Paul and Madeline
Mar. 14th, 2004 10:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swatkatSince we were talking about harshness - are we, the Michael/Nikita fans, too harsh when it comes to Paul and Madeline? Even those of us who actually like and admire them (including myself)? We're always going on about their cruelty and how Michael or Nikita (Nikita for me *g*) would've done a better job as Operations - why is that so? Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section? And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power? Your thoughts here. *g*
Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.
Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Good question:
Date: 2004-03-15 03:35 am (UTC)I know I found/find Madeline and Operation's sense of when recklessness with other people's lives is/was called for and when it wasn't more than a little callously idiosyncratic and often hugely premature - even from the beginning. I also didn't care much for their presumption that it was best to lie even to their own people most of the time. Not as an ethical thing especially, but one that strikes me as counterproductive - if your subordinates know they can't trust you, why should they believe anything you say/do exactly what you tell them? Which then creates the horrid circle of omnipresent bigbrothering to make sure their people did/which made their people distrust/dislike them more, etc.....
Counteracting on that was Madeline's warmth towards Nikita, her tremendous professionalism, the fact that she never asked more from others than she asked from herself (a standard I can't say Paul shared) and Paul's passion for his apparent job.
The sex-police development however was so blindingly stupid for such presumbably intelligent folks that it made it hard for me to focus on them much as individuals at all. I couldn't even hate them really because they were such silly carictures during those eps (mostly I stared at the screen and asked 'why did they just to *that*??'); and as flashes of what I did like about them kept showing up, my sense of them was mostly one of lost story-telling and characterization potential - and then they mostly fell off my radar altogether.
I'm not sure if I've ever called them cruel (in the heat of an arguement I certainly may have, :b), though I'm sure Nikita thought them cruel more than once.
In terms of the fanfic, while the question about strong female characters seemed mostly to attract commentary with regards to Nikita, I think it could equally well be directed at Madeline - with possibly even more justification.
Madeline was one of the strongest, most clearly drawn and most potentially interesting female characters on television, and she shows up in fanfic as an insane harpy on a regular basis - though lately the loving mother figure has made quite a showing on the boards. Gack. I'd *almost* rather see the insane harpy.
I would even suggest that some of the TR stuff that features a sympathetically drawn Madeline is still problematic from this perspective of how strong female characters are treated in fiction. A memorable portion of it shows her as a seriously screwed up woman - particularly emotionally and sexually. Honestly, I don't have a clue from canon (at least S1 - all I've been able to see since I decided to pay more careful attention to the character) why this is so - except an underlying notion that a woman that strong and that conventionally female and yet that successful in a male dominated environment *must* be some sort of a sexually damaged/deranged person - not all that removed from that horridly cruel caricture of a female executive in that old Eddie Murphy/Robin Givens flick that showed an aged Ertha Kitt rolling around her pink boudoir in aggresive lingere as she demanded that her handsome young male manager obey her every sexual whim.
(I ranted for too many characters and had to break it up)
Re: Good question:
Date: 2004-03-15 03:36 am (UTC)Oo - tough woman executive = she must be a pain seeking wack job/dominatrix when it comes to sex. WTF??? (Frigid would only the flip side of the same coin).
How about 'she likes sex just fine thank you very much, but really - with the fate of the world resting on her shoulders it isn't the most important thing on her radar just now?'
Or happily taking the favors of the young valentine operatives in fairly conventional scenarios to work off a little tension, then getting back to the important stuff - a la Bill Clinton et al?
Now - to be fair - I do know that there are many TR stories that paint her in both the ways I just mentioned; but still - I have to wonder a bit about the ones that don't, if it is canon that shaped their views or an underlying suspicion about the ability of 'normal' women to succeed in difficult enviornments.
Whew - I've typed a lot without ever getting to your question for me! LOL! - I will come back to it, I promise.
Re: Good question:
Date: 2004-03-15 05:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:29 pm (UTC)I have to deal with relatively privileged 18 year old girls at the peak of their culturally approved sexual desirability who - despite having all manner of difficulties thanks to good old fashioned sexism and their own lack of confidence in their abilities and their utter inability to formulate a personal ambition - are certain that they don't need that old nasty feminisim cause no one is going to get in their way just cause they're a girl.
Come back and talk to me in ten years baby.
(Do I think getting Martha Stewart on a relatively penny-ante trade violation when there is soooo much worse happening has anything to do with her being an arrogant female exec.? Yes - I do think it is related. Not the only reason, not by a long shot, but a part of it - especially the jury's apparent hostility to her personally.)
On the other hand, rereading my long posts above - I realize I may have made it sound like I want only angst-free/pain-free leading ladies in my fic. Or charaters without sexual kinks. I don't, because that would be boring, and un-natural in its own way. I'm just reflexively suspicious of angst/pain that ends up tying down - literally or figuratively - otherwise powerful women.
Nell
Well, to answer your actual questions...
Date: 2004-03-15 04:56 pm (UTC)I don't know that they would have done a better job. I think it would be different, definitely, for all sorts of reasons, but 'better'? It would depend of course on the answer to 'better at what?'
In some ways Paul was far more ambitious to change the world than either Michael OR Nikita, and ran Section accordingly - to great success we were lead to believe. Michael didn't appear to me to have any specific ambitions at all with regard to their work, and Nikita's was focused primarily on limiting threats to innocents almost on a case by case basis....and that would have a definite impact on how they ran Section - together or seperately.
Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section?
Of course it was. The problem was that they ultimately failed to guaruntee their own survival, and (unlike Cyanide I'm sure!) I think it was *because* of they way the ran Section. The one incredibly important thing they didn't have, and if they ever saught it weren't seeking it by the time canon really gets going, was the loyalty and/or backing of their people.
I think the Gellman process was the single biggest sign of their failures as leaders; they were apparently utterly unable to instill in their subordinates any sense of loyalty or shared purpose or trust or faith in the mission. Instead they had to resort to mind wipes to do what leaders throughout the last several millenia have been able to do through charisma and training. It was that failure, of course, that lead fairly directly to their deaths.
So, in the sense that their own weaknesses ultimately did them in, will Michael and Nikita's weaknesses undermine their own tenure in the perch? Of course. Will it bring them down? Depends on if they recognize and compensate, or not. Madeline and Paul turned to technology to try to fix their problems, but it didn't work. After that they were apparently totally out of ideas.
And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power?
