We tailor our behavior to meet particular needs-emphasizingcertain
aspects of ourselves, doing our damnedest to obscure others
THE FIRST INDICATION OF WHAT WAS AFOOT CAME IN THE OPENING moments
of jury selection. The chief lawyer for William Kennedy Smith (as he was
originally referred to in the press; in the family he was always
"Willie") introduced his client to a schoolmarmish prospective juror as
"Will."
And so Will it would continue to be over the following weeks and
months. Will--as solid a name as one is likely to run across in these
smarmy, will-o-the-wisp times. Will Rogers. Will Scarlet. George Will.
Men with abiding respect for history and tradition--responsible men; men
acutely aware of the link between actions and consequences. As opposed
to, say... Willie Horton.
The state's prosecutor-the grim, monotonal Moira Lasch--immediately
knew what was up. Objecting at the first possible opportunity, she asked
that the defendant be referred to as "Mr. Smith." Objection
overruled.
Not that it would have made much difference. By then, the
refashioning of Willie Smith was already well under way. Lasch couldn't
very well prevent his showing up in court in autumnal yellows and greens
and the sort of clunky brown shoes one normally associates with braces
and pen guards--as far from a "power look" as you can get. Or from
arriving each day in a 12-year-old station wagon; or, when the station
wagon refused to start, keep him from flashing his "aw shucks" grin and
calling to the assembled press, "Anyone got jumper cables?"
The arrogant and rapacious super-yuppie we had come to expect--a
man said to believe he could buy his way out of anything--had turned up a
pleasant, ineffectual nerd.
The capper probably came three days into jury selection when a
Kennedy spokesperson (a woman, natch) made it known that, try as they
might, no one at the family compound had been able to figure out how to
hook up their computers. So now Will was calling around pricing rental
typewriters.
Following the case from a distance, many outsiders will be
astonished at how readily the strategy seemed to take. Most prospective
jurors appeared to like young Will Smith. One could hardly blame the
long-suffering Lasch for regarding it all as shameless.
Then again, sitting in the courtroom, I found it was no mystery at
all. Attentive, possessed of a remarkably quick grin, self-deprecatory as
any Horatio Alger hero (and just as eager with a comforting hand to the
elbow of his aging mother--a solitary figure in the row behind), Smith's
very bearing cast instant doubt on the likelihood that he had committed
the heinous crime that was alleged.
All of which gets us to the subject I want to kick around here
self-presentation. The ways that almost all of us, to one degree or
another, tailor our behavior to meet particular needs-emphasizing certain
aspects of ourselves while doing our damnedest to obscure others.
There are, of course, some who will vehemently deny it. They are
wont to disavow dishonesty of any kind as toxic, insisting that in a
culture where vast industries--fashion, cosmetics, everything having to
do with sports cars--flourish by idealizing image over substance, there
is salvation only in distancing oneself from superficiality and artifice.
Lots of actors and musicians in particular have lately been mining this
lode, and we tend to admire them for it--almost as much as they seem to
admire themselves.
Yet it is no coincidence that these same people so often wind up in
places like People magazine revealing some whopper of a personal failing.
To be human, as they at last acknowledge, is to screw up. What they never
admit is that, like most of the rest of us, they were salesmen for
themselves from the start--it's just that what they' re selling has
shifted with circumstances.
AS IT HAPPENS, I MYSELF AM SOMETHING OF A PRO IN the
honesty-for-consumption business---one of those people to whom it is
hugely important to come off as amusingly guileless and lacking all skill
at pretense. In fact, sitting in that courtroom got me thinking how much
trouble I'd be in if ever called upon to project injured innocence in
court; how, lacking the appropriate advisers, my dress would come off as
too nerdy and my grin transparently insincere; and (since I do this with
my wife anyway--I truly can't help myself) how I'd always smirk when I
ought to look contrite.
But you know what? The preceeding paragraph, accurate as it is in
incidental detail, is itself a pose--both in its characterization of how
I'd behave in court (if God forbid it ever really came to that, I'd have
my lawyer's instructions tattooed on the back of my hand) and the tone I
struck in writing about it. For the real truth--should you, after all
this, choose to accept it--is that in my case, like most everyone else's,
there exists a real self lurking just behind the projected self:
endlessly assessing, weighing, calculating.
I would certainly not claim that my stance is anything but a mixed
bag. The truth is, over the years I've often regretted the opportunities
I've blown by not kowtowing to various influential sorts who expect to be
kowtowed to. On the other hand, I am acutely aware that even that
ostensible down side reflects wonderfully on me; and have, if I've
scratched deep enough, usually found ways to imagine that even those who
have trounced me financially somehow respect my integrity. Then, too,
before I was married, it always worked great with women.
Tags:
abiding respect,
behavior,
brown shoes,
capper,
chief lawyer,
family compound,
image,
jumper cables,
jury selection,
lasch,
perception,
prospective juror,
responsible men,
self-presentation,
smarmy,
station wagon,
will o the wisp,
will rogers,
william kennedy,
william kennedy smith,
William Kennedy Smith trial,
willie horton,
willie smith,
yellows,
yuppie