Two Worlds

What piqued my interest in the next few chapters of the book apart from the definition of the positive definition of narcissism is the topics relating to both motivation and loyalty.

In the five stories that Alford mentions in Chapter 4, he questions the motivation that each whistleblower had that led them to do the things they did. The story in particular that stood out to me is one entitled Not Very Good at Doubling. In this part of the book, a whistleblower felt that he lived in two separate worlds: one that he lived when he was with his loved ones, and one that only existed when he was at work. Alford coined the term doubling as "a sophisticated emotional and cognitive act, one that whistleblowers are unable or unwilling to perform", adding that they are "dysfunctional actors in a modern society (73)."

Sanity, in my opinion, is why whistleblowers made moves. In this story, the whistleblower found comfort in two worlds knowing that one is far from reality. I saw this world as a world of fantasy, apart from the realistic points of views and problems that human beings have to deal with. It is a place that only our subconscious mind could reach without taking advice from our conscious selves. But it's life to make good things not last forever. At one point in all our lifetimes we have to face the music and remove our selves from this world.

It also interested me that Alford said that "doubling" is a requirement to live in a modern society. And as much as I pondered about how wrong this is (I took this quote as "we all live life in different personas that adapt to the society we live in"), I can't help but agree with what's being said. Take into consideration the effect that societies have on people. They determine what's good/bad, moral/immoral, right/wrong. They influence both our ways of thinking down to the way that we dress and carry ourselves. With all these regulations, it is easy to see how one can easily blend in to the fantasy world, simply because that's where they find solace and comfort.

In his ongoing quest to find out the motivation behind whistleblowers' actions, Alford also talks about loyalty. In the book, he sees loyalty as relating to both impartialism and narcissism. He states that "loyalty concerns what we owe certain indivuduals or relationships because of our unique history that binds us to them (86)." Like Alford, I became perplexed at the idea of loyalty becoming the root cause for whistleblowers to take action. In his interviews, the whistleblowers stated that they were loyal to their principles rather than their boss. Going by this example, it would negate the initial definition that Alford had of loyalty because they are putting loyalty to someone more important than an individual, or even a relationship. They are basing loyalty on an ideal, a principle, or a belief. They put their trust on something that one could only think about, but never truly see or hear but only experience. It became clear to me after reading through the last few chapters that loyalty depends on its interpretation, rather than actions.