I think that Michael's and Nikita's mistakes will be unique to them, just as Paul and Madeline's were unique to them.
Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.
One HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between Nikita and Paul was their view of authority and hierarchy. Paul, good solider that he was, valued, respected and trusted authority and hierarchy. He wanted the promotion, for example, because promotion is what drives the ranks of officers in militaries around the world. Up or out baby. He also couldn't understand and didn't respect people who didn't respect or value authority and hierarchy.
Nikita didn't respect or trust either authority or hierarchy, not suprising given that both had done nothing but screw her over her entire life, and she thought people who did were the stupid/naive ones.
I think whatever traps Nikita falls into, they won't be the same ones that snagged Paul.
Nell
Bombarding you with more questions...
Date: 2004-03-15 05:23 pm (UTC)I don't think I'm especially hard on them, personally. I bonded immediately with Nikita, and so I tended to judge them from her perspective - but then, I bonded with her because I share the perspective, so I'm not really sure which came first.
Me too, and that's what my question is about. When we think of Paul and Madeline, we judge them from Nikita's perspective or Michael's perspective – because we care about them much more than we care about Paul and Madeline. But wouldn't Nikita's perspective be somewhat biased against Madeline? (You said: though I'm sure Nikita thought them cruel more than once
) And therefore, when we're judging Madeline from that biased perspective, are we not being rather harsh?
I know I found/find Madeline and Operation's sense of when recklessness with other people's lives is/was called for and when it wasn't more than a little callously idiosyncratic and often hugely premature - even from the beginning.
Recklessness with other people's lives, yes, but doing their job well and protecting their own in the process? Michael is at times equally reckless with other people's lives (AGT). I suppose putting Michael in the same category could raise some cries of "OMG he's not selfish", but I don't see this behaviour being selfish. It's more of a survival instinct.
Not as an ethical thing especially, but one that strikes me as counterproductive - if your subordinates know they can't trust you, why should they believe anything you say/do exactly what you tell them? Which then creates the horrid circle of omnipresent bigbrothering to make sure their people did/which made their people distrust/dislike them more, etc.....
This argument certainly works with Nikita, whose greatest problem with Section seemed to be the being kept out of the loop. Nikita prefers to trust people, and the fact that she can't trust her own people drives her nuts. So, for operatives like her, more information – at least to a certain point is definitely a better option. But on the flip side, there are also operatives like Michael with whom trust is not always an issue and who seem to be able to function under this existing pattern quite well. So their approach is not always counterproductive, especially when majority of the operatives in Section seem to be different from Nikita. And dislike them… well, I'd think the operatives would dislike them under any circumstances, given the nature of their jobs and the nature of Section One.
I couldn't even hate them really because they were such silly carictures during those eps (mostly I stared at the screen and asked 'why did they just to *that*??'); and as flashes of what I did like about them kept showing up, my sense of them was mostly one of lost story-telling and characterization potential - and then they mostly fell off my radar altogether.
Now that's a different situation altogether, because you're not judging them anymore, but simply dismissing them.
A memorable portion of it shows her as a seriously screwed up woman - particularly emotionally and sexually.
Emotionally screwed up? Yes, at least to a point. This becomes really, really clear in S2 (I just love Paul and Madeline in S2, and that is how I will always view them) – you'll be able to see it pretty soon on DVD, if the rumours are right. *g* But sexually screwed up? I don't think so. While I enjoyed that story, that isn't how I view Madeline. Rather, she always came across to me as an extremely passionate person – her life is what it is because of that passion (rejected by her mother, guilt about Sarah, etc etc) – and she's somehow managed to restrain it through iron control (hence the emotionally screwed up part). But it's there, somewhere underneath.
Swatkat
Because this is more fun than what I'm supposed to be doing...
Date: 2004-03-15 06:17 pm (UTC)No, I judge them from mine - or at least, I think I do. I recognize that Nikita's judgement of them, or Michael's, is different than mine. Often because Michael, Nikita and I all had different information to work with. As a veiwer, I was privy to things about Madeline than neither of them were - and those things definitely made my view of Madeline and Paul my own, and not Nikita's or Michael's.
But wouldn't Nikita's perspective be somewhat biased against Madeline? (You said: though I'm sure Nikita thought them cruel more than once) And therefore, when we're judging Madeline from that biased perspective, are we not being rather harsh?
If you're going to judge (and we all do) you have to judge from your own perspective. That doesn't necessarily make it harsh, or at least, any harsher than anyone else's.
Some of the things Nikita found particularly cruel on the part of Operations and Madeline I had a different perspective on. Not that it made the outcome any less cruel, but I saw a different context for the decision and I don't think of the cruelty as the purpose of the decision - so I don't see Ma/Ops as cruel in the same way that I think Nikita did on occasion. But again, I often had different information than she did.
Recklessness with other people's lives, yes, but doing their job well and protecting their own in the process?
But what was their job? It seemed to vary depending on circumstance.
When Operations and Madeline let those innocents die in that office building in Love, after a 12 hour notice to get up a good deception, when in the first ep they produced a massive traffic accident at nearly the drop of a hat to catch Van Vector, it put my back up and I've never gotten over it. I also didn't see Madeline and Paul sweating the location of Perry Bauer's public gasing-test - that was primarily Nikita and Michael.
Also, Paul's rush to kill people involved in missions *before the mission is even over!!!* Why did he have to kill Rudy before they got back to Section with the end game secure and the bomb deactivated? Why did he start to kill Birkoff before Michael and Nikita got back to debrief on what they found when they went looking for the cardinal of red cell? What the hell was his big fat rush?
And of course - leaving people behind. Like Simone. I think the US Marine's "take home every last body thing" can be a little (a lot?) on the dangerously obsessive side, but simply leaving people in the hands of madmen - and then lying about it? Did he and Madeline never watch a daytime soap opera? Lies always get out and bite you in the ass.
But he also left Michael and Nikita behind, more than once...which always struck me as a bizzare act for someone who was worried his top ops would run away. How many lower level ops just limped away from missions after being left behind? I've always wondered about that.
Michael is at times equally reckless with other people's lives (AGT).
I think there is a difference between being reckless with the lives of operatives and the lives of bystanders.
I suppose putting Michael in the same category could raise some cries of "OMG he's not selfish", but I don't see this behaviour being selfish. It's more of a survival instinct.
I don't think Paul's capriciousness with the lives of innocents was selfish - I think it met his highly personal sense of expediencey.
