Backlash

back⋅lash [bak-lash] Noun: a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change: “a backlash of angry feeling among Southern conservatives within the party.”

In previous posts, I described what it means to be Machiavellian and how Russell Hantz used such a strategy in his attempt to win the TV show “Survivor, Samoa”.

I also wrote that machinations could only be effective to a certain point; the point to which all other participants were willing to play along.

Russell’s machinations included lying, cheating, and stealing. He lied about his personal background to win sympathy from his tribemates and he lied by creating false alliances with almost every other player in the game. A true alliance is meant to make all allies stronger. Russell’s “alliances” were really only designed to make Russell’s position stronger, for he never helped anyone and if any of his “allies” did something he didn’t like, he’s make up a story about how they weren’t trustworthy and should be voted out. The rest of the group usually went along with him.

As the game unfolded it was clear that Russell was the most dominant player in the game. From the merge to the final three, Russell controlled every aspect of the game. His Machiavellian strategy had enabled him to achieve and keep his power position.

Now here’s the trick: while a Machiavellian strategy will work to put one in power and will help one maintain a power, it creates a lot of ill will. People who use such strategy often become hated. Once they become hated others look for ways to take away their power. This is backlash.

Julius Caesar was the commander of Rome’s most powerful army. He used it to start a Roman civil war, which he won. After winning, he declared himself dictator for life, meaning that he controlled the Roman government. The previous roman government, a group of men called the Senate, lost almost all of their power. They wanted it back. In an effort to get it they struck back at Caesar by murdering him. It was an extreme case of backlash.

On his way to becoming the most powerful player in Survivor, Russell made lots of enemies. He didn’t care though, because he managed to get every one of his enemies voted out of the game. But, in Survivor, there is a catch.

Survivor has a built in power equalizer. It is the jury. The jury is comprised of the last 10 players voted out of the game. At the end of the game, the jury votes to choose the winner of the game. The jury can’t win the game, but they can decide who does. This is something that all finalists must consider while playing the game. Russell failed to do so.

As a result, despite being what Jeff Probst, the host of the show, called the “most dominant player in the history of the show”, Russell didn’t win. A player named Natalie did.

Natalie never really did anything special to make the final three other not make enemies. Everybody liked her. Russell chose to take her to the final three with him because he felt that she was least likely to win.

In the end, the jury voted for Natalie, not because she played a great game, but because she wasn’t Russell. She was the beneficiary of backlash against Russell.

So it’s important to remember to, in your quest to achieve your goals, treat others respectfully along the way.

If you don’t, sooner or later, your failure to do so will come back to haunt you.