The Many Dangers of Going Against the Culture of "The Group"

 This is a 2013 photo of the real Frank Serpico. He was 77 at the time

I'm pretty sure I'd never seen the movie Serpico until last evening.

Earlier in the week, when I was at the trusty Kitsap Regional Library, here in Bremerton, Washington, I decided I wanted to check out some DVD’s to view later at home. John and I don’t own a television. So watching movies and documentaries and such on my laptop is one of the few things John and I can do together at home that’s also something we can both enjoy. In addition to Serpico, I also checked out the final season of 30 Rock, Spike Lee’s, School Daze, and a documentary about the singer Sting, filmed close to the region he spent his formative years in The UK. Last night I finally got around to watching Serpico. Diversity baby!

This movie came out in 1973. I was thirteen years old back then. I remember hearing about this movie. However, I had no clear idea what it was about. I had a vague sense that it had something to do with life as a police officer. I also knew it was based on a true story and on the life of the real Frank Serpico. That was about it. I was completely clueless about the plot of the movie other than these two facts.

Serpico is an Italian American former NYPD police officer. He worked in New York City in the 1960s through the early 1970s. His testimony before the legendary Knapp Commission, changed New York police culture forever.

Serpico began his police life as a probationary patrolman. However, he always had aspirations aimed at becoming a detective. All through his childhood, the only thing he really wanted to be was a police officer. There was never anything else he wanted to be. So once he finally joined “the force” he believed he was well on his way to realizing his most enduring dreams. In reality, the biggest nightmare of his life was about to begin and his life was soon going to be completely transformed forever. You know what they say, “we make plans and God laughs.” God must’ve had a series of big ole belly laughs where the perils of Frank Serpico was concerned when it came to him being a member of the NYPD.

Without giving away too much of the plot for those who may decide to view this film sometime in the future, all I’ll say here is that Frank Serpico was the consummate “good cop” brimming to the top with integrity, human dignity, and a sense of duty and pride regarding the wearing of the badge. He viewed the community members (citizens) who were on his beat, as people, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, etc. He believed his job was to serve and protect them. He was serious about that. He understood that there were “bad guys” in the community. He was dedicated to catching these bad guys and bringing them to justice. However, he was also dedicated to treating them with humanity and common decency.

The problem is, Frank Serpico unwittingly signed onto a job and onto a department and into a police culture that was rife with corruption—I mean big time, over-the-top, all kinds of ways conceivable corruption—replete with high ranking officers who were taking bribes, stealing evidence, framing people, officers who were outright, no holds barred racists and on and on. And this culture of corruption seemingly completely saturated the entire department.

And so, as a result, very quickly, Frank Serpico was tagged by his fellow officers as someone who was not to be trusted. He was seen as a liability. Once he began to talk about how disturbed he was about the corruption he witnessed, he was essentially told to go along to get along or else. Frank Serpico chose the, or else without, really fully comprehending just how extreme nor how serious his co-workers took that choice of “or else” to be.

Human history is cluttered with all kinds of individuals from every life domain imaginable who have tried to “do the right thing” in all kinds of situations and all kinds of environments only to be completely vilified for it or worse. Many have lost their lives in the process.

When I was twenty years old and in the catholic seminary, I was aware that a significant number of my fellow seminarians were gay. I also saw, very clearly, that we were in an environment that was clearly not supportive of this. As a result, there was a lot of unnecessary suffering experienced by many of the gay and questioning seminarians. So I started a semi-secretive support and gay affirming group for us, very similar to Dignity in the Roman Catholic Church and Integrity in the Episcopal Church, as a form of self-ministry to any gay seminarian that was interested in participating. I knew it was extremely risky and could even be viewed as completely scandalous. This was 1980. Everyone who joined knew it was risky and potentially scandalous as well. At the same time, it was overwhelmingly healing for all of us and very exciting for us too.

Then, one Friday evening—I will never forget it. It’s as if it happened just last week—a priest friend of mine who was a priest in the same order that ran the seminary--drove all the way to the seminary from the provincial headquarters (200 miles away), to come speak with me. He hadn’t told me in advance that he was coming. He simply arrived, found me, and in a very (uncharacteristically) serious voice said he needed to speak with me.