(I over did my answer - again. LOL!)
Part II -
Date: 2004-03-15 06:17 pm (UTC)I'm not sure it is as simple a matter as more or less information, rather it is a sense that when information is withheld, it ought to be to a shared purpose. It was the lack of clear purpose, and the sense that operatives could loose their lives not in pursuit of an understood goal, but simply because it was expedient to one of Paul's fits of fancy, that made it easy for Michael to stage a mutiny.
But on the flip side, there are also operatives like Michael with whom trust is not always an issue and who seem to be able to function under this existing pattern quite well.
Well - except when he didn't. Michael flipped them the metaphorical finger more than once even early on, and by S4 was in semi-open rebellion - so open that they could even capitalize on it tactically to bring down opponents. And I always believed that Michael did believe, sincerely, that Section had a positive function to serve in the world. He *agreed* with them on their end game, and he still wasn't loyal to them.
So their approach is not always counterproductive, especially when majority of the operatives in Section seem to be different from Nikita.
I've always wondered if that was true - were they all really that different from Nikita?
And dislike them… well, I'd think the operatives would dislike them under any circumstances, given the nature of their jobs and the nature of Section One.
I don't think that's mandated. If the operatives felt rescued from a dead end, offered a purpose, and valued by their leaders for their frequently mortal sacrifices....Section could be a really, really different place. It might even be more self-policing, oddly, because instead of operatives closing their eyes to disloyal colleagues, or actively covering up for them just to spite the perch, they might even discipline their own far more effectively than all the big-brother monitoring in the world. Which was ineffective anyway - Section leaked like a sieve.
Now that's a different situation altogether, because you're not judging them anymore, but simply dismissing them.
It was more like they slipped away - I couldn't find any crack to hold onto and they just drifted further and further from any posibility that I could understand their motivations, until one day the spot they had occupied in my fanfic imagination was empty - pfft, like that. Blown away by TPTB and their inconsistencies. ;)
Nell
Ack! This is why I need to check LJ more frequently!
Date: 2004-03-15 11:25 pm (UTC)Due to character lengths, here's part one, LOL.
>>I also didn't care much for their presumption that it was best to lie even to their own people most of the time. Not as an ethical thing especially, but one that strikes me as counterproductive - if your subordinates know they can't trust you, why should they believe anything you say/do exactly what you tell them? Which then creates the horrid circle of omnipresent bigbrothering to make sure their people did/which made their people distrust/dislike them more, etc.....<<
It seems to me that when you are put in the position of having the power to recommend that someone be executed for failing to perform -- and, it appears, not just having the *power* to do so but an *obligation* to by the rules of the organization -- it’s pointless to try to build up the kind of trust and loyalty you’re speaking of. No one is going to trust someone who can issue the ultimate “thumbs down,” no matter how hard you try to include them in the process and be “fair” about it. It’s a fatal poison to the relationship, and makes the distrust, disloyalty, and bigbrothering inevitable. IMO, there was therefore no point trying to build loyalty, because all such efforts would fail. In that case, why not lie if it’s expedient?
>>Madeline was one of the strongest, most clearly drawn and most potentially interesting female characters on television, and she shows up in fanfic as an insane harpy on a regular basis - though lately the loving mother figure has made quite a showing on the boards. Gack. I'd *almost* rather see the insane harpy.<<
Oh, I vote for the insane harpy, big time! The loving mother figure makes me want to strangle myself -- which is rather hard to do, you know. I keep passing out before I can finish. Most frustrating. *g*
>>I would even suggest that some of the TR stuff that features a sympathetically drawn Madeline is still problematic from this perspective of how strong female characters are treated in fiction. A memorable portion of it shows her as a seriously screwed up woman - particularly emotionally and sexually.<<
Hmmmm. You mind emailing me with your opinion about which TR stories do this? (Not counting the one story discussed below, which is actually at the extreme end of the spectrum.) Because there are really only a handful of TR fics, and I don’t see the vast majority of them as portraying Madeline as any more screwed up than, say, Michael. And what issues there are seem to be emotional rather than sexual. (For which I think there is plenty of canon evidence.) Now, in *non*-TR stories, a sexually screwed up Madeline is quite common.
Continued below....
Part 2 of lengthy post, LOL
Date: 2004-03-15 11:25 pm (UTC)LOL. Well, first of all, I was being a bit intentionally wicked in posting that rec. In anticipation of an onslaught of sickly sweet HR NC-17 fantasy pieces that I expected to be rec’d, I decided to rock the boat a bit with something that would be the polar opposite in every possible way. Just so that I wouldn't go into diabetic shock at all the saccharine. *eg*
However, I give the author a lot of credit. While it is not my vision of the characters (um, I actually *have* written a kind of bondage-themed PWP, but of a very different nature), it was extraordinarily well written. The kink/violence aspect of it didn’t faze me much -- in fact that’s what made it stand out, that it could include such elements without turning into an unintentional parody or degrading the characters. But comparing it to that Eddie Murphy movie (which I saw, so I know the scene you mean) -- Eartha Kitt was humiliated because her character was portrayed as old and unattractive -- repulsive, even -- so that she *had* to force unwilling men to service her. That’s what made her pathetic. I don’t see a similar element here -- Madeline’s portrayal didn’t strike me as pathetic or humiliating at all.
I’m happy to disagree about this, though. *g*
>>How about 'she likes sex just fine thank you very much, but really - with the fate of the world resting on her shoulders it isn't the most important thing on her radar just now?' Or happily taking the favors of the young valentine operatives in fairly conventional scenarios to work off a little tension, then getting back to the important stuff - a la Bill Clinton et al?<<
That vision works just fine for me -- and fits very nicely into canon, btw. (Remember boytoy Russell? Or Adrian’s remarks about the stud service? LOL.)
>>Now - to be fair - I do know that there are many TR stories that paint her in both the ways I just mentioned; but still - I have to wonder a bit about the ones that don't, if it is canon that shaped their views or an underlying suspicion about the ability of 'normal' women to succeed in difficult enviornments.<<
Well, I honestly can’t think of many TR ones that don’t -- nevertheless, I think there were a few canon things that may contribute to this vision. She’s not just any old executive woman in a position of power, after all -- she is, quite literally, a killer and *torturer*. Then there was the whole voyeuristic pseudo-S&M scenario of TET. It doesn’t surprise me that people run with this and make BDSM a part of her characterization -- especially if, for example, they are in the least bit inclined toward that particular kink themselves. How many other fandom characters lend themselves to such scenarios without totally warping the characterizations? Not very many, thanks to the sexual conservatism of American television. So...not every non-conventional sexual portrayal of Madeline has to be intended as a negative reflection -- though I have a feeling that the standard HR cliché of Maddy-the-dominatrix *is* intended that way. (The suggestion being, this proves how eeeeeeeviiiil she is, LOL.)
