law, no society. Rules are essential for the ordering of life.

We can dream the non-existence of rules; it may even be true, as Claude Debussy said, that "works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art." But, truth be told, no sane and rational person really believes there should be no rules.

There should be good rules rather than bad, constructive rather than destructive, enabling rather than restricting, but rules there should be.

The question isn't whether there should be rules but, rather, when is it right to break them and what should be the consequences?

While in no way favoring a consequentialist approach to ethics, it cannot be denied that an awareness of consequences should, to a degree, inform one's actions.

As an extreme example, consider the famous story of Winston Churchill's alleged decision not to evacuate Coventry before the devastating German bomb raid. To have warned the city would have been to alert the enemy that their most top secret and 'unbreakable' code had, in fact, been broken. Imagine the enormity of such a choice - on the one hand, sacrifice a whole city; on the other, as good as tell the enemy that their famous Enigma signals were being decoded. And the choice rests on the shoulders of one man, who must carry with him, for the rest of his life, the consequences of the choice made. Making no judgement on the choice Churchill made, such a decision could only be made on the basis of utility.

Choices and decisions rarely have an impact only on the person deciding. But, to the extent they do, one is free to choose whatever course of action one wishes. There are few human beings indeed who have no connection with others, whether family and friends, work or purely moral. So, the good and the bad must be weighed, though not to the point one's head spins with all the possibilities.

Rules aid our ability to make difficult decisions. Unfortunately, as with most things human, rules can also hinder the making of such choices. But, to face such quandaries is the fun of being human.

Take the decision of whether to place Mum or Dad or both in a home for the elderly. The advantages are many, including round-the-clock care, medical attention, the company of their peers and probably many others. The disadvantages are the dehumanisation of a fellow human being.

It is a strong term that has just been used and it is not meant, in any way, judgmentally. Families surely feel guilt and probably even shame at having to make such a decision, and, as with Churchill, no judgment is being made as to the rightness or wrongness of what must be one of the toughest decisions imaginable.

The simple fact of the matter is, however, that a person who once played a significant role in the family, who made decisions, who worked a lifetime for the benefit of all, now must face the realisation that he or she is a burden to the very people for whom he or she has lived these past decades. Having lived, breathed and loved freely, now the older person is a chore that some stranger must attend to as part of their routine.

One would hope that places like Excelsis Dei no longer exist, that the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) kind of care is no longer meted out. Instead, all such places should be as The Conifers in Hambleton, England.

This is highly unlikely, unfortunately, and instutionalised care will, in all probability, continue to be oxymoronic into the foreseeable future.

As an institution, Excelsis Dei must have its rules, its schedules and routines. It would be unable to function without them - whether one thinks that a good thing or not. Nurse Charters - as played by Teryl Rothery before she went to Stargate Command - the "Queen Bitch", adheres to the rules, "cause rules are rules." While no Nurse Ratched, nevertheless, she is as institutionalised as any of the 'residents'. So, when she finds Hal and Stan watching TV after the 9:00pm curfew, without thought or reason, she switches it off.

Nurse Charters makes no attempt to empathise with the two men, not for a single second does she consider allowing, just this once, the bending of a rule, acting entirely out of practised routine. If she is cruel it is institutional cruelty, for she is not a particularly mean person - she simply perceives no alternative to the rules. She is the round-the-clock care that is bought and paid for by those who placed the two men in Excelsis Dei, she is the bearer of the burden that their families are unable to shoulder. She is the institution that operates according to a set of rules that are, almost by definition, inhumane.

From Hal and Stan's perspective there can be no real consequence to their watching the boxing past curfew time. They are a couple of old men who need the vicarious release of their still not-quite-extinguished masculine aggression. A little bending of the rules would serve both men well and, certainly, no harm.

It is not to be, however, and the TV is summarily turned off. Nurse Charters' blindness towards the people in her care, to their needs as human beings, at the very least, contributes to the build up of the energies or forces about to be unleased upon Excelsis Dei. Shortly after leaving Hal and Stan's room, while changing the room of a woman who had died that day, Nurse Charters is attacked and restrained in the same way she has just used on Hal, clearly creating a causal link between the residents and the mysterious spirit activity.

It is one of the more unfortunate features of the X Files that anything not definitively human tends to be hostile - behaviourally or intentionally. And so it is that these unfortunate older men and women, understandably frustrated and antagonistic towards the rule-bound institution, act out of their darker selves to enact revenge on those felt to deserve it.

Particular plot developments aside, the case for residential care reform is made eloquently and forcibly in this Season Two episode. (And while that may be so obvious you wonder why it's even a point worth making, consider, this episode went out in 1994, whereas  the Residential Care for the Elderly Reform Act was passed, in California, only in 2014 and, in the UK, the primary responsibility for the provision of such care still rests with the individuals in need of the service and their families.)

Who should or shouldn't obey rules is not to be determined here but, without doubt, there are occasions when rules are to be observed and times for them to provide guidance.

As with all that stems from the hearts and minds of human beings, rigid allegiance, blind faith, unquestioned loyalty to a set of rules will stunt the growth and impair the health of the very people who are supposed to benefit.