Long story short, he told me that high ranking “officials” in the order had become aware of my group, were drafting, even as we spoke, a plan to kick me out the seminary, and he told me that the only way this could possibly be avoided was by my giving him my absolute assurances, right then and there, that I would immediately disband the group. He then went on to tell me that this group of officials from the order had also obtained the names of every single other seminarian that was affiliated with the group—and he then proceeded (to my horror) to recite each of their names to me one by one—and he told me that proposals for the dismissal of each of these men were also being drawn up but that I would however, be listed as the “ringleader.” He then verbalized his crowning announcement. He told me I would be seen as being responsible for the ending of all of these young men's religious vocations and that I would have to hold that in my heart and conscious for the rest of my days. Because of this last revelation, I gave him my assurances that I would immediately disband the group, which I did later that evening with great personal inner conflict and copious amounts of tears among all of us as we met for the last time in order for me to give them “the news.” This priest friend then returned to the provincial headquarters the next morning. I never heard anything more about it. We remained friends. I eventually went on to postulancy and novitiate for the Order.

Sometimes you don’t even have to do anything against the powers that be and the status quo. You just have to express an opinion that is in direct opposition to that which the majority of your group believes or holds and that’s enough to get one of the feces list.

In 1995, after the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, in the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, I was generous with my stated opinion that O.J. was guilty. I obviously stated that this was my opinion. I wasn't at the scene of the crime, nor were any of the people I shared my opinion with. I stated all the reasons why I held this opinion and left it at that. I was fine with people disagreeing with me and said so. I however, got enormous, absolutely enormous and downright vicious blow-back from various members of the local black community in the city that I was then living in. It was unbelievable. And then I got a death threat. It came through the mail with no return address. It was composed of various letters and words cut out of newspapers and magazines glued to a plain white piece of typing paper (just like in the movies). I was in shock. I couldn’t believe it. And then I got a second and a third one—all done in the exact same way. I was like, “you’ve got to be kidding me.” I never reported these to the police even though I took them seriously. And I do often wonder, now twenty years later, just how many of those folks who virulently disagreed with me back in 1995, still do today.

I’ve been in the role of being the insider who criticizes or doesn’t go along with something or other that is considered sacred in the group, a number of times in my life. I know the drill exceedingly well at this point in the game. First, people try very hard to convince you that you’re wrong or bad, that you just need to “understand” things better or understand the culture of the group better. When this fails there tends to come some form of intimidation program of some sort, put into motion. This usually has several levels or degrees of intensity. Often this will include lobbing some regular types of insults at you. A common insult that we people who choose not to go along just to get along is that we are accused of believing we are somehow “better” than everyone else. People will continue to come up with endless ways of trying to discredit you by pulling this trope out of their hat. I have been accused of this. I have seen a whole lot of other people who have chosen not to go along just to get along get accused of this. It especially happens when ones choice of not going along just to get along can in any way be seen as coming from having a greater sense of personal integrity or including brutal honesty about the group’s activities and culture.

Ostracizing becomes one of the final ploys. Many people have discovered from time immemorial that ostracizing people in the group, in these types of situations, is a very powerful and extremely effective approach to use. Any social psychologist worth his or her salt will tell you that being ostracized from the group is one of the most effective weapons anyone can use against someone in the group who is acting in a way that threatens the cohesiveness of the group. This is true whether that threat is a real one that threatens to destroy something that is truly beautiful and contributing positively to the world, or if it comes from a member of the group deciding to not be as corrupt, or as selfish, or as immoral as the group culture permits or even strongly promotes. This is what happened to Frank Serpico. We humans simply do not like to be ostracized from the group. In this sense we very much are pack animals. We want to be part of the pack. We like that sense of belonging. We crave it even. Ostracizing is very effective.

In the end Frank Serpico left the police department and also left the United States of America because he absolutely knew he couldn't have any peace as long as he stayed affiliated with the NYPD or even if he stayed in this country—even with it being as huge as it is. At least he got out alive (he eventually returned to the USA and still lives in the US as far as I know). That’s more than many can say who have bucked the culture of the group. Many men and women throughout history who have bucked the group’s outrageous cultures of evil, or corruption, or craziness in one form or another have lost their lives because of it. And the group, for its part, often, simply goes on doing what it always has done.