>>And of course - leaving people behind. Like Simone. I think the US Marine's "take home every last body thing" can be a little (a lot?) on the dangerously obsessive side, but simply leaving people in the hands of madmen - and then lying about it? Did he and Madeline never watch a daytime soap opera? Lies always get out and bite you in the ass.<<
Um, when did they lie about it? I don’t recall anything in the ep that suggested they had any idea that Simone wasn’t actually dead, unless I’m remembering wrong.
Sorry for the disjointedness here -- I was replying to a bunch of different comments at once, LOL. Thanks for the fun food for thought, Nell!
Part I
Date: 2004-03-16 03:31 pm (UTC)It seems to me that when you are put in the position of having the power to recommend that someone be executed for failing to perform -- and, it appears, not just having the *power* to do so but an *obligation* to by the rules of the organization -- it’s pointless to try to build up the kind of trust and loyalty you’re speaking of. No one is going to trust someone who can issue the ultimate “thumbs down,” no matter how hard you try to include them in the process and be “fair” about it. It’s a fatal poison to the relationship, and makes the distrust, disloyalty, and bigbrothering inevitable. IMO, there was therefore no point trying to build loyalty, because all such efforts would fail. In that case, why not lie if it’s expedient?
and I know, as you've written directly about Madeline and Paul *as* leaders of Section in ways I haven't, that you've had to grapple directly with this and thought about it alot.
But I still don't quite buy it. I think you can't run a successful organization with only the stick and no carrots, only fear and no admiration/trust/loyalty - which is ultimately what Madeline and Paul were trying to do, and it failed dismally.
I know I'm going to sound more like Rox than makes me comfortable here (!), but military organizations - which do have and do use the power to order people to their deaths - have long believed/learned/believed again that loyalty and morale are essential elements to the successful prosecution of wars/missions. I could never figure out why Paul, proud former US soldier that he was, seemed to think he could get by without those things.
I'm not sure when cancellation became a formal policy for Section, but it is on a natural curve from abeyence, which is a cold but efficient way to select those to be put in some of the most dangerous positions on live missions.
But I think you could run an organization with cancellation as a policy without creating reams of distrust and bad feeling *if* the rules for it were clear and you could trust them - but the way Paul and Madeline (especially Paul) used cancelletion as a capricious tool to cover their own asses completely undermined any possiblilty that their people could rely on either them or the policy to be enforced in a consistent way.
I know you are going to ask for examples: nearly killing Birkoff, once by sending him out 'live' and being willing to loose him, once by strapping him down in the white room, because Birkoff made a judgement call on information and Paul made the decision to act - knowing it was a judgement call, then panicked when things looked bad and struck out quickly to blame someone else.
Then Paul killed poor Corman - because Corman turned out to be better and smarter than Paul wanted him to be. Corman didn't screw up - he figured out what was going on. So Paul offed him. Gee - I'd work my ass for a guy like Paul - oh wait, no I wouldn't. I'd do the minimum to get by and keep my head down. And cheer - privately - when he was replaced.
Part II (boy am I wordy these days...LOL!)
Date: 2004-03-16 03:32 pm (UTC)Take Belinda - a cold op with, I'd guess, ten to fifteen years of succssful experience in the field, and is failing, I gathered, mostly because she was getting older and it was harder to keep up physically, which made it harder to keep up emotionally. There was nothing from all that experience that she could contribute to profiling? To running missions from 'inside' section? To undercover work that didn't depend primarily on speed and strength? Not to mention that having just married Walter, she was keeping their weapons guy happy and focused on his work and her, and not poking his nose into Nikita's life....
Then they killed Walter's young replacement, without apparently taking five or six minutes to investigate the explosian - and he seemed a talented young man. They killed Greg Hillenger - a creep of the first order no question, but a very, very talented one who was apparently not guilty of the act they killed him for.
The waste of expensive and talented human personnel through abeyence/capricious cancellation is just astounding, to me, even now.
I think this is one of the major reasons their people disliked and distrusted them. The could be killed for screwing up - and they could also be killed for excelling. Or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I don't think there is anything inherient to a policy of cancellation that insists it be used that randomly.
Nell
Pitching in
Date: 2004-03-16 05:47 pm (UTC)But I still don't quite buy it. I think you can't run a successful organization with only the stick and no carrots, only fear and no admiration/trust/loyalty - which is ultimately what Madeline and Paul were trying to do, and it failed dismally.
No, you can't. Not in the 'real' world - where the members of the organisation are working voluntarily, and where they have the rights of a normal of citizen - the freedom to quit when you're sick and tired of everything, the freedom to protest and demand action (Yes, Nikita did protest - but what good did her protests do? Section never changed its policy, did it?). But given the nature and structure of Section, it seems that all sticks was the policy they were supposed to follow in Section. There were people above them who could replace them when the screwed up (that's what happened in the end I guess, but it's a lot more complicated than that).
So the question comes to, do you think Section could function in any other way? That, given the nature of the organisation, it would actually be possible to reach a normal degree of trust, commitment and all the other things and still keep the place running? Because Section didn't fail. Adrian, and then Paul and Madeline were removed - but Section was not.
I know I'm going to sound more like Rox than makes me comfortable here (!), but military organizations - which do have and do use the power to order people to their deaths - have long believed/learned/believed again that loyalty and morale are essential elements to the successful prosecution of wars/missions. I could never figure out why Paul, proud former US soldier that he was, seemed to think he could get by without those things.
I'm not a Paul expert, but here goes. I think Paul believed in all the principles that form the base of an organisation like the US army, and he upheld them in his army days. I also think that army and Section are two inherently different organisations - what works in the army will not work in Section. Paul probably felt the same way, and had two different sets of rules, one for his former life, and the other for his role as Operations in Section.
Swatkat
BDSM and Madeline
Date: 2004-03-16 06:00 pm (UTC)I'm with you here. Usually, it's the HR stories where Madeline is portrayed that way, while the TR fics usually try to portray her in a more 'normal' fashion. And Madeline is screwed up because that just goes on to show how evil and disgusting she was, and how she could easily be lusting after Michael, and how she was jealous of Michael and Nikita's 'pure' relationship. It's one of those cliches that keep coming back.
Simply said, some people find it hot. And Madeline is one of the only few characters who can be portrayed in BDSM scenes without going waaay OOC. I've seen the same happening in the HP fandom - where the 'dark' characters like Snape, the Malfoys are repeatedly portrayed in such sexual relationships (some go as far as bloodplay *ick*). It's not necessarily derogatory. They just like it that way.
Swatkat
Whee! Here we go...
Date: 2004-03-16 06:05 pm (UTC)That's my point, in a nutshell -- you *can't* run an organization like that successfully, and anyone who tries will fail. But those two weren't the ones responsible for the structure -- that was imposed from higher up. I don't think that the structure allowed for the kind of carrots that would have been effective, given the overwhelming nature of the sticks -- so the natural psychological response is not to bother trying them.
I know I'm going to sound more like Rox than makes me comfortable here (!), but military organizations - which do have and do use the power to order people to their deaths - have long believed/learned/believed again that loyalty and morale are essential elements to the successful prosecution of wars/missions. I could never figure out why Paul, proud former US soldier that he was, seemed to think he could get by without those things.
The Sections went much, much farther than any normal military organization. While many armies use conscripts, for example, conscripts serve for a limited amount of time, and then get discharged (when their service is up, when the war is over, etc.). People in Section serve for *life* and are quite literally slaves. (Can you imagine what would have happened if the draftees sent to Vietnam were told they would have to serve for life? Without the end of the tour of duty to look forward to, the mutinies would have been out of control.)
Moreover, while soldiers are ordered into situations where they are often killed, it is very rare that the army executes its own people -- this happens for treason or serious crimes. In Section, a person could be cancelled merely for making a mistake that caused a mission to fail -- I can't think of any army that would do that.
Third, a conscript army tends to have a cross-section of people in it, which makes it more stable. Section was composed of (often violent) felons and people with a history of obedience/self-control problems. Fostering loyalty in a group like that isn't quite so simple.
Finally, a lot of the loyalty and morale in military organizations comes from a sense of patriotism and the feeling that one is defending one's home and family -- who was an operative really defending? Not any particular country, and not even all civilians against all terrorists -- anyone who was an operative for very long (and bothered to think about it) would quickly suspect that they were working for the interests of a cabal of wealthy people. What's to be loyal to?
But I think you could run an organization with cancellation as a policy without creating reams of distrust and bad feeling *if* the rules for it were clear and you could trust them - but the way Paul and Madeline (especially Paul) used cancelletion as a capricious tool to cover their own asses completely undermined any possiblilty that their people could rely on either them or the policy to be enforced in a consistent way.
I think it might, theoretically, be possible -- if the rules are clear and reliable *and* if it is not a common occurrence. But the impression I had was that it was a daily or weekly routine. Given that all cancellations of operatives over Level One had to be approved by Oversight, I don't think the frequency was a matter of Paul gone out of control, but the actual policy of the organization as a whole. When cancellation becomes common, life becomes cheap, and loyalty is impossible. And this I lay at the door of Oversight, or more likely Center -- Paul may have abused the policy occasionally, but they created it.
More wordiness...
Date: 2004-03-16 06:15 pm (UTC)The second instance was indeed an example of panic. I've never said that Paul didn't occasionally do things worthy of criticism -- he was facing his own impending cancellation and he lashed out at someone else. (The way many if not the majority of people might do if their lives were on the line -- that's one of the whole structural problems with an organization where people can be executed for making errors -- everyone, including the all-too-human commanders, becomes vulnerable to the urge to finger-point to save one's own life.) As for Corman, you're going to have to remind me which ep that is, because the name doesn't ring a bell.
My point is this though: Paul occasionally abused the system, there's no doubt about that. But for the reasons mentioned above, I don't believe the system would have produced any loyalty -- even in the absence of that abuse. As a result, the temptation to commit abuse becomes overwhelming (the reasoning is, "What difference does it make?) -- especially when you, too, are subject to all of the "sticks" of the system and are under pressure to avoid cancellation yourself. I think the majority of people placed in a position of command under those circumstances would fall into that behavior pattern eventually -- and if that's the case, there's something wrong with the system itself, not with the commanders.
Take Belinda - a cold op with, I'd guess, ten to fifteen years of succssful experience in the field, and is failing, I gathered, mostly because she was getting older and it was harder to keep up physically, which made it harder to keep up emotionally.
I don't recall the show ever mentioning how much experience she had, or why she specifically she was having trouble performing. For all we know, she was recruited more recently because they needed a field op with a certain age/gender profile -- and then she kept making mistakes. We don't know that she had any skills that could have been transferable to another position, or that if she did, such a position wasn't already filled (maybe by someone *else* taken out of the field).
Not to mention that having just married Walter, she was keeping their weapons guy happy and focused on his work and her, and not poking his nose into Nikita's life....
That's the only reason I think is readily justifiable, but Paul showed several times he didn't know how to handle Walter. (I'm not going to automatically blame Madeline here, because we don't know what her advice was on this matter.)
Then they killed Walter's young replacement, without apparently taking five or six minutes to investigate the explosian - and he seemed a talented young man.
A poor decision, probably made in large part because Paul already felt guilty about getting rid of Walter in the first place.
They killed Greg Hillenger - a creep of the first order no question, but a very, very talented one who was apparently not guilty of the act they killed him for.
Well, they hardly had access to Oversight records to investigate his guilt or innocence (which was never established one way or the other). I would imagine George pointed the finger at Greg, and what were they going to do? Say, no, George, we don't believe you?
The waste of expensive and talented human personnel through abeyence/capricious cancellation is just astounding, to me, even now.
I don't think the vast majority of it was capricious, in the sense of it being simply on a personal whim (although there was some of that). I think it was capricious in the sense of being used against people who had committed all sorts of minor errors -- but that seems to have been built into the system.
Re: BDSM and Madeline
Date: 2004-03-16 06:24 pm (UTC)Exactly! You described it perfectly.
Simply said, some people find it hot. And Madeline is one of the only few characters who can be portrayed in BDSM scenes without going waaay OOC. I've seen the same happening in the HP fandom - where the 'dark' characters like Snape, the Malfoys are repeatedly portrayed in such sexual relationships (some go as far as bloodplay *ick*). It's not necessarily derogatory. They just like it that way.
Yup, yup, yup. There's actually surprisingly little TR stuff like this, but what little there is seems more in the vein of "Finally! A dark character I can play with!" LOL.
Part I
Date: 2004-03-16 07:30 pm (UTC)I don't think the vast majority of it was capricious, in the sense of it being simply on a personal whim (although there was some of that).
I think there was enough to undermine any respect for the system.
I think it was capricious in the sense of being used against people who had committed all sorts of minor errors -- but that seems to have been built into the system.
Perhaps - but that also passes the buck from Madeline and Paul, which I'm not keen to do. Paul made a big deal about how much power he had more than once, so he can take the rap too, however much he didn't like that part. Paul was free to use and interpret the cancellation option however he wanted, and unless we posit that Center had a 'cancellation' quota he had to meet, he could choose how frequently he turned to that tool - and he choose to use it often (though I'm not sure I think he used it as often as once a week! But then, I think Section was a lot smaller than you do, I think.....).
The Sections went much, much farther than any normal military organization.
Depends on when and where you're looking, actually.
While many armies use conscripts, for example, conscripts serve for a limited amount of time, and then get discharged (when their service is up, when the war is over, etc.).
Again - that depends on time and place. And slave/conscript armies have different structures and discpline issues - but respect for officers and morale turns out to matter even in those armies.
People in Section serve for *life* and are quite literally slaves. (Can you imagine what would have happened if the draftees sent to Vietnam were told they would have to serve for life? Without the end of the tour of duty to look forward to, the mutinies would have been out of control.)
Some historians of the Vietnam era army would tell you that mutinies were nearly out of control as it was - not of the group rebellion kind, but of the simple refusal kind. That the high levels of drug and alchool use and abuse and consequent unfitness for duty were a form of mutiny, and while I'm sure the stories have grown in the telling there were enough instances of soldiers killing their own officers while 'in the field' that it kept everybody looking over their shoulders. If you think you might die before your term is up - it is a life sentence.
And other armies in other times have drafted people for MUCH longer terms. The British Army/Navy drafted for up to twenty years in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Moreover, while soldiers are ordered into situations where they are often killed, it is very rare that the army executes its own people -- this happens for treason or serious crimes.
Formally? No not often. But most militaries histories are rife with situations in which those sent into the most dangerous situations are 'pegged' for death intentionally, and the number of training and field 'accidents' which are not accidental is also high (though again, tales may make these sound more prevelant than they are). The point is, there are lots of ways to be killed, intentionally, by your superior officers without the formality of a trial proceeding. And the reasons can be petty to quite serious, but things that fall outside or beyond the legal boundaries.
Part ii (this is too interesting to stop....)
Date: 2004-03-16 07:49 pm (UTC)Depends entirely on the army and the situation.
Third, a conscript army tends to have a cross-section of people in it, which makes it more stable.
No - it doesn't. The whole point of conscript armies most of the time is to pull into service those the leaders of a society/nation feel are most expendible. During WWI, in the US - Selective Service drafted overwhelmingly single, young, uneducated men from rural areas.
During Vietnam the draft again fell very heavily on young, single, less well educated men - yielding again a very unrepresentative sample when stacked against the population of the US as a whole.
That both armies were more mixed than that was due to heavy social pressure on better situated young men to volunteer to serve.
The current US all-volunteer force is equally unrepresentative, demographically speaking - just to make that clear.
Section was composed of (often violent) felons and people with a history of obedience/self-control problems. Fostering loyalty in a group like that isn't quite so simple.
Was it? I would guess that Section had to be very careful of the kinds of criminals it selected to recruit and train, and people with obedience and self-control problems would probably be far down on their list, barring other qualities they were interested in.
But even so, I don't think loyalty would be as big a problem as you do - I think people *want* to be loyal and to belong (those who don't actually get labeled as psychologically ill....), and one of the things that drove section operatives batty was that this desire was constantly stifled/rebuffed in Section as we saw it.
Finally, a lot of the loyalty and morale in military organizations comes from a sense of patriotism and the feeling that one is defending one's home and family --
Not really. Most of the post-operation studies, starting with WWII, suggest that overwhelmingly, men fight and die for the others in their unit - and not for patriotism or the defense of family. They are loyal to each other, they trust each other, and their morale depends on how they feel they, as a group, are being treated by their superiors. This turns out to be equally true of draftees and volunteers.
Army 'experts' eventually decided that one of the biggest morale sappers in Vietnam was the practice of rotating people out after a year, rather than units - so that units were a constantly revolving collection of individuals and so lost the cohesive 'brotherhood' bond, and that this is one of the things that broke the army's will.
who was an operative really defending? Not any particular country, and not even all civilians against all terrorists -- anyone who was an operative for very long (and bothered to think about it) would quickly suspect that they were working for the interests of a cabal of wealthy people. What's to be loyal to?
Each other, especially in their small units, or at least, they could have been if Section had been structured that way. Small group loyalty is the glue that holds armies together - huge to tiny. (It is also the foundation of many criminal gangs and terrorist cells - for the same reasons.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in Section too.
I think Section could also have fostered an "elite of the elite badasses of the world attitude" - a "no one else is tough enough to risk death daily we the unsung heroes!" 'tude; plus a 'no one else will ever understand/value you the way we do' vibe.
It was the choice of Section's leaders to treat their operatives and their operatives' lives with contempt - and they got it returned in full measure.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-16 08:15 pm (UTC)Personal issue here - but as someone who makes a living as a college professor I'm frequently accused of 'not living in the real world' - an accusation that drives me crazy. I always ask snarkily if they think then that perhaps I earn a pretend salary to pay my imaginary taxes and the imaginary mortgage on my fantasy home while I dicker with an illusuory bank to pay for my invisible car. Not to mention caring for the children who are nothing but figments of my idle daydreams.
Accepting of course, always, that this is a fictional situation, I see a Section that is as "real" as anything else that involves live human beings.
So, I don't think that the observations of how people function best - in small groups with a sense of control over their own destinies in a relatively consistent environment - suddenly become moot just because we're talking about a super secret organization or because we're talking about people with criminal activities of some sort or another in their past.
But given the nature and structure of Section, it seems that all sticks was the policy they were supposed to follow in Section.
No it didn't. They had carrots. Madeline and Paul handed out vacations, promotions, down time, spy peeks on family/loved ones, dates, little luxuries in housing/cars/stuff etc...whenever it seemed to suit their purposes.
So the question comes to, do you think Section could function in any other way?
Obviously - yes, I do. I don't think anything is pre-determined or fixed in time and space.
That, given the nature of the organisation, it would actually be possible to reach a normal degree of trust, commitment and all the other things and still keep the place running?
What's normal? No - I don't think Section could look exactly like a business school plan for those things. But I do think Paul and Madeline could have fostered more respect, trust and committment than they did (how much really would it have taken to go from none to some?) - and that it would have improved their bottom line - and their own survival - if they had done so.
If this makes me unneccesarily harsh about them - well, I guess I'll live with that! *g*
Nell
Late to the party...P1
Date: 2004-03-16 11:26 pm (UTC)"I know I found/find Madeline and Operation's sense of when recklessness with other people's lives is/was called for and when it wasn't more than a little callously idiosyncratic and often hugely premature - even from the beginning. I also didn't care much for their presumption that it was best to lie even to their own people most of the time. Not as an ethical thing especially, but one that strikes me as counterproductive - if your subordinates know they can't trust you, why should they believe anything you say/do exactly what you tell them? Which then creates the horrid circle of omnipresent bigbrothering to make sure their people did/which made their people distrust/dislike them more, etc....."
Now, aside from ol' Nikita, there is no real evidence that the subordinates didn't trust them. While I freely admit that Cold Ops would have little reason to trust them, the very fact that they remained in power implies that if they didn't trust them, they did trust in the veracity of their mission.
On the whole issue of whether it was advisable to lie to their subordinates and Nikita in particular I would argue that it was. For the reasons Janet mentioned and one other; these people were sent on missions where there was a very real likelihood that they would be caught or killed - to me, it doesn't seem wise to give such people any more information than is absolutely necessary and if a lie will do - you should lie.
"Madeline was one of the strongest, most clearly drawn and most potentially interesting female characters on television, and she shows up in fanfic as an insane harpy on a regular basis - though lately the loving mother figure has made quite a showing on the boards. Gack. I'd *almost* rather see the insane harpy."
Huge fan of the insane harpy myself. Mother Madeline is entirely too pathetic for my taste.
"I would even suggest that some of the TR stuff that features a sympathetically drawn Madeline is still problematic from this perspective of how strong female characters are treated in fiction. A memorable portion of it shows her as a seriously screwed up woman - particularly emotionally and sexually."
I would actually agree that some TR authors characterization of Madeline is problematic. Some authors do tend to weaken the character in an attempt to make her more sympathetic - it's a great pity as such a characterization, such a degradation, often renders her uninteresting to me.
"How about 'she likes sex just fine thank you very much, but really - with the fate of the world resting on her shoulders it isn't the most important thing on her radar just now?'
Or happily taking the favors of the young valentine operatives in fairly conventional scenarios to work off a little tension, then getting back to the important stuff - a la Bill Clinton et al?"
I too am fine with this.
"When Operations and Madeline let those innocents die in that office building in Love, after a 12 hour notice to get up a good deception, when in the first ep they produced a massive traffic accident at nearly the drop of a hat to catch Van Vector, it put my back up and I've never gotten over it. I also didn't see Madeline and Paul sweating the location of Perry Bauer's public gasing-test - that was primarily Nikita and Michael."
I would point out that in "Love," Michael implied that Bauer was likely to have had a back-up plan which would have caused more deaths and that is why they choose to allow them to die. I would argue that both the instances you mentioned are a case of the few for the many - incidentally, something Nikita never seemed to get.
"I think there is a difference between being reckless with the lives of operatives and the lives of bystanders."
As did Nikita, she appeared to have no problem being reckless with the lives of operatives, especially those in her own team, but had a huge problem with endangering the lives of bystanders. *wink*
Help! I can't stop! Part One.
Date: 2004-03-16 11:29 pm (UTC)LOL, that’s an episode I’ve tried to push as far out of my mind as possible -- I think it might make the number one position in my list of the worst LFN eps of all time. No, wait, the one where Nikita was kidnapped and held in a basement was the worst. *Rolls eyes*
>>I don't think the vast majority of it was capricious, in the sense of it being simply on a personal whim (although there was some of that).<<
I think there was enough to undermine any respect for the system.
And I don’t. I also don’t think the system would have had any respect even in its absence. And that, quite obviously, is where we’ll have to differ. Which is no problem -- it’s been fun hashing it out this far. *g*
>>I think it was capricious in the sense of being used against people who had committed all sorts of minor errors -- but that seems to have been built into the system.<<
Perhaps - but that also passes the buck from Madeline and Paul, which I'm not keen to do.
Poo! You’re no fun at all. What’s the good of this if I can’t lure you over to the Dark Side, hm?
Seriously though, my position, so that we can be clear, is this: (1) Paul and Madeline were not perfect leaders, even accounting for the handicaps that they operated under, but to place the *bulk* of the blame for Section’s dysfunctions on them individually is incorrect and unfair; and (2) even their mistakes and instances of abusive behavior were in large part a natural outgrowth of being forced to operate over the long term in the dysfunctional environment imposed upon them from above -- very few, if any, people in their positions would be able to resist the temptation to act in a similar way. The problem in Section is thus mostly systemic, and not personal, and therefore would not be cured merely by replacing the leadership. The nature of some of the abuses might change depending on the quirks of the leader, but it’s never going to be a healthy place.
Paul made a big deal about how much power he had more than once, so he can take the rap too, however much he didn't like that part.
Well, my argument is not that he should be deemed blameless, but that the blame also needs to be shared among other people -- something very few HRs seem willing to do. Hence my conclusion that many HRs are somewhat one-sided. I think in large part it is because if they conceded my point about the systemic nature of the problem, that would mean that Bulletproof!Michael or Saint!Nikita might actually succumb to the same kinds of pressures/temptations that led Paul and Madeline astray if they took over -- I know you’ve conceded this possibility, Nell, but most others don’t, and there are times it drives me batty.
Paul was free to use and interpret the cancellation option however he wanted, and unless we posit that Center had a 'cancellation' quota he had to meet, he could choose how frequently he turned to that tool - and he choose to use it often (though I'm not sure I think he used it as often as once a week! But then, I think Section was a lot smaller than you do, I think.....).
We don’t know how much scope he really had, nor how much his practices were being measured either in comparison either to the other Sections and/or to statistical predictions of expected attrition rates. Judging by the outsiders that they brought into Section from other parts of the organization (Petrosian during S2, and the two people who were being considered as Paul’s replacement in S5), people in other parts of the organization were equally if not more bloodthirsty. And when your own neck is on the line, you don’t want to be seen as unusually lenient or lax compared to others.
I do go on...P2
Date: 2004-03-16 11:30 pm (UTC)I think the fact that Paul was insane at that point had more to do with Michael's ability to stage a mutiny than operatives loosing their lives for reasons beyond their understanding. After all, if that is all it took there would have been a mutiny before then as how many operatives actually knew what they were actually dying for?
"I always believed that Michael did believe, sincerely, that Section had a positive function to serve in the world. He *agreed* with them on their end game, and he still wasn't loyal to them."
I've always thought of Michael as a crutch kind of guy - needing something or someone to believe in and not too particular. When the issue of loyalty comes up in regards to Michael I am always reminded of Rene's speech in "Half Life" - "You (Michael) once said a man defines themselves by what they are willing to die for. I will die for a belief, and you will die because you have none."
"So their approach is not always counterproductive, especially when majority of the operatives in Section seem to be different from Nikita."
"I've always wondered if that was true - were they all really that different from Nikita?"
I doubt very many others had the access that Nikita did and so wouldn't have had the opportunity to even ask their questions.
J:"And dislike them… well, I'd think the operatives would dislike them under any circumstances, given the nature of their jobs and the nature of Section One."
"I don't think that's mandated. If the operatives felt rescued from a dead end, offered a purpose, and valued by their leaders for their frequently mortal sacrifices...."
I happen to think that a number of operatives did feel that way - there is evidence that a great many were loyal to Section and its leaders. Nikita, Michael and co. weren't the be all and end all of Section.
"Of course it was. The problem was that they ultimately failed to guaruntee their own survival, and (unlike Cyanide I'm sure!) I think it was *because* of they way the ran Section. The one incredibly important thing they didn't have, and if they ever saught it weren't seeking it by the time canon really gets going, was the loyalty and/or backing of their people."
I do disagree and would argue that TPTB disagreed with you too. lol. By making Mr. Jones Nikita's insane daddy they made it all too clear that Madeline and Paul never stood a chance - it didn't matter what they did or how they did it, they would have been replaced anyhow.
"I think the Gellman process was the single biggest sign of their failures as leaders; they were apparently utterly unable to instill in their subordinates any sense of loyalty or shared purpose or trust or faith in the mission. Instead they had to resort to mind wipes to do what leaders throughout the last several millenia have been able to do through charisma and training. It was that failure, of course, that lead fairly directly to their deaths."
Personally, I think the Gellman process is the greatest failing of TPTB. They wrote themselves into a corner in season three and I think they knew that. Instead of having Nikita evolve and make a place for herself in Section they had her stubbornly clinging to, what I view, as unrealistic ideals. It was the beginning of the end, for in all honestly Nikita should have been cancelled, but wait, wasn't she the title character? Sh*t! Let's Gellmanize her.
Re: Help! I can't stop! Part Two.
Date: 2004-03-16 11:30 pm (UTC)You’re the historian, so I’ll have to defer here, but my impression of such armies is that they were indeed run in large part on brutality and intimidation -- and relied on the fact that the conscripts/slaves often had no other options in society or places to escape to. And that corruption and abuse among officers/commanders was in fact commonplace if not the norm. In other words, they were run very much like Section.
Some historians of the Vietnam era army would tell you that mutinies were nearly out of control as it was - not of the group rebellion kind, but of the simple refusal kind. That the high levels of drug and alchool use and abuse and consequent unfitness for duty were a form of mutiny, and while I'm sure the stories have grown in the telling there were enough instances of soldiers killing their own officers while 'in the field' that it kept everybody looking over their shoulders. If you think you might die before your term is up - it is a life sentence.
That was exactly my point. If you had that much trouble building loyalty there, just imagine what it would be like in Section!
No - it doesn't. The whole point of conscript armies most of the time is to pull into service those the leaders of a society/nation feel are most expendible. During WWI, in the US - Selective Service drafted overwhelmingly single, young, uneducated men from rural areas.
Ah, I should have been clearer in my statement. I didn’t mean cross-section in terms of age, race, gender or economic strata, but rather in terms of psychological profiles. A group of conscripted civilians, even drawn from the narrow group you define, is going to have a very different psychological range from a group of convicted felons.
I would guess that Section had to be very careful of the kinds of criminals it selected to recruit and train, and people with obedience and self-control problems would probably be far down on their list, barring other qualities they were interested in.
On average, a group of criminals is simply going to have more of those problems than a group of non-criminals, and no amount of care in their selection is going to eliminate that problem.
But even so, I don't think loyalty would be as big a problem as you do - I think people *want* to be loyal and to belong (those who don't actually get labeled as psychologically ill....), and one of the things that drove section operatives batty was that this desire was constantly stifled/rebuffed in Section as we saw it.
I don’t think the drive to be loyal is particularly strong one, and especially not in people who have already demonstrated a criminal disregard for others. I think what drove them batty was the constant fear for their lives.
Part Three -- my last post today, I swear!
Date: 2004-03-16 11:31 pm (UTC)The shared experience of abuse by superiors can actually create small-unit loyalty. That’s in part why drill sergeants behave the way they do.
Small group loyalty is the glue that holds armies together - huge to tiny. (It is also the foundation of many criminal gangs and terrorist cells - for the same reasons.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in Section too.
It often doesn’t work very well, especially in criminal gangs and terrorist cells (which are probably closer analogies to Section than a military unit, in many ways) -- factionalism and coups and fights for seniority are very common.
I think Section could also have fostered an "elite of the elite badasses of the world attitude" - a "no one else is tough enough to risk death daily we the unsung heroes!" 'tude; plus a 'no one else will ever understand/value you the way we do' vibe.
I disagree. The minute you have to cancel one of them for anything less than a horrific error you undermine the pretense at valuing them. The reaction would be something along the lines of: “Hypocrites! They talk about how much they appreciate us, but look what they did to Freddy!” It’s a losing battle.